11990 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

any significant new information or 

arguments that would warrant the 

requested amendment. Current 

requirements continue to provide 

reasonable assurance of adequate 

protection of public health and safety, 

promote the common defense and 

security, and protect the environment. 

Dated: February 22, 2022. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04052 Filed 3–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2020–BT–STD–0013] 

RIN 1904–AE50 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Battery 

Chargers, Webinar and Availability of 

the Preliminary Technical Support 

Document 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of a webinar and 

availability of preliminary technical 

support document. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) will hold a webinar to 

discuss and receive comments on the 

preliminary analysis it has conducted 

for purposes of evaluating energy 

conservation standards for battery 

chargers. The meeting will cover the 

analytical framework, models, and tools 

that DOE is using to evaluate potential 

standards for this product; the results of 

preliminary analyses performed by DOE 

for this product; the potential energy 

conservation standard levels derived 

from these analyses that DOE could 

consider for this product should it 

determine that proposed amendments 

are necessary; and any other issues 

relevant to the evaluation of energy 

conservation standards for battery 

chargers. In addition, DOE encourages 

written comments on these subjects. To 

inform interested parties and to 

facilitate this process, DOE has prepared 

an agenda, a preliminary technical 

support document (‘‘TSD’’), and briefing 

materials, which are available on the 

DOE website at: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=26&

action=viewlive. 

DATES:

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Thursday, April 21, 2022, from 1:00 

p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section IV, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: Written comments and 

information will be accepted on or 

before, May 2, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2020–BT–STD–0013, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to batterychargers

2020STD0013@ee.doe.gov. Include 

docket number EERE–2020–BT–STD– 

0013 in the subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

IV of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (COVID– 

19) pandemic. DOE is currently 

suspending receipt of public comments 

via postal mail and hand delivery/ 

courier. If a commenter finds that this 

change poses an undue hardship, please 

contact Appliance Standards Program 

staff at (202) 586–1445 to discuss the 

need for alternative arrangements. Once 

the COVID–19 pandemic health 

emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates 

resuming all of its regular options for 

public comment submission, including 

postal mail and hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, public meeting 

transcripts, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, some documents listed in the 

index, such as those containing 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2020-BT-STD-0013. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments in the docket. See section IV 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Rulemaking Process 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

II. Background 

A. Current Standards 

B. Current Process 

III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by 

DOE 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

G. National Impact Analysis 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes 

DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 

a number of consumer products and 

certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6317) Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA 

established the Energy Conservation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11991 

3See 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles. These products 

include battery chargers, the subject of 

this document. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(II); 42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(20)) 

EPCA further provides that, not later 

than 6 years after the issuance of any 

final rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE must publish either a 

notification of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Not 

later than three years after issuance of 

a final determination not to amend 

standards, DOE must publish either a 

notice of determination that standards 

for the product do not need to be 

amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) 

Under EPCA, any new or amended 

energy conservation standard must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

DOE determines is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the 

new or amended standard must result in 

a significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

DOE is publishing this Preliminary 

Analysis to collect data and information 

to inform its decision consistent with its 

obligations under EPCA. 

B. Rulemaking Process 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including battery chargers. As noted, 

EPCA requires that any new or amended 

energy conservation standard prescribed 

by the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) 

be designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency (or 

water efficiency for certain products 

specified by EPCA) that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) The Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

that will not result in significant 

conservation of energy, or is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 

To adopt any new or amended 

standards for a covered product, DOE 

must determine that such action would 

result in significant energy savings. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The significance of 

energy savings offered by a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

cannot be determined without 

knowledge of the specific circumstances 

surrounding a given rulemaking.3 For 

example, the United States rejoined the 

Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. 

As part of that agreement, the United 

States has committed to reducing 

greenhouse gas (‘‘GHG’’) emissions in 

order to limit the rise in mean global 

temperature. As such, energy savings 

that reduce GHG emission have taken 

on greater importance. Additionally, 

some covered products and equipment 

have most of their energy consumption 

occur during periods of peak energy 

demand. The impacts of these products 

on the energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. In 

evaluating the significance of energy 

savings, DOE considers differences in 

primary energy and full-fuel-cycle 

(‘‘FFC’’) effects for different covered 

products and equipment when 

determining whether energy savings are 

significant. Primary energy and FFC 

effects include the energy consumed in 

electricity production (depending on 

load shape), in distribution and 

transmission, and in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus present a more complete 

picture of the impacts of energy 

conservation standards. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. DOE estimates a 

combined total of 0.96 quads of FFC 

energy savings at the max-tech 

efficiency levels for battery chargers. 

This represents a 24 percent energy 

savings relative to the no-new-standards 

case energy consumption for battery 

chargers. DOE has initially determined 

the energy savings for the candidate 

standard levels considered in this 

preliminary analysis are ‘‘significant’’ 

within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B). 

To determine whether a standard is 

economically justified, EPCA requires 

that DOE determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following seven 

factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on the manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the products likely to 

result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

DOE fulfills these and other 

applicable requirements by conducting 

a series of analyses throughout the 

rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the 

individual analyses that are performed 

to satisfy each of the requirements 

within EPCA. 

TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS

EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis 

Significant Energy Savings ................................................................................................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

• Energy Analysis. 

Technological Feasibility ....................................................................................................... • Market and Technology Assessment. 

• Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

Economic Justification: 

1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers ................................................ • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11992 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

4Currently, in compliance with the preliminary 

injunction issued on February 11, 2022, in 

Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. 

La.), DOE is not monetizing the costs of greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS—Continued 

EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis 

• Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis. 

• Shipments Analysis. 

2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for the product .......... • Markups for Product Price Analysis. 

• Energy Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

3. Total projected energy savings .................................................................................. • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

4. Impact on utility or performance ................................................................................ • Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

5. Impact of any lessening of competition ..................................................................... • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

6. Need for national energy and water conservation .................................................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ......................................................... • Employment Impact Analysis. 

• Utility Impact Analysis. 

• Emissions Analysis. 

• Monetization of Emission Reductions 4 Benefits. 

• Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard if interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the standard is likely 

to result in the unavailability in the 

United States in any covered product 

type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Additionally, EPCA specifies 

requirements when promulgating an 

energy conservation standard for a 

covered product that has two or more 

subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level for a type or 

class of product that has the same 

function or intended use, if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group: (A) Consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Finally, pursuant to the amendments 

contained in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), 

Public Law 110–140 (December 19, 

2007), any final rule for new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

promulgated after July 1, 2010, is 

required to address standby mode and 

off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE 

adopts a standard for a covered product 

after that date, it must, if justified by the 

criteria for adoption of standards under 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

into a single standard, or, if that is not 

feasible, adopt a separate standard for 

such energy use for that product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current 

test procedures for battery chargers 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use. In this Preliminary Analysis, 

DOE intends to incorporate such energy 

use into any amended energy 

conservation standards it adopts in the 

final rule. 

Before proposing a standard, DOE 

typically seeks public input on the 

analytical framework, models, and tools 

that DOE intends to use to evaluate 

standards for the product at issue and 

the results of preliminary analyses DOE 

performed for the product. 

DOE is examining whether to amend 

the current standards pursuant to its 

obligations under EPCA. This 

notification announces the availability 

of the preliminary TSD, which details 

the preliminary analyses and 

summarizes the preliminary results of 

DOE’s analyses. In addition, DOE is 

announcing a public meeting to solicit 

feedback from interested parties on its 

analytical framework, models, and 

preliminary results. 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in 

appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR 

stages for an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of 

appendix A states that if the Department 

determines it is appropriate to proceed 

with a rulemaking, the preliminary 

stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend 

an energy conservation standard that 

DOE will undertake will be a framework 

document and preliminary analysis, or 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘ANOPR’’). DOE is opting 

to deviate from this step by publishing 

a preliminary analysis without a 

framework document. A framework 

document is intended to introduce and 

summarize generally the various 

analyses DOE conducts during the 

rulemaking process and requests initial 

feedback from interested parties. As 

discussed further in the following 

section, prior to this notification of the 

preliminary analysis, DOE issued a 

request for information on September 

16, 2020 (‘‘September 2020 RFI’’) in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11993 

5The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to amend standards for battery chargers. 

(Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–TP–0013, which is 

maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references 

are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, 

comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

which DOE discussed the previous 

battery charger energy conservation 

standards final rule published on June 

13, 2016 (81 FR 38266, ‘‘June 2016 Final 

Rule’’). 85 FR 57787. In that RFI, DOE 

requested comment on whether there 

were changes to the technologies 

considered as part of the June 2016 

Final Rule that would affect potential 

amended standards and on any aspect of 

its economic justification analysis. 85 

FR 57787, 57791–57798. While DOE 

received comments on the assumptions 

employed in the analysis conducted in 

support of the June 2016 Final Rule 

(AHAM, No. 7 at p.3 and pp.5–6),5 DOE 

did not receive comments or data 

suggesting DOE rely on a different 

analytical framework from that 

conducted for the June 2016 Final Rule. 

As DOE intends to rely on substantively 

the same analytical methods as in the 

most recent rulemaking, publication of 

a framework document would not 

introduce an analytical framework 

different from that on which comment 

was requested in the September 2020 

RFI and on which comment was 

received. As such, DOE is not 

publishing a framework document. 

Further, section 6(d)(2) of appendix A 

specifies that the length of the public 

comment period for pre-NOPR 

rulemaking documents will vary 

depending upon the circumstances of 

the particular rulemaking, but will not 

be less than 75 calendar days. For this 

preliminary analysis, DOE has opted to 

instead provide a 60-day comment 

period. 

As stated, DOE requested comment in 

the September 2020 RFI on the analysis 

conducted in support of the June 2016 

Final Rule and provided stakeholders a 

75-day comment period. DOE, however, 

did not receive comments suggesting a 

need to substantively change the 

analytical approach previously taken. 

Given that the analysis will largely 

remain the same, and in light of the 75- 

day comment period DOE has already 

provided with its September 2020 RFI, 

DOE has determined that a 60-day 

comment period is sufficient to enable 

interested parties to review the tentative 

methodologies and accompanying 

analysis to develop meaningful 

comments in response to the battery 

charger preliminary analysis. 

II. Background 

A. Current Standards 

In its June 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for battery 

chargers manufactured on and after June 

13, 2018. 81 FR 38266. These standards 

are set forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 

CFR 430.32(z) and are repeated in Table 

II.1. The currently applicable DOE test 

procedure for battery chargers appears 

at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix 

Y (‘‘Appendix Y’’). 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS

Product 

class 

Maximum UEC 

(kWh/yr) 

(as a function of rated 

battery energy (‘‘Ebatt’’)) 

1 ............... 3.04. 

2 ............... 0.1440 * Ebatt + 2.95. 

3 ............... For Ebatt <10 Wh, 1.42 kWh/y, 

Ebatt ≥10 Wh, 0.0255 * Ebatt + 

1.16. 

4 ............... 0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18. 

5 ............... 0.0257 * Ebatt + .815. 

6 ............... 0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4. 

7 ............... 0.0502 * Ebatt + 4.53. 

B. Current Process 

On September 16, 2020, DOE initiated 

an early assessment RFI review to 

determine whether any new or amended 

standards would satisfy the relevant 

requirements of EPCA for a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

for battery chargers. 85 FR 57787 

(‘‘September 2020 Early Assessment 

Review RFI’’). Through that RFI, DOE 

sought data and information that could 

enable the agency to determine whether 

DOE should propose a ‘‘no new 

standard’’ determination because a more 

stringent standard: (1) Would not result 

in a significant savings of energy; (2) is 

not technologically feasible; (3) is not 

economically justified; or (4) any 

combination of foregoing. Id. 

Comments received to date as part of 

the current process have helped DOE 

identify and resolve issues related to the 

preliminary analyses. Chapter 2 of the 

preliminary TSD summarizes and 

addresses the comments received. 

III. Summary of the Analyses 

Performed by DOE 

For the battery chargers covered in 

this preliminary analysis, DOE 

conducted in-depth technical analyses 

in the following areas: (1) Engineering; 

(2) markups to determine product price; 

(3) energy use; (4) life cycle cost 

(‘‘LCC’’) and payback period (‘‘PBP’’); 

and (5) national impacts. The 

preliminary TSD that presents the 

methodology and results of each of 

these analyses is available at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2020-BT-STD-0013. 

DOE also conducted, and has 

included in the preliminary TSD, 

several other analyses that support the 

major analyses or are preliminary 

analyses that will be expanded if DOE 

determines that a NOPR is warranted to 

propose amended energy conservation 

standards. These analyses include: (1) 

The market and technology assessment; 

(2) the screening analysis, which 

contributes to the engineering analysis; 

and (3) the shipments analysis, which 

contributes to the LCC and PBP analysis 

and the national impact analysis 

(‘‘NIA’’). In addition to these analyses, 

DOE has begun preliminary work on the 

manufacturer impact analysis and has 

identified the methods to be used for the 

consumer subgroup analysis, the 

emissions analysis, the employment 

impact analysis, the regulatory impact 

analysis, and the utility impact analysis. 

DOE will expand on these analyses in 

the NOPR should one be issued. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including general characteristics of the 

products, the industry structure, 

manufacturers, market characteristics, 

and technologies used in the products. 

This activity includes both quantitative 

and qualitative assessments, based 

primarily on publicly available 

information. The subjects addressed in 

the market and technology assessment 

include: (1) A determination of the 

scope of the rulemaking and product 

classes, (2) manufacturers and industry 

structure, (3) existing efficiency 

programs, (4) shipments information, (5) 

market and industry trends, and (6) 

technologies or design options that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

the product. 

See chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD 

for further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following five screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in working 

prototypes will not be considered 

further. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11994 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the 

price of baseline products, using the same markup 

for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 

result in higher per-unit operating profit. While 

such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in 

markets that are reasonably competitive it is 

unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable 

increase in profitability in the long run. 

7The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states 

and U.S. territories. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the projected compliance 

date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If it is determined 

that a technology would have a 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product for significant subgroups 

of consumers or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If it is determined that a 

technology would have significant 

adverse impacts on health or safety, it 

will not be considered further. 

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies. If a design option utilizes 

proprietary technology that represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, that technology will not 

be considered further due to the 

potential for monopolistic concerns. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). 

If DOE determines that a technology, 

or a combination of technologies, fails to 

meet one or more of the listed five 

criteria, it will be excluded from further 

consideration in the engineering 

analysis. 

See chapter 4 of the preliminary TSD 

for further discussion of the screening 

analysis. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of 

battery chargers. There are two elements 

to consider in the engineering analysis; 

the selection of efficiency levels to 

analyze (i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) 

and the determination of product cost at 

each efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

products, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each product class, DOE estimates 

the manufacturer production cost 

(‘‘MPC’’) for the baseline as well as 

higher efficiency levels. The output of 

the engineering analysis is a set of costefficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are used in 

downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and 

PBP analyses and the NIA). 

DOE converts the MPC to the 

manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) by 

applying a manufacturer markup. The 

MSP is the price the manufacturer 

charges its first customer, when selling 

into the product distribution channels. 

The manufacturer markup accounts for 

manufacturer non-production costs and 

profit margin. DOE developed the 

manufacturer markup by examining 

publicly available financial information 

for manufacturers of the covered 

product. 

See chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD 

for additional detail on the engineering 

analysis. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 

markups, distributor markups, 

contractor markups) in the distribution 

chain and sales taxes to convert MSP 

estimates derived in the engineering 

analysis to consumer prices, which are 

then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. 

At each step in the distribution channel, 

companies mark up the price of the 

product to cover business costs and 

profit margin. 

DOE developed baseline and 

incremental markups for each actor in 

the distribution chain. Baseline 

markups are applied to the price of 

products with baseline efficiency, while 

incremental markups are applied to the 

difference in price between baseline and 

higher-efficiency models (the 

incremental cost increase). The 

incremental markup is typically less 

than the baseline markup and is 

designed to maintain similar per-unit 

operating profit before and after new or 

amended standards.6

Chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD 

provides details on DOE’s development 

of markups for battery chargers. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of battery chargers 

at different efficiencies in representative 

U.S. households and businesses, and to 

assess the energy savings potential of 

increased battery charger efficiency. The 

energy use analysis estimates the range 

of energy use of battery chargers in the 

field (i.e., as they are actually used by 

consumers). The energy use analysis 

provides the basis for other analyses 

DOE performed, particularly 

assessments of the energy savings and 

the savings in consumer operating costs 

that could result from adopting 

amended or new standards. 

Chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD 

addresses the energy use analysis. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

The effect of new or amended energy 

conservation standards on individual 

consumers usually involves a reduction 

in operating cost and an increase in 

purchase cost. DOE used the following 

two metrics to measure consumer 

impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an appliance or product over 

the life of that product, consisting of 

total installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the product. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD 

addresses the LCC and PBP analyses. 

G. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA estimates the national energy 

savings (‘‘NES’’) and the net present 

value (‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer costs 

and savings expected to result from 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels (referred to as candidate standard 

levels).7 DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV for the potential standard levels 

considered based on projections of 

annual product shipments, along with 

the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data from the energy 

use and LCC analyses. For the present 

analysis, DOE projected the energy 

savings, operating cost savings, product 

costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 

over the lifetime of battery chargers sold 

from 2027 through 2056. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11995 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections (‘‘no-new-standards 

case’’). The no-new-standards case 

characterizes energy use and consumer 

costs for each product class in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. For this 

projection, DOE considers historical 

trends in efficiency and various forces 

that are likely to affect the mix of 

efficiencies over time. DOE compares 

the no-new-standards case with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels for that class. For each 

efficiency level, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of product with 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each efficiency level. Interested 

parties can review DOE’s analyses by 

changing various input quantities 

within the spreadsheet. The NIA 

spreadsheet model uses typical values 

(as opposed to probability distributions) 

as inputs. Critical inputs to this analysis 

include shipments projections, 

estimated product lifetimes, product 

installed costs and operating costs, 

product annual energy consumption, 

the base case efficiency projection, and 

discount rates. 

DOE estimates a combined total of 

0.96 quads of FFC energy savings at the 

max-tech efficiency levels for battery 

chargers. Combined FFC energy savings 

at Efficiency Level 1 for all product/ 

equipment classes are estimated to be 

0.28 quads. 

Chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD 

addresses the NIA. 

IV. Public Participation 

DOE invites public participation in 

this process through participation in the 

webinar and submission of written 

comments and information. After the 

webinar and the closing of the comment 

period, DOE will consider all timelysubmitted comments and additional 

information obtained from interested 

parties, as well as information obtained 

through further analyses. Following 

such consideration, the Department will 

publish either a determination that the 

standards for battery chargers need not 

be amended or a NOPR proposing to 

amend those standards. The NOPR, 

should one be issued, would include 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for the products covered by that 

rulemaking, and members of the public 

would be given an opportunity to 

submit written and oral comments on 

the proposed standards. 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date for the webinar 

meeting are listed in the DATES section 

at the beginning of this document. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s website: 

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/publicmeetings-and-comment-deadlines. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this document, or 

who is 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 

webinar. Such persons may submit such 

request to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in Microsoft Word, PDF, 

or text (ASCII) file format that briefly 

describes the nature of their interest in 

this rulemaking and the topics they 

wish to discuss. Such persons should 

also provide a daytime telephone 

number where they can be reached. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this document and provide a 

telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons selected to make an 

oral presentation to submit an advance 

copy of their statements at least two 

weeks before the webinar. At its 

discretion, 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 Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar 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). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

webinar. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar and 

until the end of the comment period, 

interested parties may submit further 

comments on the proceedings and any 

aspect of the Preliminary Analysis. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present a general overview of the topics 

addressed in this Preliminary Analysis, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

Preliminary Analysis. Each participant 

will be allowed to make a general 

statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

permit, as time allows, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

Preliminary Analysis. The official 

conducting the webinar will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

document. In addition, any person may 

buy a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties, 

regardless of whether they participate in 

the public meeting, to submit in writing 

by May 2, 2022, comments and 

information on matters addressed in this 

notification and on other matters 

relevant to DOE’s consideration of 

amended energy conservations 

standards for battery chargers. Interested 

parties may submit comments, data, and 

other information using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11996 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. If 

this instruction is followed, persons 

viewing comments will see only first 

and last names, organization names, 

correspondence containing comments, 

and any documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to 

www.regulations.gov. information for 

which disclosure is restricted by statute, 

such as trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business 

Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments 

submitted through www.regulations.gov 

cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments 

received through the website will waive 

any CBI claims for the information 

submitted. For information on 

submitting CBI, see the Confidential 

Business Information section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. 

Provide documents that are not secured, 

that are written in English, and that are 

free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of a 

webinar and availability of preliminary 

technical support document. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on February 25, 

2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 

from the Secretary of Energy. That 

document with the original signature 

and date is maintained by DOE. For 

administrative purposes only, and in 

compliance with requirements of the 

Office of the Federal Register, the 

undersigned DOE Federal Register 

Liaison Officer has been authorized to 

sign and submit the document in 

electronic format for publication, as an 

official document of the Department of 

Energy. This administrative process in 

no way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on February 28, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04495 Filed 3–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Parts 700, 701, 702, 708a, 708b, 

750 and 790 

[NCUA–2022–0008] 

RIN 3133–AF41 

Asset Threshold for Determining the 

Appropriate Supervisory Office 

AGENCY: National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The NCUA Board (Board) is 

proposing to amend its regulations to 

revise the $10 billion asset threshold 

used for assigning supervision of 

consumer federally insured credit 

unions (FICUs) to the Office of National 

Examinations and Supervision (ONES). 

The proposed rule would only apply to 

FICUs whose assets are $10 billion or 

more (covered credit unions). The 

proposed rule would provide that 

covered credit unions with less than $15 

billion in total assets (tier I covered 

credit unions) not currently supervised 

by ONES will be supervised by the 

appropriate NCUA Regional Office. Tier 

I covered credit unions currently 

supervised by ONES and covered credit 

unions with $15 billion and more in 

total assets (tier II and tier III covered 

credit unions) would continue to be 

supervised by ONES. The proposed rule 

would not alter any regulatory 

requirements for covered credit unions. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 2, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments, identified by RIN 3133– 

AF41, by any of the following methods 

(please send comments by one method 

only): 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. The docket 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS