27774 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 94 / Thursday, May 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

c. Disposal options for low-activity 

waste/very low level waste; 

d. On-site disposal of LLRW; and 

e. Other (name). 

5. What unintended consequences 

might result from the potential changes 

identified in response to questions 3 

and 4? 

Potential Alternative Futures 

The following revised disposal 

scenarios are proposed for incorporation 

in the updated Strategic Assessment. 

Are there recommendations to improve 

the proposed disposal scenarios? 

‘‘Optimistic’’ Scenario Assumptions: 

All aspects for management of waste 

from the back end of the fuel cycle are 

continuously available, including 

uninterrupted commercial disposal 

capacity for all Class A, B, and C LLRW 

and from all waste generators. Some 

limited competition results in disposal 

costs that are considered reasonable for 

most waste generators. Though most 

waste that arise from 11e.(3) and 11e.(4) 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, byproduct material is 

disposed at the Richland, WA, disposal 

facility, some are disposed elsewhere. 

Greater-than-class-C LLRW disposal is 

available at a U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) facility licensed by the NRC. 

There is a regulatory framework and 

process in place for low-activity waste 

that enables safe disposal in an efficient 

manner. A variety of low activity waste 

disposal options keeps the average cost 

of disposal low for this type of waste. 

There is little need for extended storage 

of LLRW or for new innovations 

regarding treatment of LLRW, including 

volume reduction or use of 

nonradioactive surrogates. There are no 

significant events involving safety, 

security, or protection of the 

environment, and therefore little or no 

negative press. Implementation of the 10 

CFR Part 61 limited rulemaking has 

occurred with the appropriate 

compatibility designation. 

‘‘Realistic’’ Scenario Assumptions: 

Class A, B, and C LLRW have clear 

paths forward for disposal. Small 

quantities of relatively high activity 

LLRW are stored at industrial, medical, 

and research facilities and at Nuclear 

Power Plants (NPP’s). Limited quantities 

of waste that arise from 11e.(3) and 

11e.(4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended, byproduct material 

can be disposed at the Richland, WA 

disposal facility. A small percentage of 

GTCC—mainly sealed sources— 

continues to be moved out of the 

commercial sector into DOE storage, but 

a disposal facility for GTCC waste is still 

many years away. Orphan waste is 

identified in an ad hoc fashion, and a 

path forward for disposition/disposal 

becomes more limited. Disposal options 

for low-activity waste are few, and 

approvals continue to be on a case-bycase basis that takes significant time to 

obtain approval. The LLRW regulatory 

framework is relatively stable, but 

necessarily reactive to certain 

circumstances, such as development of 

new technology, external events and 

innovations in waste processing, 

stabilization, and storage technology. 

The 10 CFR Part 61 limited rulemaking 

has been promulgated. 

‘‘Pessimistic’’ Scenario Assumptions: 

Disposal capacity for all types of 

LLRW is severely constrained and costs 

of disposal are prohibitively high for 

many generators. Consequently, there 

are significant increases in both the 

volume and activity of LLRW held in 

long-term storage. Disposal options for 

low-activity waste are severely 

constrained, and there are no prospects 

for development of a GTCC disposal 

facility in the near-to-medium term. 

Beneficial uses of radioactive material 

in research, medical care and industrial 

applications decrease because of 

escalating uncertainties (both in 

disposal options as well as costs). 

Escalating costs become the driver for 

significant innovations in processing 

and storage technology. The public 

becomes concerned about potential 

safety impacts of LLRW storage as it 

becomes increasingly aware of its 

widespread use by licensees. 

Decommissioning of some NPP’s is 

postponed, or different 

decommissioning strategies are used 

due to high disposal costs, uncertain 

disposal availability and conflicting 

public and/or political pressures. The 

promulgation and/or implementation of 

the 10 CFR Part 61 limited rulemaking 

has been significantly delayed. 

Interagency Communication and 

Cooperation 

1. Based on your observations of what 

works well and not-so-well, 

domestically and/or internationally, 

with regard to the management of 

radioactive and/or hazardous waste, 

what actions can the NRC and other 

Federal regulatory agencies take to 

improve their communication with 

affected and interested stakeholders? 

2. What specific actions can NRC take 

to improve coordination with other 

Federal agencies so as to obtain a more 

consistent treatment of radioactive 

wastes that possess similar or equivalent 

levels of biological hazard? 

IV. Workshop 

On March 7, 2014, the NRC held a 

workshop to gather information on the 

update to the NRC’s 2007 Strategic 

Assessment of the LLRW regulatory 

program in Phoenix, Arizona. The 

transcript of the workshop is publicly 

available in ADAMS under accession 

no. ML14086A540. The NRC staff 

intends to utilize the information 

gathered from the workshop, as well as 

the comments received in response to 

this notice, to update its Strategic 

Assessment of the NRC’s LLRW 

regulatory program. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day 

of May 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Aby Mohseni, 

Deputy Director, Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11285 Filed 5–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–NOA–0012] 

RIN 1904–AD21 

Energy Conservation Standards and 

Test Procedure for Battery Chargers: 

Availability of Data 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability 

(NODA). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) has completed testing of 

new battery chargers to supplement its 

earlier analysis presented in a notice of 

proposed rulemaking from March 2012. 

DOE has compared these test results 

with data reported in the California 

Energy Commission’s (CEC) ‘‘Appliance 

Efficiency Database and has found some 

inconsistencies. To ascertain the reasons 

for these inconsistencies, DOE is 

publishing data from its own testing to 

solicit feedback from manufacturers on 

whether there are potential ambiguities 

in the Federal test procedure with 

respect to how certain battery chargers 

are tested when determining the energy 

usage ratings of these products. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

on June 3, 2014 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

in Washington, DC. The meeting will 

also be broadcast as a Webinar. See 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

webinar information, participation 

instructions, and information about the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 94 / Thursday, May 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27775 

1http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/battery_

chargers/. 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding the NODA before 

and after the public meeting, but no 

later than June 30, 2014. For details, see 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this 

NODA. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. For those 

planning to attend, see section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this NODA for 

additional information. 

The docket, EERE–2014–BT–NOA– 

0012, is available for review at 

www.regulations.gov, including Federal 

Register notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents or materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-NOA0012. The regulations.gov Web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents in the docket, including 

public comments. For further 

information on how to review the 

docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct requests for additional 

information may be sent to Mr. Jeremy 

Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: 202–586–9870. Email: 

battery_chargers_and_external_power_

supplies@ee.doe.gov. 

In the office of the General Counsel, 

contact Mr. Michael Kido, Esq., U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of General 

Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121, (202) 586–8145, Michael.Kido@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please 

note that foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. Any 

foreign national wishing to participate 

in the meeting should advise DOE as 

soon as possible by contacting Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 to 

initiate the necessary procedures. 

Table of Contents 

I. History of Test Procedure and Energy 

Conservation Standards Rulemaking for 

Battery Chargers 

II. Results and Analyses Summary 

A. Overview of the Test Data—MultiVoltage, Multi-Capacity Battery Chargers 

and Multi-Voltage, Multi-Capacity, 

Multi-Chemistry Battery Chargers and 

Battery Energy 

III. Request for Information 

A. Testing of a Unit With a Battery Used 

Exclusively for Back-Up Power 

B. Testing of Wireless Battery Chargers for 

Dry Environments 

C. Adaptive Charging 

D. Rated Charge Capacity Versus Measured 

Battery Energy 

IV. Issues on Which DOE Is Seeking 

Comment 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To 

Speak 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

I. History of Test Procedure and Energy 

Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

for Battery Chargers 

On December 8, 2006, U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) adopted a 

test procedure to measure the efficiency 

of battery chargers. 71 FR 71339. DOE 

amended the procedure on June 1, 2011 

to measure all modes of charging and 

added provisions for measuring the 

energy recovered from the battery 

during discharge. 71 FR 31750. Using 

this procedure, DOE proposed to 

establish Federal energy conservation 

standards for battery chargers and 

external power supplies (BCEPS). 77 FR 

18478 (March 27, 2012). These proposed 

standards for battery chargers were 

based on the approach laid out in DOE’s 

test procedure. The proposal was also 

issued after the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) had finalized its own 

standards for battery charger systems on 

January 12, 2012. The CEC standards 

took effect on February 1, 2013.1 The 

standard levels and accompanying 

battery charger classes contained in 

DOE’s proposal and the CEC standards 

overlapped in some, but not all, 

respects. Additionally, DOE’s proposed 

standards differ from those issued by 

the CEC, with some being more 

stringent and others being less stringent 

than the CEC standards. In spite of these 

differences, both sets of standards 

(finalized and proposed) rely on the 

same test procedure. See 10 CFR Part 

430, Subpart B, Appendix Y. 

Pursuant to the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 

(EPCA), DOE performs a robust analysis 

to determine whether potential new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

that DOE proposes to adopt for certain 

products, such as battery chargers, are 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)). While the analysis 

performed in support of DOE’s March 

2012 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NOPR) tentatively determined that the 

proposed standards would achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, DOE 

is interested in determining if revisions 

to its analysis are necessary now that 

more stringent standards than DOE 

proposed have been in effect in 

California for over one year. As part of 

its examination of this situation, DOE is 

particularly interested in whether 

certain aspects of its test procedure 

require clarifications or revisions to 

ensure that the measurement of energy 

usage under the procedure is both 

accurate and repeatable. 

Additionally, DOE is interested in 

whether its tentative decision to defer 

the regulation of certain types of battery 

chargers, including those that are 

designed to charge consumer products 

wirelessly (e.g. inductive battery 

chargers designed to operate in dry 

environments) remains a viable 

approach. To this end, today’s notice 

solicits comments from the public 

regarding how DOE’s current test 

procedure impacts (if at all) the testing 

and potential future regulation of these 

types of products. 

II. Results and Analyses Summary 

As of February 2013, compliance with 

the California standards for battery 

chargers was required when distributing 

those products in California. To better 

understand the impact of these 

standards on the battery charger 

industry, DOE has been obtaining 

products from retail merchants and 

testing them in accordance with the 

DOE test procedure. This process has 

enabled DOE to examine the types of 

technologies manufacturers are 

employing to meet the California 

standards. 

While investigating these issues, DOE 

compared the results from its own 

testing activities to the publicly 

available energy efficiency ratings for 

the same units reported in the CEC 

database and found inconsistencies 

between these two separate sets of data. 

(The CEC database is available online at: 

http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/.) 

Because the values obtained through 

DOE testing and the values reported to 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27776 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 94 / Thursday, May 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

CEC should have been obtained through 

use of the same test procedure (found in 

Appendix Y to subpart B of 10 CFR Part 

430), these inconsistencies have raised a 

question as to whether these differences 

have arisen from an ambiguity in the 

DOE test procedure. 

DOE is publishing its test results to 

solicit feedback from interested parties, 

especially manufacturers, on any 

potential ambiguities in the DOE test 

procedure with respect to how certain 

battery chargers are tested in order to 

determine their energy efficiency 

ratings. Specifically, DOE has been 

unable to obtain ratings consistent with 

those found in the CEC database for 

multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery 

chargers and multi-voltage, multicapacity, multi-chemistry battery 

chargers. DOE would like to ensure that 

the test procedure is clear and being 

administered as intended, and may use 

the responses to this notice to support 

potential revisions or updates to the test 

procedure for battery chargers. DOE’s 

test results are available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-NOA0012. 

Additionally, DOE is seeking 

comments and requesting information 

from interested parties on how to test (1) 

battery charging units that are equipped 

with a battery that is used exclusively 

for back-up power, (2) wireless battery 

chargers, and (3) battery chargers 

capable of performing adaptive 

charging. DOE is also interested in how 

the rated charge capacity of a given unit, 

versus the measured battery energy, is 

being interpreted in terms of test 

procedure requirements. 

Overview of the Test Data—MultiVoltage, Multi-Capacity Battery 

Chargers and Multi-Voltage, MultiCapacity, Multi-Chemistry Battery 

Chargers and Battery Energy 

DOE tested several battery charger 

models capable of charging either 

multiple batteries at different voltages 

and capacities or charging batteries of 

different chemistries as well as different 

voltages and capacities. According to 

Table 4.1, ‘‘Battery Selection for 

Testing’’ found in section 4.3 of DOE’s 

test procedure, at 10 CFR 430, Subpart 

B, Appendix Y, a battery charger that is 

capable of performing multi-voltage and 

multi-capacity charging must undergo 3 

tests. Those tests include the following: 

1. Of the batteries with the lowest 

voltage, use the one with the lowest 

charge capacity. Use only one port. 

[BATTERY 1] 

2. Of the batteries with the highest 

voltage, use the one with the lowest 

charge capacity. Use only one port. 

[BATTERY 2] 

3. Use all ports and use the battery or 

the configuration of batteries with 

the highest total rated energy 

capacity. [BATTERY 3] 

DOE applied the battery selection 

method as outlined above, and the 

battery discharge test per Section 5.8 

codified 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, 

Appendix Y of the DOE test procedure, 

to several units and used several battery 

configurations, but could not obtain the 

results listed in the CEC database for 

those same models. The results from 

DOE testing of these models are detailed 

in the test report, Section 3. DOE has 

docketed this report, which is available 

at www.regulations.gov. 

In general, DOE’s results from these 

tests differ from the publicly available 

data submitted to the CEC for these 

models. Collectively, these differences 

lead DOE to question whether there are 

ambiguities in the test procedure 

surrounding how multi-voltage, multicapacity and multi-voltage, multicapacity, multi-chemistry battery 

chargers are tested. Specifically, DOE 

seeks feedback on how the test 

procedure is being applied to multivoltage, multi-capacity and multivoltage, multi-capacity, multi-chemistry 

battery chargers. To the extent that there 

are differences in how these different 

categories of battery chargers are being 

tested in the field, DOE is also 

interested in whether the current test 

procedure needs to be modified to 

ensure that testing is performed in a 

consistent manner that obtains the most 

accurate measurement of a given unit’s 

energy consumption. 

III. Request for Information 

In addition to feedback on how to test 

multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery 

chargers and multi-voltage, multicapacity, multi-chemistry battery 

chargers, DOE is soliciting feedback on 

several products that have become more 

prevalent in the market since the test 

procedure was published in 2011. Those 

products include: (1) Battery chargers 

equipped with a battery used solely for 

back-up power, (2) wireless chargers for 

dry environments, and (3) adaptive 

chargers. Additionally, DOE seeks 

comment on the definitions of ‘‘Battery 

Energy’’ (found in Section 2.7 of 10 CFR 

430, Subpart B, Appendix Y) and 

‘‘Rated Energy Capacity’’ (found in 

Section 2.21 of 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, 

Appendix Y) as they relate to multivoltage, multi-capacity battery chargers 

and multi-voltage, multi-capacity, 

multi-chemistry battery chargers. 

A. Testing of a Unit With a Battery Used 

Exclusively for Back-Up Power 

DOE tested a unit with an integral 

battery charger and battery that is used 

solely for back-up power during loss of 

main power. In this case, the battery 

charger operates in active mode to 

recharge the battery only when back-up 

power has been used; otherwise, the 

battery charger operates only in 

maintenance mode. The model that DOE 

selected for testing lacks a power 

switch, which meant that the additional 

functions not related to battery charging 

could not be turned off during the test. 

Based on the specifications of the 

battery, the energy consumption 

measured was much higher than that 

measured in comparable battery 

chargers that exclusively charge 

batteries of the same voltage, chemistry, 

and capacity. These results suggest that 

the current test procedure, which is 

intended to measure battery charging 

energy consumption, may be unable to 

isolate and measure that energy usage of 

these particular products. DOE seeks 

input on whether the test procedure can 

be applied or modified in a manner that 

would ensure that the final results more 

accurately reflect the true energy use of 

this type of battery charger and that 

those results are repeatable whether 

measured directly by a manufacturer or 

in a third-party laboratory without the 

use of proprietary test fixtures or 

discharge software that are available 

only to the manufacturer. DOE seeks 

feedback on whether the current 

procedure is sufficiently detailed in 

enabling a manufacturer or testing 

laboratory to measure the energy usage 

of these products in a consistent and 

accurate manner or whether specific 

changes are needed in order to 

accommodate their unique 

characteristics while testing. 

B. Testing of Wireless Battery Chargers 

for Dry Environments 

DOE also seeks input on wireless 

charging stations (i.e. inductive battery 

chargers) that are specifically designed 

to operate in dry environments. The 

wide range of devices (including battery 

charging pads or charging mats), 

technologies, charging configurations 

(such as placement on a charging mat or 

a magnetic charging dock), number of 

batteries a device is capable of charging, 

and the type of batteries that can be 

charged by these systems, create some 

ambiguity regarding the ability of the 

current battery charger test procedure to 

produce accurate, meaningful and 

repeatable results for these products. 

DOE is interested in receiving 

information on the type of wireless 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 94 / Thursday, May 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27777 

battery charger technologies that are 

currently available or may become 

available in the future, and comments 

on how manufacturers are applying (or 

would apply) the test procedure to these 

products. DOE is also interested in the 

applicability of the outputs that are 

currently measured or calculated in the 

battery charger test procedure to 

wireless battery chargers, and whether 

additional measurements should be 

conducted. Finally, DOE is interested in 

how the current procedure could be 

used to generate different measurement 

results for these types of products and 

whether modifications are needed to 

help ensure that the test procedure 

produces accurate and repeatable 

results. 

C. Adaptive Charging 

DOE has become aware of charging 

systems that communicate with power 

supplies. These types of charging 

systems create an adaptive charging 

environment where the power output 

varies based on the particular 

conditions encountered by the charger. 

DOE is interested in those systems that 

vary charging rates based on which 

power supply is connected during 

charging. DOE is particularly interested 

in how these products deliver varying 

outputs and how they are currently 

rated (and advertised) according to the 

applicable standards for voltage and 

current reporting. Additionally, DOE 

seeks input on how manufacturers are 

applying the test procedure when 

measuring the energy usage of these 

products. 

D. Rated Energy Capacity Versus 

Measured Battery Energy 

During its testing, DOE encountered 

several instances where it could not 

replicate the manufacturer-reported test 

procedure outputs of certain battery 

chargers. The nature of some of these 

reported ratings leads DOE to suspect 

that at least some manufacturers may be 

reporting the rated energy capacity (as 

defined in section 2.21 of the test 

procedure) values instead of the 

measurements required by the DOE test 

procedure when reporting battery 

energy. Specifically, there are cases 

where the reported battery energy is 

greater than the 24-hour energy 

consumption, a result that is not 

possible when following the test 

procedure since the maximum 

measured energy use is based on a 24- 

hour period. Under the prescribed 

procedure that manufacturers must 

follow, section 2.7 of the battery charger 

test procedure, codified in 10 CFR 430 

Subpart B, Appendix Y, defines battery 

energy as ‘‘the energy, in watt-hours, 

delivered by the battery under the 

specified discharge conditions in the 

test procedure. . . .’’ The output of the 

battery discharge test would then be 

used to calculate the battery charger 

Unit Energy Consumption (UEC) of both 

the unit under test and the proposed 

conservation standard level that the 

specific battery charger would be 

required to meet under the NOPR. DOE 

seeks feedback on whether clarifications 

to the existing test procedure are needed 

in order to eliminate any ambiguities 

associated with how the battery energy 

is derived. 

IV. Issues on Which DOE Is Seeking 

Comment 

DOE welcomes comments on all 

aspects of this notice of data availability 

and request for information. DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments from interested parties on the 

following questions related to the test 

procedure for battery chargers: 

1. How is the test procedure being 

applied to multi-voltage, multi-capacity 

and multi-voltage, multi-capacity, 

multi-chemistry battery chargers that are 

capable of being tested with multiple 

battery configurations? 

2. How are the results of the battery 

discharge test being reported when 

multiple battery energy values are 

obtained by testing with multiple 

battery configurations? 

3. Is the test procedure sufficiently 

detailed to to ensure accurate and 

consistent results are obtained when 

testing multi-voltage, multi-capacity and 

multi-voltage, multi-capacity, multichemistry battery chargers or are 

specific modifications necessary in 

order to accommodate testing of these 

type of battery chargers? 

4. How is the test procedure being 

applied to those applications that are 

equipped with both an integral battery 

charger and batteries that are solely 

used when main power is lost (i.e. backup batteries)? 

5. Is the test procedure sufficiently 

detailed to to ensure accurate and 

consistent results are obtained when 

testing applications that are equipped 

with both an intergral battery charger 

and batteries that are soley used when 

main power is lost or are specific 

modifications necessary in order to 

accommodate testing of these type of 

battery chargers? 

6. Can the current test procedure be 

applied to wireless battery chargers (i.e. 

inductive chargers) that are designed for 

dry environments to ensure accurate 

and repeatable results? If not, what 

changes to the test procedure, if any, are 

required to ensure that these types of 

battery chargers can be tested in a 

repeatable manner that produces 

accurate results? 

7. DOE seeks information regarding 

what types of wireless battery charger 

technologies are currently available or 

may become available in the future, and 

how manufacturers are applying (or 

would apply) the test procedure to these 

products. (In this context, DOE is 

referring to inductive chargers designed 

to operate in dry environments.) 

8. DOE is also interested in how the 

outputs that are currently measured or 

calculated in the current battery charger 

test procedure apply (or would apply) to 

wireless battery chargers, and whether 

additional measurements should be 

conducted as part of the test in order to 

ensure that the measured results are 

accurate and repeatable. (In this context, 

DOE is referring to inductive chargers 

designed to operate in dry 

environments.) 

9. DOE is interested in both whether 

and how the current test procedure 

could be used to generate different 

measurements for wireless battery 

chargers and whether modifications are 

needed to help ensure that the test 

procedure produces accurate and 

repeatable results. (In this context, DOE 

is referring to inductive chargers 

designed to operate in dry 

environments.) 

10. How are adaptive (or smart) 

external power supplies being rated 

(and advertised) according to the 

applicable standards for voltage and 

current reporting? 

11. How should the test procedure be 

applied to battery charging systems with 

adaptive external power supplies? What 

changes to the test procedure, if any, 

would be needed to ensure the 

repeatability and accuracy of test 

results? 

12. Are the current definitions of 

‘‘battery energy’’ and ‘‘rated charge 

capacity’’ in the test procedure 

sufficiently clear to enable 

manufacturers and testing labs to 

consistently produce repeatable, 

certifiable results as was intended by 

the DOE test procedure? If not, what 

changes to these definitions, if any, 

would be needed to ensure the 

repeatability and accuracy of test 

results? 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this NODA. To attend the public 

meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945. Please note 

that foreign nationals visiting DOE 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 94 / Thursday, May 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirHeadquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. Any 

foreign national wishing to participate 

in the meeting should advise DOE as 

soon as possible by contacting Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 to 

initiate the necessary procedures. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via Webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

product.aspx?productid=84. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To 

Speak 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this NODA, or who 

is a representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the public 

meeting. Requests should be emailed to 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. Persons 

who wish to speak should include their 

contact information and an attached file 

that describes the nature of their interest 

in this NODA and the topics they wish 

to discuss. DOE requests persons 

selected to make an oral presentation to 

submit an advance copy of their 

statements by May 30, 2014. DOE may 

permit persons who cannot supply an 

advance copy of their statement to 

participate, if those persons have made 

advance alternative arrangements with 

the Building Technologies Office. As 

necessary, requests to give an oral 

presentation should ask for such 

alternative arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). There shall not be 

discussion of proprietary information, 

costs or prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. A court reporter will be 

present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. The public meeting 

will be conducted in an informal, 

conference style. DOE reserves the right 

to schedule the order of presentations 

and to establish the procedures 

governing the conduct of the public 

meeting. DOE will present summaries of 

comments received before the public 

meeting, allow time for presentations by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this NODA. Each 

participant will be allowed to make a 

prepared general statement (within time 

limits determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

permit other participants to comment 

briefly on any general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on each specific topic, DOE will permit 

participants to clarify their statements 

briefly and comment on statements 

made by others. Participants should be 

prepared to answer DOE’s and other 

participants’ questions. DOE 

representatives may also ask 

participants about other matters relevant 

to this NODA. The official conducting 

the public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of these procedures that may be needed 

for the proper conduct of the public 

meeting. After the public meeting, 

interested parties may submit further 

comments on the proceedings as well as 

on any aspect of the NODA until the 

end of the comment period. DOE will 

make the entire record of this 

proceeding, including the transcript 

from the public meeting, available on 

the DOE Web site. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE welcomes comments on all 

aspects of this NODA and on other 

relevant issues that participants believe 

would affect test procedures and energy 

conservation standards applicable to 

Battery Chargers. Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2014–BT–NOA–0012, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Email: To 

BatteryChargers2014NOA0012@

ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2014–BT– 

NOA–0012 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

Revisions to Energy Efficiency 

Enforcement Regulations, EERE–2011– 

BT– STD–0005, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

All submissions received must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or RIN for this rulemaking. 

After the close of the comment period, 

DOE will begin collecting data, 

conducting the analyses, and reviewing 

the public comments. These actions will 

be taken to aid in the development of a 

test procedure and energy conservation 

standards Final Rule for Battery 

Chargers. 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of the 

rulemaking process. Interactions with 

and between members of the public 

provide a balanced discussion of the 

issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking 

process. Anyone who wishes to be 

added to the DOE mailing list to receive 

future notices and information about 

this rulemaking should contact Mr. 

Jeremy Dommu at (202) 586–9870, or 

via email at battery_chargers_and_

external_power_supplies@ee.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11213 Filed 5–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–DET–0009] 

RIN 1904–AD27 

Preliminary Determination Regarding 

Energy Efficiency Improvements in 

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1– 

2013: Energy Standard for Buildings, 

Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings 

AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of preliminary 

determination. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) has preliminarily 

determined that the 2013 edition of the 

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 1 Standard 90.1: 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS