13318 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

project, and/or potential economic 

impact if such data are available and 

relevant to the project. 

(5) Expected measurable outcomes. 

For each project, describe at least one 

distinct, quantifiable, and measurable 

outcome-oriented objective that directly 

and meaningfully supports the project’s 

purpose. The measurable outcomeoriented objective must define an event 

or condition that is external to the 

project and that is of direct importance 

to the intended beneficiaries and/or the 

public. Outcome measures may be long 

term that exceed the grant period. 

Describe how performance toward 

meeting outcomes will be monitored. 

For each project, include a performancemonitoring plan to describe the process 

of collecting and analyzing data to meet 

the outcome-oriented objectives. 

(6) Work plan. For each project, 

explain briefly the activities that will be 

performed to accomplish the objectives 

of the project. Be clear about who will 

do the work. Include appropriate time 

lines. 

(7) Budget narrative. The limit on 

indirect costs, not to exceed 10 percent, 

will be published in a Federal Register 

notice each fiscal year. Provide a 

justification if indirect costs exceed 10 

percent or exceed that fiscal year’s limit 

as announced in the Federal Register. 

Provide in sufficient detail information 

about the budget categories listed on 

SF–424A for each project to 

demonstrate that grant funds are being 

expended on eligible grant activities 

that meet the purpose of the program. 

(8) Project oversight. Describe the 

oversight practices that provide 

sufficient knowledge of grant activities 

to ensure proper and efficient 

administration for each project. 

(9) Project commitment. Describe how 

all grant partners commit to and work 

toward the goals and outcome measures 

of each proposed project(s). 

(10) Multi-state projects. If the project 

is a multi-state project, describe how the 

states are going to collaborate effectively 

with related projects with one state 

assuming the coordinating role. Indicate 

the percent of the budget covered by 

each state. 

■ 7. Revise the last sentence of 

§ 1291.10(d) to read as follows: 

§ 1291.10 Reporting and oversight 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * If AMS, after reasonable 

notice to a State, and opportunity to be 

heard, finds that there has been a failure 

by the State to comply substantially 

with any provision or requirement of 

the State plan, AMS may disqualify, for 

one or more years, the State from receipt 

of future grants under the SCBGP or 

SCBGP–FB. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 23, 2009. 

Robert C. Keeney, 

Acting Associate Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–6816 Filed 3–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0004] 

RIN 1904–AB75 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Battery Chargers and 

External Power Supplies (Standby 

Mode and Off Mode) 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is amending its test procedures 

for battery chargers (BCs) and external 

power supplies (EPSs) to include 

provisions for measuring standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption, as 

directed by the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). 

Furthermore, DOE is adding to its 

single-voltage external power supply 

test procedure specifications for testing 

switch-selectable external power 

supplies. Finally, DOE is extending the 

current certification reporting 

requirements to the Class A external 

power supplies for which Congress 

established energy efficiency standards 

in EISA 2007. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 27, 

2009. The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on April 27, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of 

all materials related to this rulemaking 

at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, 

(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. Please note: 

The Department’s Freedom of 

Information Reading Room no longer 

houses rulemaking materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Victor Petrolati, 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) 586–4549. E-mail: 

Victor.Petrolati@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Francine Pinto, Esq., or Mr. 

Michael Kido, Esq., U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC– 

72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–7432, or (202) 586–8145. Email: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov or 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference, into part 

430 the following industry standard: 

• California Energy Commission 

(CEC), ‘‘Test Method for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage 

External AC–DC and AC–AC Power 

Supplies,’’ August 11, 2004. 

You can obtain free copies of the CEC 

Test Method from the California Energy 

Commission, 1516 Ninth Street, MS–25, 

Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 654–4091, 

or http:// 

www.efficientpowersupplies.org/ 

methods.asp. 

The following standards are referred 

to in the DOE test procedures and 

elsewhere in this part, but are not 

incorporated by reference. These 

sources are provided solely for 

information and guidance. 

• IEC 62301, ‘‘Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power,’’ First Edition, June 13, 2005. 

• IEC 60050, ‘‘International 

Electrotechnical Vocabulary.’’ 

• IEEE 1515–2000, ‘‘IEEE 

Recommended Practice for Electronic 

Power Subsystems: Parameter 

Definitions, Test Conditions, and Test 

Methods,’’ March 30, 2000. 

• IEEE 100, ‘‘Authoritative Dictionary 

of IEEE Standards Terms,’’ Seventh 

Edition, January 1, 2006. 

You can purchase copies of IEC 

Standards 62301 and 60050 from the 

American National Standards Institute, 

11 West 42nd Street, New York, New 

York 10036, (212) 642–4936, or http:// 

webstore.iec.ch. 

You can purchase copies of IEEE 

Standards 1515–2000 and 100 from the 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers, Inc., 3 Park Avenue, 17th 

Floor, New York, NY 10016–5997, (212) 

419–7900, or http://www.ieee.org/web/ 

publications/standards. 

You can also view copies of these 

standards at 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 13319 

1This part was originally titled Part B; however, 

it was redesignated Part A after Part B was repealed 

by Public Law 109–58. 

2The terms ‘‘AC’’ and ‘‘DC’’ refer to the polarity 

(i.e., direction) and amplitude of current and 

voltage associated with electrical power. For 

example, a household wall socket supplies 

alternating current (AC), which varies in amplitude 

and reverses polarity. In contrast, a battery or solar 

cell supplies direct current (DC), which is constant 

in both amplitude and polarity. 

3The full EISA 2007 definition of a class A 

external power supply includes a device that ‘‘(I) 

is designed to convert line voltage AC input into 

lower voltage AC or DC output; (II) is able to 

convert to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time; 

(III) is sold with, or intended to be used with, a 

separate end-use product that constitutes the 

primary load; (IV) is contained in a separate 

physical enclosure from the end-use product; (V) is 

connected to the end-use product via a removable 

or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, 

cable, cord, or other wiring; and (VI) has nameplate 

output power that is less than or equal to 250 

watts.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)). 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Legal Authority 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. Standby Mode and Off Mode Definitions 

and Test Procedures 

B. Clarification of Test Procedure 

Definitions 

C. Switch-Selectable Single-Voltage EPSs 

D. Certification Requirements for EPSs 

E. Proposed Amendments Not Adopted in 

the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Standby Mode and Off Mode Definitions 

1. Harmonization of Standby and Off Mode 

Definitions 

2. Differentiation Between EPS No-Load 

Mode and BC No-Battery Mode 

3. Clarification of the Definition of the OnOff Switch 

B. Standby Mode and Off Mode Test 

Procedures 

1. Specifying the Duration of the BC 

Standby and Off Mode Tests 

2. Clarifying the BC Standby Mode Test for 

Integral-Battery Products 

3. Obviating EPS Standby Mode Testing 

Through End-Use Product Testing 

4. Modifying the Stability Requirement for 

Measuring EPS Energy Consumption 

5. Clarifying the Assessment Point for AC 

Input Power Into the EPS 

6. Clarifying the Disconnection Point for 

Standby Mode Testing for Systems With 

More Than Two Major Enclosures 

7. Specifying and Reporting the Shunt 

Resistance Value Used During EPS 

Measurement 

8. Excluding EPSs That Do Not Operate in 

Standby or No-Load Modes From 

Standby Mode Testing 

C. Clarification of Test Procedure 

Definitions 

1. Clarification of the Definition of 

‘‘Consumer Product’’ 

2. Insertion of Additional Definitions 

Identifying Specific BC Configurations 

D. Switch-Selectable Single-Voltage EPSs 

E. Certification Requirements for EPSs 

1. Data Reporting Method 

2. Clarification of ‘‘Certification’’ Versus 

‘‘Declaration’’ 

3. Exemption From Certification 

Requirements of Products That 

Previously Qualified Under the ENERGY 

STAR Program 

4. Data Necessary to Certify Compliance 

5. Reporting of Data Absent a Complete 

Nameplate 

6. Definitions of ‘‘Basic Model’’ and 

‘‘Design Family’’ 

IV. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions on 

Compliance With Standards 

V. Procedural Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

E. Executive Order 13132 

F. Executive Order 12988 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

H. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Executive Order 12630 

J. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Executive Order 13211 

L. Section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Background and Legal Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; EPCA) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part A 1 of 

title III (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.’’ The consumer 

(‘‘covered products’’) currently subject 

to this program include battery chargers 

and external power supplies (referred to 

respectively as ‘‘BCs’’ and ‘‘EPSs’’). 

Manufacturers of covered products are 

required to use the relevant DOE test 

procedures to certify compliance with 

the energy conservation standards 

adopted under EPCA. 

Section 323(b) of EPCA authorizes 

DOE to amend or establish new test 

procedures as appropriate for each of 

the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)) This section provides that 

‘‘[a]ny test procedures prescribed or 

amended under this section shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, water use (in the 

case of showerheads, faucets, water 

closets and urinals), or estimated annual 

operating cost of a covered product 

during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use, as determined by 

the Secretary [of Energy], and shall not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In addition, EPCA 

states that DOE ‘‘shall determine, in the 

rulemaking carried out with respect to 

prescribing such procedure, to what 

extent, if any, the proposed test 

procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency, measured energy use, 

or measured water use of any covered 

product as determined under the 

existing test procedure.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) 

Of particular relevance to the present 

test procedure rulemaking, section 135 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPACT), Public Law 109–58, amended 

sections 321 and 325 of EPCA by 

providing definitions for BCs and EPSs 

and directing the Secretary to prescribe 

‘‘definitions and test procedures for the 

power use of battery chargers and 

external power supplies.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(1)(A)) DOE complied with this 

requirement by publishing a test 

procedure final rule, 71 FR 71340, on 

December 8, 2006, which included 

definitions and test procedures for BCs 

and EPSs. DOE codified the test 

procedure for BCs in appendix Y to 

subpart B of part 430 in title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

(‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring 

the Energy Consumption of Battery 

Chargers’’) and the test procedure for 

EPSs in appendix Z to subpart B of 10 

CFR part 430 (‘‘Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

External Power Supplies’’). 

On December 19, 2007, the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140, 

amended sections 321, 323, and 325 of 

EPCA, prompting DOE to propose 

amendments to its test procedures for 

BCs and EPSs. These amendments were 

published in the August 15, 2008, notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), 73 FR 

48054. 

Section 301 of EISA 2007 amended 

section 321 of EPCA by modifying 

definitions concerning EPSs. EPACT 

had amended EPCA to define 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.’’ 2 (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) 

Section 301 of EISA 2007 further 

amended this definition by creating a 

subset of EPSs called Class A External 

Power Supplies. EISA 2007 defined this 

subset as those EPSs that, in addition to 

meeting several other requirements 

common to all EPSs,3 are ‘‘able to 

convert to only 1 AC or DC output 

voltage at a time’’ and have ‘‘nameplate 

output power that is less than or equal 

to 250 watts.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)) 

Section 301 also amended EPCA to 

establish minimum standards for these 

products, which became effective on 

July 1, 2008 (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A)), 

and directed DOE to publish a final rule 

by July 1, 2011, to determine whether to 

amend these energy conservation 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
13320 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

standards for EPSs. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(3)(D)) 

In addition, section 309 of EISA 2007 

amended section 325(u)(1)(E) of EPCA, 

instructing DOE to issue ‘‘a final rule 

that determines whether energy 

conservation standards shall be issued 

for external power supplies or classes of 

external power supplies.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I)) As explained in the 

August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

interpreted this section as a requirement 

to determine by December 19, 2009, 

whether energy conservation standards 

shall be issued for non-Class A EPSs. 

See 73 FR 48054, 48056. 

Section 310 of EISA 2007 amended 

section 325 of EPCA to establish 

definitions for active mode, standby 

mode, and off mode. This section also 

directed DOE to amend its existing test 

procedures by December 31, 2008, to 

measure the energy consumed in 

standby mode and off mode for both 

BCs and EPSs. Further, it authorized the 

Department to amend, by rule, any of 

the definitions for active, standby, and 

off mode as long as the Department 

takes into consideration the most 

current versions of Standards 62301 

(‘‘Household Electrical Appliances— 

Measurement of Standby Power’’) and 

62087 (‘‘Methods of Measurement for 

the Power Consumption of Audio, 

Video and Related Equipment’’) of the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC). (See EPCA, section 

325(gg)(2)(A), codified at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A).) 

DOE’s proposals were presented and 

explained at a public meeting on 

September 12, 2008. DOE invited 

written comments, data, and 

information on the NOPR and accepted 

such material through October 29, 2008. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

In this final rule, DOE is modifying 

the current test procedures for BCs and 

EPSs. The amendments achieve the 

following objectives: 

(1) Address the statutory requirement 

to expand test procedures to incorporate 

measurement of standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption for BCs and 

single-voltage EPSs, including switchselectable single-voltage EPSs; 

(2) Clarify the existing single-voltage 

EPS test procedure by revising existing 

definitions and adopting new ones; and 

(3) Incorporate certification 

requirements for EPSs subject to 

minimum efficiency standards effective 

July 1, 2008. 

Table 1 lists the sections of 10 CFR 

part 430 affected by the amendments 

promulgated in this final rule. The left 

column in the table cites the locations 

of the provisions in the CFR that are 

being changed, while the right lists the 

changes themselves. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROMULGATED IN THIS FINAL RULE AND AFFECTED SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PART 430 

Existing section in 10 CFR part 430 Summary of modifications 

Section 430.2 of Subpart A—Definitions .................................................. • Defines an external power supply design family. 

Section 430.4 of Subpart A—Reference Sources ................................... • Inserts new technical references. 

Section 430.23 of Subpart B—Test Procedures for the Measurement of 

Energy and Water Consumption.

• Modifies ‘‘(aa) battery charger’’ and ‘‘(bb) external power supply’’ to 

include energy consumption in standby mode and off mode. 

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers.

1. Scope ............................................................................................ • No change. 

2. Definitions ...................................................................................... • Modifies the definition for standby mode. 

• Inserts definitions for cradle, manual on-off switch, and off mode. 

3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions ..................................... • No change. 

4. Test Measurement ........................................................................ • Inserts procedures to measure energy consumption in standby mode 

and off mode. 

Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies.

1. Scope ............................................................................................ • Modifies scope to encompass all types of energy consumption of external power supplies. 

2. Definitions ...................................................................................... • Clarifies existing definitions for: 

Active mode 

Æ Active mode efficiency 

Æ No-load mode 

Æ Total harmonic distortion 

Æ True power factor 

• Inserts new definitions for: 

Æ Active power 

Æ Ambient temperature 

Æ Apparent power 

Æ Instantaneous power 

Æ Manual on-off switch 

Æ Minimum output current 

Æ Multiple-voltage external power supply 

Æ Nameplate input frequency 

Æ Nameplate input voltage 

Æ Nameplate output current 

Æ Nameplate output power 

Æ Nameplate output voltage 

Æ Off mode 

Æ Output bus 

Æ Standby mode 

Æ Switch-selectable single-voltage external power supply 

Æ Unit under test 

3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions ..................................... • Divides section 3 into 3(a) for single-voltage EPSs and 3(b) for multiple-voltage EPSs. 

• Maintains the existing test procedure for single-voltage EPSs in 3(a). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 13321 

4 IEC 62301, ‘‘Household Electrical Appliances— 

Measurement of Standby Power,’’ International 

Electrotechnical Commission, First edition, June 

2005. 

5 IEC 62087, ‘‘Methods of Measurement for the 

Power Consumption of Audio, Video and Related 

Equipment,’’ International Electrotechnical 

Commission, Second edition, October 2008. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROMULGATED IN THIS FINAL RULE AND AFFECTED SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PART 430— 

Continued 

Existing section in 10 CFR part 430 Summary of modifications 

• Reserves section 3(b) for a future multiple-voltage EPS test procedure. 

4. Test Measurement ........................................................................ • Divides section 4 into 4(a) for single-voltage EPSs and 4(b) for multiple-voltage EPSs. 

Æ Maintains the existing active and standby mode test procedure for 

single-voltage EPSs in 4(a)(i). 

Æ Inserts new off mode test procedure for single voltage EPSs in 

4(a)(ii). 

Æ Reserves section 4(b) for a future multiple-voltage EPS test procedure. 

Section 430.62 of Subpart F—Submission of Data ................................. • Inserts submission requirement for active mode efficiency and noload power consumption data for EPSs and switch-selectable singlevoltage EPSs. 

DOE believes that today’s 

amendments neither alter the measured 

energy efficiency of the tested products 

nor add any burden on the industry 

because the changes only (1) clarify 

existing test procedures or (2) insert test 

procedures for modes that are not 

regulated by standards. Thus, DOE is 

amending its test procedures as 

summarized in the following sections. 

A. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Definitions and Test Procedures 

As explained in the August 15, 2008, 

NOPR, the standby and off mode 

definitions created by EISA 2007 do not 

apply to all BCs and EPSs. Therefore, 

following the requisite consideration of 

IEC standards 623014 and 62087,5 DOE 

proposed amended definitions. 

In today’s final rule, DOE (1) adopts 

amended definitions of standby mode 

and off mode for BCs and EPSs, (2) 

revises the test procedures to measure 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption for BCs and EPSs; and (3) 

includes a definition of a ‘‘manual onoff switch’’ to clarify the application of 

the above test procedures. A detailed 

discussion of the definitions and test 

procedures for standby and off mode 

can be found in sections III.A and III.B 

below. 

B. Clarification of Test Procedure 

Definitions 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

proposed amendments to the definitions 

to improve the clarity of the existing test 

procedures. Through written and oral 

comments, stakeholders suggested 

additional clarifications to the 

definitions. Accordingly, in today’s final 

rule, DOE is modifying the definitions 

of numerous terms, listed in Table 1. A 

detailed discussion of these definitions 

can be found in section III.C. 

C. Switch-Selectable Single-Voltage 

EPSs 

DOE proposed in the August 15, 2008, 

NOPR a method for testing singlevoltage EPSs that incorporate a switchselectable output voltage. For these 

EPSs, DOE proposed that testing be 

conducted twice: first with the output 

voltage set to the highest voltage and 

then with the output voltage set to the 

lowest voltage. Stakeholders did not 

oppose this proposal; therefore, DOE is 

including it in this final rule. Section 

III.D provides a brief discussion of 

testing requirements for switchselectable EPSs. 

D. Certification Requirements for EPSs 

Manufacturers of covered and 

regulated products must report to DOE 

that the products they manufacture 

comply with applicable energy 

conservation standards. To demonstrate 

compliance with EISA 2007 standards 

for Class A EPSs manufacturers must: 

(1) Select a representative sample of 

units, (2) test them according to the DOE 

test procedure, and (3) certify the 

compliance of the EPS model(s) based 

on the test results of the sample. 

DOE proposed sampling requirements 

for BCs and EPSs on July 25, 2006. 71 

FR 42178, 42204. While some of the 

provisions from that proposal were 

finalized in the December 8, 2006, final 

rule, 71 FR 71340, the sampling 

requirements are in the process of being 

finalized in a separate rulemaking 

proceeding. Manufacturers are not 

required to certify compliance with 

EISA 2007 standards to DOE until these 

sampling requirements are finalized; 

however, manufacturers are required to 

be in compliance with the standards. 

DOE also proposed test procedures for 

measuring the energy efficiency of BCs 

(appendix Y) and EPSs (appendix Z) in 

the July 25, 2006, NOPR. 71 FR 42178, 

42206–42207. These were finalized in 

the December 8, 2006, final rule, 71 FR 

71340, 71368. Amendments to these test 

procedures are discussed in sections 

III.A, III.B, III.C, and III.D. 

Finally, DOE proposed definitions of 

‘‘basic model’’ and ‘‘covered product’’ 

as they apply to BCs and EPSs in the 

July 25, 2006, NOPR. 71 FR 42178, 

42203. The December 8, 2006, final rule 

inserted these definitions into 10 CFR 

430.2. 71 FR 71340, 71365–71366. 

However, because of the absence of 

standards, DOE did not propose 

certification requirements for EPSs or 

BCs in the July 25, 2006 NOPR. 

Following the passage of EISA 2007 on 

December 19, 2007, and the 

establishment of mandatory standards 

for Class A EPSs, DOE proposed 

certification requirements for Class A 

EPSs in the August 15, 2008, NOPR. 73 

FR 48054, 48072–48076. In addition, 

DOE considered an alternate 

methodology by which manufacturers 

would certify the compliance of each 

basic model, but only submit test results 

for the highest- and lowest-voltage basic 

models within a design family (i.e., a 

group of similar models that differ only 

by output voltage). 73 FR 48054, 48073– 

48074 (August 15, 2008). Based on 

stakeholder comments, DOE is 

including this methodology in today’s 

final rule, as discussed further in 

section III.E. 

E. Proposed Amendments Not Adopted 

in the Final Rule 

DOE also proposed several other 

amendments to the EPS test procedure. 

Due to the number of stakeholder 

comments and the limited timeframe for 

this rulemaking, DOE has decided to 

postpone consideration of these 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
13322 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

6For BCs, the two modes were proposed to be 

equivalent; however, in the final rule, DOE is 

dropping the term ‘‘no-load mode’’ in favor of ‘‘nobattery mode.’’ For EPSs, the two modes are similar: 

standby mode is no-load mode, except with all 

manual on-off switches turned on. However, 

because the no-load mode test procedure already 

requires that the EPS be tested with all manual onoff switches turned on, the test procedure for noload mode and standby mode are the same. 

7A notation in the form ‘‘Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 

at p. 71’’ identifies an oral comment that DOE 

received during the September 12, 2008, NOPR 

public meeting. This comment was recorded in the 

public meeting transcript in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0004), 

maintained in the Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program. This particular notation 

refers to a comment (1) recorded in document 

number 17, which is the public meeting transcript 

filed in the docket of this rulemaking and (2) 

appearing on page 71 of document number 17. 

8A notation in the form ‘‘EPA, No. 31 at p. 1’’ 

identifies a written comment that DOE has received 

and has included in the docket of this rulemaking. 

This particular notation refers to (1) a comment 

submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), (2) in document number 31 in the docket of 

this rulemaking, and (3) appearing on page 1 of 

document number 37. 

9The development of this test procedure was 

funded by the California Energy Commission’s 

Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER), 

proposals and exclude them from this 

final rule. 

The August 15, 2008, NOPR proposed 

to amend the EPS test procedure to 

allow for testing of multiple-voltage 

EPSs, a type of EPS subject to the nonClass A determination analysis. Because 

no test procedure currently exists to 

measure the efficiency or energy 

consumption of multiple-voltage EPSs, 

DOE developed a proposed test 

procedure. See 73 FR 48054, 48064– 

48068 (August 15, 2008). Due to the 

limited time provided by EISA 2007 and 

limited resources available prior to the 

publication of this final rule, DOE was 

unable to address the large number of 

stakeholder comments received and 

decided to defer action on multiplevoltage EPSs to a 2009 rulemaking. 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

also considered making limited changes 

to the test setup and measurement 

instructions for single-voltage EPSs that 

would have been modeled on its 

proposed test procedure for multiplevoltage EPSs. These changes were 

intended to reduce the testing burden 

and improve the accuracy and 

repeatability of measurement by 

accounting for the limitations of test 

equipment and laboratory conditions. 

Stakeholders from environmental and 

consumer groups as well as other 

standard-setting organizations, however, 

were concerned that modifying the EPS 

single-voltage test procedure would 

undo international efforts to enact 

consistent test procedures and standards 

for single-voltage EPSs. Because of these 

negative comments, DOE decided to 

exclude any amendments affecting the 

measurement of single-voltage EPSs in 

active and no-load modes from this final 

rule. 

Lastly, this final rule does not include 

an active mode test procedure for BCs. 

Because DOE did not include an active 

mode BC test procedure in the August 

15, 2008, NOPR, including one in this 

particular final rule would have 

prevented the public from having an 

opportunity to comment on this issue. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE does, 

however, intend to propose an active 

mode BC test procedure in 2009 and 

solicit comments to address this issue in 

greater detail. 

III. Discussion 

A. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Definitions 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

proposed that for BCs, standby mode (or 

no-load mode) 6 is ‘‘the condition in 

which (1) the battery charger is 

connected to the main electricity 

supply; (2) the battery is not connected 

to the charger; and (3) for battery 

chargers with manual on-off switches, 

all switches are turned on.’’ 73 FR 

48054, 48060. Off mode is the 

condition, for battery chargers with 

manual on-off switches, ‘‘in which the 

battery charger is (1) connected to the 

main electricity supply; (2) is not 

connected to the battery; and (3) all 

switches are turned off.’’ 73 FR 48054, 

48061 (August 15, 2008). 

DOE proposed similar definitions for 

EPSs, except that in standby and off 

modes, EPSs were to be disconnected 

from their loads rather than from a 

battery. DOE proposed to define standby 

mode to mean ‘‘the condition in which 

the EPS is in no-load mode and, for 

external power supplies with on-off 

switches, all switches are turned on,’’ 73 

FR 48054, 48062 (August 15, 2008), and 

no-load mode to mean ‘‘the mode of 

operation when an EPS is connected to 

the main electricity supply and the 

output is (or ‘‘all outputs are’’ for a 

multiple-voltage external power supply) 

not connected to a load (or ‘‘loads’’ for 

a multiple-voltage external power 

supply.),’’ 73 FR 48054, 48062 (August 

15, 2008). DOE also proposed to define 

off mode as ‘‘the condition, applicable 

only to units having on-off switches, in 

which the external power supply is (1) 

connected to the main electricity 

supply; (2) the output is not connected 

to any load; and (3) all switches are 

turned off.’’ 73 FR 48054, 48063 (August 

15, 2008). 

DOE received comments on three 

issues related to the proposed 

definitions for standby and off mode: (1) 

Harmonization of the standby and off 

mode definitions with international 

standards; (2) differentiation between 

EPS no-load mode and BC no-battery 

mode; and (3) clarification of the 

definition of the on-off switch used to 

distinguish standby mode from off mode 

for both BCs and EPSs. A discussion of 

stakeholder comments on these issues is 

presented below. 

1. Harmonization of Standby and Off 

Mode Definitions 

During the test procedure public 

meeting held on September 12, 2008, 

Microsoft recommended that DOE 

harmonize with standby and off mode 

definitions and test procedures 

proposed in the European Union. (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at p. 71) 7 Similarly, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and the Australian Department of 

the Environment, Water, Heritage, and 

the Arts (Australia) commented that 

DOE should not develop a separate 

definition for standby mode, lest it 

interfere with a forthcoming version of 

IEC Standard 62301 on standby power 

measurement. (EPA, No. 31 at p. 1; 

Australia, No. 20 at p. 2) 8 The 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM), however, noted 

that although DOE is correct to consider 

IEC Standard 62301 in defining standby 

mode, it should not include it by 

reference, because the IEC standard is a 

‘‘living document’’ and subject to 

change. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at p. 82) 

As required by the EISA 2007 

amendments to section 323 of EPCA (62 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(B)), the proposed 

definitions of standby and off mode 

were developed after considering IEC 

Standards 62301 and 62087. However, 

as described in the August 15, 2008, 

NOPR, these international standards 

apply to a variety of electronic products, 

and do not provide the specific 

guidance necessary for repeatable 

measurement of BC and EPS standby 

and off mode energy consumption. Also, 

the differing scope between IEC 

Standard 62301 and DOE’s EPS test 

procedure should allay Australia’s 

concern with conflicts between the two. 

Therefore, today’s final rule maintains 

the structure of the definitions and test 

procedures presented in the August 15, 

2008 NOPR and does not incorporate 

IEC Standard 62301. 

The standby mode definition in 

today’s final rule references the no-load 

mode definition, which comes from 

EPA’s internationally recognized ‘‘Test 

Method for Calculating the Energy 

Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 

AC–DC and AC–AC Power Supplies.’’ 9


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 13323 

and the test procedure is also known as the ‘‘CEC 

single-voltage EPS test procedure.’’ (EPA, Test 

Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of 

Single-Voltage External AC–DC and AC–AC Power 

Supplies,’’ p. 1. See http://www.energystar.gov/ia/ 

partners/prod_development/downloads/ 

power_supplies/EPSupplyEffic_TestMethod

_0804.pdf). 

Accordingly, the adoptionof today’s test 

procedure, which is based on EPA’s 

internationally recognized protocol for 

EPSs, fosters continued international 

harmonization of energy efficiency 

testing procedures. 

2. Differentiation Between EPS No-Load 

Mode and BC No-Battery Mode 

Ecos Consulting and the Power Tool 

Institute (PTI) and AHAM commented 

that BC ‘‘no-load mode’’ (included as an 

alternate name for ‘‘standby mode’’ in 

the ‘‘Definitions’’ section of the BC test 

procedure, section 2 of appendix Y) was 

confusing and Ecos suggested that it be 

renamed to ‘‘no-battery mode’’ to avoid 

confusion when testing BCs with wall 

adapters. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at pp. 

74–76) 

The amendments to the definition of 

BC standby mode proposed in the 

August 15, 2008, NOPR also referred to 

the BC mode in question as ‘‘no load 

mode.’’ 73 FR 48054, 48080. 

Nonetheless, DOE recognizes that using 

this term for BCs may cause 

unnecessary confusion. Furthermore, 

because the term ‘‘no-load’’ is used 

nowhere else in the existing BC test 

procedure in appendix Y, the EPA BC 

test procedure that it references, or the 

other amendments promulgated by 

today’s final rule, there is no benefit to 

maintaining it in the definitions section. 

Therefore, DOE is renaming BC ‘‘noload mode’’ to ‘‘no-battery mode’’ in the 

definition of BC standby mode. Today’s 

final rule will insert this amended 

definition into section 2.l of appendix 

Y. 

3. Clarification of the Definition of the 

On-Off Switch 

As the above discussion illustrates, 

the definitions for standby and off 

modes that DOE proposed in the August 

15, 2008, NOPR depend on the state of 

the on-off switch used to control the BC 

or EPS. User-activated on-off switches 

are not common in BCs and EPSs, and 

in their comments, stakeholders 

expressed some confusion regarding the 

meaning of the term ‘‘on-off switch’’ in 

the context of the standby and off mode 

definitions. 

For example, products with integral 

batteries typically have some battery 

charging circuits inside the products, 

and it may be unclear which switches 

should be turned on for standby mode 

testing. Because the on-off switches of 

integral battery products control enduse product operation and not battery 

charging, testers have traditionally 

turned them off while testing the BC 

portion of the product, so that end-use 

product power consumption is not 

measured in addition to BC power 

consumption. But since the definition of 

standby mode proposed in the August 

15, 2008, NOPR would reverse this 

longstanding practice by asking testers 

to turn all on-off switches on, adopting 

this change without further clarification 

could create confusion for testers. 

Ecos commented that the on-off 

switch referenced in the definitions 

could be mistaken for an automatic 

switch that the user activates 

inadvertently when removing the 

battery. Ecos stressed that because DOE 

is introducing a new mode, it should 

define the on-off switch carefully to 

avoid confusion. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 

at pp. 80–81) Pacific Gas and Electric 

(PG&E) and the American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) also 

recommended that DOE provide a 

definition for a manual on-off switch 

and provided a sample definition. 

(PG&E & ACEEE, No. 21 at p. 2) 

ADT Security Services, Sensormatic 

Electronics Corporation, and Tyco 

Safety Products Canada (all three are 

subsidiaries of Tyco Fire & Security and 

will be referred to throughout the 

document as ‘‘Tyco’’) sought 

clarification about which portions of the 

standby mode definition apply to 

products without on-off switches (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at p. 73), while 

Australia commented that off mode 

should only be applicable to products 

with an appropriately defined on-off 

switch. (Australia, No. 20 at p. 2) 

Despite these additional comments, 

DOE believes that the definitions, as 

proposed, are unambiguous: The off 

mode definitions are only applicable to 

BCs and EPSs with on-off switches, 

while the standby mode definitions are 

applicable to BCs and EPSs with or 

without on-off switches. The final 

clause of the standby mode 

definitions—‘‘all switches are turned 

on’’—applies only to BCs and EPSs with 

on-off switches. The only necessary 

clarification is an appropriately narrow 

definition of ‘‘on-off switch’’ to 

eliminate confusion with switches used 

to control end-use product function and 

automatic switches that are 

inadvertently activated by the user 

during battery or load disconnection. 

Therefore, in today’s final rule, DOE is 

adopting the definition of ‘‘manual onoff switch’’ based on the one provided 

by PG&E and ACEEE and modifying the 

proposed definitions of standby and off 

mode to reference this new definition. 

This final rule inserts the definitions of 

manual on-off switch, off mode, and 

standby mode into sections 2.h, 2.k, and 

2.l of appendix Y for BCs and sections 

2.g, 2.p, and 2.t of appendix Z for EPSs. 

B. Standby Mode and Off Mode Test 

Procedures 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

proposed two new subsections for 

standby and off mode measurement 

under the ‘‘Test Measurement’’ section 

of the BC test procedure (section 4 of 

appendix Y). 73 FR 48054, 48060. The 

amendments would also insert a section 

for off mode measurement under the 

‘‘Test Measurement’’ section of the EPS 

test procedure (section 4 of appendix Z). 

73 FR 48054, 48062–48063 (August 15, 

2008). 

The ‘‘Test Measurement’’ section of 

the EPS test procedure already included 

a test procedure for active mode and noload mode measurement, which 

required testing of the EPS with ‘‘any 

built-in switch in the UUT [unit under 

test] * * * in the ‘on’ position.’’ (See 

section 5.a of EPA’s ‘‘Test Method for 

Calculating the Energy Efficiency of 

Single-Voltage External AC–DC and 

AC–AC Power Supplies,’’ incorporated 

by reference in section 4 of appendix Z.) 

DOE leveraged the existing test 

procedure by proposing to define EPS 

standby mode as ‘‘the condition in 

which the external power supply is in 

no-load mode and, for external power 

supplies with on-off switches, all 

switches are turned on.’’ 73 FR 48054, 

48062 (August 15, 2008), and to use the 

no-load test procedure as the standby 

mode test procedure. 73 FR 48054, 

48063 (August 15, 2008). 

Stakeholders commented on the 

following issues: (1) Specifying the 

duration of the BC standby and off mode 

tests; (2) clarifying the BC standby mode 

test for integral-battery products; (3) 

obviating EPS standby mode testing 

through end-use product testing; (4) 

modifying the stability requirement for 

measuring EPS energy consumption; (5) 

clarifying the assessment point for AC 

input power into the EPS; (6) clarifying 

the disconnection point for standby 

mode testing for systems with more than 

two enclosures; (7) specifying and 

reporting the shunt resistance value 

used during EPS measurement; and (8) 

excluding EPSs that do not operate in 

standby or no-load modes from testing 

under the standby mode test procedure. 

1. Specifying the Duration of the BC 

Standby and Off Mode Tests 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

proposed a 1-hour duration for the BC 

standby and off mode energy 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
13324 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

10Some BCs in standby mode operate 

periodically, consuming power in short pulses or 

bursts to lower overall energy consumption. 

consumption measurement. However, 

the EPA BC test procedure— 

incorporated by reference in the existing 

BC test procedure (sections 3 and 4 of 

appendix Y) and upon which these 

proposed amendments were based— 

requires a 12-hour test duration in 

certain circumstances. DOE raised this 

issue in the August 15, 2008 NOPR, 

soliciting stakeholder comments on the 

appropriate duration of the standby and 

off mode measurements. 73 FR 48054, 

48062. 

Ecos commented that the 12-hour 

option was too long and supported a test 

duration of 1 hour as necessary to 

‘‘achieve a measure of thermal stability’’ 

and to ensure repeatability of 

measurements. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at 

p. 98) Hewlett-Packard (HP) and the 

Information Technology Industry 

Council (ITI), however, commented that 

a test duration of 1 hour is 

unnecessarily long and will result in 

higher testing costs than necessary. 

According to ITI, tests can be conducted 

in as little as 10 seconds using modern 

measurement equipment, and warmup 

could be performed prior to the 

beginning of the test. (HP, No. 30 at p. 

2; ITI, No. 6 at p. 3, No. 28 at pp. 2– 

3; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at pp. 36–37) 

DOE is concerned with minimizing 

the testing burden on manufacturers. 

Notwithstanding, to be repeatable, a test 

procedure for measuring the energy 

consumption of consumer electronics 

must allow time for the components to 

warm up, a process that takes 

significantly longer than 10 seconds. 

Also, a severely shortened test 

procedure may not accurately measure 

the energy consumption of BCs with 

low-frequency pulsed operation,10 an 

issue DOE raised in its August 15, 2008, 

NOPR. 

Because of the need for a repeatable 

and accurate test procedure that 

accounts for both warm-up time and 

pulsed operation, DOE is adopting a 1- 

hour measurement period for both the 

BC standby mode and off mode 

measurements. This final rule inserts 

the measurement period requirement, 

and the remaining instructions for BC 

standby and off mode energy 

consumption measurement, into 

sections 4(c) and 4(d) of appendix Y. 

2. Clarifying the BC Standby Mode Test 

for Integral-Battery Products 

PTI and AHAM commented that care 

should be taken when specifying 

standby mode test conditions for 

integral-battery BCs. Testers should not 

attempt to disassemble BCs, but rather 

remove the entire product (with battery) 

from the charging cradle. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 17 at pp. 15, 74–75, and 77) AHAM 

further commented that the definitions 

of standby and off mode should 

explicitly address integral-battery BCs. 

(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) 

DOE acknowledges the commenters’ 

concern about appropriately testing BCs 

where the charging circuitry and the 

battery are inside one enclosure and 

therefore cannot be separated during 

typical use. To ensure that testers do not 

disassemble the integral-battery 

consumer product during standby and 

off mode testing, DOE has inserted a 

clarification within both the standby 

and off mode test procedure 

amendments specifying that in the case 

of products with integral batteries, 

‘‘ ‘disconnecting the battery from the 

charger’ will require disconnection of 

the end-use product’’ itself and that 

standby mode or off mode ‘‘power 

consumption will equal that of the 

cradle and/or adapter alone.’’ This final 

rule inserts this clarification as well as 

a mention of plug blades—the metal 

prongs that connect a wall-mounted 

adapter to an outlet—as parts of the 

standby and off mode test procedure 

amendments, into sections 4(c) and 4(d) 

of appendix Y. 

3. Obviating EPS Standby Mode Testing 

Through End-Use Product Testing 

Microsoft commented that some enduse products powered by EPSs must 

already meet standby mode power 

consumption standards. Because an 

EPS-powered product is tested together 

with its EPS, standby mode testing of 

the EPS by itself would be ‘‘redundant 

and possibly in conflict with the other 

requirements * * *’’ (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

17 at p. 118) 

Although there may be international 

standards that regulate the standby 

mode power consumption of end-use 

products powered by EPSs, these 

products (e.g., video-game consoles, 

printers, networking equipment, etc.) 

are not covered under 10 CFR part 430 

and therefore not subject to any 

mandatory testing or standards in the 

United States. Furthermore, even if 

these products were subject to standards 

under 10 CFR part 430, EISA 2007 states 

that a ‘‘standard for external power 

supplies shall not constitute * * * [a] 

standard for the separate end-use 

product * * *’’ Standards for the enduse product should not preclude 

standards (and, by extension, test 

procedures) for the EPS itself. Therefore, 

this final rule inserts an EPS standby 

mode test procedure into section 4(a)(i) 

of appendix Z. 

4. Modifying the Stability Requirement 

for Measuring EPS Energy Consumption 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

proposed amending the EPS test 

procedure to accommodate the testing of 

multiple-voltage EPSs. Due to the large 

number of stakeholder comments 

received and the limited time for 

publication of this final rule, DOE has 

decided to postpone consideration of 

multiple-voltage amendments until it 

issues a NOPR focusing on a BC active 

mode test procedure in 2009. 

Nonetheless, DOE is including in 

today’s final rule the stability 

requirement from the multiple-voltage 

EPS test procedure it proposed in 

August 15, 2008. 

According to the EPA single-voltage 

EPS test procedure, an EPS can be 

deemed stable if the input ‘‘power level 

does not drift by more than 5% from the 

maximum value observed’’ over a 5- 

minute period. If an EPS meets this 

stability requirement, instantaneous 

measurements of input power, output 

voltage, and output current can be 

taken. Otherwise, the instantaneous 

measurements must be averaged over a 

subsequent 5-minute period. (EPA, 

‘‘Test Method for Calculating the Energy 

Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 

AC–DC and AC–AC Power Supplies,’’ 

section 5.d) Given that elsewhere in the 

EPA test procedure, the power 

measurements uncertainty is required to 

be less than or equal to 2 percent, DOE 

proposed that the multiple-voltage EPS 

be deemed stable if the input power 

does not drift by more than 1 percent 

from the maximum value observed over 

a 5-minute period. 73 FR 48054, 48072 

(August 15, 2008). 

Stakeholders were generally receptive 

to this change in the stability criterion. 

Australia agreed with the proposed 1- 

percent stability requirement, but 

commented that samples should also be 

taken every second. (Australia, No. 20 at 

p. 3) Wahl Clipper Corporation (Wahl) 

suggested that DOE consider opening up 

the proposed 1-percent stability 

requirement at lower output powers, 

where 1 percent of input power may be 

insignificant. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at p. 

166) 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

stated that it would consider making 

equivalent changes to the existing active 

and no-load mode test procedure for 

single-voltage EPSs based on departures 

from the stability criterion and other 

requirements, but declined to include 

these changes in today’s final rule 

because of resistance to modifying the 

previously adopted and internationally 

accepted active and no-load mode EPS 

test procedure. (EPA, ‘‘Test Method for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 13325 

11Manufacturers use PFC circuits to decrease 

resistive losses in the transmission and distribution 

wiring by correcting distortions in the shape of the 

EPS input current waveform. 

12For EPSs, standby mode is no-load mode, 

except with all manual on-off switches turned on. 

However, because the no-load mode test procedure 

already requires that the EPS be tested with all 

manual on-off switches turned on, the test 

procedure for no-load mode and standby mode are 

the same. 

Calculating the Energy Efficiency of 

Single-Voltage External AC–DC and 

AC–AC Power Supplies’’) Nonetheless, 

because of stakeholder support for a 

more stringent stability criterion and the 

lack of an internationally accepted off 

mode test procedure, DOE is including 

the 1-percent stability requirement in 

today’s final rule as part of the new off 

mode test procedure for single-voltage 

EPSs. 

Furthermore, today’s rule addresses 

Wahl’s comment by deeming EPS as 

stable at input powers less than 5 watts 

if the power does not vary by more than 

50 milliwatts. DOE has tested EPSs with 

output parameters of 1 watt at 5 volts. 

At such low output powers, the output 

ripple and other noise may indeed 

surpass the 1-percent stability 

requirement, as Wahl claims. Therefore, 

today’s final rule inserts the modified 

stability criterion, which was originally 

part of the proposed multiple-voltage 

EPS test procedure, into section 4(a)(ii) 

of appendix Z (single-voltage EPSs). 

5. Clarifying the Assessment Point for 

AC Input Power Into the EPS 

Regarding DOE’s proposed test 

procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs, 

Texas Instruments (TI), PTI, and AHAM 

commented that DOE should specify on 

which side of the input power meter to 

measure the input voltage to ensure 

compliance with source voltage, total 

harmonic distortion, and other 

requirements. The input power meter 

can have an impact on those parameters. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at pp. 138–139 

and 140). 

The existing EPA single-voltage EPS 

test procedure already specifies that 

‘‘the input to the UUT [unit under test] 

shall be the specified voltage ±1% and 

the specified frequency ±1%’’ (EPA, 

‘‘Test Method for Calculating the Energy 

Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 

AC–DC and AC–AC Power Supplies,’’ 

section 4.d). Because the unit under test 

is defined as the EPS itself, the point of 

measurement is between the EPS and 

the input power meter. This is in 

accordance with longstanding testing 

practice, which dictates that testing 

conditions should be verified as close to 

the unit under test as possible. Today’s 

final rule therefore does not insert any 

clarifications into appendix Z. 

6. Clarifying the Disconnection Point for 

Standby Mode Testing for Systems With 

More Than Two Major Enclosures 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

proposed applying the active mode and 

no-load mode test procedure as its 

standby mode test procedure. PTI and 

AHAM commented that in systems with 

more than two major enclosures, the 

disconnection point for no-load mode 

can be unclear, possibly leading to a 

lack of repeatable test results. For 

instance, if one considers a wall adapter 

for a cradle-charged integral-battery BC 

(e.g., a cordless telephone) as an EPS, it 

is unclear whether the disconnection 

point would be located between the 

wall adapter and cradle, or between the 

cradle and the integral-battery product. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at p. 112) 

The August 15, 2008, NOPR 

instructed that if the multiple-enclosure, 

cradle-charger system is tested as a BC, 

the disconnection point during standby 

mode should be between the end-use 

product and the cradle, reflecting 

typical user behavior. 73 FR 48054, 

48080. However, if the system is to be 

tested as an EPS, the disconnection 

point during standby mode should be 

between the wall adapter and the cradle. 

This interpretation is based on EISA 

2007, which defines a Class A EPS as 

‘‘designed to convert line voltage AC 

input into lower voltage AC or DC 

output’’ and ‘‘contained in a separate 

physical enclosure from the end-use 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)(I) and 

(IV)) It is also consistent with other, 

non-portable EPS applications where 

only the wall adapter is subject to EPS 

testing. Accordingly, it is not necessary 

to insert any language clarifying this 

issue into appendices Y and Z. 

7. Specifying and Reporting the Shunt 

Resistance Value Used During EPS 

Measurement 

In response to DOE’s proposed test 

procedures for BC and EPS standby and 

off mode measurement, TI commented 

that the shunt resistance used by the 

input power meter for current 

measurement could affect measured 

power values in some cases. (TI, No. 18 

at pp. 5–6) TI also commented that the 

test procedure should require that a 

record of the maximum shunt resistance 

value be kept (perhaps by the 

manufacturer) so that the measurement 

can be repeated in the event of an audit. 

(TI, No. 18 at p. 6) 

TI focused its analysis on an EPS 

without power-factor correction (PFC),11

but did not demonstrate that shunt 

resistance will significantly affect the 

average measured standby or off mode 

power consumption of EPSs without 

PFC. TI also speculated, but did not 

demonstrate, that shunt resistance will 

significantly affect the power 

consumption of EPSs with PFC. 

Because of a lack of evidence that 

shunt resistance will significantly affect 

the power consumption of EPSs with or 

without PFC, today’s final rule does not 

require reporting the shunt resistance 

value used during BC and EPS standby 

or off mode measurement. 

8. Excluding EPSs That Do Not Operate 

in Standby or No-Load Modes From 

Standby Mode Testing 

AHAM and PTI voiced general 

agreement with DOE’s proposed 

changes to the EISA 2007 standby and 

off mode definitions and proposed test 

procedures for these two modes (AHAM 

& PTI, No. 24 at pp. 1–2), while the 

Security Industry Association (SIA), 

Tyco, Uniden, the Consumer Electronics 

Association (CEA), Brink’s, and the 

National Burglar and Fire Alarm 

Association (NBFAA) commented that 

DOE should exempt EPSs for security 

and telephony applications from being 

tested in no-load, standby,12 and off 

modes. Such products never operate in 

these modes during actual use, and 

regulation would result in no energy 

savings, only added costs. (SIA, No. 7 at 

pp. 1–2, No. 22 at pp. 3–4; Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 17 at pp. 19–21, 23–26, 42–43; 

Tyco, No. 4 at p. 2, No. 29 at pp. 3–4; 

CEA, No. 26 at p. 2; Brink’s, No. 19 at 

p. 1; NBFAA, No. 32 at p. 2) ITI 

recommended that DOE consider 

allowing exclusions from the test 

procedure for some products. (Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 17 at pp. 37–38) 

Tyco further noted that surveillance 

equipment typically uses 60 Hz 

waveform from AC–AC EPS to 

synchronize images. These adapters 

may need to be modified if subject to 

EISA 2007 no-load mode requirements, 

affecting the utility of the systems. 

(Tyco, No. 29 at p. 4) 

Tyco also commented that DOE 

previously found that standby mode 

does not apply to fluorescent lamps, 

which, like security systems, are either 

on or completely powered off. (Tyco, 

No. 4 at p. 2, No. 29 at pp. 4–6; Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at p. 25) Because 

standby mode does not apply, Tyco and 

SIA suggested instead that EPSs for 

security applications be marked ‘‘IVa,’’ 

where ‘‘IV’’ indicates the international 

efficiency level, while ‘‘a’’ indicates 

active mode only. (Tyco, No. 4 at p. 5; 

SIA, No. 7 at p. 3) 

In the above comments, 

manufacturers in the security and 

telephony industries argue that EPSs for 

security applications be exempted from 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
13326 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

testing under the off mode test 

procedure proposed in the August 15, 

2008, NOPR. The commenters further 

argue that EPSs for security applications 

be exempted from testing under the new 

standby mode test procedure—i.e., the 

existing no-load mode test procedure— 

so that they will not have to meet the 

EISA 2007 no-load standards effective 

on July 1, 2008. 

Regarding exempting EPSs for 

security applications from testing under 

the off mode test procedure, the off 

mode definition proposed in the August 

15, 2008, NOPR applies only to EPSs 

with manual on-off switches. Therefore, 

EPSs without manual on-off switches 

cannot be tested under the new off 

mode test procedure. 73 FR 48054, 

48063 (August 15, 2008). According to 

the comments, EPSs for security 

applications do not have on-off 

switches, and therefore would not be 

tested under the off mode test 

procedure. 

Regarding exempting EPSs for 

security applications from testing under 

the standby mode (i.e., no-load mode) 

test procedure, it appears that 

manufacturers are also requesting that 

EPSs for home security and other 

applications that do not operate in 

standby or no-load modes be exempt. 

Although EISA 2007 gave DOE 

discretion in developing standby and off 

mode test procedures and definitions, 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(B) and (2)(A)), the 

proposed standby mode test procedure 

is the existing no-load test procedure, 

and EISA 2007 does not allow DOE to 

modify the existing no-load definition 

and test procedure. More specifically, 

section 301 of EISA 2007 modified 

section 325 of EPCA to set a no-load 

mode power consumption standard (42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A)), and further 

modified section 323 to specify that 

DOE must continue using a test 

procedure based on the EPA’s singlevoltage EPS test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(17)) 

In addition to mandating an energy 

conservation standard for Class A EPSs, 

Congress provided exclusions from the 

standard for specific classes of EPSs 

(e.g., EPSs for medical applications) by 

placing them outside of Class A. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii)) If DOE were to 

modify the no-load test procedure to 

exempt EPSs for home security 

applications, DOE would in effect be 

granting an additional exclusion from 

the Class A standard, contravening EISA 

2007. In the case of statutory standards, 

DOE does not have the authority to 

grant a request for a waiver from the test 

procedure or for an exception from the 

standard; under 10 CFR 1003.20(a), DOE 

can only grant exceptions from rules or 

regulations promulgated by DOE, not 

those mandated by Congress. 

Therefore, today’s final rule does not 

include any exemptions from the 

standby or off mode test procedures for 

EPSs that do not operate in these modes, 

such as those for home security or 

telephony applications. Instead, it 

inserts the definitions and test 

procedures for EPS standby and off 

modes that were discussed previously 

into appendix Z. 

To test EPSs that do not operate in 

standby or no-load modes and that in 

some cases cannot be easily removed 

from their end-use products, 

manufacturers need to follow the DOE 

EPS test procedure. ‘‘If the power 

supply is attached directly to the 

product that it is powering, 

[manufacturers must] cut the cord 

immediately adjacent to the powered 

product and connect output 

measurement probes at that point.’’ 

(EPA, ‘‘Test Method for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage 

External AC–DC and AC–AC Power 

Supplies,’’ section 5.a; incorporated by 

reference into section 4 of appendix Z) 

C. Clarification of Test Procedure 

Definitions 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

proposed amending the EPS test 

procedure in appendix Z by modifying 

some existing definitions and adding 

new ones to improve clarity and 

consistency with industry standards. 73 

FR 48054, 48068. 

Following publication of the August 

15, 2008, NOPR, stakeholders 

commented on the definitions DOE 

proposed. These commenters suggested 

that DOE provide additional 

clarification in the application of its test 

procedure. In particular, stakeholders 

submitted comments on the proposed 

(1) clarification of the definition of 

‘‘consumer product’’ and (2) insertions 

of additional definitions identifying 

specific BC configurations. 

1. Clarification of the Definition of 

‘‘Consumer Product’’ 

PG&E and ACEEE commented that 

DOE should clarify the definition of 

‘‘consumer product’’ along the lines 

presented during the September 2008 

public meeting, where DOE indicated 

that consumer products are products 

that are to any significant extent 

distributed in commerce for use by 

individuals. Similarly, DOE indicated at 

the meeting that the only things that are 

not consumer products are those that 

are distributed only to commercial and 

industrial customers. (PG&E & ACEEE, 

No. 21 at p. 2) 

Tyco and SIA commented that 

regardless of common application in 

residential homes, security, 

surveillance, and life-safety systems 

should not be considered consumer 

products. (Tyco, No. 29 at p. 2; SIA, No. 

22 at p. 2) SIA added that residential 

users of security systems are ‘‘simply 

the beneficiaries of this commercial 

service.’’ (SIA, No. 22 at p. 2) 

In response to the request for 

clarification, the term ‘‘consumer 

product’’ is defined as any energyconsuming product other than an 

automobile, ‘‘which, to any significant 

extent, is distributed in commerce for 

personal use or consumption by 

individuals.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) This 

definition, which determines the scope 

of the EISA 2007 Class A EPS standards 

that came into effect on July 1, 2008, is 

consistent with the guidance DOE 

presented during the September 12, 

2008, public meeting. DOE also 

indicated at the meeting that although it 

could not quantify the term ‘‘to any 

significant extent,’’ it was clear that any 

product that was only distributed in the 

commercial and industrial sectors was 

not a consumer product. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 17 at pp. 85–90) This DOE 

clarification of the definition of 

consumer product is different from the 

interpretation that was received in 

comments from PG&E and ACEEE. 

In response to the comments on the 

scope of the consumer product 

definition, DOE notes that cellular 

telephones are consumer products and 

security systems are no different. In 

both cases, consumers purchase the 

product with a service contract and pay 

monthly fees for the service, without 

which the product itself does not 

function. In both cases, the consumer 

also pays the energy cost associated 

with operating the product. 

Therefore, in today’s final rule, DOE 

is not including any additional 

clarification of the term ‘‘consumer 

product’’ or excluding any products 

from the test procedure on the grounds 

that they may not be consumer 

products. 

2. Insertion of Additional Definitions 

Identifying Specific BC Configurations 

In the modifications to the BC test 

procedure incorporating standby and off 

mode measurement presented in the 

August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE relied on 

terms such as ‘‘cradle’’ and 

‘‘detachable’’ to clarify the application 

of the proposed standby and off mode 

definitions to various configurations of 

BCs. In comments submitted following 

publication of the NOPR, PTI, and 

AHAM recommended that DOE include 

definitions for integral, detachable, and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 13327 

13Because the sampling requirements proposed 

in the July 25, 2006, NOPR have not yet been 

finalized, manufacturers cannot and need not 

submit certification reports for EPSs at this time. 

cradle-type BCs. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 

at p. 15) They further noted that these 

definitions should be consistent with 

those proposed for inclusion in the 

‘‘Energy Efficiency Battery Charger 

System Test Procedure’’ currently in 

development by the California Energy 

Commission (CEC). (PTI, No. 17 at p. 15; 

AHAM & PTI, No. 24 at pp. 2 and 

4–5; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) 

Section 2 of appendix Y already 

contains definitions of detachable and 

integral batteries, and DOE believes the 

existing definitions provide sufficient 

clarity for these two battery 

configurations. However, to further 

clarify the application of standby and 

off mode, DOE is including the 

following definition of ‘‘cradle’’ in 

today’s final rule: 

Cradle is an electrical interface between an 

integral battery product and the rest of the 

battery charger designed to hold the product 

between uses. 

This definition is consistent with that 

included by the CEC in its BC test 

procedure. Today’s final rule inserts this 

definition in section 2.f of appendix Y. 

D. Switch-Selectable Single-Voltage 

EPSs 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

proposed language clarifying the testing 

required of switch-selectable singlevoltage EPSs. These devices have a 

single output but incorporate a switch 

that enables users to vary the voltage at 

that output. Because these EPSs have a 

single output, they fall within the scope 

of EISA 2007 Class A standards, but the 

existing EPS test procedure is unclear at 

which setting they should be tested. 

Therefore, DOE proposed that a switchselectable EPS be tested at both its 

lowest and highest selectable output 

voltage. 

In written comments, Australia agreed 

with the DOE proposal to test switchselectable EPSs at their highest and 

lowest output voltages. (Australia, No. 

20 at p. 3) Because no stakeholders 

opposed this proposal, DOE is including 

requirements that switch-selectable 

EPSs have their active-mode efficiency, 

standby mode power consumption, and 

off mode power consumption tested at 

their highest and lowest voltages in 

today’s final rule. Today’s final rule will 

insert these requirements into sections 

4(a)(i) and 4(a)(ii) of appendix Z and 

into the certification requirements in 10 

CFR 430.62(a)(4)(xxiii) and (xxiv). The 

certification requirements are discussed 

further in section III.E. 

E. Certification Requirements for EPSs 

Manufacturers of covered and 

regulated products must file testing 

documentation with DOE and certify 

that the products they are distributing 

into commerce in the United States 

comply with Federal energy 

conservation standards. Because EISA 

2007 modified EPCA by establishing 

standards for Class A EPSs, DOE 

proposed in its August 15, 2008, NOPR 

to modify the certification requirements 

to cover the submission of data on EPSs. 

73 FR 48054, 48072. These certification 

requirements work in concert with the 

EPS test procedure in appendix Z and 

the sampling plan proposed in the July 

25, 2006, NOPR, 71 FR 42178, 42204, 

instructing manufacturers how to 

demonstrate compliance with EISA 

2007 standards for Class A EPSs.13

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

included requirements that for each 

‘‘basic model’’ of EPS, manufacturers 

provide the active-mode efficiency and 

no-load-mode power consumption as 

well as general information about that 

basic model. However, because of the 

extent of customization within the EPS 

industry and the expected burden 

associated with certifying the 

compliance of each basic model, DOE 

noted that it was also considering 

certification requirements based on 

design families. The ENERGY STAR 

program uses such a structure for EPSs. 

Manufacturers need only submit data on 

the lowest- and highest-voltage unit of 

each design family, which is a 

collection of basic models that share the 

same output power and fundamental 

design but may have different output 

voltages. Despite this reduced 

requirement, manufacturers would 

nonetheless be responsible for the 

compliance of all basic models within 

the design family. 

Following publication of the August 

15, 2008, NOPR, stakeholders 

commented on the option of certifying 

compliance by design family. 

Stakeholders raised the following 

issues: (1) The data reporting method; 

(2) clarification of ‘‘certification’’ versus 

‘‘declaration’’; (3) exemption from 

certification requirements of products 

that had qualified under the ENERGY 

STAR program; (4) the data necessary to 

certify compliance; (5) reporting of 

additional data absent a complete 

nameplate; and (6) definitions of ‘‘basic 

model’’ and ‘‘design family.’’ These 

issues are discussed below. 

1. Data Reporting Method 

ITI commented that requiring 

manufacturers to report efficiency of 

EPSs may be more burdensome than 

maintaining readily available records at 

their facilities and stated that Congress 

did not mandate reporting requirements 

as part of EISA 2007. (ITI, No. 6 at p. 

2, No. 28 at pp. 1–2; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

17 at pp. 34–35 and 209) However, Ecos 

responded that the DOE reporting 

requirements are no more burdensome 

than the requirements under the 

voluntary ENERGY STAR program and 

mandatory State efficiency programs 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at p. 211) 

AHAM commented that reporting 

instills in manufacturers a realization of 

their compliance obligations and that 

there are mechanisms for easing the 

burdens of compliance, such as 

centralized submissions of data to 

several agencies through a trade 

association. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at pp. 

213–214) AHAM and PTI also expressed 

their preference for the family approach 

to reporting. (AHAM & PTI, No. 24 at p. 

5) 

While the reporting requirements 

proposed in the August 15, 2008, NOPR 

are typical of the requirements of other 

products covered by 10 CFR part 430, 

allowing manufacturers to certify results 

for only the lowest- and highest-voltage 

models within a design family may be 

the least burdensome approach for 

achieving the objectives of certification. 

Such an approach would also be 

consistent with the approach of other 

EPS efficiency programs, such as 

ENERGY STAR. 

Based on these considerations and the 

comments provided by stakeholders, 

DOE is including in this final rule a 

requirement that manufacturers certify 

the compliance of design families, 

supported by submissions of activemode efficiency and no-load power 

consumption data for the highest- and 

lowest-voltage models within the 

families. Today’s final rule inserts these 

requirements into 10 CFR 

430.62(a)(4)(xxiii). 

2. Clarification of ‘‘Certification’’ Versus 

‘‘Declaration’’ 

During the September 2008 public 

meeting, Microsoft recommended that 

DOE use the term ‘‘declaration’’ when 

referring to claims made by a 

manufacturer and ‘‘certification’’ when 

an independent third party verifies such 

claims, as is common industry practice. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at pp. 201–202) 

Despite industry custom, the term 

‘‘certification’’ is used unambiguously 

throughout subpart F of 10 CFR part 430 

to refer to manufacturer self-certification 

of their products. For instance, 

paragraph (a)(1) of 10 CFR 430.62 states 

that ‘‘each manufacturer * * * shall 

certify by means of a compliance 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
13328 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

14Manufacturers are not required to certify 

compliance with EISA 2007 standards to DOE until 

the sampling requirements proposed in the July 25, 

2006, NOPR are finalized. 71 FR 72178, 72204. 

However, manufacturers are required to be in 

compliance with the standards in the meantime. 

15Section 5.e of the EPA single-voltage EPS test 

procedure requires that ‘‘Average efficiency shall 

also be calculated and reported as the arithmetic 

mean of the efficiency values calculated at Test 

Conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Table 1,’’ where the 

‘‘Test Conditions’’ correspond to 100 percent, 75 

percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of nameplate 

output current. (EPA, Test Method for Calculating 

the Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 

AC–DC and AC–AC Power Supplies,’’ p. 9). 

16Sampling requirements specifying the selection 

of units to be tested were proposed in the July 25, 

2006, NOPR, but have not yet been finalized. 

statement and certification report,’’ 

which is to be ‘‘signed by the company 

official submitting the statement.’’ 

Paragraph (e), ‘‘Third party 

representation,’’ of the same section 

permits, but does not require, 

manufacturers to use a third party to 

submit compliance statements or 

certification data on the manufacturer’s 

behalf. Because the term ‘‘certification’’ 

is used unambiguously throughout 10 

CFR part 430, DOE is not changing 

‘‘certification’’ to ‘‘declaration’’ in 

today’s final rule. 

3. Exemption From Certification 

Requirements of Products that 

Previously Qualified Under the 

ENERGY STAR Program 

ITI recommended that DOE deem 

ENERGY STAR-qualified EPSs 

compliant with EISA 2007 requirements 

and not require manufacturers to certify 

their compliance in a separate 

submission to DOE. (ITI, No. 6 at pp. 4– 

5, No. 28 at p. 2) 

Although DOE is sensitive to the 

reporting burden on manufacturers, it 

requires that the compliance of products 

subject to energy conservation standards 

under 10 CFR part 430 be certified and 

reported to DOE, regardless of whether 

the products have qualified under the 

requirements of the ENERGY STAR 

program. 10 CFR 430.62(a). Because 

EPSs are covered products under 10 

CFR 430.2 and subject to standards 

included in EISA 2007 by Congress, (42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A)), manufacturers 

will have to demonstrate the 

compliance of their EPSs 14 according to 

10 CFR 430.62. 

Furthermore, the sampling plans of 

DOE (presented in the July 25, 2006, 

NOPR) and ENERGY STAR will most 

likely differ. This could impact the 

compliance of models when the 

differences between ENERGY STAR 

guidelines and EISA 2007 standards are 

small enough (or nonexistent, as for the 

no-load power consumption for AC–AC 

EPSs) and manufacturing variations lead 

to significant differences in EPS 

efficiency or no-load power from one 

unit to the next of a single model. 

ENERGY STAR requires 

manufacturers to test three randomly 

chosen units of the same model and 

self-certify the compliance of all three 

units for the model to qualify. (EPA, 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Single Voltage External AC–DC and 

AC–AC Power Supplies: Eligibility 

Criteria,’’ Version 2.0, sections 4.B and 

4.E). In contrast in the July 25, 2006, 

NOPR, DOE proposed that ‘‘a sample of 

sufficient size shall be selected at 

random and tested to ensure that * * * 

(2) Any represented value of the 

estimated energy consumption of a basic 

model for which consumers would favor 

higher values [e.g., active mode 

efficiency] shall be no greater than the 

lower of: (i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The lower 97.5 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.95.’’ 

71 FR 42178, 42204. 

If adopted by DOE in a final rule, this 

different sampling requirement could 

result in manufacturers certifying lower 

active mode efficiency and higher noload power consumption results—for 

the same model—to DOE than to 

ENERGY STAR. Therefore, today’s final 

rule does not exempt ENERGY STARqualified EPSs from DOE certification 

requirements. 

4. Data Necessary to Certify Compliance 

Ecos commented that the August 15, 

2008, NOPR was unclear whether 

manufacturers should, for each unit 

tested, submit to DOE the efficiency 

values measured at each of the four 

active mode loading conditions (25 

percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 

percent of nameplate output current) or 

only submit their average. (Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 17 at p. 203) PG&E and ACEEE 

commented that manufacturers should 

submit to DOE the efficiency values 

measured at each loading condition, and 

not just the average, as the additional 

detail may aid DOE in developing future 

standards. (PG&E & ACEEE, No. 21 at p. 

4) 

However, ITI commented that data 

submission and certification are 

burdensome and requested that DOE not 

require data submission out of 

convenience and consider ways of 

minimizing the manufacturer reporting 

burden. (ITI, No. 28 at pp. 1–2) HP 

suggested that DOE allow manufacturers 

to self-test and certify without requiring 

extensive reporting of test results. (HP, 

No. 30 at p. 2) 

There does not appear to be a 

significant regulatory or analytical 

benefit to systematically collecting 

intermediate efficiency values at each of 

the loading conditions in addition to 

their average. Therefore, today’s final 

rule requires that only average activemode efficiency be reported.15

Nonetheless, manufacturers ‘‘shall 

establish, maintain, and retain the 

records of the underlying test data’’ 

(e.g., the efficiency values measured at 

each active-mode loading condition) 

and make them available to DOE upon 

request. 10 CFR 430.62(d). 

Manufacturers shall report the average 

active-mode efficiency as a percentage 

and the no-load mode power 

consumption in watts. Today’s final rule 

inserts this requirement into 10 CFR 

430.62(c)(4)(xxiii) for the highest- and 

lowest-voltage models in a design 

family (discussed further in section 

III.E.6) and into 430.62(c)(4)(xxiv) for 

the highest and lowest selectable output 

voltage for each switch-selectable EPS 

model. Separate active-mode efficiency 

and no-load mode power consumption 

metrics will be reported for each of the 

units tested 16 and, in the case of the 

switch-selectable models, for each of the 

output voltage settings. 

5. Reporting of Data Absent a Complete 

Nameplate 

During the September 2008 public 

meeting, DOE noted that some EPSs 

(e.g., high-power EPSs with output 

power greater than 250 watts) have 

nameplates that do not list all output 

parameters necessary to calculate the 

loading conditions specified in the test 

procedure in appendix Z. 

Microsoft commented that dedicateduse EPSs, which are intended for 

operation only with a particular end-use 

product load, may be another category 

of EPSs without output power, current, 

or voltage information on the 

nameplate. For these products, the 

output power may be listed on the enduse product. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at p. 

161) As an alternative, Ecos, PG&E, and 

ACEEE commented that DOE could 

require manufacturers to provide all 

required information on the product 

label. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at p. 162; 

PG&E & ACEEE, No. 21 at p. 3), while 

AHAM suggested direct reporting of the 

ratings to DOE as a way to forgo an 

additional labeling requirement. (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at pp. 162–163) 

In today’s final rule, DOE is adopting 

the solution proposed by AHAM and 

amending the certification requirements 

to require reporting of the output power 

for all EPSs and of the output current for 

EPSs that omit it from the nameplate. 

Because the EISA 2007 standard 

levels depend on output power, (42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A)), DOE must require 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 13329 

17Section 5.b of the EPA single-voltage EPS test 

procedure requires that active mode efficiency be 

measured at 100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, 

and 25 percent of nameplate output current. (EPA, 

‘‘Test Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency 

of Single-Voltage External AC–DC and AC–AC 

Power Supplies,’’ pp. 6–7). 

18The U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, is located at 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, 

DC, and is open between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 to arrange 

a visit. 

manufacturers to report the active mode 

efficiency, no-load power consumption 

(see section III.E.4), and output power 

for all EPSs to verify compliance with 

standards. This requirement is 

consistent with the existing paragraphs 

under 430.62(a)(4), which require 

manufacturers to report the capacity of 

covered products in cases where the 

standard levels depend on capacity. 

However, the EISA 2007 standard 

levels do not depend on the output 

current, which is only necessary for 

calculating the active mode loading 

conditions 17 required by the test 

procedure. In most cases the output 

current can therefore be read off the 

nameplate of the EPS being tested; 

however, DOE does not require 

manufacturers to list the output current 

on the EPS nameplate and cannot rely 

on its presence. Therefore, DOE is 

requiring manufacturers to report output 

current in cases where it is absent from 

the nameplate. 

Today’s final rule also amends the 

definitions of the nameplate power and 

current (section 2 of appendix Z) to refer 

to this manufacturer-supplied output 

information, which means that the test 

procedure can still be used if these 

parameters are absent from the 

nameplate. 

Although manufacturers would 

submit this output parameter 

information directly to DOE, external 

parties wishing to verify manufacturer 

tests could obtain it by visiting the 

Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program 18 or requesting it 

directly from manufacturers. These 

modifications will be inserted into 

sections (a)(4)(xxiii) and (xxiv) of 10 

CFR 430.62 and sections 2.l and 2.m of 

appendix Z. 

6. Definitions of ‘‘Basic Model’’ and 

‘‘Design Family’’ 

In the August 15, 2008, NOPR, DOE 

noted that it was considering defining 

EPS design families as groups of basic 

models that share output power and 

‘‘fundamental electrical circuit design,’’ 

but that vary by voltage. 73 FR 48054, 

48074. (See sections II.D and III.E) Ecos, 

PG&E, and ACEEE commented that DOE 

should also specify design families on 

the basis of output cord resistance, not 

cord length, as length is not the only 

parameter that determines cord 

resistance and the resultant losses. (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 17 at p. 200; PG&E & 

ACEEE, No. 21 at p. 4). 

Lacking additional stakeholder 

comments, today’s final rule contains a 

definition of ‘‘external power supply 

design family’’ that is consistent with 

the discussion in the August 15, 2008, 

NOPR, 73 FR 48054, 48074, and which 

incorporates the above guidance on cord 

resistance: 

External power supply design family 

means a set of external power supply basic 

models, produced by the same manufacturer, 

which share the same circuit layout, output 

power, and output cord resistance, but differ 

in output voltage. 

Today’s final rule will insert the 

above definition into section 2, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ of 10 CFR part 430. 

Furthermore, today’s final rule also 

requires that the compliance statement 

covering each design family be 

supported with test results for the 

highest- and lowest-voltage models 

within the design family. These 

requirements will be inserted into 

sections (a)(4)(xxiii) and (xxiv) of 10 

CFR 430.62. Figure III.1 and Figure III.2 

present suggested formats for the 

compliance statement and certification 

report that manufacturers can use to 

certify the compliance of EPS design 

families, based on the generic format 

found in appendix A to subpart F of part 

430. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
13330 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27MR09.407</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 13331 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

Manufacturers wishing to certify the 

compliance of individual basic models 

should treat them as a design family 

With one model. 

IV. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions 

on Compliance with Standards 

In amending a test procedure, section 

323(e) of EPCA directs DOE to 

determine to what extent, if any, the test 

procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency of the covered 

product. If the amended test procedure 

alters the measured efficiency, the 

Secretary must amend the applicable 

energy conservation standard to the 

extent the amended test procedure 

changes the energy efficiency of 

products that minimally comply with 

the existing standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)) On July 1, 2008, the energy 

conservation standards contained in 

section 301(c) of EISA 2007 regarding 

the active mode efficiency and no-load 

mode power consumption of Class A 

EPSs became effective. However, the 

test procedure amendments included in 

this final rule do not affect compliance 

with these standards because they do 

not substantively change the 

measurement of active mode efficiency 

and no-load mode power consumption. 

Of the five amendments discussed in 

section III, only those pertaining to (1) 

standby mode test procedures; (2) test 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27MR09.408</GPH>
13332 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

procedure definitions; and (3) switchselectable EPS testing could potentially 

affect compliance with standards. 

Although this final rule amends the 

current active and no-load mode test 

procedure so that it pertains to the 

‘‘measurement of standby mode (also 

no-load mode) energy consumption and 

active mode efficiency,’’ there are no 

substantive changes that would impact 

testing in active or no-load mode. 

Similarly, although the rule amends and 

adds to the test procedure definitions, 

the amendments codify generally 

accepted industry definitions without 

impacting the active or no-load mode 

measurement results. 

Finally, although today’s final rule 

amends the EPS test procedure to 

specify how switch-selectable EPSs 

should be tested, these amendments do 

not affect standards compliance either. 

Whereas under the existing test 

procedure manufacturers would test 

switch-selectable EPSs at each output 

voltage setting, under the amended test 

procedure, as under the ENERGY STAR 

program, manufacturers need only test 

these EPSs at the highest- and lowestvoltage settings. Nonetheless, a switchselectable EPS that was in compliance 

under the existing test procedure will be 

in compliance under the amended test 

procedure because the efficiencies 

measured at all the output voltage 

settings of a switch-selectable EPS will 

lie between those measured at the 

highest- and lowest-voltage settings. In 

other words, a switch-selectable EPS 

that was previously compliant when 

tested at each of its output voltage 

settings will be deemed compliant at 

either its highest- or lowest-voltage 

setting. Therefore, today’s amendment 

does not impact compliance with EISA 

2007 EPS standards. 

Because none of the amendments 

contained in today’s rule change the 

measurement of active mode efficiency 

and no-load mode power consumption, 

the rule has no impact on compliance 

with the EISA 2007 EPS standards. 

There are no existing standards for BCs. 

There were no stakeholder comments on 

the effects of test procedure 

amendments on compliance with 

standards. 

V. Procedural Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 

Accordingly, this action was not subject 

to review under that Executive Order by 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

B. 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 Department 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 DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site, http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed today’s final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. DOE tentatively certified in the 

August 15, 2008, NOPR that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 73 FR 48054, 

48077. DOE received one comment from 

Power Technology specifically 

regarding small business impacts. 

(Power Technology, No. 5 at p. 1). While 

it seems that Power Technology does 

not manufacture EPSs for consumer 

products, and is therefore not directly 

affected by this rulemaking, DOE would 

like to address the possible concerns of 

affected parties. While the EPS 

standards that became effective on July 

1, 2008 were Congressionally mandated, 

today’s rule mitigates their impact by 

requiring certification according to the 

design family approach. Because of the 

substantially lower burden resulting 

from this approach, DOE reaffirms that 

this rule will have no significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rulemaking imposes no new 

information or recordkeeping 

requirements. See August 15, 2008, 

NOPR, 73 FR 48054, 48078. 

Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 

required under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule is covered under the 

Categorical Exclusion found in DOE’s 

National Environmental Policy Act 

regulations. This rule amends an 

existing rule without changing its 

environmental effect, and, therefore, is 

covered by the Categorical Exclusion A5 

found in appendix A to subpart D, 10 

CFR part 1021. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 10, 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 final rule 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Executive 

Order 13132 requires no further action. 

F. Executive Order 12988 

Regarding 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. Regarding the 

review required by section 3(a), 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 

sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine 

whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 13333 

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. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) (UMRA) 

generally requires Federal agencies to 

examine closely the impacts of 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

Tribal governments. Subsection 101(5) 

of title I of that law defines a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate to include 

any regulation that would impose upon 

State, local, or Tribal governments an 

enforceable duty, except a condition of 

Federal assistance or a duty arising from 

participating in a voluntary federal 

program. Title II of UMRA requires each 

Federal agency to assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. For proposed regulatory 

actions likely to result in a rule that may 

cause expenditures by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more (adjusted annually for inflation), 

section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal 

agency to publish estimates of the 

resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. Section 

204 of 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.’’ 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 final 

rule would modify the current test 

procedures for BCs and EPSs. Today’s 

rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any year. 

Accordingly, no assessment or analysis 

is required under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

H. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 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. 

Today’s rule would not have any impact 

on the autonomy or integrity of the 

family as an institution. Accordingly, 

DOE has concluded that it is 

unnecessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this rule 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

J. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 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. 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. 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 OMB a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any proposed 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated 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 is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 or 

any successor order; would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; and has 

not been designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it is not a 

significant energy action. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects. 

L. Section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91), DOE must comply with all laws 

applicable to the former Federal Energy 

Administration, including section 32 of 

the Federal Energy Administration Act 

of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–275), as amended by 

the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95– 

70). (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 provides 

that where a proposed rule authorizes or 

requires use of commercial standards, 

the notice of proposed rulemaking must 

inform the public of the use and 

background of such standards. Section 

32(c) also requires DOE to consult with 

the Department of Justice and the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of commercial or 

industry standards on competition. 

Certain of the amendments and 

revisions in this final rule incorporate 

testing methods contained in the 

following commercial standards: (1) 

CEC 2007 Appliance Efficiency 

Regulations, section 1604(u)(1), which 

directly cites ‘‘Test Method for 

Calculating the Energy Efficiency of 

Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc and AcAc Power Supplies’’; (2) IEEE Standard 

1515–2000, ‘‘IEEE Recommended 

Practice for Electronic Power 

Subsystems: Parameter Definitions, Test 

Conditions, and Test Methods’’; and (3) 

IEC Standard 62301 ‘‘Household 

electrical appliances—Measurement of 

standby power.’’ As stated in the August 

15, 2008, NOPR, DOE has evaluated 

these standards and is unable to 

conclude whether they fully comply 

with the requirements of section 32(b) of 

the Federal Energy Administration Act, 

(i.e., that they were developed in a 

manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 73 

FR 48054, 48079. DOE has consulted 

with the Attorney General and the 

Chairman of the FTC concerning the 

impact on competition of requiring 

manufacturers to use the test methods 

contained in these standards, and 

neither recommended against 

incorporation of these standards. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s rule before its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
13334 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 11, 

2009. 

Rita L. Wells, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Business Administration, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

part 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code 

of Federal Regulations, is amended as 

set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. In § 430.2 add, in alphabetical 

order, a definition for ‘‘external power 

supply design family,’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

External power supply design family 

means a set of external power supply 

basic models, produced by the same 

manufacturer, which share the same 

circuit layout, output power, and output 

cord resistance, but differ in output 

voltage. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 430.23 revise paragraphs (aa) 

and (bb) to read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(aa) Battery Chargers. The energy 

consumption of a battery charger, 

expressed as the nonactive energy ratio, 

shall be measured in accordance with 

section 4(a) of appendix Y of this 

subpart. The energy consumption of a 

battery charger in standby mode and off 

mode shall be measured in accordance 

with sections 4(c) and 4(d), respectively, 

of appendix Y of this subpart. 

(bb) External Power Supplies. The 

energy consumption of an external 

power supply, including active-mode 

efficiency expressed as a percentage and 

the no-load, off, and standby mode 

energy consumption levels expressed in 

watts, shall be measured in accordance 

with section 4 of appendix Z of this 

subpart. 

■ 4. Amend appendix Y to subpart B of 

part 430 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs 2.f, 2.g, 

2.h, and 2.i as 2.g, 2.i, 2j, and 2.l, 

respectively; 

■ b. Adding new paragraphs 2.f, 2.h, 

2.k; 

■ c. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph 2.l; 

■ d. Add new paragraphs 4(c) and 4(d); 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Battery 

Chargers 

* * * * * 

2. Definitions: 

* * * * * 

f. Cradle is an electrical interface between 

an integral battery product and the rest of the 

battery charger designed to hold the product 

between uses. 

* * * * * 

h. Manual on-off switch is a switch 

activated by the user to control power 

reaching the device. This term does not apply 

to any mechanical, optical, or electronic 

switches that automatically disconnect mains 

power from the device when a battery is 

removed from a cradle or charging base or, 

for products with non-detachable batteries, 

that control power to the product itself. 

* * * * * 

k. Off mode is the condition, applicable 

only to units with manual on-off switches, in 

which the battery charger is (1) connected to 

the main electricity supply; (2) is not 

connected to the battery; and (3) all manual 

on-off switches are turned off. 

l. Standby mode (also no-battery mode) 

means the condition in which (1) the battery 

charger is connected to the main electricity 

supply; (2) the battery is not connected to the 

charger; and (3) for battery chargers with 

manual on-off switches, all such switches are 

turned on. 

* * * * * 

4. Test Measurement: 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) Standby Mode Energy Consumption 

Measurement. Conduct a measurement of 

standby power consumption while the 

battery charger is connected to the power 

source. Disconnect the battery from the 

charger and record the power (i.e., watts) 

consumed as the time series integral of the 

power consumed over a 1-hour test period, 

divided by the period of measurement. If the 

battery charger has manual on-off switches, 

all must be turned on for the duration of the 

standby mode test. 

(2) Standby mode may also apply to 

products with integral batteries. If the 

product uses a cradle and/or adapter for 

power conversion and charging, then 

‘‘disconnecting the battery from the charger’’ 

will require disconnection of the end-use 

product, which contains the batteries. The 

other enclosures of the battery charging 

system will remain connected to the main 

electricity supply, and standby mode power 

consumption will equal that of the cradle 

and/or adapter alone. 

(3) If the product also contains integrated 

power conversion and charging circuitry and 

is powered through a detachable AC power 

cord, then only the cord will remain 

connected to mains, and standby mode 

power consumption will equal that of the AC 

power cord (i.e., zero watts). 

(4) Finally, if the product contains 

integrated power conversion and charging 

circuitry but is powered through a nondetachable AC power cord or plug blades, 

then no part of the system will remain 

connected to mains, and standby mode 

measurement is not applicable. 

(d)(1) Off Mode Energy Consumption 

Measurement. If the battery charger has 

manual on-off switches, record a 

measurement of off mode energy 

consumption while the battery charger is 

connected to the power source. Remove the 

battery from the charger and record the 

power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time 

series integral of the power consumed over 

a 1-hour test period, divided by the period 

of measurement, with all manual on-off 

switches turned off. If the battery charger 

does not have manual on-off switches, record 

that the off mode measurement is not 

applicable to this product. 

(2) Off mode may also apply to products 

with integral batteries. If the product uses a 

cradle and/or adapter for power conversion 

and charging, then ‘‘disconnecting the battery 

from the charger’’ will require disconnection 

of the end-use product, which contains the 

batteries. The other enclosures of the battery 

charging system will remain connected to the 

main electricity supply, and off mode power 

consumption will equal that of the cradle 

and/or adapter alone. 

(3) If the product also contains integrated 

power conversion and charging circuitry and 

is powered through a detachable AC power 

cord, then only the cord will remain 

connected to mains, and off mode power 

consumption will equal that of the AC power 

cord (i.e., zero watts). 

(4) Finally, if the product contains 

integrated power conversion and charging 

circuitry but is powered through a nondetachable AC power cord or plug blades, 

then no part of the system will remain 

connected to mains, and off mode 

measurement is not applicable. 

■ 5. Amend Appendix Z to subpart B of 

part 430 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs 1 and 2; 

■ b. Adding, to paragraph 3, after the 

introductory heading ‘‘3. Test Apparatus 

and General Instructions’’ the paragraph 

designation ‘‘(a) Single-Voltage External 

Power Supply’’; 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph 3(b); and 

■ d. Revising paragraph 4. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 13335 

Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of External Power 

Supplies 

1. Scope: This appendix covers the test 

requirements used to measure energy 

consumption of external power supplies. 

2. Definitions: The following definitions 

are for the purposes of understanding 

terminology associated with the test method 

for measuring external power supply energy 

consumption. For clarity on any other 

terminology used in the test method, please 

refer to IEC Standard 60050 or IEEE Standard 

100. (Reference for guidance only, see 

§ 430.4.) 

a. Active mode means the mode of 

operation when the external power supply is 

connected to the main electricity supply and 

the output is (or ‘‘all outputs are’’ for a 

multiple-voltage external power supply) 

connected to a load (or ‘‘loads’’ for a 

multiple-voltage external power supply). 

b. Active mode efficiency is the ratio, 

expressed as a percentage, of the total real 

output power produced by a power supply to 

the real input power required to produce it. 

(Reference for guidance only, see IEEE 

Standard 1515–2000, 4.3.1.1, § 430.4.) 

c. Active power (also real power) (P) means 

the root-mean-square (RMS) value of the 

instantaneous power taken over one period. 

(Reference for guidance only, see IEEE 

Standard 1515–2000, § 430.4.) 

d. Ambient temperature means the 

temperature of the ambient air immediately 

surrounding the unit under test. 

e. Apparent power (S) is the product of 

RMS voltage and RMS current (VA). 

f. Instantaneous power means the product 

of the instantaneous voltage and 

instantaneous current at a port (the terminal 

pair of a load). 

g. Manual on-off switch is a switch 

activated by the user to control power 

reaching the device. This term does not apply 

to any mechanical, optical, or electronic 

switches that automatically disconnect mains 

power from the device when a load is 

disconnected from the device, or that control 

power to the load itself. 

h. Minimum output current means the 

minimum current that must be drawn from 

an output bus for an external power supply 

to operate within its specifications. 

i. Multiple-voltage external power supply 

means an external power supply that is 

designed to convert line voltage AC input 

into more than one simultaneous lowervoltage output. 

j. Nameplate input frequency means the 

AC input frequency of the power supply as 

specified on the manufacturer’s label on the 

power supply housing. 

k. Nameplate input voltage means the AC 

input voltage of the power supply as 

specified on the manufacturer’s label on the 

power supply housing. 

l. Nameplate output current means the 

current output of the power supply as 

specified on the manufacturer’s label on the 

power supply housing (either DC or AC) or, 

if absent from the housing, as provided by 

the manufacturer. 

m. Nameplate output power means the 

power output of the power supply as 

specified on the manufacturer’s label on the 

power supply housing or, if absent from the 

housing, as specified in documentation 

provided by the manufacturer. 

n. Nameplate output voltage means the 

voltage output of the power supply as 

specified on the manufacturer’s label on the 

power supply housing (either DC or AC). 

o. No-load mode means the mode of 

operation when an external power supply is 

connected to the main electricity supply and 

the output is (or ‘‘all outputs are’’ for a 

multiple-voltage external power supply) not 

connected to a load (or ‘‘loads’’ for a 

multiple-voltage external power supply). 

p. Off mode is the condition, applicable 

only to units with manual on-off switches, in 

which the external power supply is (1) 

connected to the main electricity supply; (2) 

the output is not connected to any load; and 

(3) all manual on-off switches are turned off. 

q. Output bus means any of the outputs of 

the power supply to which loads can be 

connected and from which power can be 

drawn, as opposed to signal connections 

used for communication. 

r. Single-voltage external AC–AC power 

supply means an external power supply that 

is designed to convert line voltage AC input 

into lower voltage AC output and is able to 

convert to only one AC output voltage at a 

time. 

s. Single-voltage external AC–DC power 

supply means an external power supply that 

is designed to convert line voltage AC input 

into lower-voltage DC output and is able to 

convert to only one DC output voltage at a 

time. 

t. Standby mode means the condition in 

which the external power supply is in noload mode and, for external power supplies 

with manual on-off switches, all such 

switches are turned on. 

u. Switch-selectable single voltage external 

power supply means a single-voltage AC–AC 

or AC–DC power supply that allows users to 

choose from more than one output voltage. 

v. Total harmonic distortion, expressed as 

a percentage, is the RMS value of an AC 

signal after the fundamental component is 

removed and interharmonic components are 

ignored, divided by the RMS value of the 

fundamental component. THD of current is 

defined as: 

THD

IIII I

I I

n = 2 ++++ 2

3

2

4

2

5

2 2

1

......

where In is the RMS value of the nth 

harmonic of the current signal. 

w. True power factor (PF) is the ratio of the 

active power (P) consumed in watts to the 

apparent power (S), drawn in volt-amperes. 

PF P

S =

This definition of power factor includes the 

effect of both distortion and displacement. 

x. Unit under test is the external power 

supply being tested. 

3. * * * 

(a) Single-Voltage External Power Supply. 

* * * 

(b) Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply. [Reserved] 

4. Test Measurement: 

(a) Single-Voltage External Power Supply 

(i) Standby Mode and Active Mode 

Measurement—The measurement of standby 

mode (also no-load mode) energy 

consumption and active mode efficiency 

shall conform to the requirements specified 

in section 5, ‘‘Measurement Approach’’ of the 

CEC’s ‘‘Test Method for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 

Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac Power Supplies,’’ August 

11, 2004, (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.3). Switch-selectable single-voltage 

external power supplies shall be tested 

twice—once at the highest nameplate output 

voltage and once at the lowest. 

(ii) Off-Mode Measurement—If the external 

power supply unit under test incorporates 

manual on-off switches, the unit under test 

shall be placed in off mode, and its power 

consumption in off mode measured and 

recorded. The measurement of the off mode 

energy consumption shall conform to the 

requirements specified in section 5, 

‘‘Measurement Approach,’’ of the CEC’s 

‘‘Test Method for Calculating the Energy 

Efficiency of Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc 

and Ac-Ac Power Supplies,’’ August 11, 2004 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3), with 

two exceptions. In section 5.a, ‘‘Preparing 

UUT [Unit Under Test] for Test,’’ all manual 

on-off switches shall be placed in the ‘‘off’’ 

position for the measurement. In section 5.d, 

‘‘Testing Sequence,’’ the technician shall 

consider the UUT stable if, over 5 minutes 

with samples taken at least once every 

second, the AC input power does not drift 

from the maximum value observed by more 

than 1 percent or 50 milliwatts, whichever is 

greater. The only loading condition that will 

be measured for off mode is ‘‘Load Condition 

5’’ in Table 1 of the CEC’s test procedure. 

Switch-selectable single-voltage external 

power supplies shall have their off mode 

power consumption measured twice— once 

at the highest nameplate output voltage and 

once at the lowest. 

(b) Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply. [Reserved] 

■ 6. In § 430.62 add and reserve 

paragraphs (a)(4)(xviii) through (xxii) 

and add new paragraphs (a)(4)(xxiii) 

and (a)(4)(xxiv), to read as follows: 

§ 430.62 Submission of data. 

(a) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(xviii)–(xxii) [Reserved] 

(xxiii) External power supplies, the 

average active mode efficiency 

percentage, no-load mode power 

consumption in watts, nameplate output 

power in watts, and, if missing from the 

nameplate, the output current in 

amperes of the highest- and lowestvoltage models within the external 

power supply design family. 

(xxiv) Switch-selectable single-voltage 

voltage external power supplies, the 

average active mode efficiency 

percentage and no-load mode power 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27MR09.409</MATH> ER27MR09.410</MATH>
13336 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 58 / Friday, March 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1The OCC’s interim final rule refers to the AMLF 

as the ‘‘ABCP Lending Facility.’’ 

2See 12 CFR Part 3. 

3 73 FR 55704 (Sept. 26, 2008). 4 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). 

consumption in watts at the lowest and 

highest selectable output voltage, 

nameplate output power in watts, and, 

if missing from the nameplate, the 

output current in amperes. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–6138 Filed 3–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

12 CFR Part 3 

[Docket ID OCC–2009–0002] 

RIN 1557–AD15 

Risk-Based Capital Guidelines—Money 

Market Mutual Funds 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On September 19, 2008, the 

Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System adopted the AssetBacked Commercial Paper Money 

Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility 

(the ‘‘AMLF’’ or ‘‘ABCP Lending 

Facility’’) which enables depository 

institutions and bank holding 

companies to borrow from the Federal 

Reserve Bank of Boston on a nonrecourse basis if they use the proceeds 

of the loan to purchase certain assetbacked commercial paper (ABCP) from 

money market mutual funds. The 

purpose of this action was to reduce 

strains being experienced by money 

market mutual funds. To facilitate 

national bank participation in the 

program, the Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency (OCC) adopted on 

September 19, 2008, on an interim final 

basis, an exemption from its risk-based 

capital guidelines for ABCP held by a 

national bank as a result of its 

participation in this program. 

The AMLF was set to expire on 

January 30, 2009. However, to 

encourage the stability of money market 

mutual funds, the program has been 

extended to October 30, 2009. This rule 

finalizes the risk-based capital 

exemption and extends the risk-based 

capital exemption to ABCP purchased 

beyond the original January 30, 2009, 

date. This final rule applies the riskbased capital exemption to any ABCP 

purchased as a result of a national 

bank’s participation in the facility. The 

risk-based capital exemption will 

continue to apply if the AMLF is 

extended beyond October 30, 2009. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margot Schwadron, Senior Risk Expert, 

(202) 874–6022, Capital Policy Division; 

Hugh Carney, Attorney; or Stuart 

Feldstein, Assistant Director, Legislative 

and Regulatory Activities Division, 

(202) 874–5090; Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

In light of the ongoing dislocations in 

the financial markets, and their impact 

on the functioning of the ABCP markets 

and the operations of money market 

mutual funds, the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System (FRB) 

adopted the AMLF on September 19, 

2008.1 Under the AMLF, depository 

institutions and bank holding 

companies (banking organizations) are 

able to borrow from the Federal Reserve 

Bank of Boston on a nonrecourse basis 

on condition that the banking 

organizations use the proceeds of the 

Federal Reserve credit to purchase, at 

amortized cost, certain highly rated U.S. 

dollar-denominated ABCP from money 

market mutual funds. The ABCP 

purchased must be used to secure the 

borrowing from the Reserve Bank. The 

purpose of the AMLF is to enable 

money market mutual funds to increase 

their liquidity by enabling them to sell 

some of their high-credit-quality 

secured assets at amortized cost. The 

AMLF was set to expire on January 30, 

2009. However, to promote continued 

stability in the money market mutual 

funds, the FRB extended the program 

until October 30, 2009. 

Description of Interim Final Rule 

National banks that participate in the 

AMLF must acquire and hold ABCP on 

their balance sheet. These ABCP 

holdings are subject to regulatory capital 

requirements under the OCC’s 

regulatory capital guidelines and rules.2

To facilitate national bank participation 

in the AMLF, the OCC adopted, on an 

interim final basis, an exemption from 

its risk-based capital guidelines for 

ABCP purchased by a national bank as 

a result of its participation in the 

facility.3 Specifically, the interim final 

rule amended the OCC’s risk-based 

capital guidelines to permit national 

banks to assign a zero percent risk 

weight to ABCP purchased as a result of 

participation in the facility. The interim 

final rule applied to ABCP purchased 

between September 19, 2008, and 

January 30, 2009. The OCC received one 

comment from an industry trade group 

that supported the rule and encouraged 

its adoption without change. 

Description of Final Rule 

The OCC continues to believe that the 

ABCP acquired by a national bank 

pursuant to the AMLF does not expose 

the participating national banks to 

credit or market risk because of the nonrecourse nature of the Federal Reserve’s 

credit extension. Therefore, the OCC 

concludes that it would be 

appropriate—and consistent with the 

economic substance of the 

transactions—to continue to apply the 

risk-based capital exemption to a 

national bank that serves as an 

intermediary in the AMLF. In light of 

the Federal Reserve’s extension of the 

AMLF program, the OCC has 

determined to extend the risk-based 

capital exemption to ABCP purchased 

beyond the original January 30, 2009 

date. The risk-based capital exemption 

applies to any ABCP purchased as a 

result of a national bank’s participation 

in the facility. The risk-based capital 

exemption will continue to apply if the 

Federal Reserve further extends the 

AMLF program beyond October 30, 

2009. 

Consistent with generally accepted 

accounting principles, the OCC would 

expect national banks to report 

purchased ABCP as an investment 

security (for example, held-to-maturity). 

These assets would be reflected at the 

time of purchase at the national bank’s 

best estimate of fair value. The nonrecourse nature of the transaction would 

impact the valuation of the liability to 

the Federal Reserve. After reflecting any 

appropriate discounts on the assets and 

associated liabilities, national banks are 

not expected to report any material net 

gains or losses at the time of purchase. 

Effective Date 

This final rule is effective 

immediately upon publication. An 

agency may publish a final rule with an 

immediate effective date if the agency 

finds good cause and publishes such 

with the final rule.4

The OCC finds that good cause exists 

for an immediate effective date. As 

previously described in this preamble, 

modification of the risk-based capital 

guidelines is critical to maintain the 

orderly functioning of financial markets, 

to provide market liquidity, and to 

encourage stability of the operations of 

money market mutual funds. In the 

current market environment, a 30 day 

delayed effective date is impracticable 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES