27170 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–DET–0005] 

RIN 1904–AB80 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Determination 

Concerning the Potential for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Non-Class 

A External Power Supplies 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the Department) has 

determined, based on the best 

information currently available, that 

energy conservation standards for nonClass A external power supplies are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. This 

determination initiates the process of 

establishing, by notice and comment 

rulemaking, energy conservation 

standards for these products. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 14, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be 

identified by docket number EERE– 

2009–BT–DET–0005 and/or Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) 1904– 

AB80. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, the 

technical support document, or 

comments received go to the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the 

above telephone number for additional 

information about visiting the Resource 

Room. You may also obtain copies of 

certain documents in this proceeding 

from the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy’s Web site at http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

battery_external.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–4549. E-mail: 

Victor.Petrolati@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–8145. E-mail: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

review public comments, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone (202) 586–2945. E-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the Determination 

A. Background and Legal Authority 

B. Scope 

1. DC–DC Power Supplies 

2. Basic Approaches to Regulating Wall 

Adapters for BCs 

3. Specific Criteria for Identifying the 

Presence of Charge Control 

4. Size of the EPS for BC Market 

II. Methodology 

A. Purpose and Content 

B. Test Procedures 

C. Market Assessment 

D. Technology Assessment 

E. Engineering Analysis 

F. Energy Use and End-Use Load 

Characterization 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

H. National Impact Analysis 

III. Analysis Results 

A. Engineering Analysis 

B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

C. National Impact Analysis 

D. Discussion 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

2. Impact on Consumers 

IV. Conclusion 

A. Determination 

B. Future Proceedings 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Determination 

EPCA requires DOE to issue a final 

rule determining whether to issue 

energy efficiency standards for nonClass A external power supplies (EPSs). 

Consistent with this requirement, DOE 

has analyzed multiple candidate 

standard levels for non-Class A EPSs. 

These analyses indicate that it is 

technologically feasible to manufacture 

EPSs at some of these levels in large part 

because EPSs that meet these levels are 

already commercially available. DOE 

further determined that standards for all 

non-Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed 

could be set that would reduce the lifecycle cost (LCC) of ownership for the 

typical consumer. That is, any increase 

in equipment cost resulting from a 

standard would be more than offset by 

energy cost savings. 

DOE’s analyses also indicate that 

energy conservation standards would 

also likely be cost-effective from a 

national perspective. The national net 

present value (NPV) of energy 

conservation standards for non-Class A 

EPSs could be as much as $512 million 

in 2008$, assuming an annual discount 

rate of 3 percent. As a result, these 

analyses indicate that both individual 

consumers and the Nation as a whole 

would likely benefit economically from 

the imposition of energy conservation 

standards for non-Class A EPSs. 

Accordingly, DOE has positively 

determined that such standards are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. 

DOE notes that its forecast of 

projected savings and national NPV 

considers only the direct financial costs 

and benefits to consumers of standards, 

specifically, the increased equipment 

costs of EPSs purchased from 2013 to 

2032 and the associated energy cost 

savings over the lifetimes of those 

products. In its determination analysis, 

DOE did not monetize or otherwise 

characterize any other potential costs 

and benefits of standards such as 

manufacturer impacts or power plant 

emission reductions. Such impacts will 

be examined in a future analysis of the 

economic feasibility of particular 

standard levels in the context of a 

standards rulemaking. 

DOE’s analysis also indicates that 

standards would result in significant 

energy savings—as much as 0.14 quads 

of energy over 30 years (2013 to 2042). 

This is equivalent to the annual 

electricity needs of 1.1 million U.S. 

homes. 

Further documentation supporting the 

analyses described in today’s final rule 

is contained in the notice of proposed 

determination, published in the Federal 

Register on November 3, 2009, (74 FR 

56928) and the accompanying technical 

support document (TSD), available from 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy’s Web site at 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 27171 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

battery_external.html. 

The nature of this document results 

from the specific statutory requirements 

that DOE issue this notice as a rule. In 

accordance with this requirement, DOE 

issued its November 2009 notice prior to 

today’s final rule notice. In addition, 

DOE combined as appropriate the 

analysis required by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140 (Dec. 

19, 2007), with the analysis that DOE 

had already performed as a result of 

requirements added previously by the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 

2005), Public Law 109–58 (Aug. 8, 

2005). EPACT 2005 required DOE to 

issue a determination analysis to 

address battery chargers and external 

power supplies; EISA 2007 

subsequently amended this provision by 

focusing the analysis solely on external 

power supplies. 

A. Background and Legal Authority 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ EPACT 2005 amended 

EPCA to require DOE to issue a final 

rule determining whether to issue 

efficiency standards for battery chargers 

(BCs) and EPSs. DOE initiated this 

determination analysis rulemaking in 

2006, which included a scoping 

workshop on January 24, 2007, at DOE 

headquarters in Washington, DC. The 

determination was underway and on 

schedule for issuance by August 8, 

2008, as originally required by EPACT 

2005. 

However, EISA 2007 also amended 

EPCA by setting efficiency standards for 

certain types of EPSs (Class A) and 

modifying the statutory provision that 

directed DOE to perform the 

determination analysis (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I), as amended). EISA 

2007 removed BCs from the 

determination, leaving only EPSs, and 

changed the allotted time to complete 

the determination. 

In addition to the existing general 

definition of EPS, EISA 2007 amended 

EPCA to define a ‘‘Class A external 

power supply’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)) 

and set efficiency standards for those 

products (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)). As 

amended by EISA 2007, the statute 

further directs DOE to publish a final 

rule by July 1, 2011 to evaluate whether 

the standards set for Class A EPSs 

should be amended and, if so, to 

include any amended standards as part 

of that final rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(3)(D)(i)) The statute further 

directs DOE to publish a second final 

rule by July 1, 2015, to again determine 

whether the standards in effect should 

be amended and to include any 

amended standards as part of that final 

rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii)) 

Because Congress has already set 

standards for Class A EPSs and 

separately required DOE through a 

separate statutory provision to perform 

two rounds of rulemakings to consider 

amending efficiency standards for Class 

A EPSs, see 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3), the 

determination analysis under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) excluded these 

products from this analysis. 

Accordingly, the present determination 

concerns only EPSs falling outside of 

the Class A definition, i.e., ‘‘non-Class A 

EPSs.’’ 

EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA also 

require DOE to issue a final rule 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards for BCs, if technologically 

feasible and economically justified, by 

July 1, 2011 (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(II)). The BC rulemaking 

has been bundled with the rulemaking 

for Class A EPSs, given the related 

nature of such products and the fact that 

these provisions share the same 

statutory deadline. DOE initiated the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for BCs and Class A EPSs by 

publishing a framework document on 

June 4, 2009, and holding a public 

meeting at DOE headquarters on July 16, 

2009. DOE is now developing its 

preliminary analysis of standards for 

BCs and Class A EPSs. With today’s 

positive determination that standards 

are warranted for non-Class A EPSs, 

standards for these products also will be 

considered within the ongoing 

standards rulemaking. 

The Department began the analysis for 

this determination by conducting testing 

and teardowns on commercially 

available non-Class A EPSs and by 

collecting information from 

manufacturers of non-Class A EPSs and 

original equipment manufacturers that 

use non-Class A EPSs. The Department 

shared its preliminary findings 

regarding efficiency improvements in its 

November 2009 notice of proposed 

determination (NOPD). 74 FR 56928. 

This notice was accompanied by a 

technical support document (TSD), 

which was published on the EERE Web 

site. Subsequently, the Department 

received written comments on the 

notice and TSD from the Power Tool 

Institute, Inc. (PTI); the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM); Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (PG&E); a joint comment from 

the California Energy Commission 

(CEC), PG&E, San Diego Gas and Electric 

Company, Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project, American Council 

for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships, and Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council (hereafter referred 

to as the CEC comment); and the 

Consumer Electronics Association 

(CEA). (PTI, No. 5; AHAM, No. 6; PG&E, 

No. 7; CEC et al., No. 8; and CEA, No. 

9). 

For more information about DOE 

rulemakings concerning BCs and EPSs, 

see the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy’s Web site at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

battery_external.html. 

B. Scope 

As explained in the NOPD, the scope 

of this determination covers all EPSs 

falling outside of Class A, which DOE 

identifies in this notice as non-Class A 

EPSs. EPCA, as amended by EPACT 

2005, defines an EPS as ‘‘an external 

power supply circuit that is used to 

convert household electric current into 

DC current or lower-voltage AC current 

to operate a consumer product.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) EISA 2007 amended 

EPCA by, among other things, defining 

in 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C) a subset of 

external power supplies (i.e. a Class A 

EPS). 

The analysis underlying DOE’s NOPD 

focused on four EPS types: (1) Multiplevoltage EPSs—EPSs that can provide 

multiple output voltages 

simultaneously; (2) high power EPSs— 

EPSs with nameplate output power 

greater than 250 watts; (3) medical 

EPSs—EPSs that power medical devices 

and EPSs that are themselves medical 

devices; and (4) EPSs for battery 

chargers (EPSs for BCs)—EPSs that 

power the chargers of detachable battery 

packs or charge the batteries of products 

that are fully or primarily motor 

operated. 74 FR 56930. 

1. DC–DC Power Supplies 

CEA asked DOE to clarify whether 

DC–DC power supplies are outside the 

scope of the EPS definition. (CEA, No. 

9 at p. 2) The statutory definition of an 

EPS is ‘‘an external power supply circuit 

that is used to convert household 

electric current into DC current or 

lower-voltage AC current to operate a 

consumer product.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(36)(A)) Household electric current 

is nominally 120 volts AC. Thus, under 

the statutory definition set by Congress, 

wall adapters with DC input power are 

not EPSs. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
27172 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1These approaches are explained in section 

3.2.3.3 of DOE’s framework document for the BC 

and EPS energy conservation standards rulemaking 

(available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

battery_external_std_2008.html). The approaches 

also address the related question of whether the 

wall adapter should be considered part of the BC. 

2. Basic Approaches to Regulating Wall 

Adapters for BCs 

DOE has identified four possible 

approaches to regulating wall adapters 

for BCs. These four approaches, referred 

to as approaches A, B, C, and D, are 

explained in the framework document 

referred to in the notice of document 

availability DOE published in the 

Federal Register on June 4, 2009.1 74 FR 

26816. Under Approach A, a wall 

adapter would be considered an EPS 

only if it lacked charge control (i.e., a 

method to control the charge flowing to 

the battery). In addition, the EPS could 

be subject to both EPS and BC standards 

if it were also a part of a battery 

charging system. Under Approach B a 

wall adapter would not be considered 

an EPS as long as it powered a battery 

charger (the presence or absence of 

charge control being irrelevant). 

Approach C is similar to Approach A in 

that a wall adapter would be considered 

an EPS only if it lacked charge control; 

however, under Approach C the EPS 

would only be subject to EPS standards 

and not BC standards, even if it were 

also part of a battery charging system. 

Under Approach D a wall adapter that 

powers a battery charging system would 

always be considered an EPS regardless 

of the presence of charge control. 

DOE received comments related to 

EPSs for BCs in response to the NOPD. 

Many of these comments revolved 

around two closely related questions: (1) 

When is a wall adapter an EPS and (2) 

When is an EPS considered part of a 

BC? Comments on this issue were 

submitted by parties representing a 

variety of interests, including industry 

and energy efficiency advocates. The 

following two paragraphs describe the 

comments DOE received related to these 

questions, while the third and fourth 

paragraphs that follow provide DOE’s 

responses to those comments. 

The first set of comments concerned 

the question of when a wall adapter 

should be categorized as an EPS. PG&E 

urged DOE to adopt Approach A as it is 

described in the framework document, 

claiming that this approach ensures a 

technically accurate, common sense 

approach to defining EPSs and battery 

chargers. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 6) PG&E’s 

comment echoed its earlier comment 

and those of several others, including 

FRIWO, PTI, Ecos Consulting, and 

Motorola, who stated their support for 

Approach A in written comments on the 

framework document and at the 

associated public meeting on July 16, 

2009. (FRIWO, EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0005 No. 21 at p. 1; Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005 No. 14 at pp. 

62, 116; Motorola, EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0005 No. 25 at p. 1; PG&E et al., 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005 No. 20 at p. 

3) PTI reiterated its preference for 

Approach B and noted that if Approach 

B were not available, Approach A 

would be the next best option. (PTI, No. 

5 at p. 2) AHAM urged DOE to accept 

a slight modification of Approach B and 

agreed with PTI that of the remaining 

approaches, Approach A would be the 

next best option. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) 

The modification to Approach B that 

AHAM requested would also exclude 

from the set of EPSs all high power wall 

adapters that are used to charge batteries 

and all wall adapters that are used to 

charge batteries for medical devices. 

DOE indicated in its framework 

document that Approach B would be 

inconsistent when applied to the Class 

A EPS statutory definition, because DOE 

cannot limit the scope of the EPS 

definition by adding another exclusion 

to those already created by Congress. 

AHAM also asked DOE to address more 

fully its reasons for not selecting 

Approach B when applying it to nonClass A EPSs. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3) 

The second set of comments 

concerned the closely related question 

of when an EPS should be considered 

part of a BC. AHAM and PTI expressed 

their opposition to overlapping 

standards, i.e., requiring an EPS to 

comply with an EPS standard and the 

BC of which it is part to comply with 

a BC standard. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 1; 

AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2) Approaches A and 

D could potentially lead to the overlap 

that AHAM and PTI oppose. PTI 

reiterated its contention that ‘‘the proper 

way to deal with the efficiency of BCs 

is through a comprehensive standard 

that treats the charger as [a] whole, 

including the wall adapter (if one is part 

of the system).’’ (PTI, No. 5 at p. 1) 

AHAM agreed, stating that ‘‘we do not 

believe it is appropriate conceptually or 

technically to separate the testing of any 

parts of the battery recharging circuit in 

a test procedure for battery chargers.’’ 

(AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2) AHAM proposed 

that DOE create a separate class of BCs 

called ‘‘appliance battery chargers’’ that 

would encompass both wall adapterbased and cord-connect-based appliance 

battery chargers and further noted that 

testing a wall adapter first as an EPS and 

then as a part of a battery charger system 

‘‘would be an extreme burden on all 

manufacturers, but particularly on the 

small and medium sized enterprises and 

provide no benefit to consumers.’’ 

(AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3) 

DOE used Approach A to define the 

scope of its determination analysis. This 

is the approach that DOE identified in 

the framework document as its preferred 

approach to determining which wall 

adapters are EPSs. DOE also explained 

in the framework document that it 

considers Approach B legally 

unacceptable for Class A EPSs because 

it would create additional exclusions of 

products that would otherwise satisfy 

the statutory definition of a Class A EPS. 

Since Congress already established 

specific exclusions to the Class A EPS 

definition, DOE has tentatively taken 

the position that it does not retain the 

authority to create exclusions beyond 

that which Congress has established. 

See the Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Framework Document for 

Battery Chargers and External Power 

Supplies, at 32. 

However, DOE did not rule out 

applying Approach B for non-Class A 

EPSs, an approach both AHAM and 

Wahl Clipper have requested DOE 

consider. (AHAM, EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0005 No. 16 at pp. 2–3; Wahl 

Clipper, EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005 No. 

23 at p. 1) When viewed in light of these 

and similar comments received earlier 

during the rulemaking process for these 

products, AHAM and PTI’s objections to 

overlapping standards appear to focus 

on non-Class A EPSs, not Class A EPSs. 

If Approach A were used for Class A 

EPSs and Approach B were used for 

non-Class A EPSs, wall adapters that 

power the chargers of detachable battery 

packs or charge the batteries of products 

that are fully or primarily motor 

operated would not be subject to EPS 

standards while those wall adapters that 

power other battery charged 

applications (Class A EPSs) would be 

subject to EPS standards. Nevertheless, 

DOE is concerned that using Approach 

A for Class A EPSs and Approach B for 

non-Class A EPSs would create two 

distinct definitions of an EPS that 

would prevent one from readily 

identifying a particular wall adapter as 

being an EPS until it is known whether 

it powers the charger of a detachable 

battery pack or charges the battery of a 

product that is fully or primarily motor 

operated. DOE intends to make a 

decision on this issue as part of the 

standards rulemaking. 

DOE acknowledges that if it applied 

Approach B to non-Class A EPSs, the 

total energy savings potential from nonClass A EPS standards would be less 

than under Approach A, as EPSs for BCs 

would not be covered. However, the 

reduction in savings would be small, as 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 27173 

EPSs for BCs account for less than 2 

percent of the savings estimated in the 

present analysis. Furthermore, DOE 

believes that these savings would be 

captured by BC standards that would 

cover the devices of which the wall 

adapters were a part. 

3. Specific Criteria for Identifying the 

Presence of Charge Control 

PG&E and AHAM commented on the 

criteria for determining whether charge 

control is present in a wall adapter. 

PG&E strongly urged DOE to remain 

consistent with the criteria identified in 

the framework document that focus on 

electrical equivalency and battery 

charger functions. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 3) 

PG&E cautioned against using a vague 

and undefined ‘‘constant voltage’’ 

criterion for identifying EPSs, citing 

research conducted by Ecos Consulting 

that examined the electrical 

characteristics of wall adapters that 

power the chargers of detachable battery 

packs or charge the batteries of products 

that are fully or primarily motor 

operated. This research found at least 

one wall adapter that was electrically 

equivalent to Class A EPSs that did not 

produce constant voltage output and at 

least one wall adapter that was not 

electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs 

that produced constant voltage output. 

(PG&E, No. 7 at pp. 4–5) As a result, 

PG&E recommended that DOE ‘‘rely on 

physical indications of charge control 

circuitry or functionality, such as a 

battery-charge indicator or chemistrytype selector switch’’ rather than 

‘‘constant voltage’’ for determining 

whether charge control is present in a 

wall adapter. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 7) 

AHAM asked that DOE state clearly the 

criteria that will be used to determine 

whether charge control is present in a 

wall adapter. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) 

AHAM further urged DOE to accept the 

criteria for charge control that were 

discussed at the framework document 

public meeting on July 16, 2009, as 

doing so would lead to ‘‘the vast 

majority of AHAM battery chargers 

using wall adapters being treated as 

complete battery chargers.’’ (AHAM, No. 

6 at p. 6) 

DOE has not yet established final 

criteria for determining which wall 

adapters are EPSs. In the framework 

document, DOE sought stakeholder 

comment on four possible criteria for 

identifying charge control in a wall 

adapter—short-circuit operation, voltage 

regulation, no-load voltage, and nobattery operation, but did not indicate 

which criteria it would use going 

forward. In the NOPD and today’s 

notice, DOE used constant voltage 

output as a preliminary criterion for 

establishing the absence of charge 

control and thereby identifying EPSs. 

Comments submitted in response to the 

NOPD questioned whether constant 

voltage output would be an appropriate 

test when determining whether a 

particular product lacks charge control, 

and DOE is reconsidering this approach. 

The protocol for determining which 

wall adapters are EPSs will be finalized 

within the standards rulemaking. 

4. Size of the EPS for BC Market 

DOE received several comments on 

the size of the market for EPSs for BCs. 

Interested parties disagreed on the size 

of the market due to a difference of 

opinion as to what proportion of wall 

adapters for the BCs under 

consideration were EPSs. AHAM agreed 

with DOE’s estimate that no more than 

5 percent of wall adapters for cordless 

rechargeable floor care appliances 

provide constant voltage, adding that if 

this estimate is used as the basis for the 

determination, the same criteria used to 

arrive at this estimate must be used in 

the standards NOPR and Final Rule as 

well. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) AHAM also 

agreed with DOE that wall adapters for 

rechargeable personal care appliances 

use charge control and, therefore, are 

not EPSs. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) PTI 

agreed with DOE’s estimate that 

approximately 5 percent of all wall 

adapters for powers tool BCs are true 

EPSs, adding that if the charge control 

criteria were significantly altered in the 

future, the validity of the determination 

could be eroded. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2) 

PG&E, however, commented that DOE 

greatly underestimated the number of 

EPSs for BCs. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 7) CEC 

concurred and urged DOE to reconsider 

its methodology for calculating energy 

savings potential from EPSs for BCs, 

citing PG&E research that suggests the 

potential savings from this group of 

products is 20 times higher than DOE 

suggested. (CEC et al., No. 8 at p. 1) 

Until the protocol for determining 

which wall adapters are EPSs is 

finalized, the number of EPSs for BCs 

cannot be accurately estimated. In light 

of the absence of this protocol, DOE 

conservatively estimated the size of the 

market for EPSs for BCs in the 

determination analysis. A larger market 

would only serve to increase the 

potential energy savings from standards 

for these products, which would serve 

as additional support for the positive 

determination that DOE has already 

reached using its more conservative 

approach. 

II. Methodology 

A. Purpose and Content 

The Department analyzed the 

feasibility of achieving significant 

energy savings from energy conservation 

standards for non-Class A EPSs. The 

NOPD presented the results of this 

analysis. As part of the subsequent 

standards rulemaking, DOE will perform 

more robust analyses. These analyses 

will involve more precise and detailed 

information that the Department will 

develop and receive during the 

standards rulemaking process, and will 

detail the potential effects of proposed 

energy conservation standards for nonClass A EPSs. 

To address EPCA requirements that 

DOE determine whether energy 

conservation standards for non-Class A 

EPSs would be technologically feasible 

and economically justified and result in 

significant energy savings, the 

Department’s analysis consisted of six 

separate analyses: (1) A market 

assessment to better understand where 

and how non-Class A EPSs are used, (2) 

a technology assessment to better 

understand the technology options that 

can increase efficiency, (3) an 

engineering analysis to estimate how 

different design options affect efficiency 

and cost, (4) an energy use and end-use 

load characterization that describes how 

much energy non-Class A EPSs 

consume and for how long they operate, 

(5) an LCC analysis to estimate the costs 

and benefits to users from increased 

efficiency of non-Class A EPSs, and (6) 

a national impact analysis to estimate 

the potential energy savings and the 

economic costs and benefits on a 

national scale that would result from 

improving the energy efficiency of nonClass A EPSs. These separate analyses 

are briefly addressed later below. 

B. Test Procedures 

The test procedure for measuring the 

energy consumption of single-voltage 

EPSs, which applies to high power 

EPSs, medical EPSs, and EPSs for BCs, 

is codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix Z, ‘‘Uniform Test Method 

for Measuring the Energy Consumption 

of External Power Supplies.’’ DOE 

modified this test procedure, pursuant 

to EISA 2007, to include standby and off 

modes. 

DOE first proposed a test procedure 

for measuring the energy consumption 

of multiple-voltage EPSs in a NOPR 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 15, 2008. 73 FR 48054. PG&E 

suggested that DOE use an internal 

power supply test procedure, such as 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
27174 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2 ‘‘Proposed Test Protocol for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power 

Supplies,’’ Revision 6.2, California Energy 

Commission Public Interest Energy Research 

Program, November 2007. 

the PG&E test procedure for computers,2

to test multiple-voltage EPSs. (PG&E, 

No. 7 at p. 2) DOE recently proposed 

another test procedure for multiplevoltage EPSs on April 2, 2010. 75 FR 

16958. The proposed test procedure, 

like its predecessor, is based, in part, on 

test procedures for internal power 

supplies. 

C. Market Assessment 

To understand the present and future 

market for non-Class A EPSs, DOE 

gathered data on these EPSs and their 

associated applications. DOE also 

examined the industry composition, 

distribution channels, and regulatory 

and voluntary programs for non-Class A 

EPSs. The market assessment provides 

important inputs to the LCC analysis 

and national impact analysis. DOE 

published the details of its market 

assessment in the NOPD and 

accompanying TSD. 

PG&E and CEC both commented that 

the number of high power EPSs (those 

with nameplate output power greater 

than 250 watts) is likely to increase in 

the future as applications such as game 

consoles, fast chargers, and other home 

electronics demand increasing amounts 

of power. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2; CEC et 

al., No. 8 at p. 1) In its determination 

analysis, DOE assumed the high power 

EPS market would not change in size. 

While DOE recognizes that the market 

for high power EPSs may grow in the 

future, a no-growth assumption is 

sufficient to form a basis for the 

determination since growth in high 

power EPSs would only lend further 

support in favor of a positive 

determination. Nevertheless, DOE will 

continue to monitor the market and take 

such trends into account in the 

standards rulemaking. 

AHAM requested more information 

on how the markups from efficiencyrelated materials cost to end-user 

product prices were calculated (AHAM, 

No. 6 at p. 5) Section 1.2 of the TSD 

indicates that the sources for the 

markups were interviews with EPS 

manufacturers, gross margin data for 

OEMs and retailers/distributors, and 

sales tax data. For each representative 

unit, DOE provides a figure that shows 

how the products get to market and a 

table listing the corresponding markups. 

DOE will explain its markup 

calculations in greater detail in the 

standards rulemaking. 

In the NOPD, DOE stated that it was 

not aware of any non-motor operated 

applications with an EPS that powers 

the charger of a detachable battery pack 

and invited interested parties to provide 

information about any such 

applications. 74 FR 56933. CEA, 

however, identified what it believed 

were three such applications: bar code 

scanners, mobile computers, and 

wireless headphones. (CEA, No. 9 at p. 

2) A bar code scanner is not a consumer 

product as defined by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(1)) The mobile computers that 

CEA is referring to may be consumer 

products, while wireless headphones 

very likely are consumer products. DOE 

will research these two potential EPS 

applications in the standards 

rulemaking. 

D. Technology Assessment 

The technology assessment examines 

the technology behind the design of 

non-Class A EPSs and focuses on the 

components and subsystems that have 

the biggest impact on energy efficiency. 

The technology assessment’s key output 

is a list of technology options for 

consideration in the engineering 

analysis. DOE published the details of 

its technology assessment in the NOPD 

and accompanying TSD. 

PG&E believed that cost-effective 

efficiency improvements already 

broadly implemented in the Class-A 

EPS marketplace can be easily 

incorporated into all non-Class A EPSs, 

particularly high-efficiency switchedmode power supply topologies and 

circuit designs that enable low power 

consumption in no-load mode. (PG&E, 

No. 7 at p. 1) Specifically, PG&E can 

find no technical justification for 

treating non-Class A EPSs sold with BCs 

differently than Class A EPSs sold with 

non-BC products. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 4) 

In the NOPD, DOE described technology 

options applicable to Class A EPSs that 

were also applicable to non-Class A 

EPSs. DOE continues to believe that 

those technology options are applicable 

to non-Class A EPSs. 

PG&E commented that U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration safety 

requirements are compatible with 

efficient EPS technology. (PG&E, No. 7 

at p. 2) As indicated in the NOPD, DOE 

continues to believe that medical EPSs 

have the same potential for efficiency 

improvements as do Class A EPSs. 

E. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to determine the relationship 

between a non-Class A EPS’s efficiency 

and its efficiency-related materials cost 

(ERMC). (The ERMC includes all of the 

efficiency-related raw materials listed in 

the bill of materials but not the direct 

labor and overhead needed to create the 

final product. The materials cost forms 

the basis for the price consumers 

eventually pay.) This relationship serves 

as the basis for the underlying costs and 

benefits to individual consumers and 

the Nation (life-cycle cost analysis and 

national impacts analysis). The output 

of the engineering analysis provides the 

ERMC at selected, discrete levels of 

efficiency for six non-Class A EPS 

‘‘representative units’’. The engineering 

analysis methodology section in the 

NOPD details the development of the 

analysis and includes descriptions of 

the analysis structure, inputs, and 

outputs. Related supporting materials 

are also found in the TSD. 

To develop this analysis, DOE 

gathered data by interviewing 

manufacturers, conducting independent 

testing and research, and 

commissioning EPS teardowns. Through 

interviews, manufacturers provided 

information on the relative popularity of 

EPS models and the cost of increasing 

their efficiency. To validate the 

information provided by manufacturers, 

DOE performed its own market research 

and testing. To independently establish 

the cost of some of the tested units, DOE 

contracted iSuppli Corporation 

(iSuppli), an industry leader in the field 

of electronics cost estimation. 

DOE began the engineering analysis 

by identifying the representative 

product classes and selecting one 

representative unit for analysis from 

each of the representative product 

classes. Representative units are 

theoretical models of popular or typical 

devices described in terms of all 

characteristics, such as output power 

and output voltage, except for efficiency 

and cost. DOE evaluates each 

representative unit at different 

efficiency levels to determine the 

associated costs. Although the efficiency 

of power converters in the market 

ranges over an almost continuous 

spectrum, DOE focused its analysis at 

select candidate standard levels (CSLs). 

In the engineering analysis, DOE 

examined the cost of production at each 

CSL for each representative unit. The 

resulting relationship was termed an 

‘‘engineering curve’’ or ‘‘cost-efficiency 

curve.’’ The outputs of this analysis, 

presented in section III. A, are the costefficiency points that define those 

curves. 

DOE received comments from AHAM 

and PTI regarding the cost-efficiency 

relationship described by the results of 

the engineering analysis. PTI asserted 

that it is unreasonable that cost appears 

to be independent of efficiency, and 

AHAM questioned the validity of a costefficiency curve that shows flat cost 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 27175 

with varying efficiency. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 

2; AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6) 

In the NOPD, DOE developed costefficiency curves for the six 

representative units. Four of the six 

cost-efficiency curves have a positive 

slope, indicating that an increase in 

efficiency is associated with an increase 

in cost. (For the 345 W high-power EPS 

representative unit, there is an increase 

in cost from CSL 1 to CSL 3, although 

the baseline CSL is the most expensive.) 

Because DOE’s analyses identify a 

general link between increased 

efficiency and increased cost, DOE 

believes that PTI and AHAM were 

collectively referring to the two EPS-forBC representative units included in the 

analysis. The cost-efficiency curves for 

these units projected an increase in cost 

from the baseline to CSL 1 but with no 

increase in cost from CSL 1 to CSL 3. 

As explained in the NOPD, the costefficiency relationship for these 

representative units is based on 

purchasing 12 EPS units, testing their 

efficiency, and estimating their costs 

through teardowns, of which three were 

performed by iSuppli and the remainder 

by DOE. There was no clear relationship 

among the 12 units, other than that unit 

#17, the lowest-efficiency linear EPS 

unit used to characterize the baseline 

cost, was cheaper than the average cost 

of the switched-mode EPS units used to 

characterize the higher CSLs. 

Among the switched-mode EPSs, DOE 

attempted to hold all factors constant 

except for cost and efficiency. For 

instance, the nameplate output power 

ratings of the EPS test units ranged from 

1.75 W to 5.2 W and the nameplate 

output voltage ratings ranged from 5 V 

to 5.2 V. DOE scaled the efficiencies of 

the units to the representative unit 

values for nameplate output power and 

nameplate output voltage. However, 

there may have been other differences 

between the EPSs that affected cost and 

efficiency that DOE was not able to 

normalize, which might affect the 

underlying relationship between cost 

and efficiency. The available data did 

not permit DOE to draw any 

conclusions regarding how these 

differences would affect the analysis. 

DOE believes that examining units 

already available in the market is a valid 

method for characterizing the costefficiency relationship, that the results 

for the units are accurate, and that the 

analysis is sufficient to support a 

positive determination. In the standards 

rulemaking, DOE will consider the 

comments from PTI and AHAM as it 

develops a more robust engineering 

analysis. 

AHAM commented on DOE’s ERMC 

analysis and raised issues related to the 

scope of coverage of EPSs for BCs and 

the criteria used to define charge 

control. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) First, 

AHAM noted that the ERMC analysis of 

cost is not applicable to most AHAM 

product wall adapters for BCs because 

the analysis does not include 

components used in charged control, 

making the CSLs not applicable to 

AHAM products. Second, AHAM does 

not believe the cost-efficiency curve for 

vacuum cleaners would be the same if 

applied to the 95 percent of wall 

adapters with charge control. Third, 

AHAM asked that DOE demonstrate 

how costs can be scaled using a base 

volume of 1,000,000 per year. Fourth, 

AHAM questioned whether the highvolume EPS ERMCs are applicable to 

custom designed, small quantity BCs. 

DOE agrees with AHAM’s first two 

comments that DOE’s cost-efficiency 

curves do not apply to wall adapters 

that include charge control. Regarding 

AHAM’s third comment, because DOE’s 

analysis focused on EPSs that are 

interchangeable and do not have charge 

control, DOE evaluated their cost at high 

volumes that are typical of EPSs. 

Finally, as to AHAM’s fourth comment, 

low volume EPS costs are inconsistent 

with the scope of EPSs for BCs as 

currently defined in this determination 

and, consequently, were not evaluated. 

F. Energy Use and End-Use Load 

Characterization 

The purpose of the energy-use and 

end-use load characterization is to 

identify how consumers use products 

and equipment, and thereby determine 

the change in EPS energy consumption 

related to different energy efficiency 

improvements. For EPSs, DOE’s analysis 

focused on the consumer products they 

power and on how end-users operate 

these consumer products. 

The energy-use and end-use load 

characterization estimates unit energy 

consumption (UEC), which represents 

the typical annual energy consumption 

of an EPS in the field. The UEC for EPSs 

is calculated by combining 1) usage 

profiles, which describe the time a 

device spends in each mode in one year; 

2) load, which measures the power 

provided by the EPS to the consumer 

product in each mode; and 3) efficiency, 

which measures the power an EPS must 

draw from mains (i.e., wall outlet) to 

power a given load. Outputs from this 

analysis feed into the LCC analysis and 

NIA. 

DOE published the details of its 

energy use and end-use load 

characterization in the NOPD and 

accompanying TSD. In the one comment 

DOE received on this analysis, PTI 

agreed with the usage profiles DOE 

adopted for EPSs for power tool BCs. 

(PTI, No. 5 at p. 2) These usage profiles 

can be found in section 4.3.5 of the TSD. 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

DOE performed a life-cycle cost and 

payback period analysis on each of the 

representative units to analyze the 

economic impacts of possible energy 

efficiency standards on individual 

consumers, as detailed in the NOPD. 

The effects of standards on individual 

consumers include a change in 

operating expenses (usually decreased) 

and a change in purchase price (usually 

increased). DOE used two metrics to 

determine the effect of potential 

standards on individual consumers: 

• Life-cycle cost is the total consumer 

expense over the lifetime of an 

appliance, including the up-front cost 

(the total price paid by a consumer 

before the appliance can be operated) 

and all operating costs (including 

energy expenditures). DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase. 

• Payback period represents the 

number of years it would take the 

customer to recover the assumed higher 

purchase price of more energy efficient 

equipment through decreased operating 

expenses. Sometimes more energyefficient equipment can have a lower 

purchase price than the less energyefficient equipment that it replaces. In 

this case, the consumer realizes an 

immediate financial benefit and, thus, 

there is no payback period. 

DOE categorized inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analysis as follows: (1) Inputs 

for establishing the consumer purchase 

price of an EPS and (2) inputs for 

calculating the operating cost. In this 

analysis, all dollar amounts are in 2008 

dollars. 

The primary inputs for establishing 

the consumer purchase price are: 

• ERMC in 2008 dollars, which is 

based on the bill of materials cost of the 

efficiency-related components of the 

EPS; and 

• Markups as scaling factors applied 

to the manufacturer production cost to 

create the final efficiency-related 

consumer purchase price. The primary 

inputs for calculating the operating cost 

are: 

• Unit energy consumption in 

kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year), 

which is the annual site energy use of 

the EPS; 

• Electricity prices in 2008 dollars, 

which are the prices paid by consumers 

for electricity; 

• An electricity price trend, which is 

applied to the 2008 electricity price to 

forecast electricity prices into the future; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
27176 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

• Start year, which is the year in 

which the EPS and its associated 

product are purchased (for the LCC and 

PBP analysis, DOE uses 2013 as the start 

year for all products); 

• Lifetime, which is the age at which 

the EPS and its associated product are 

retired from service (lifetimes vary by 

product); and 

• Discount rate, which is the rate at 

which DOE discounted future 

expenditures to establish their values in 

the start year. 

Many of the LCC analysis’s inputs are 

developed in previous analyses: market 

assessment, engineering analysis, 

markups, and energy use and end-use 

load characterization. Note that future 

expenditures are discounted for the LCC 

calculation and not the PBP calculation, 

as DOE uses a simple PBP. 

DOE published the details of its lifecycle cost and payback period analysis 

in the NOPD and accompanying TSD. 

DOE did not receive comment on the 

life-cycle cost and payback period 

analysis. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

In its determination analysis, DOE 

estimated the potential for national 

energy savings from energy conservation 

standards for non-Class A EPSs, as well 

as the net present value of such 

standards. 

To estimate national energy savings 

potential, DOE first calculated unit 

energy savings (UES), which is the 

difference between the UEC in the 

standards case and the UEC in the base 

case. Thus, the UES represents the 

reduced energy consumption of a single 

unit due to the higher efficiency 

generated by a standard. Once 

calculated, the UES was then multiplied 

by the national inventory of units to 

calculate national energy savings. 

The national net present value of 

energy conservation standards is the 

difference between electricity cost 

savings and equipment cost increases. 

DOE calculated electricity cost savings 

for each year by multiplying energy 

savings by forecasted electricity prices. 

DOE assumed that all of the energy cost 

savings would accrue to consumers 

paying residential electricity rates. DOE 

calculated equipment cost increases for 

each year by taking the incremental 

price increase per unit between a basecase and a standards-case scenario and 

multiplying the difference by the 

national inventory. For each year, DOE 

took the difference between the savings 

and cost to calculate the net savings (if 

positive) or net cost (if negative). After 

calculating the net savings and costs, 

DOE discounted these annual values to 

the present time using discount rates of 

3 percent and 7 percent and summed 

them to obtain the national net present 

value. 

Additional detail on the national 

impact analysis can be found in the 

NOPD and accompanying TSD. DOE did 

not receive comment on the 

methodology employed in the national 

impact analysis. 

III. Analysis Results 

A. Engineering Analysis 

Based on the methodology previously 

discussed, DOE developed costefficiency curves for each representative 

unit by estimating the cost to reach each 

CSL. The results of the engineering 

analysis for each representative unit are 

presented in Table III.1, Table III.2, 

Table III.3, Table III.4, Table III.5, and 

Table III.6. Additional detail is 

contained in the NOPD and 

accompanying TSD. 

TABLE III.1—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 40-WATT MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE EPS FOR A MULTIFUNCTION DEVICE

Level Reference point for level 

Minimum active-mode efficiency 

% 

Maximum noload power consumption 

W 

Efficiency-related materials 

cost 

2008$ 

Basis 

0 .................. Less Than EISA 2007 .............. 81 0 .5 2.66 Manufacturer interview data. 

1 .................. Current Market .......................... 86 0 .45 2.98 Manufacturer interview data. 

2 .................. High Level ................................. 90 0 .31 3.54 Manufacturer interview data. 

3 .................. Higher Level .............................. 91 0 .2 3.67 Manufacturer interview data. 

TABLE III.2—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 203-WATT MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE EPS FOR A VIDEO GAME CONSOLE

Level Reference point for level 

Minimum active-mode efficiency 

% 

Maximum noload power consumption 

W 

Efficiency-related materials 

cost 

2008$ 

Basis 

0 .................. Generic Replacement ............... 82 12 .33 6.06 Test and teardown data. 

1 .................. Manufacturer Provided ............. 86 0 .4 8.93 Test and teardown data. 

2 .................. EU Qualified Level .................... 86 0 .3 9.05 Manufacturer interview data. 

3 .................. Higher Level .............................. 89 0 .3 12.16 Manufacturer interview data. 

TABLE III.3—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 345-WATT HIGH-POWER EPS FOR A HAM RADIO

Level Reference point for level 

Minimum active-mode efficiency 

% 

Maximum noload power 

consumption 

W 

Efficiency-related materials 

cost 

2008$ 

Basis 

0 .................. Line Frequency ........................... 62 15.43 115.32 Test and teardown data. 

1 .................. Switched-Mode—Low Level ....... 81 6.01 33.64 Test and teardown data. 

2 .................. Switched-Mode—Mid Level ........ 84 1.50 36.64 Manufacturer interview data. 

3 .................. Switched-Mode—High Level ...... 85 0.50 42.32 Manufacturer interview data. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 27177 

TABLE III.4—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR AN 18-WATT MEDICAL DEVICE EPS FOR A NEBULIZER

Level Reference point for level 

Minimum active-mode efficiency 

% 

Maximum noload power consumption 

W 

Efficiency-related materials 

cost 

2008$ 

Basis 

0 .................. Less Than the IV Mark * .......... 66.0 0 .557 2.95 Scaled ERMC of EPS #130. 

1 .................. Meets the IV Mark .................... 76.0 0 .5 3.62 Average ERMC of switched-mode EPSs. 

2 .................. Meets the V Mark ..................... 80.3 0 .3 3.62 Average ERMC of switched-mode EPSs. 

3 .................. Higher Level .............................. 85.0 0 .15 5.70 Manufacturer interview data. 

* As explained in section II.C.4 of the NOPD, the marks correspond to the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies. (Energy Star. ‘‘International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies.’’ 2008. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/ 

prod_development/revisions/downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf). 

TABLE III.5—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 1.8-WATT EPS FOR BC FOR A VACUUM

Level Reference point for level 

Minimum active-mode efficiency 

% 

Maximum noload power 

consumption 

W 

Efficiency-related materials 

cost 

2008$ 

Basis 

0 .................. Less than the II Mark .................. 24 1.85 $0.83 Scaled ERMC of EPS #17. 

1 .................. Meets the II Mark ........................ 45 0.75 0.95 Average of switched-mode test data. 

2 .................. Meets the IV Mark ...................... 55 0.50 0.95 Average of switched-mode test data. 

3 .................. Meets the V Mark ....................... 66 0.30 0.95 Average of switched-mode test data. 

TABLE III.6—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 4.8-WATT EPS FOR BC FOR A DIY POWER TOOL

Level Reference point for level 

Minimum active-mode efficiency 

% 

Maximum noload power 

consumption 

W 

Efficiency-related materials 

cost 

2008$ 

Basis 

0 .................. Less than the II Mark .................. 38 1.85 1.04 Scaled EPS #17 ERMC. 

1 .................. Meets the II Mark ........................ 56 0.75 1.19 Average of switched-mode test data. 

2 .................. Meets the IV Mark ...................... 64 0.50 1.19 Average of switched-mode test data. 

3 .................. Meets the V Mark ....................... 72 0.30 1.19 Average of switched-mode test data. 

B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

Based on the methodology previously 

discussed, DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses for all six of the EPS 

representative units in the residential 

sector. The results of these analyses for 

each representative unit are presented 

in Table III.7, Table III.8, Table III.9, 

Table III.10, Table III.11, and Table 

III.12. 

TABLE III.7.—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE 40-WATT EPS 

Situation before standards Standard at CSL 

Standard at CSL 

CSL 

Conversion 

efficiency 

% 

No-load 

power 

W 

Percent of 

market already at CSL 

% 

Consumer 

purchase 

price 

2008$ 

Operating 

cost 

2008$/year 

LCC 

2008$ 

Weighted-average lifecycle cost 

savings 

2008$ 

Weighted-average payback period 

year 

0 ....................... 81 0.5 25 8.45 1.86 16.44 ...................... ......................

1 ....................... 86 0.5 50 9.49 1.32 15.15 1.29 1.9 

2 ....................... 90 0.3 25 11.26 0.91 15.15 0.43 3.8 

3 ....................... 91 0.2 0 11.67 0.78 15.01 0.47 3.5 

TABLE III.8—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE 203-WATT EPS 

Situation before standards Standard at CSL 

Standard at CSL 

CSL 

Conversion 

efficiency 

% 

No-load 

power 

W 

Percent of 

market already at CSL 

% 

Consumer 

purchase 

price 

2008$ 

Operating 

cost 

2008$/year 

LCC 

2008$ 

Weighted-average lifecycle cost 

savings 

2008$ 

Weighted-average payback period 

year 

0 ....................... 82 12.3 5 19.08 14.87 82.78 ...................... ......................

1 ....................... 86 0.4 95 28.12 3.82 44.49 38.28 0.8 

2 ....................... 86 0.3 0 28.49 3.76 44.62 1.79 6.1 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
27178 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE III.8—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE 203-WATT EPS—Continued 

Situation before standards Standard at CSL 

Standard at CSL 

CSL 

Conversion 

efficiency 

% 

No-load 

power 

W 

Percent of 

market already at CSL 

% 

Consumer 

purchase 

price 

2008$ 

Operating 

cost 

2008$/year 

LCC 

2008$ 

Weighted-average lifecycle cost 

savings 

2008$ 

Weighted-average payback period 

year 

3 ....................... 89 0.3 0 38.29 3.14 51.73 -5.32 14.2 

TABLE III.9—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR HIGH POWER 345-WATT EPS 

Situation before standards Standard at CSL 

Standard at CSL 

CSL 

Conversion 

efficiency 

% 

No-load 

power 

W 

Percent of 

market already at CSL 

% 

Consumer 

purchase 

price 

2008$ 

Operating 

cost 

2008$/year 

LCC 

2008$ 

Weighted-average lifecycle cost 

savings 

2008$ 

Weighted-average payback period 

year 

0 ....................... 62 15.4 60 208.10 16.20 331.75 ...................... ......................

1 ....................... 81 6.0 40 60.71 6.17 107.81 223.95 N/A 

2 ....................... 84 1.5 0 66.12 5.09 104.93 137.24 N/A 

3 ....................... 85 0.5 0 76.37 4.50 110.68 131.49 N/A 

TABLE III.10—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MEDICAL 18-WATT EPS 

Situation before standards Standard at CSL 

Standard at CSL 

CSL 

Conversion 

efficiency 

% 

No-load 

power 

W 

Percent of 

market already at CSL 

% 

Consumer 

purchase 

price 

2008$ 

Operating 

cost 

2008$/year 

LCC 

2008$ 

Weighted-average lifecycle cost 

savings 

2008$ 

Weighted-average payback period 

year 

0 ....................... 66 0.6 25 10.62 4.74 40.95 ...................... ......................

1 ....................... 76 0.5 25 13.04 2.99 32.13 8.82 1.4 

2 ....................... 80 0.3 50 13.04 2.28 27.60 8.94 0.5 

3 ....................... 85 0.2 0 20.53 1.60 30.79 1.28 7.7 

TABLE III.11—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR 1.8-WATT EPS FOR BCS

Situation before standards Standard at CSL 

Standard at CSL 

CSL 

Conversion 

efficiency 

% 

No-load 

power 

W 

Percent of 

market already at CSL 

% 

Consumer 

purchase 

price 

2008$ 

Operating 

cost 

2008$/year 

LCC 

2008$ 

Weighted-average lifecycle cost 

savings 

2008$ 

Weighted-average payback period 

year 

0 ....................... 24 1.9 30 3.07 2.15 12.27 ...................... ......................

1 ....................... 45 0.8 50 3.52 0.84 7.11 5.17 0.3 

2 ....................... 55 0.5 20 3.52 0.55 5.89 3.15 0.1 

3 ....................... 66 0.3 0 3.52 0.35 5.03 3.38 0.1 

TABLE III.12—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR A 4.8-WATT EPS FOR BCS

Situation before standards Standard at CSL 

Standard at CSL 

CSL 

Conversion 

efficiency 

% 

No-load 

power 

W 

Percent of 

market already at CSL 

% 

Consumer 

purchase 

price 

2008$ 

Operating 

cost 

2008$/year 

LCC 

2008$ 

Weighted-average lifecycle cost 

savings 

2008$ 

Weighted-average payback period 

year 

0 ....................... 38 1.9 25 4.32 0.81 7.81 ...................... ......................

1 ....................... 56 0.8 50 4.94 0.39 6.61 1.19 1.5 

2 ....................... 64 0.5 25 4.94 0.27 6.11 0.90 0.4 

3 ....................... 72 0.3 0 4.94 0.19 5.75 1.03 0.3 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 27179 

C. National Impact Analysis 

Based on the methodology previously 

discussed, DOE conducted national 

impact analyses of standards for each 

type of non-Class A EPS. DOE assessed 

two base cases, one in which the energy 

efficiency of non-Class A EPSs was 

assumed to improve over time due to 

factors other than a Federal standard 

and another in which energy efficiency 

was assumed not to improve over time. 

In the first case, factors expected to 

drive efficiency improvements are 

changing consumer preferences and 

spillover effects from Class A EPS 

standards. These two base cases provide 

a lower and upper bound, respectively, 

on DOE’s energy savings and NPV 

estimates. 

If a CSL is selected for each type of 

EPS to maximize energy savings, subject 

to the constraint that the NPV be nonnegative, total primary energy savings 

across all types of non-Class A EPSs 

could be as much as 141 trillion Btu or 

0.14 quads over 30 years. CSL 3 yields 

maximum energy savings and has a 

positive NPV (both at 3-percent and 7- 

percent discount rates) for all EPS types 

except for the multiple-voltage 203 watt 

EPS. For the latter, CSL 2 has a positive 

NPV in one base case but a negative 

NPV in the other. Thus, to estimate the 

energy savings potential across all types 

of non-Class A EPS, DOE selected CSL 

1 for this one type of EPS. Table III.13 

shows the contribution of each EPS type 

to total savings potential and the NPV 

of a standard set at the selected CSL. 

Notably, increasing the efficiency of 

EPSs for medical devices and multiplevoltage EPSs for multifunction devices 

yields the greatest amount of projected 

energy savings. 

TABLE III.13—ENERGY SAVINGS POTENTIAL WHEN CSLS ARE SELECTED TO MAXIMIZE ENERGY SAVINGS

Type of EPS CSL 

Energy savings potential 

2013 to 2042 

(trillion BTU*) 

Net present Value 2013 to 

2042 ($million) 

3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

Multi-Voltage for Multifunction Devices ................................................................... 3 52.8–56.9 156–174 76–85 

Multi-Voltage for Xbox 360 ...................................................................................... 1 1.8–30.8 13–189 9–101 

High Output Power (>250 W) .................................................................................. 3 0.33–0.41 2.4–2.9 1.2–1.5 

For Medical Devices ................................................................................................ 3 42.6–50.6 81–130 27–50 

For Battery Chargers for Cordless Handheld Vacuums .......................................... 3 1.09–1.41 8.0–10.1 4.5–5.6 

For Battery Chargers for Power Tools .................................................................... 3 0.63–0.82 4.1–5.1 2.3–2.8 

Total .................................................................................................................. ................ 99–141 264–512 120–245 

* 1 Quad = 1,000 trillion BTU. 

D. Discussion 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

EPCA requires the Department to 

determine whether to pursue energy 

conservation standards for non-Class A 

EPSs by finding the potential for 

significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I)) While the term 

‘‘significant’’ is not defined, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia, indicated that Congress 

intended this term to refer to savings 

that were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985) (addressing the meaning of 

the term ‘‘significant’’ within the context 

of setting energy conservation 

standards). Using the Department’s 

analysis, the estimated energy savings is 

as much as 0.14 quads over a 30-year 

period for non-Class A EPSs. This is 

equivalent to the annual electricity 

needs of 1.1 million U.S. homes. The 

Department believes that the estimated 

energy savings for the non-Class A EPSs 

are not ‘‘genuinely trivial,’’ and are, in 

fact, ‘‘significant.’’ 

2. Impact on Consumers 

Using the methods and data described 

previously, the Department conducted 

an LCC analysis to estimate the net 

benefits to users from more efficient 

non-Class A EPSs. The Department then 

aggregated the results from the LCC 

analysis to the national level to estimate 

national energy savings and national 

economic impacts. Given the resultant 

energy savings and economic benefits, 

the Department concluded that there is 

also likely to be reduced emissions from 

decreased electricity generation, 

decreased demand for the construction 

of electricity power plants, and 

potentially net indirect employment 

benefits from shifting expenditures from 

the capital-intensive utility sector to 

consumer expenditures. While the 

Department did not quantify these 

potential benefits, it concluded that the 

benefits are likely to be positive based 

on the results of the Department’s 

analyses of energy conservation 

standards for similar products. The 

Department will provide detailed 

estimates of such impacts as part of the 

standards rulemaking process that will 

result from this determination. 

IV. Conclusion 

A. Determination 

Based on its analysis of the 

information now available, the 

Department has determined that energy 

conservation standards for non-Class A 

EPSs appear to be technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

are likely to result in significant energy 

savings. Consequently, the Department 

will initiate the development of energy 

conservation standards for non-Class A 

EPSs. 

All design options addressed in 

today’s determination document are 

technologically feasible. The 

Department’s test and teardown data, as 

well as data provided by manufacturers 

during interviews, show that the 

considered technologies are available to 

all manufacturers. The candidate 

standard levels of efficiency examined 

in the Department’s analysis show that 

there is the potential for significant 

energy savings of as much as 0.14 

quads. 

All of the scenarios evaluated would 

result in economic benefits to the 

Nation as shown by the positive NPV. 

While it is still uncertain whether 

further analyses will confirm these 

findings, the Department believes that 

standards for non-Class A EPSs appear 

economically justified based on a 

balanced consideration of the 

information and analysis available to 

the Department at this time. 

The Department has not produced 

detailed estimates of the potential 

adverse impacts of a national standard 

on manufacturers or on individual 

categories of users. The Department is 

instead relying on the presence of 

currently available high-efficiency 

designs as an indicator of the probable 

economic feasibility for manufacturers 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
27180 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

to exclusively produce high-efficiency 

designs if required by standards. During 

the course of the standards rulemaking 

process, the Department will perform a 

detailed analysis of the possible impacts 

of standards on manufacturers, as well 

as a more disaggregated assessment of 

their possible impacts on usersubgroups. 

B. Future Proceedings 

The Department will begin a 

proceeding to consider establishment of 

energy conservation standards for nonClass A EPSs. During the standards 

rulemaking, the Department will review 

and analyze the likely effects of 

industry-wide voluntary programs, such 

as ENERGY STAR. The Department will 

collect additional information about 

design options, inputs to the 

engineering and LCC analyses, and 

potential impacts on the manufacturers 

and consumers of non-Class A EPSs. 

CEC and PG&E both encouraged DOE 

to implement standards for all four 

types of non-Class A EPSs. (CEC et al., 

No. 8 at p. 1; PG&E, No. 7 at p. 1) PG&E 

expressed its desire for standards for 

multiple-voltage EPSs in particular to 

prevent potential backsliding by 

manufacturers in producing more 

efficient products. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2) 

PG&E s also noted that if standards are 

not created for high-power EPSs, 

manufacturers could opt to rate 

products higher than 250 W so that they 

fit into this category and, thereby, 

circumvent standards. (PG&E, No. 7 at 

p. 2) DOE will take these comments into 

account as it considers standards for all 

four types of non-Class A EPSs in the 

standards rulemaking. 

PG&E commented that medical EPSs 

represent a considerable energy-saving 

opportunity, but acknowledged that due 

to the lengthy and expensive FDA 

approval process they may require 

special treatment. PG&E suggested two 

approaches that would avoid placing 

undue burden on manufacturers of 

medical EPSs: (1) DOE could place the 

effective date of standards for medical 

EPSs later than 2013 or 2014, or (2) DOE 

could grant an exemption from 

standards for EPSs manufactured after 

the effective date of the standard that 

are used with a medical device that 

received FDA approval before the 

effective date (or were submitted for 

approval before that date). (PG&E, No. 7 

at p. 3) 

In the standards rulemaking process, 

DOE will examine needs particular to 

medical EPSs and methods for 

addressing those needs when evaluating 

the potential for setting standards for 

these products. The Department will 

also evaluate any proposed standards 

for medical EPSs to determine whether 

they are technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and are likely to 

result in significant energy savings in 

accordance with the requirements of 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) Depending on 

the outcome of these analyses, as well 

as other factors DOE is required to 

consider, the agency will determine, 

what, if any, standards would be 

appropriate for these products. 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the 

Office of Management and Budget has 

determined that today’s regulatory 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this 

action is not subject to OIRA review 

under the Executive Order. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of General 

Counsel’s Web site, http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed today’s rule under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. 

Today’s rule sets no standards; it only 

positively determines that future 

standards may be warranted and should 

be explored in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. Economic 

impacts on small entities would be 

considered in the context of such a 

rulemaking. On the basis of the 

foregoing, DOE certifies that the rule has 

no significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE will transmit this 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This rulemaking determines that the 

development of energy efficiency 

standards for non-Class A EPS is 

warranted and will impose no new 

information or record keeping 

requirements. Accordingly, OMB 

clearance is not required under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

In this notice, DOE positively 

determines that future standards may be 

warranted and should be explored in an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. DOE has determined that 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA) is not 

required at this time. NEPA review can 

only be initiated ‘‘as soon as 

environmental impacts can be 

meaningfully evaluated’’ (10 CFR 

1021.213(b)). Because this rule only 

determines that future standards may be 

warranted, but does not itself propose to 

set any standard, DOE has determined 

that there are no environmental impacts 

to be evaluated at this time. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined today’s rule 

and has determined that it does not 

preempt State law or have a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 27181 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA) requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector. For 

a proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at 

http://www.gc.doe.gov). 

Today’s rule does not result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

a given year by the external power 

supply industries affected by this 

rulemaking. This is because today’s rule 

sets no standards; it only positively 

determines that future standards may be 

warranted and should be explored in an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. The rule also does not 

contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate. Thus, DOE is not required by 

UMRA to prepare a written statement 

assessing the costs, benefits, and other 

effects of the rule on the national 

economy. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule does not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

does not result in any takings which 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for 

agencies to review most disseminations 

of information to the public under 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. The OMB’s guidelines were 

published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 

2002), and DOE’s guidelines were 

published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 

2002). DOE has reviewed today’s notice 

under the OMB and DOE guidelines and 

has concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the OIRA a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action determines 

that development of energy efficiency 

standards for non-Class A EPS is 

warranted and does not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The OIRA 

Administrator has also not designated 

this rulemaking as a significant energy 

action. Therefore, DOE has determined 

that this rule is not a significant energy 

action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664. 

(January 14, 2005) The Bulletin 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
27182 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer 

products) and C (commercial equipment) of Title III 

of EPCA were re-designated as parts A and A–1, 

respectively, in the United States Code. 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information.’’ The 

Bulletin defines ‘‘influential scientific 

information’’ as ‘‘scientific information 

the agency reasonably can determine 

will have, or does have, a clear and 

substantial impact on important public 

policies or private sector decisions.’’ 70 

FR 2667 (January 14, 2005). 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report,’’ dated February 2007, has been 

disseminated and is available at http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary 

The Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy has 

approved publication of this final rule. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11592 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–CRT–0017] 

RIN 1904–AC10 

Energy Conservation Program: WebBased Compliance and Certification 

Management System 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule: provides a 

new means for manufacturers and third 

party representatives to prepare and 

submit compliance and certification 

reports to the Department of Energy 

(DOE) through an electronic Web-based 

tool, the Compliance and Certification 

Management System (CCMS), which 

will be the preferred mechanism for 

submitting compliance and certification 

reports; allows compliance and 

certification reports to be submitted via 

e-mail; and updates the address and 

contact information used to submit 

compliance statements and certification 

reports through certified mail to DOE. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective June 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket and 

to read background material, visit the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Resource 

Room of the Building Technologies 

Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th 

Floor, Washington, DC, 20024, (202) 

586–2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at the above telephone number 

for additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

286–2192. E-mail: 

Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Betsy Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, 

GC–71, Forrestal Building, GC–71, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

586–7796. E-mail: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

establishes that compliance statements 

and certification reports may be 

submitted to DOE through any of the 

following means: 

1. Compliance and Certification 

Management System (CCMS)—via the 

Web portal: http://regulations.doe.gov/ 

ccms. Follow the instructions on the 

CCMS Web site for submitting 

compliance statements and certification 

reports. The CCMS is a tool for 

certification of compliance with 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. Submission of compliance 

statements and certification reports via 

the CCMS is preferred and will satisfy 

compliance and certification reporting 

requirements for DOE. For CCMS Help/ 

Support Contact: Mr. Charles Llenza, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Building Technologies, EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

2192. E-mail: 

Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov. 

2. E-mail—send to: 

certification.report@ee.doe.gov and 

indicate in the subject line the 

manufacturer, the third party 

representative if applicable, and the 

specific product or equipment for which 

the report is being submitted. 

3. Certified Mail—send to: Charles 

Llenza, Appliances and Commercial 

Equipment Standards, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program (EE–2J), Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Include in the address the subject line: 

Compliance and Certification 

Management System. 

Legislative Authority: Part A of Title 

III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, established the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ Similarly, Part A–1 of 

Title III of EPCA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317, established an energy 

efficiency program for ‘‘Certain 

Industrial Equipment,’’ which included 

certain commercial equipment.1 EPCA 

requires each manufacturer of a covered 

product to submit information or reports 

to the Secretary with respect to energy 

efficiency, energy use, or, in the case of 

showerheads, faucets, water closets, and 

urinals, water use of such covered 

product and the economic impact of any 

proposed energy conservation standard, 

as DOE determines may be necessary to 

establish and revise test procedures, 

labeling rules, and energy conservation 

standards for such product and to 

ensure compliance with the 

requirements. In so doing, DOE must 

consider existing public sources, 

including nationally recognized 

certification programs of trade 

associations. See 42 U.S.C. 6296(d). 

Further, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPACT 2005), Public Law 109–58, 

amended EPCA with respect to 

particular consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment 

by providing definitions, test 

procedures, labeling provisions, energy 

conservation standards, and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers. EPACT 

2005 also authorized DOE to require 

manufacturers of covered commercial 

and industrial equipment to submit 

information and reports for a variety of 

purposes, including ensuring 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES