Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies, 30636-30649 [2020-09988]

Download as PDF 30636 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 98 Wednesday, May 20, 2020 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [EERE–2020–BT–STD–0006] RIN 1904–AD87 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for information. AGENCY: The U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is initiating an effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for External Power Supplies (‘‘EPS’’). Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, DOE must review these standards at least once every six years and publish either propose new standards for EPSs or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. This request for information (‘‘RFI’’) solicits information from the public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for EPSs would result in significant energy savings and whether such standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. As part of this RFI, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ‘‘no new standard’’ determination because a more stringent standard: would not result in a significant savings of energy; is not technologically feasible; is not economically justified; or any combination of the foregoing. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this document (including those topics not specifically raised), as well as the SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 submission of data and other relevant information. DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before July 6, 2020. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE–2020–BT–STD–0006, by any of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: to EPS2020STD006@ ee.doe.gov Include the docket number EERE–2020–BT–STD–0006 in the subject line of the message. 3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section III of this document. Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at https:// www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the https:// www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=EERE-2020-BT-STD0006. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit comments through https:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 9870. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ EE.Doe.Gov. Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 6636 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority and Background B. Rulemaking Process I. Request for Information and Comments A. Products Covered by This Process 1. External Versus Internal Power Supplies 2. Wireless Power Devices B. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Product Classes 2. Technology Assessment C. Screening Analysis D. Engineering Analysis 1. Baseline Efficiency Levels 2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels 3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price E. Distribution Channels F. Energy Use Analysis 1. Active-Mode and No-Load Mode of External Power Supplies 2. Idle Mode and Sleep Mode of External Power Supplies G. Repair and Maintenance Costs H. Shipments I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics 1. Market Failures 2. Emerging Smart Technology Market 3. Other Issues K. Updated Market Data III. Submission of Comments E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules I. Introduction A. Authority and Background The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317) Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include external power supplies (‘‘EPSs’’), the subject of this document. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u) EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110–140 (‘‘EISA’’), also defined a subset of EPSs, called Class A EPSs—devices that 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’’ among other characteristics.3 (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)) These devices are also, by definition, (1) designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output, (2) sold with (or intended to be used with) a separate end-use product that constitutes the primary load, (3) contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product, and (4) connected to the enduse product via a removable or hardwired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord or other wiring. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i). EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Level IV standards,’’ the nomenclature of which is based on the marking required in accordance with the International Efficiency Marking Protocol) that became required on July 1, 2008. EPCA also directed DOE to conduct 2 cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)) Following the EISA amendments, Congress further amended EPCA to exclude EPSs used for certain security and life safety alarms and surveillance systems manufactured prior to July 1, 2017, from the statutorily-prescribed ‘‘no-load’’ energy conservation standards. (Pub. L. 111–360 (January 4, 2011) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270 (October 23, 2018). 2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 3 Congress also excluded certain devices from the Class A EPS definition, specifically certain devices requiring listing and approval as a medical device and devices that either (1) power the charger of a detachable battery pack or (2) charge the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 6295(u)(3)(E)). EPCA’s EPS provisions were again amended by the Power and Security Systems (‘‘PASS’’) Act, which extended the rulemaking deadline and effective date established under the EISA 2007 amendments from July 1, 2015, and July 1, 2017, to July 1, 2021, and July 1, 2023, respectively. (Pub. L. 115–78 (November 2, 2017) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii))). The PASS Act also extended the exclusion of certain security and life safety alarms and surveillance systems from no-load standards until the effective date of the final rule issued under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii) and allows the Secretary to treat some or all EPSs designed to be connected to a security or life safety alarm or surveillance system as a separate product class or to further extend the exclusion. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)(ii) and (iv). Most recently, on January 12, 2018, the EPS Improvement Act of 2017, Public Law 115–115, amended EPCA to exclude the following devices from the EPS definition: power supply circuits, drivers, or devices that are designed exclusively to be connected to and power (1) light-emitting diodes providing illumination, (2) organic light-emitting diodes providing illumination, or (3) ceiling fans using direct current motors.4 (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)(ii)) The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296). Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)). DOE completed the first of two required rulemaking cycles in 2014 by adopting amended performance standards for EPSs manufactured on or 4 DOE amended its regulations to reflect the changes introduced by the PASS Act and EPS Improvement Act. 84 FR 437 (January 29, 2018). PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 30637 after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7846 (February 10, 2014) (setting amended standards to apply starting on February 10, 2016) (‘‘February 2014 Final Rule’’). The final rule amended the Level IV standards prescribed by Congress and separated EPSs into two groups regardless of whether they met the Class A criteria—direct operation EPSs and indirect operation EPSs. The February 2014 Final Rule set new standards that applied only to direct operation EPSs (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Level VI standards’’), which increased the stringency of the average active-mode and no-load power consumption metrics over the Level IV standards. Under this rule, Class A EPSs that could directly power a consumer product (excluding battery chargers) became subject to the Level VI standards, whereas a Class A EPS that requires the use of a battery to power a consumer product remained subject to the Level IV standards. Likewise, a non-Class A EPS that could directly power a consumer product (excluding battery chargers) became subject to efficiency standards for the first time (Level VI standards)—nonClass A indirect operation EPS continued to remain free from any efficiency requirements. 79 FR 7865. The current energy conservation standards are located in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430, section 32(w). The currently applicable DOE test procedures for EPS are at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z (‘‘Appendix Z’’). In implementing its standards, DOE provided more detailed guidance in an EPS test procedure rulemaking to help manufacturers and others determine whether a given device fell into the direct operation or indirect operation group. See 80 FR 51424 (Aug. 25, 2014). In that document, DOE noted that the separation between these two types of EPSs is based on their ability to power an end-use product when the product’s battery is removed or depleted. If the product can still operate as intended when the battery is removed and the EPS is connected, the EPS is considered a direct operation EPS provided that the EPS operates a consumer product. If the product can only operate a battery charger or if the product cannot operate with the battery removed, it is considered an indirect operation EPS. 80 FR 51434–51435. On December 6, 2019, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the EPS test procedure as codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix Z, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies.’’ This notice was issued in response to several test E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 30638 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules procedure waivers, and stakeholder inquiries regarding testing methods for EPSs that incorporated certain newer technologies. Specifically, the proposed amendments address issues regarding the emergence of adaptive and multipleoutput EPSs. EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the energy conservation standards for each type of covered product, including those at issue here, and publish either a notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) In making a determination that the standards do not need to be amended, DOE must evaluate whether amended standards (1) will result in significant conservation of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are cost effective as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must determine whether the benefits of a standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of the standard. If DOE publishes a final determination that a standard does not need amending based on the statutory criteria, not later than 3 years after the issuance of DOE’s determination, DOE must either make a new determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended or propose new energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in the following section, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) If DOE decides to amend the standard based on the statutory criteria, DOE must publish a final rule not later than two years after energy conservation standards are proposed. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A)) DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA. B. Rulemaking Process DOE must follow specific statutory criteria when prescribing new or amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that the Secretary of Energy (‘‘the Secretary’’) determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors: (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the affected products; (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or maintenance expenses likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) savings likely to result directly from the standard; (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the standard; (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard; (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA. TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis Significant Energy Savings ....................................................................... Technological Feasibility ........................................................................... Economic Justification: 1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers .................... 2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for the product. 3. Total projected energy savings ..................................................... 4. Impact on utility or performance .................................................... 5. Impact of any lessening of competition ......................................... 6. Need for national energy and water conservation ........................ 7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ............................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 • • • • • • Shipments Analysis. National Impact Analysis. Energy and Water Use Determination. Market and Technology Assessment. Screening Analysis. Engineering Analysis. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis. Shipments Analysis. Markups for Product Price Determination. Energy and Water Use Determination. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. Shipments Analysis. National Impact Analysis. Screening Analysis. Engineering Analysis. Manufacturer Impact Analysis. Shipments Analysis. National Impact Analysis. Employment Impact Analysis. Utility Impact Analysis. Emissions Analysis. Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 30639 TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS—Continued EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis • Regulatory Impact Analysis. As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document to seek input and data from interested parties to aid in the development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for EPSs. II. Request for Information and Comments In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for EPSs may be warranted. As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ‘‘no new standard’’ determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing. Additionally, DOE recently published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE’s intent in issuing the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks comments, data and information on the issues presented in the RFI as they may be applicable to EPSs. A. Products Covered by This Process This RFI covers those products that meet the definitions of various EPSs codified at 10 CFR 430.2. An EPS is defined 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. 10 CFR 430.2. DOE’s regulations also include more specific VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 definitions of other EPS variants. See 10 CFR 430.2. DOE is interested in any feedback stakeholders may have on the classification of specific types of EPSs but notes that the EPS definition is established by statute. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) There are products that would initially appear to be within the broad statutory definition of EPS, such as: Consumer devices with multiple primary functions one of which is an EPS; and, wireless power supplies. In each of these examples, a circuit is used to convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumer product. DOE is seeking information on the technical differences between such products and other products that are EPSs. 1. Consumer Devices With Auxiliary Power Supply Function The ubiquitous nature of universal serial bus (‘‘USB’’) devices as charging and communication platforms has led many manufacturers to embed USB ports within consumer devices whose primary function may not be to serve as an external power supply. (A universal serial bus is a type of interface that enables communication between various devices and a host controller.) With ever improving specifications such as 100W of power and 10 gigabits per second (Gbps) of throughout data, DOE anticipates the presence of embedded USB ports to become even more commonplace. This projected development raises the question about whether these products are EPSs and subject to the EPS standards. This section addresses this topic and seeks feedback from interested parties on specific questions. The USB specification, published by the USB Implementers Forum,5 requires any USB output port, even those embedded in other products, to output a DC voltage. Therefore, a consumer product could generally receive AC input from the mains and convert it into a DC output at an embedded USB port. This includes products as varied as: Laptops, desktop computers, TVs, power strips, surge protectors, 5 The USB Implementers Forum is an organization made up of industry stakeholders that support the advancement and adoption of USB technologies. For more information, visit https:// www.usb.org/about. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 refrigerators, lamps, or any other household consumer goods with USB output ports. DOE seeks feedback on the following topics related to consumer products with USB output ports: Issue 1: How can a product that has a primary functionality other than power conversion but with an integrated USB output, be differentiated from a product of which power conversion is the primary function? For such products, is it possible to isolate the power conversion associated with the USB output and measure its efficiency independently from that of the remainder of the product? 2. Wireless Power Devices A wireless power device is one that transfers electrical energy from a power source to an electrical load without the use of physical conductors such as wires and cables. DOE has identified two types of wireless power devices, one of which appears to meet the definition of an EPS. One group of wireless power devices, which includes chargers for electric toothbrushes, shavers, and smartwatches, consists of devices that operate by only powering battery charging circuits in an end-use product. These devices interface with the enduse product using proprietary charging connections that only work with products from the same manufacturer. However, only some of these devices are subject to the battery charger standards—namely, electric toothbrushes and water jets. These devices are collectively known as inductive chargers for wet environments. To date, all other applications of inductive battery charging fall under the dry environment terminology, for which DOE has not promulgated any standards. The second group of wireless power devices consists of devices that can work with products that are equipped with or without batteries as well as with products from different manufacturers. These include products such as universal wireless mats that can be used with various consumer devices made by different manufacturers. In DOE’s view, these devices could therefore be considered EPSs, but would not be Class A EPSs because they are not connected to the end-use product using a removable or hard-wired electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring. E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 30640 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)(V). Further, DOE is not aware of any wireless power device that can operate a consumer product that is not a battery charger without the assistance of a battery— making them non-Class A indirect operation EPSs, a subset of products for which energy efficiency standards do not currently exist under DOE’s regulations. Accordingly, these products are not subject to the current EPS standards. DOE seeks public input on the following questions to help assess the necessity of regulating the energy efficiency of these devices: Issue 2: How many varieties of wireless EPS products that can power a non-battery operated end-use product directly are currently offered for sale? What are the shipment volumes of these products and what are the projected sales in the industry over the next 5 years? DOE requests feedback on what factors should be considered when evaluating product classes and standards for wireless EPSs such as wireless mats. What are the design options associated with wireless EPSs that could be used to improve the efficiency of the power transfer process and what are the costs associated with each design option? What are the achievable efficiencies of wireless EPSs and is there a correlation between efficiency and output power such as in more traditional wired EPSs? Issue 3: How can the efficiency of wireless power devices be measured and replicated in a lab setting to achieve repeatable results? Do any industry standards or test methods exist or are any being developed to test the energy efficiency or power consumption of wireless EPSs that DOE would consider adopting? If yes, what are the pros and cons of each? If no published industry testing standard exist, do stakeholders have any input regarding a method to test these products? B. Market and Technology Assessment The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy conservation standard provides information about the EPS industry that will be used in DOE’s analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers, estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency improvements in the design and manufacturing of EPSs. DOE also reviews product literature, industry publications, and company websites. Additionally, DOE may conduct interviews with manufacturers to improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for EPSs. 1. Product Classes When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that would justify a different standard from that which applies (or will apply) to other products within such type or class. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.) For EPSs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10 CFR 430.32 are based on 8 product classes determined according to the following performance-related features that provide utility to the consumer, in terms of output voltage type, output voltage and current levels, number of simultaneous output voltage(s) and whether the product meets the definition of direct or indirect operation EPSs. Additionally, EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, also prescribes the criteria for a subcategory of EPSs—those classified as Class A EPSs. 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i). Indirect operation EPSs falling within the Class A EPS definition are subject to Level IV standards while non-Class A indirect operation EPSs would not be subject to any standards. Direct operation EPSs are subject to Level VI standards regardless of whether they meet the Class A definition. 10 CFR 430.32. Table II.1 lists the level of standards applicable to different types of EPSs based on operation type and whether it meets the Class A definition. TABLE II.1—APPLICATION OF STANDARDS FOR CLASS A/NON-CLASS A EPS STANDARD LEVELS BASED ON TYPE OF OPERATION Class A EPS Direct Operation EPS .............................................. Indirect Operation EPS ............................................ Table II.2 lists the current 8 product classes for EPSs and their respective product class codes for EPSs. A ‘‘lowvoltage EPS’’ means an EPS with a Non-class A EPS Level VI: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii) ................. Level IV: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(i) .................. nameplate output voltage less than 6 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 550 milliamps. A ‘‘basic-voltage EPS’’ means an EPS Level VI: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii). No Standards. that is not a low-voltage EPS. See 10 CFR 430.2. TABLE II.2—CURRENT EPS PRODUCT CLASSES Product class code Product class description B ........................ C ........................ Direct Operation, AC-DC, Basic-Voltage. Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage (except those with nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps that charge the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated). Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage with nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps and charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated. Direct Operation, AC-AC, Basic-Voltage. Direct Operation, AC-AC, Low-Voltage. Direct Operation, Multiple-Voltage. C–1 .................... D ........................ E ........................ X ........................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 30641 TABLE II.2—CURRENT EPS PRODUCT CLASSES—Continued Product class code H ........................ N ........................ Product class description Direct Operation, High-Power. Indirect Operation. Issue 4: DOE requests feedback on the current EPS product classes and whether these classes continue to reasonably depict the make-up of the EPS market or whether changes are merited. Related to this request, DOE seeks information on whether combining certain classes could impact product utility by eliminating any performance-related features or impact the stringency of the current energy conservation standard for these products. DOE also requests comment on separating any of the existing product classes and whether it would impact product utility by eliminating any performance-related features or reduce any compliance burdens. Issue 5: Separate from the approach to combine product classes, DOE may also consider modifying the certification template to reduce the number of individual product codes by requesting additional information such as voltage rating and current rating which would then be used to assign the appropriate product class and identify the corresponding standard. DOE requests comment on this approach, or other approaches that achieve the same purpose. DOE also understands that new configurations and features may be available for EPSs that may not have been available at the time of the last energy conservation standards analysis. Issue 6: DOE seeks information regarding any other new product classes that are not already addressed by its current regulations that it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically, DOE requests information on the performance-related features (e.g., improved switched-mode topologies, semiconductor materials, component designs etc.) that provide unique consumer utility and data detailing the corresponding impacts on energy use that would justify separate product classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of these performancerelated features would increase energy consumption). Issue 7: Has the distribution of the various EPS product classes that DOE regulates changed since DOE’s analysis for the final rule published on February 10, 2014? In that prior analysis, DOE indicated that, for total EPS shipments in 2009, direct operation, AC-DC, basic- VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 voltage and low-voltage EPSs combined constituted nearly 73 percent of shipments, indirect operation EPSs made up approximately 22 percent of shipments, and the remaining product classes (AC-AC EPSs, multiple-voltage EPSs, and high-power EPSs) made up 5 percent of shipments.6 a. Direct Operation and Indirect Operation EPSs The February 2014 Final Rule divided all EPSs into two categories, direct operation and indirect operation EPSs— with only direct operation EPSs being subject to the new Level VI standards that DOE adopted in that rule. That final rule also indicated that indirect operation EPSs that also met the definition of a Class A EPS would continue to be required to meet the already statutorily prescribed Level IV standards. The original intent of classifying all EPSs into these categories was to distinguish between EPSs that directly operate an end-use product, i.e., that can operate a consumer product that is not a battery charger without the assistance of a battery (direct operation EPSs), versus those devices that cannot operate a consumer product that is not a battery charger without the assistance of a battery (indirect operation EPSs). At the time of the February 2014 Final Rule’s publication, DOE believed that it would be more effective to regulate indirect operation EPSs as part of the then-parallel battery charger rulemaking than to regulate them under the new and amended external power supply standards. Since the publication of the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE has received many questions regarding EPSs that provide direct operation with one enduse product but may also be used to provide indirect operation with a different consumer product containing batteries and or a battery charging system. In the 2015 test procedure rule, DOE clarified that if an EPS can operate any consumer product directly, that product would be treated as a direct operation EPS. 80 FR 51434. Of particular importance are EPSs with common output plugs that can be used 6 For additional details, see chapter 3 of the TSD for the February 2014 Final Rule. https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BTSTD-0005-0217. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 with products made by different manufacturers. An example of this scenario is an EPS with standard universal serial bus (‘‘USB’’) connectors. These devices are often sold with enduse products containing batteries, such as a smartphone. Because these same EPSs are capable of directly operating other end-use products that do not contain batteries (e.g., small LED lamps, external speakers, etc.), they are not treated as indirect operation EPSs under DOE’s regulations. DOE’s analysis of the EPSs that are certified in the Compliance Certification Management System (‘‘CCMS’’) 7 database further shows that only a small percentage are indirect operation EPSs. Specifically, of the 6,764 non-adaptive basic models of EPSs that are certified in the database, only 60 basic models are classified as indirect operation Class A and of which, a further 42 are able to meet both the Level IV and Level VI standards. DOE therefore seeks feedback on the practicality of continuing to categorize EPSs as direct operation and indirect operation and on the merit of continuing to have separate standards for each. Any potential alignment of the standards between direct and indirect operation EPSs would result in standards either as stringent or more stringent than the Level VI standards currently required for direct operation EPSs.8 As is typically the case, DOE would also consider the economic justification and technological feasibility of a proposal based on such an approach. DOE also requests feedback on whether the EPS standards could be expressed in alternate terms. For instance, DOE may consider removing the distinction between direct operation/indirect operation EPSs. DOE notes that other regulations for EPSs, 7 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Appliance and Equipment Standards Program. CCMS. Last accessed on July 18, 2019. https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ certification-data/CCMS-4-External_Power_ Supplies_-_Other_Than_Switch-Selectable_and_ Adaptive_Single-Voltage_External_Power_ Supplies.html#q=Product_Group_ s%3A%22External%20Power%20Supplies%20%20Other%20Than%20SwitchSelectable%20and%20Adaptive%20SingleVoltage%20External%20Power%20Supplies%22. 8 See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), commonly referred to as the ‘‘anti-backsliding provision’’). E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 30642 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules including those in Canada 9 and the European Union,10 do not distinguish between direct and indirect operation EPSs. Based on these considerations, DOE requests feedback on the following questions: As DOE considers whether to amend its current standards, is the distinction between direct and indirect operation EPSs necessary and/or helpful and do they continue to merit separate standards? Issue 8: Would manufacturers and other stakeholders better understand their compliance obligations under the applicable standards if DOE removed this classification and provided revised definitions for EPSs that are subject to conservation standards that more clearly specified the characteristics of EPSs that would be subject to or exempt from future standards. New definitions for EPSs would not, however, exempt EPSs from the standards to which they are currently subject (i.e., Level IV and Level VI standards). Issue 9: Whether DOE retains the definitions for direct operation EPS and indirect operation EPS or proposes new definitions to describe which EPSs are subject to standards, is there any ambiguity in these existing definitions that DOE should consider clarifying? For instance, how (if at all) should DOE clarify these definitions as it relates to specific applications for which EPSs are used? Issue 10: If DOE were to propose new definitions, what criteria or characteristics should DOE use to identify whether an EPS is either subject to or exempt from standards? For the purposes of this document, DOE continues to refer to direct operation and indirect operation EPSs, as appropriate, in the following sections. These terms are used to discuss and seek feedback based on the existing regulation. DOE’s decision regarding the continued use of these terms may be considered should DOE determine to proceed with a rulemaking. b. Low-Voltage, High-Current External Power Supplies In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE separated direct operation low-voltage, AC-DC EPSs into two separate product classes and outlined two separate standards requirements. 79 FR 7866– 7867. The first class is reserved for all direct operation EPSs with nameplate 9 https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/regulationscodes-standards/products/6909. 10 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R0278&from=EN. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 output voltages less than 6 volts and nameplate output currents greater than or equal to 550 milliamps. EPSs in this product class are subject to the Level VI standards. The second class DOE created is a sub-set within this product class, generally referred to as ‘‘low-voltage, high-current EPSs.’’ This class represents all EPSs with nameplate output voltages of less than 3 volts and nameplate output currents greater than or equal to 1000 milliamps that are designed to charge the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated. EPSs in this product class are not subject to the Level VI standards. Since these low-voltage, high-current EPSs still meet the statutory definition of Class A EPSs, they remain subject to the Level IV standards set by EISA. However, DOE did not apply the Level VI standards to these products over manufacturer concerns about the ability of these products to meet these higher efficiency levels. See 79 FR 7866–7867. DOE intends to analyze potential efficiency levels for these low-voltage, high-current EPSs that are more stringent than the EISA Level IV standards. DOE plans to conduct a market assessment, energy use analysis, and third-party testing to develop a costefficiency relationship for low-voltage, high-current EPSs to determine whether any incremental improvements in energy efficiency are technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE is specifically interested in gathering particular information through this RFI on the following questions: In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined that the inherent design of a low-voltage high-current EPS limits its achievable efficiencies due to input rectification voltage drops relative to the output voltage, resistive losses in the higher current outputs, and the potential to decrease the utility of these products to improve efficiency by forcing manufacturers to utilize more expensive and larger components to meet the proposed standards. Is this justification for exempting ‘‘low-voltage, high-current’’ EPSs from the active mode efficiency requirements still valid? Are there any products in the current market that would fall in the lowvoltage high-current product class? If so, which types of products? Issue 11: Are there any unique technology or design options associated with low-voltage, high-current EPSs? If so, what (if any) specific unique design considerations (i.e., special topologies, additional component derating, etc.) would be necessary in addressing PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 potential energy efficiency improvements for these EPSs? Issue 12: What are the specific limitations (if any) associated with the achievable efficiencies of low-voltage, high-current EPSs? Issue 13: What technology options (if any) would allow low-voltage, highcurrent EPSs to improve their average active-mode efficiency? What specific costs (in dollars) are associated with these technology options and subsequent efficiency gains? 2. Technology Assessment In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent rulemaking for EPSs. A complete list of those prior options appears in Table II.2. As certain technologies have progressed since the February 2014 Final Rule, Table II.3 lists newer technology options that DOE may also consider in a future EPS energy conservation standards rulemaking. TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR EPSS CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEBRUARY 2014 FINAL RULE 1 2 3 4 ............... ............... ............... ............... 5 ............... 6 ............... 7 ............... Improved Transformers. Switched-Mode Power Supplies. Low-Power Integrated Circuits. Schottky Diodes and Synchronous Rectification. Low-Loss Transistors. Resonant Switching. Resonant (‘‘Lossless’’) Snubbers. TABLE II.4—NEW TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR EPSS 1 ............... 2 ............... 3 ............... 4 ............... 5 ............... 6 ............... E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM Adaptive voltage modulation via digital communication. Wide Band Gap Semiconductors. Advanced Core Materials. Low Equivalent Series Resistance Capacitors. Litz Wire. Printed Circuit Boards with Higher Copper Content. 20MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table II.2 regarding their applicability to the current market and how these technologies may impact the efficiency of EPSs as measured according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how these technologies may have changed since they were considered in the February 2014 Final Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics that are currently available for each technology option. DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table II.3 regarding their market adoption, costs, and any concerns with incorporating them into products (e.g., impacts on consumer utility, potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/ implementation issues, etc.), particularly as to changes that may have occurred since the February 2014 Final Rule. Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies may impact product features or consumer utility. C. Screening Analysis The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which will be included in the engineering analysis for further consideration. DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from further consideration based on the following criteria: (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further. (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further. (3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance characteristics VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further. (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b). Technology options identified in the technology assessment are evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the screening analysis are referred to as ‘‘design options’’ in the engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration. Additionally, DOE notes that the four screening criteria do not directly address the propriety status of technology options. DOE only considers potential efficiency levels achieved through the use of proprietary designs in the engineering analysis if they are not part of a unique pathway to achieve that efficiency level (i.e., if there are other non-proprietary technologies capable of achieving the same efficiency level). DOE did not screen out any technology options for EPSs, having considered the following four factors: (1) Technological feasibility; (2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (3) adverse impacts on product utility to consumers; and (4) adverse impacts on health or safety.11 Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the four screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the technology options listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 with respect to EPSs. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same criteria would affect any other technology options not already identified in this document with respect to their potential use in EPSs. D. Engineering Analysis The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency (‘‘efficiency levels’’). This relationship serves as the basis for 11 For additional details, see chapter 4 of the technical support document (‘‘TSD’’) for the February 2014 Final Rule. https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BTSTD-0005-0217. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 30643 the cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. In determining the costefficiency relationship, DOE estimates the increase in manufacturer production cost (‘‘MPC’’) associated with increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline, up to the maximum technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) efficiency level for each product class. DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency levels (‘‘ELs’’) for analysis: (1) The designoption approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model various design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiencylevel approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the costassessment (or reverse engineering) approach, which provides ‘‘bottom-up’’ manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and material, labor, shipping/ packaging, and investment for models that operate at particular efficiency levels. 1. Baseline Efficiency Levels For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and provides basic consumer utility. If it determines that a rulemaking is necessary, consistent with this analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current minimum energy conservations standards that were required for compliance on February 10, 2016 as the baseline efficiency levels for each product class. The current standards for each product class are based on Active Mode Efficiency and No-load mode (standby mode) power consumption. The current standards for EPS are found at 10 CFR 430.32. Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on whether using the current energy conservation standards for EPSs would be appropriate baseline efficiency levels for DOE to apply to each product class in evaluating whether to amend the current energy conservation standards E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 30644 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules for these products. DOE requests data and suggestions to evaluate the baseline efficiency levels in order to better evaluate whether to amend the energy conservation standards for these products. Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline efficiency levels for any newly analyzed product classes that are not currently in place or for the contemplated combined product classes, as discussed in section II.B.1 of this document. For newly analyzed product classes, DOE requests energy use data to develop a baseline relationship between energy efficiency and nameplate power ratings. 2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels As part of DOE’s analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is determined by the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. For the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not analyze all 4 EPS configurations and 8 product classes. Rather, DOE focused the analysis on three configurations of EPSs: Direct operation EPSs, multiple-voltage and high-power EPSs, and indirect operation EPSs. For each configuration of EPS, DOE selected certain classes and units as ‘‘representative’’ and concentrated its analytical effort on these because they represent a significant majority of units and because analysis on these units and classes can be extended to all units and classes. For direct operation EPSs, DOE chose four representative units and scaled the analysis according to different nameplate power ratings. For multiple-voltage EPSs and high-power EPSs, DOE chose one representative unit for each class. DOE chose not to conduct an engineering analysis for indirect operation EPSs because DOE believed that the energy savings associated with these EPSs would be captured in a battery charger rulemaking. See 79 FR 57530 and chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis TSD for that rulemaking.12 The current maximum available efficiencies for all product classes are included in Table II.5. TABLE II.5—MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY LEVELS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE Best-in-market efficiencies (%) Product class Direct Operation, AC-DC, Basic-Voltage ......................................................................................................................................... Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage (except those with nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps that charge the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage with nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps and charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated ...................... Direct Operation, AC-AC, Basic-Voltage ......................................................................................................................................... Direct Operation, AC-AC, Low-Voltage ........................................................................................................................................... Direct Operation, Multiple-Voltage ................................................................................................................................................... Direct Operation, High-Power .......................................................................................................................................................... Indirect Operation ............................................................................................................................................................................ DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options are incorporated in a model. In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially available because it is not economically feasible. In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined maxtech efficiency levels using energy modeling. These energy models were based on use of all design options applicable to the specific product classes. While these product configurations had not likely been tested as prototypes, all of the individual design options had been incorporated in available products. DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency levels are appropriate and technologically feasible for potential consideration as possible energy conservation standards for the products at issue—and if not, why not. DOE also requests feedback on whether the maximum available efficiencies presented in Table II.5 are representative of those for the other EPS product classes not directly analyzed in the February 2014 Final Rule. If the range of possible efficiencies is different for the other product classes not directly analyzed, what alternative approaches should DOE consider using for those product classes and why? Issue 18: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain combinations of design options. 3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed product classes. For the February 2014 Final 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 91.8 84.86 90.96 87.58 91.18 93.59 88.5 Rule, DOE developed the cost-efficiency relationships by estimating the efficiency improvements and costs associated with incorporating specific design options into the assumed baseline model for each analyzed product class. Issue 19: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 to increase energy efficiency in EPSs beyond the baseline. This includes information on the order in which manufacturers would incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve the efficiencies of products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the increased energy efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested in information regarding any potential impact of design options on a manufacturer’s ability to incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer demand. 12 See chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis TSD. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2008-BT-STD-0005-0031. VerDate Sep<11>2014 93.02 E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules Issue 20: DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with incorporating each particular design option. Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the estimated costs for the design options used in the February 2014 Final Rule have changed since the time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/ production impacts. Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options may not be applicable to (or incompatible with) specific product classes. As described in section II.D.2 of this document, in the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE concentrated its analytical efforts on certain representative product classes and extended the analysis to all other product classes. DOE developed cost-efficiency curves for these product classes that were used as the input for the downstream analyses conducted in support of that rulemaking. See chapter 5 of the February 2014 Final Rule TSD for the cost-efficiency curves developed in that rulemaking. Issue 22: DOE seeks feedback on whether the approach of analyzing a sub-set of product classes is appropriate for a future EPS energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE requests comment on whether it is necessary to individually analyze all the other product classes established in the February 2014 Final Rule. For example, analysis of product classes with an AC output may not be necessary if the analysis performed for AC–DC product classes applies to both. Additionally, DOE seeks comment on whether the approach used to apply the analyzed product class results to the other product classes is appropriate—and if not, why not? For example, if it is necessary to individually analyze more than the one product class used in the February 2014 Final Rule, please provide information on why aggregating certain products is not appropriate. If this approach is not appropriate, what alternative approaches should DOE consider using as an alternative and why? To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. For the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE used increasing manufacturer VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 markups for successive efficiency levels at a given power output within a product class. See Tables IV–5 through IV–10 in the February 2014 Final Rule for a complete list of all mark-ups used. Issue 23: DOE requests feedback on whether the various manufacturer markups used in the February 2014 Final Rule are still appropriate and applicable. E. Distribution Channels In generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) analysis and national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’), DOE must identify distribution channels (i.e., how the products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), and estimate relative sales volumes through each channel. Issue 24: DOE requests information on the existence of any distribution channels, other than the retail outlet distribution channel, that are used to distribute the products at issue into the market. Issue 25: Do the distribution channels and markups identified in DOE’s analysis for the final rule published in February 10, 2014, still apply to the current EPS market? If not, what adjustments (if any) would be needed to account for the current EPS market? In this regard, DOE also seeks any supporting data that would help in making these adjustments to its analyses. F. Energy Use Analysis As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and thereby determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency improvements. DOE bases the energy consumption of EPSs on the rated annual energy consumption as determined by the DOE test procedure. Along similar lines, the energy use analysis is meant to represent typical energy consumption in the field. 1. Active-Mode and No-Load Mode of External Power Supplies DOE will review existing industry, international, and voluntary standards to assist in its analysis of whether (and how, as appropriate) to amend the current active-mode and no-load mode efficiency standards for EPSs. Current mandatory standards programs for EPSs include the European Union (‘‘EU’’) Code of Conduct, Version 4, the Level IV Congressional standards; the Tier 1 EPS standards established by National Resources Canada (‘‘NRCan’’); and DOE’s Level VI efficiency standards. DOE will also consider such voluntary standards programs as the EU Code of PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 30645 Conduct, Version 5 (‘‘Code of Conduct v5’’) 13 when analyzing the impacts of more stringent standards on manufacturers and consumers. All of these standards-setting programs use active-mode and no-load mode metrics similar to DOE’s EPS standards to regulate the energy efficiency and power consumption of EPSs. DOE defines ‘‘active-mode’’ as the mode of operation when the EPS is connected to the main electricity supply and the output is connected to a load. See section 2.a of Appendix Z. In this mode, EPS efficiency is the conversion efficiency from the mains (i.e., the electrical outlet) to the end-use load when the load draws some or all of the maximum rated output power of the EPS. DOE averages the active-mode efficiency at four loading conditions— 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of maximum rated output current—to assess the performance of an EPS when powering diverse loads. Unlike active-mode efficiency, however, no-load mode is characterized by power consumption rather than conversion efficiency. This is because the EPS does not deliver power to the end use load in this mode. DOE defines ‘‘no-load mode’’ as the mode of operation where the EPS is connected to the main electricity supply and the output is not connected to a load. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix Z, section 2.q. The EPS test procedure measures the no-load performance of a given EPS at 0 percent of the maximum rated output current where the power consumed by the EPS is that drawn from the mains with all loads, either electronic or resistive, physically and electrically disconnected from the output of the EPS. The Level IV and Level VI standards both use average active-mode efficiency, calculated as a percentage, to regulate the active-mode of EPSs and no-load power consumption, in watts, to regulate the standby mode of EPSs. DOE analyzed the CCMS database and sorted the product reports based on the compliance characteristics of Level VI EPSs. Of the models DOE could accurately categorize using the manufacturer-submitted output power and current data, more than 38% surpassed the minimum average activemode efficiency standard by at least 2 percentage points (i.e., more than 38% of models were more efficient than required by the standard by at least 2 percentage points). Similarly, DOE 13 European Union: Code of Conduct on External Power Supplies Version 5 (available at https:// iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/ energyefficiency/files/files/documents/ICT_CoC/ code_of_conduct_for_eps_version_5_-_final.pdf. E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 30646 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules identified over 7,700 models from NRCan’s EPS database 14 that met or surpassed the Level VI standards, including 3,100 models that exceeded the minimum average active-mode efficiency standard by at least 2 percentage points. The majority of these efficiency increases were seen in EPSs with nameplate output powers greater than 49 watts, which may indicate that these types of EPSs are capable of achieving even higher average activemode efficiencies than the minimum efficiency standards prescribed by DOE’s Level VI standards. Other efficiency programs have recognized the potential efficiency gains for these types of EPSs as well and have established energy efficiency guidelines more stringent than the standards developed by DOE. For instance, the EU’s Code of Conduct v5 lays out the foundation for a set of voluntary guidelines for individual manufacturers to meet and includes specifications regarding EPS coverage, energy efficiency, and monitoring provisions. The Code of Conduct v5 measures the active-mode efficiency of an EPS at the same loading conditions as DOE’s standards program and also includes a no-load power consumption metric at 0 percent load. Also like DOE’s efficiency standards, the Code of Conduct v5’s prescribed energy efficiency levels at the specified five loading points rely on equations that generate a minimum average active-mode efficiency requirement as a function of nameplate output power of an EPS. The energy efficiency provisions are divided into two groupings—Tier 1 and Tier 2. These tiers delineate two separate sets of voluntary energy efficiency guidelines with two unique effective dates. Tier 1 went into effect in January 2014, and the more stringent guidelines in Tier 2 in January 2016. These tiers sort the applicable efficiency guidelines for EPSs based on the type of power conversion and the nameplate output voltage in an identical manner to DOE’s own direct operation product classes. However, the Code of Conduct v5 provisions do not address some of the products addressed by DOE’s direct operation standards, such as EPSs with nameplate output powers greater than 250 watts and EPSs that output more than one voltage simultaneously. Instead, Code of Conduct v5 outlines unique efficiency standards for low14 Natural Resources Canada. Energy Efficiency Ratings: Search. Last Accessed on January 20, 2017. <https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/index.cfm ?language_langue=en&action=app%2Esearch %2Drecherche&appliance=EPS>. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 voltage 15 EPSs and EPSs that are not low-voltage. While the Code of Conduct v5 efficiency program is voluntary, an assessment published in 2014 by the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (‘‘ECEEE’’) analyzed the benefits and burdens of harmonizing the EU Ecodesign Directive standards for EPSs 16 with both mandatory and voluntary international regulations. The Ecodesign Directive outlines mandatory energy consumption and energy efficiency standards for consumer and commercial products in the EU, and revises those standards based on their Ecodesign Working Plan.17 The study concluded that any revised standards for EPSs in the EU should harmonize with DOE’s Level VI standards while making the Code of Conduct v5’s Tier 2 standards mandatory at a later date, and that failing to harmonize with, at the minimum, Level VI standards would risk having poorer efficiency products circulating through the EU that cannot be sold in the U.S. Currently, EPSs are regulated as part of the Ecodesign Directive under Commission Regulation (‘‘EC’’) No. 278/2009,18 but an April 2015 working document 19 proposed to harmonize the EU standards for EPSs with DOE’s Level VI requirements by January 2017 and implement standards equivalent to those found in Tier 2 of the Code of Conduct by January 2018. While this document was later revised to propose harmonization with DOE’s Level VI standards by April 2020 and abandon pursuit of Tier 2 standards altogether, DOE found that more than 73% of the entries in its own CCMS database met or surpassed the Tier 2 standards initially proposed in the Code of Conduct v5 as did 67% of the units in the NRCan database. Therefore, DOE intends to analyze the impact of the Tier 2 standards on the EPS market for products sold in the U.S. and countries 15 The EU Code of Conduct on External Power Supplies considers a low-voltage EPS to be any EPS with a nameplate output voltage of less than 6 volts and a nameplate output current greater than or equal to 550 milliamps. 16 Additional Assessment in the Frame of the Review Study on Commission Regulation (EC) No. 278/2009 External Power Supplies. March 2014. Final Report. <https://www.eceee.org/static/media/ uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/batterychargers/eps-review-additional-assessment-updated-final-report.pdf>. 17 Ecodesign and Labeling. ErP Working Plan. <https://www.eceee.org/ecodesign/Horizontalmatters/working-plan/>. 18 Commission Regulation (EC) No. 278/2009 of April 6 2009. <https://www.eceee.org/static/media/ uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/batterychargers/finalreg-eps.pdf>. 19 Ecodesign and Labeling. 278/2009: Battery chargers and external power supplies. <https:// www.eceee.org/ecodesign/products/batterychargers/>. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 within the EU to determine whether more stringent efficiency standards in the U.S. are appropriate for EPSs. DOE welcomes feedback on its proposed approach to re-examine the minimum federal requirements for both the activemode and no-load mode for all EPSs subject to the Level VI standards. Additionally, DOE seeks feedback from interested parties on the following questions: Issue 26: What impact (if any) does the EU Code of Conduct v5 currently have on the EPS industry in the United States? If the effects are currently negligible, will the Code of Conduct v5 standards be likely to have an effect in the future? If so, what are those impacts likely to be and how long would it take for those impacts to impact the U.S. market? Issue 27: Is active mode still the most energy consumptive state of operation for EPSs? If so, why? If not, why not? Issue 28: Are there any specific types of EPSs for which it would be difficult to meet standards more stringent than the existing Level VI standards? If so, would it be difficult to meet the more stringent standards for average active mode efficiency, no-load mode power, or both? Which specific types of EPSs will find it difficult to meet more stringent standards and why? Issue 29: Are there any specific types of EPSs for which increasing the efficiency requirement would impact the utility to consumers? If so, which types of EPSs will be impacted and how? Issue 30: What design options exist for improving the efficiency of EPSs beyond the Level VI standard levels? Are any of the options proprietary—and if so, which ones? Issue 31: Can manufacturers comply with the originally proposed Tier 2 Ecodesign requirements? If not, what are the technical and production barriers that would prevent manufacturers from meeting those proposed requirements? Will certain types of EPSs be likely to have greater difficulty in meeting these proposed requirements compared to other EPSs? If so, which types and why? Issue 32: What are the costs (in dollars) associated with each of the design options utilized to implement efficiencies greater than the Level VI standards? Are there any currently available features that would likely be sacrificed if standards were made more stringent than Level VI? Issue 33: Does the current average active-mode efficiency metric capture appropriately representative loading points for EPSs? If not, should DOE consider other loading points in active mode? If so, which ones and why? E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules Issue 34: What impact would alternate loading points have on any determination of active mode efficiency for EPSs? Should different loading points be weighted differently from others based on usage when considering overall energy consumption? If not, why not? If so, how? Issue 35: Can EPSs achieve lower noload values than those described in the Level VI standard? If not, why not? If so, how? Issue 36: The EU Code of Conduct v5 Tier 2 levels for no-load mode are much more stringent than DOE’s no-load requirements in the Level VI standard. What technical difficulties (if any) are there in meeting the EU Code of Conduct v5 Tier 2 levels for the no-load mode condition? What barriers (if any) do manufacturers face meeting or exceeding the EU Code of Conduct v5 Tier 2 levels for no-load mode? 2. Idle Mode and Sleep Mode of External Power Supplies As part of its review and evaluation that led to the Level VI standards, DOE analyzed the energy usage profiles of a number of different EPSs based on the end-use application. These usage profiles considered a number of different modes such as active mode, idle/standby mode, sleep mode, no-load mode, and unplugged mode and then assigned specific daily percentages to each mode based on the expected operation. DOE used these weightings to calculate the overall energy impact of more stringent standards because the loading conditions used to determine the average active-mode efficiency metric for EPSs are most often associated with the operating mode of the consumer products they power.20 While DOE evaluated the energy impacts of all operating modes, the Level VI standards do not account for any loading points below those specified in the average active mode efficiency metric (i.e., 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the nameplate output current of the EPS). DOE has been made aware that several consumer products may operate at lower loading conditions in standby or idle/standby modes. Issue 37: Do EPSs spend a significant portion of time operating at loading conditions outside the range currently considered by the EPS standards? If so, which ones? Issue 38: What are the design options associated with improving low-load efficiency? Are any of the design options proprietary? What are the 20 See Chapter 7 and Appendix 7A of the TSD for further details. https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 associated costs (in dollars) with implementing such options? Issue 39: What EPS loading points would best represent idle mode, sleep mode, or other low-power loading conditions associated with consumer products in a low-power state? For each loading point, please explain why it would be best for the applicable mode. Issue 40: Would improving low-load conversion efficiency result in any significant energy reduction over the lifetime of an EPS? If so, would these anticipated reductions be limited to those EPSs that are paired with particular types of associated end-use products—and if this is the case, which ones and why? Issue 41: What impact would lower loading points have on any determination of average efficiency for EPSs—and why? Should different loading points be weighted differently from others based on usage when considering overall energy consumption—if so, why? And if not, why not? Issue 42: If DOE were to consider including additional loading conditions into its test procedure, should they be integrated into DOE’s standards—and if so, how? Should the active mode efficiencies at the additional loading conditions be included in the calculation for the overall average active mode efficiency of a unit? If so, what impact (if any) would the additional active mode efficiencies have on overall efficiency ratings? If not, should DOE consider using a separate efficiency metric for low-loading points? Is there another approach that may be more appropriate for considering standby or idle mode energy savings? Issue 43: Are there any additional resources concerning the operation of EPSs during idle or standby mode that DOE should consider when evaluating the EPS standards? Issue 44: How has the typical usage of EPSs changed, if at all, since the Level VI standards became required, among the various modes of operation (e.g., noload, maintenance, active)? If the EPS usage has changed, what is the nature of those usage pattern changes and what are the technical reasons as to why those usage patterns have changed in that manner? G. Shipments DOE develops shipments forecasts of EPSs to calculate the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy consumption, net present value (‘‘NPV’’), and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments projections are based on available historical data broken out by PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 30647 product class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends in the market. Issue 45: DOE requests 2018 annual sales data (i.e., number of shipments) for EPSs and product classes. If disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available at the EPS class level, DOE requests more aggregated fractions of annual sales at the EPS category level. DOE also requests data and reports on future market shipment trends. If disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available at the product type level, DOE requests more aggregated fractions of annual sales at the category level. Issue 46: If available, DOE requests the same annual sales information of the various classes of EPSs for the five years prior to 2019 (i.e., 2014–2018). Issue 47: What are the potential impacts (if any) on EPS shipments if the current energy conservation standards for EPSs were to be amended to become more stringent? Issue 48: Since compliance requirements with the Level VI standards began in 2016, what is the percentage of shipments in each product class at different efficiencies in the EPS market? In the absence of any further amendments to the current energy conservation standards, what are the current projected market trends (if any) in EPS efficiency and why? If the current standards were to be amended in a manner consistent with one of the approaches described elsewhere in this document (e.g., increased stringency, combining of current classes, etc.), what impact(s) (if any) would be likely to occur in response? H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) is to estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards on EPS manufacturers, and to evaluate the potential impact of such standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), an industry cash-flow model adapted for each product in this analysis, with the key output of industry net present value (‘‘INPV’’). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as product characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and important market and product trends. E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 30648 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered products, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small Business Administration’s (‘‘SBA’’) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) code.21 Manufacturing of consumer EPS is classified under NAICS 335999, ‘‘All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing,’’ and the SBA sets a threshold of 1500 employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. This employee threshold includes all employees in a business’ parent company and any other subsidiaries. One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers’ financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower than expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency. Issue 49: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact information of any domestic or foreignbased manufacturers that distribute EPSs in the United States. Issue 50: DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation standards. In the manufacturer impact analysis for the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not identify any small business manufacturers of EPSs. DOE also did 21 Available online at https://www.sba.gov/ document/support-table-size-standards. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 not identify any domestic manufacturers of EPSs (i.e., DOE found that all residential EPSs sold in the U.S. were imported).22 If the previous determinations are no longer valid, DOE requests the names and contact information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA’s size threshold, of EPSs that distribute products in the United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other manufacturer subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any potential approaches that could be considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses. Issue 51: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of EPSs associated with (1) other DOE standards applying to different products that these manufacturers may also make and (2) product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this burden while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA. Issue 52: Are there any additional maintenance or repair costs (in dollars), or differences in product lifetime, associated with EPSs at efficiencies higher than the Level VI standards? If so, what are they and what is the magnitude of those costs—both on a total basis and by application. If such costs exist, how do they compare with respect to the same types of costs for EPSs that were manufactured that did not meet the Level VI standards? With respect to any impacts on product lifetime, what is the extent of those impacts in light of the Level VI requirements—i.e. have they increased, decreased, or stayed constant? I. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics 1. Market Failures In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of amended energy conservation standards for EPSs such as a lack, or excess of information which 22 See chapter 12 of the TSD for the February 2014 Final Rule. https://www.regulations.gov/ document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 leads to misinformed purchases, misaligned incentives between purchasers and users, and negative effects on external factors related to public health, environmental protection, or energy security. 2. Network/‘‘Smart’’ Technology DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE’s intent in issuing the RFI was to ensure that the Department did not inadvertently impede such innovation in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks comments, data and information on the issues presented in the RFI as they may be applicable to energy conservation standards for EPSs. 3. Other Issues Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of its assessment in determining whether to amend the current EPS energy conservation standards that may not have been specifically identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (February 3, 2017). Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its energy conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and compliance and certification requirements applicable to EPSs while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA. III. Submission of Comments DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date specified previously in the DATES section of this document, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE’s consideration of amended energy conservation standards for EPSs. After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the public comments received and may begin collecting data, conducting the analyses discussed in this document. E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules Submitting comments via https:// www.regulations.gov. The https:// www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. Do not submit to https:// www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through https:// www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section. DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail also will be posted to https:// www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 May 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments. Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author. Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters’ names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time. Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’a with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. It is DOE’s policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure). DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing energy conservations standards for consumer products. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of the PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 30649 rulemaking process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this rulemaking should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program at (202) 287–1445, or via email at ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Signing Authority This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 2, 2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. Signed in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2020. Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy. [FR Doc. 2020–09988 Filed 5–19–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 327 RIN 3064–AF53 Assessments, Mitigating the Deposit Insurance Assessment Effect of Participation in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), the PPP Lending Facility, and the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is seeking comment on a proposed rule that would mitigate the deposit insurance assessment effects of participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) established by the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Paycheck SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM 20MYP1

Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30636-30649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09988]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 30636]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006]
RIN 1904-AD87


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
External Power Supplies

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Request for information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an 
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation 
standards for External Power Supplies (``EPS''). Under the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, DOE must review these 
standards at least once every six years and publish either propose new 
standards for EPSs or a notice of determination that the existing 
standards do not need to be amended. This request for information 
(``RFI'') solicits information from the public to help DOE determine 
whether amended standards for EPSs would result in significant energy 
savings and whether such standards would be technologically feasible 
and economically justified. As part of this RFI, DOE seeks comment on 
whether there have been sufficient technological or market changes 
since the most recent standards update that may justify a new 
rulemaking to consider more stringent standards. Specifically, DOE 
seeks data and information that could enable the agency to determine 
whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' determination because 
a more stringent standard: would not result in a significant savings of 
energy; is not technologically feasible; is not economically justified; 
or any combination of the foregoing. DOE welcomes written comments from 
the public on any subject within the scope of this document (including 
those topics not specifically raised), as well as the submission of 
data and other relevant information.

DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before 
July 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0006, by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: to [email protected] Include the docket number 
EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006 in the subject line of the message.
    3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 287-
1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is 
not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see section III of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in 
the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. However, 
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit 
comments through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected]
    For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other 
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email: 
[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority and Background
    B. Rulemaking Process
I. Request for Information and Comments
    A. Products Covered by This Process
    1. External Versus Internal Power Supplies
    2. Wireless Power Devices
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Product Classes
    2. Technology Assessment
    C. Screening Analysis
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    E. Distribution Channels
    F. Energy Use Analysis
    1. Active-Mode and No-Load Mode of External Power Supplies
    2. Idle Mode and Sleep Mode of External Power Supplies
    G. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    H. Shipments
    I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
    1. Market Failures
    2. Emerging Smart Technology Market
    3. Other Issues
    K. Updated Market Data
III. Submission of Comments

[[Page 30637]]

I. Introduction

A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of 
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products 
include external power supplies (``EPSs''), the subject of this 
document. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u) EPCA, as amended by the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 (``EISA''), 
also defined a subset of EPSs, called Class A EPSs--devices that 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'' 
among other characteristics.\3\ (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)) These 
devices are also, by definition, (1) designed to convert line voltage 
AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output, (2) sold with (or intended 
to be used with) a separate end-use product that constitutes the 
primary load, (3) contained in a separate physical enclosure from the 
end-use product, and (4) connected to the end-use product via a 
removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord 
or other wiring. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i). EPCA prescribed energy 
conservation standards for Class A EPSs (hereafter referred to as the 
``Level IV standards,'' the nomenclature of which is based on the 
marking required in accordance with the International Efficiency 
Marking Protocol) that became required on July 1, 2008. EPCA also 
directed DOE to conduct 2 cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to 
amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was re-designated Part A.
    \3\ Congress also excluded certain devices from the Class A EPS 
definition, specifically certain devices requiring listing and 
approval as a medical device and devices that either (1) power the 
charger of a detachable battery pack or (2) charge the battery of a 
product that is fully or primarily motor operated. See 42 U.S.C. 
6291(36)(C)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the EISA amendments, Congress further amended EPCA to 
exclude EPSs used for certain security and life safety alarms and 
surveillance systems manufactured prior to July 1, 2017, from the 
statutorily-prescribed ``no-load'' energy conservation standards. (Pub. 
L. 111-360 (January 4, 2011) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)). 
EPCA's EPS provisions were again amended by the Power and Security 
Systems (``PASS'') Act, which extended the rulemaking deadline and 
effective date established under the EISA 2007 amendments from July 1, 
2015, and July 1, 2017, to July 1, 2021, and July 1, 2023, 
respectively. (Pub. L. 115-78 (November 2, 2017) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(3)(D)(ii))). The PASS Act also extended the exclusion of 
certain security and life safety alarms and surveillance systems from 
no-load standards until the effective date of the final rule issued 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii) and allows the Secretary to treat 
some or all EPSs designed to be connected to a security or life safety 
alarm or surveillance system as a separate product class or to further 
extend the exclusion. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)(ii) and (iv).
    Most recently, on January 12, 2018, the EPS Improvement Act of 
2017, Public Law 115-115, amended EPCA to exclude the following devices 
from the EPS definition: power supply circuits, drivers, or devices 
that are designed exclusively to be connected to and power (1) light-
emitting diodes providing illumination, (2) organic light-emitting 
diodes providing illumination, or (3) ceiling fans using direct current 
motors.\4\ (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE amended its regulations to reflect the changes 
introduced by the PASS Act and EPS Improvement Act. 84 FR 437 
(January 29, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant 
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), 
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), 
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with 
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
    DOE completed the first of two required rulemaking cycles in 2014 
by adopting amended performance standards for EPSs manufactured on or 
after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7846 (February 10, 2014) (setting 
amended standards to apply starting on February 10, 2016) (``February 
2014 Final Rule''). The final rule amended the Level IV standards 
prescribed by Congress and separated EPSs into two groups regardless of 
whether they met the Class A criteria--direct operation EPSs and 
indirect operation EPSs. The February 2014 Final Rule set new standards 
that applied only to direct operation EPSs (hereafter referred to as 
``Level VI standards''), which increased the stringency of the average 
active-mode and no-load power consumption metrics over the Level IV 
standards. Under this rule, Class A EPSs that could directly power a 
consumer product (excluding battery chargers) became subject to the 
Level VI standards, whereas a Class A EPS that requires the use of a 
battery to power a consumer product remained subject to the Level IV 
standards. Likewise, a non-Class A EPS that could directly power a 
consumer product (excluding battery chargers) became subject to 
efficiency standards for the first time (Level VI standards)--non-Class 
A indirect operation EPS continued to remain free from any efficiency 
requirements. 79 FR 7865. The current energy conservation standards are 
located in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 
430, section 32(w). The currently applicable DOE test procedures for 
EPS are at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z (``Appendix Z'').
    In implementing its standards, DOE provided more detailed guidance 
in an EPS test procedure rulemaking to help manufacturers and others 
determine whether a given device fell into the direct operation or 
indirect operation group. See 80 FR 51424 (Aug. 25, 2014). In that 
document, DOE noted that the separation between these two types of EPSs 
is based on their ability to power an end-use product when the 
product's battery is removed or depleted. If the product can still 
operate as intended when the battery is removed and the EPS is 
connected, the EPS is considered a direct operation EPS provided that 
the EPS operates a consumer product. If the product can only operate a 
battery charger or if the product cannot operate with the battery 
removed, it is considered an indirect operation EPS. 80 FR 51434-51435.
    On December 6, 2019, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR) for the EPS test procedure as codified at 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, Appendix Z, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy 
Consumption of External Power Supplies.'' This notice was issued in 
response to several test

[[Page 30638]]

procedure waivers, and stakeholder inquiries regarding testing methods 
for EPSs that incorporated certain newer technologies. Specifically, 
the proposed amendments address issues regarding the emergence of 
adaptive and multiple-output EPSs.
    EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance 
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the 
energy conservation standards for each type of covered product, 
including those at issue here, and publish either a notice of 
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR 
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to 
a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) In making a 
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, DOE must 
evaluate whether amended standards (1) will result in significant 
conservation of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are 
cost effective as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must determine whether the benefits of a 
standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, 
considering the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to 
any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or 
maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to 
result from the imposition of the standard. If DOE publishes a final 
determination that a standard does not need amending based on the 
statutory criteria, not later than 3 years after the issuance of DOE's 
determination, DOE must either make a new determination that standards 
for the product do not need to be amended or propose new energy 
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a 
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity 
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
    In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against 
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in the following 
section, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) If DOE decides to amend the standard 
based on the statutory criteria, DOE must publish a final rule not 
later than two years after energy conservation standards are proposed. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A))
    DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to 
inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

B. Rulemaking Process

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria when prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or 
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary be 
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine whether a standard is 
economically justified, EPCA requires that the Secretary of Energy 
(``the Secretary'') determine whether the benefits of the standard 
exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, 
the following seven factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected products;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or 
maintenance expenses likely to result from the imposition of the 
standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products 
likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting 
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows 
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the 
requirements within EPCA.

       Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          EPCA requirement                Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings.........   Shipments Analysis.
                                      National Impact Analysis.
                                      Energy and Water Use
                                      Determination.
Technological Feasibility..........   Market and Technology
                                      Assessment.
                                      Screening Analysis.
                                      Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
    1. Economic impact on             Manufacturer Impact
     manufacturers and consumers.     Analysis.
                                      Life-Cycle Cost and
                                      Payback Period Analysis.
                                      Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup
                                      Analysis.
                                      Shipments Analysis.
    2. Lifetime operating cost        Markups for Product Price
     savings compared to increased    Determination.
     cost for the product.            Energy and Water Use
                                      Determination.
                                      Life-Cycle Cost and
                                      Payback Period Analysis.
    3. Total projected energy         Shipments Analysis.
     savings.
                                      National Impact Analysis.
    4. Impact on utility or           Screening Analysis.
     performance.
                                      Engineering Analysis.
    5. Impact of any lessening of     Manufacturer Impact
     competition.                     Analysis.
    6. Need for national energy and   Shipments Analysis.
     water conservation.
                                      National Impact Analysis.
    7. Other factors the Secretary    Employment Impact
     considers relevant.              Analysis.
                                      Utility Impact Analysis.
                                      Emissions Analysis.
                                      Monetization of Emission
                                      Reductions Benefits.

[[Page 30639]]

 
                                      Regulatory Impact
                                      Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document to 
seek input and data from interested parties to aid in the development 
of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely to 
determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for EPSs.

II. Request for Information and Comments

    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues 
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and 
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for EPSs may be 
warranted.
    As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been 
sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent 
standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more 
stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that 
could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no 
new standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1) 
Would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not 
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any 
combination of foregoing.
    Additionally, DOE recently published an RFI on the emerging smart 
technology appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 
2018). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market 
trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial 
equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing 
the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such 
innovation in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting 
efficiency standards for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks 
comments, data and information on the issues presented in the RFI as 
they may be applicable to EPSs.

A. Products Covered by This Process

    This RFI covers those products that meet the definitions of various 
EPSs codified at 10 CFR 430.2. An EPS is defined 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. 
10 CFR 430.2. DOE's regulations also include more specific definitions 
of other EPS variants. See 10 CFR 430.2.
    DOE is interested in any feedback stakeholders may have on the 
classification of specific types of EPSs but notes that the EPS 
definition is established by statute. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) There 
are products that would initially appear to be within the broad 
statutory definition of EPS, such as: Consumer devices with multiple 
primary functions one of which is an EPS; and, wireless power supplies. 
In each of these examples, a circuit is used to convert household 
electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate 
a consumer product. DOE is seeking information on the technical 
differences between such products and other products that are EPSs.
1. Consumer Devices With Auxiliary Power Supply Function
    The ubiquitous nature of universal serial bus (``USB'') devices as 
charging and communication platforms has led many manufacturers to 
embed USB ports within consumer devices whose primary function may not 
be to serve as an external power supply. (A universal serial bus is a 
type of interface that enables communication between various devices 
and a host controller.) With ever improving specifications such as 100W 
of power and 10 gigabits per second (Gbps) of throughout data, DOE 
anticipates the presence of embedded USB ports to become even more 
commonplace. This projected development raises the question about 
whether these products are EPSs and subject to the EPS standards. This 
section addresses this topic and seeks feedback from interested parties 
on specific questions.
    The USB specification, published by the USB Implementers Forum,\5\ 
requires any USB output port, even those embedded in other products, to 
output a DC voltage. Therefore, a consumer product could generally 
receive AC input from the mains and convert it into a DC output at an 
embedded USB port. This includes products as varied as: Laptops, 
desktop computers, TVs, power strips, surge protectors, refrigerators, 
lamps, or any other household consumer goods with USB output ports. DOE 
seeks feedback on the following topics related to consumer products 
with USB output ports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The USB Implementers Forum is an organization made up of 
industry stakeholders that support the advancement and adoption of 
USB technologies. For more information, visit https://www.usb.org/about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 1: How can a product that has a primary functionality other 
than power conversion but with an integrated USB output, be 
differentiated from a product of which power conversion is the primary 
function? For such products, is it possible to isolate the power 
conversion associated with the USB output and measure its efficiency 
independently from that of the remainder of the product?
2. Wireless Power Devices
    A wireless power device is one that transfers electrical energy 
from a power source to an electrical load without the use of physical 
conductors such as wires and cables. DOE has identified two types of 
wireless power devices, one of which appears to meet the definition of 
an EPS.
    One group of wireless power devices, which includes chargers for 
electric toothbrushes, shavers, and smartwatches, consists of devices 
that operate by only powering battery charging circuits in an end-use 
product. These devices interface with the end-use product using 
proprietary charging connections that only work with products from the 
same manufacturer. However, only some of these devices are subject to 
the battery charger standards--namely, electric toothbrushes and water 
jets. These devices are collectively known as inductive chargers for 
wet environments. To date, all other applications of inductive battery 
charging fall under the dry environment terminology, for which DOE has 
not promulgated any standards.
    The second group of wireless power devices consists of devices that 
can work with products that are equipped with or without batteries as 
well as with products from different manufacturers. These include 
products such as universal wireless mats that can be used with various 
consumer devices made by different manufacturers. In DOE's view, these 
devices could therefore be considered EPSs, but would not be Class A 
EPSs because they are not connected to the end-use product using a 
removable or hard-wired electrical connection, cable, cord, or other 
wiring.

[[Page 30640]]

See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)(V). Further, DOE is not aware of any 
wireless power device that can operate a consumer product that is not a 
battery charger without the assistance of a battery--making them non-
Class A indirect operation EPSs, a subset of products for which energy 
efficiency standards do not currently exist under DOE's regulations. 
Accordingly, these products are not subject to the current EPS 
standards. DOE seeks public input on the following questions to help 
assess the necessity of regulating the energy efficiency of these 
devices:
    Issue 2: How many varieties of wireless EPS products that can power 
a non-battery operated end-use product directly are currently offered 
for sale? What are the shipment volumes of these products and what are 
the projected sales in the industry over the next 5 years?
    DOE requests feedback on what factors should be considered when 
evaluating product classes and standards for wireless EPSs such as 
wireless mats.
    What are the design options associated with wireless EPSs that 
could be used to improve the efficiency of the power transfer process 
and what are the costs associated with each design option? What are the 
achievable efficiencies of wireless EPSs and is there a correlation 
between efficiency and output power such as in more traditional wired 
EPSs?
    Issue 3: How can the efficiency of wireless power devices be 
measured and replicated in a lab setting to achieve repeatable results? 
Do any industry standards or test methods exist or are any being 
developed to test the energy efficiency or power consumption of 
wireless EPSs that DOE would consider adopting? If yes, what are the 
pros and cons of each? If no published industry testing standard exist, 
do stakeholders have any input regarding a method to test these 
products?

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts 
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy 
conservation standard provides information about the EPS industry that 
will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE 
uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the 
structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers, 
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce 
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency 
improvements in the design and manufacturing of EPSs. DOE also reviews 
product literature, industry publications, and company websites. 
Additionally, DOE may conduct interviews with manufacturers to improve 
its assessment of the market and available technologies for EPSs.
1. Product Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that would 
justify a different standard from that which applies (or will apply) to 
other products within such type or class. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making 
a determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature 
justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the 
utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems 
appropriate. (Id.)
    For EPSs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10 
CFR 430.32 are based on 8 product classes determined according to the 
following performance-related features that provide utility to the 
consumer, in terms of output voltage type, output voltage and current 
levels, number of simultaneous output voltage(s) and whether the 
product meets the definition of direct or indirect operation EPSs. 
Additionally, EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, also prescribes the 
criteria for a subcategory of EPSs--those classified as Class A EPSs. 
42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i). Indirect operation EPSs falling within the 
Class A EPS definition are subject to Level IV standards while non-
Class A indirect operation EPSs would not be subject to any standards. 
Direct operation EPSs are subject to Level VI standards regardless of 
whether they meet the Class A definition. 10 CFR 430.32. Table II.1 
lists the level of standards applicable to different types of EPSs 
based on operation type and whether it meets the Class A definition.

                       Table II.1--Application of Standards for Class A/Non-Class A EPS Standard Levels Based on Type of Operation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Class A EPS                                              Non-class A EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Operation EPS.............  Level VI: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii).........................  Level VI: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii).
Indirect Operation EPS...........  Level IV: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(i)..........................  No Standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table II.2 lists the current 8 product classes for EPSs and their 
respective product class codes for EPSs. A ``low-voltage EPS'' means an 
EPS with a nameplate output voltage less than 6 volts and nameplate 
output current greater than or equal to 550 milliamps. A ``basic-
voltage EPS'' means an EPS that is not a low-voltage EPS. See 10 CFR 
430.2.

                 Table II.2--Current EPS Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Product class code                Product class description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.............................  Direct Operation, AC-DC, Basic-Voltage.
C.............................  Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage
                                 (except those with nameplate output
                                 voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate
                                 output current greater than or equal to
                                 1,000 milliamps that charge the battery
                                 of a product that is fully or primarily
                                 motor operated).
C-1...........................  Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage
                                 with nameplate output voltage less than
                                 3 volts and nameplate output current
                                 greater than or equal to 1,000
                                 milliamps and charges the battery of a
                                 product that is fully or primarily
                                 motor operated.
D.............................  Direct Operation, AC-AC, Basic-Voltage.
E.............................  Direct Operation, AC-AC, Low-Voltage.
X.............................  Direct Operation, Multiple-Voltage.

[[Page 30641]]

 
H.............................  Direct Operation, High-Power.
N.............................  Indirect Operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 4: DOE requests feedback on the current EPS product classes 
and whether these classes continue to reasonably depict the make-up of 
the EPS market or whether changes are merited. Related to this request, 
DOE seeks information on whether combining certain classes could impact 
product utility by eliminating any performance-related features or 
impact the stringency of the current energy conservation standard for 
these products. DOE also requests comment on separating any of the 
existing product classes and whether it would impact product utility by 
eliminating any performance-related features or reduce any compliance 
burdens.
    Issue 5: Separate from the approach to combine product classes, DOE 
may also consider modifying the certification template to reduce the 
number of individual product codes by requesting additional information 
such as voltage rating and current rating which would then be used to 
assign the appropriate product class and identify the corresponding 
standard. DOE requests comment on this approach, or other approaches 
that achieve the same purpose.
    DOE also understands that new configurations and features may be 
available for EPSs that may not have been available at the time of the 
last energy conservation standards analysis.
    Issue 6: DOE seeks information regarding any other new product 
classes that are not already addressed by its current regulations that 
it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically, DOE 
requests information on the performance-related features (e.g., 
improved switched-mode topologies, semiconductor materials, component 
designs etc.) that provide unique consumer utility and data detailing 
the corresponding impacts on energy use that would justify separate 
product classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of these 
performance-related features would increase energy consumption).
    Issue 7: Has the distribution of the various EPS product classes 
that DOE regulates changed since DOE's analysis for the final rule 
published on February 10, 2014? In that prior analysis, DOE indicated 
that, for total EPS shipments in 2009, direct operation, AC-DC, basic-
voltage and low-voltage EPSs combined constituted nearly 73 percent of 
shipments, indirect operation EPSs made up approximately 22 percent of 
shipments, and the remaining product classes (AC-AC EPSs, multiple-
voltage EPSs, and high-power EPSs) made up 5 percent of shipments.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For additional details, see chapter 3 of the TSD for the 
February 2014 Final Rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Direct Operation and Indirect Operation EPSs
    The February 2014 Final Rule divided all EPSs into two categories, 
direct operation and indirect operation EPSs--with only direct 
operation EPSs being subject to the new Level VI standards that DOE 
adopted in that rule. That final rule also indicated that indirect 
operation EPSs that also met the definition of a Class A EPS would 
continue to be required to meet the already statutorily prescribed 
Level IV standards. The original intent of classifying all EPSs into 
these categories was to distinguish between EPSs that directly operate 
an end-use product, i.e., that can operate a consumer product that is 
not a battery charger without the assistance of a battery (direct 
operation EPSs), versus those devices that cannot operate a consumer 
product that is not a battery charger without the assistance of a 
battery (indirect operation EPSs). At the time of the February 2014 
Final Rule's publication, DOE believed that it would be more effective 
to regulate indirect operation EPSs as part of the then-parallel 
battery charger rulemaking than to regulate them under the new and 
amended external power supply standards.
    Since the publication of the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE has 
received many questions regarding EPSs that provide direct operation 
with one end-use product but may also be used to provide indirect 
operation with a different consumer product containing batteries and or 
a battery charging system. In the 2015 test procedure rule, DOE 
clarified that if an EPS can operate any consumer product directly, 
that product would be treated as a direct operation EPS. 80 FR 51434. 
Of particular importance are EPSs with common output plugs that can be 
used with products made by different manufacturers. An example of this 
scenario is an EPS with standard universal serial bus (``USB'') 
connectors. These devices are often sold with end-use products 
containing batteries, such as a smartphone. Because these same EPSs are 
capable of directly operating other end-use products that do not 
contain batteries (e.g., small LED lamps, external speakers, etc.), 
they are not treated as indirect operation EPSs under DOE's 
regulations. DOE's analysis of the EPSs that are certified in the 
Compliance Certification Management System (``CCMS'') \7\ database 
further shows that only a small percentage are indirect operation EPSs. 
Specifically, of the 6,764 non-adaptive basic models of EPSs that are 
certified in the database, only 60 basic models are classified as 
indirect operation Class A and of which, a further 42 are able to meet 
both the Level IV and Level VI standards. DOE therefore seeks feedback 
on the practicality of continuing to categorize EPSs as direct 
operation and indirect operation and on the merit of continuing to have 
separate standards for each. Any potential alignment of the standards 
between direct and indirect operation EPSs would result in standards 
either as stringent or more stringent than the Level VI standards 
currently required for direct operation EPSs.\8\ As is typically the 
case, DOE would also consider the economic justification and 
technological feasibility of a proposal based on such an approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy. Appliance and Equipment Standards Program. CCMS. Last 
accessed on July 18, 2019. https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-External_Power_Supplies_-_Other_Than_Switch-Selectable_and_Adaptive_Single-Voltage_External_Power_Supplies.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22External%20Power%20Supplies%20-%20Other%20Than%20Switch-Selectable%20and%20Adaptive%20Single-Voltage%20External%20Power%20Supplies%22.
    \8\ See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), commonly referred to as the 
``anti-backsliding provision'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also requests feedback on whether the EPS standards could be 
expressed in alternate terms. For instance, DOE may consider removing 
the distinction between direct operation/indirect operation EPSs. DOE 
notes that other regulations for EPSs,

[[Page 30642]]

including those in Canada \9\ and the European Union,\10\ do not 
distinguish between direct and indirect operation EPSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/regulations-codes-standards/products/6909.
    \10\ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R0278&from=EN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these considerations, DOE requests feedback on the 
following questions:
    As DOE considers whether to amend its current standards, is the 
distinction between direct and indirect operation EPSs necessary and/or 
helpful and do they continue to merit separate standards?
    Issue 8: Would manufacturers and other stakeholders better 
understand their compliance obligations under the applicable standards 
if DOE removed this classification and provided revised definitions for 
EPSs that are subject to conservation standards that more clearly 
specified the characteristics of EPSs that would be subject to or 
exempt from future standards. New definitions for EPSs would not, 
however, exempt EPSs from the standards to which they are currently 
subject (i.e., Level IV and Level VI standards).
    Issue 9: Whether DOE retains the definitions for direct operation 
EPS and indirect operation EPS or proposes new definitions to describe 
which EPSs are subject to standards, is there any ambiguity in these 
existing definitions that DOE should consider clarifying? For instance, 
how (if at all) should DOE clarify these definitions as it relates to 
specific applications for which EPSs are used?
    Issue 10: If DOE were to propose new definitions, what criteria or 
characteristics should DOE use to identify whether an EPS is either 
subject to or exempt from standards?
    For the purposes of this document, DOE continues to refer to direct 
operation and indirect operation EPSs, as appropriate, in the following 
sections. These terms are used to discuss and seek feedback based on 
the existing regulation. DOE's decision regarding the continued use of 
these terms may be considered should DOE determine to proceed with a 
rulemaking.
b. Low-Voltage, High-Current External Power Supplies
    In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE separated direct operation 
low-voltage, AC-DC EPSs into two separate product classes and outlined 
two separate standards requirements. 79 FR 7866-7867. The first class 
is reserved for all direct operation EPSs with nameplate output 
voltages less than 6 volts and nameplate output currents greater than 
or equal to 550 milliamps. EPSs in this product class are subject to 
the Level VI standards.
    The second class DOE created is a sub-set within this product 
class, generally referred to as ``low-voltage, high-current EPSs.'' 
This class represents all EPSs with nameplate output voltages of less 
than 3 volts and nameplate output currents greater than or equal to 
1000 milliamps that are designed to charge the battery of a product 
that is fully or primarily motor operated. EPSs in this product class 
are not subject to the Level VI standards. Since these low-voltage, 
high-current EPSs still meet the statutory definition of Class A EPSs, 
they remain subject to the Level IV standards set by EISA. However, DOE 
did not apply the Level VI standards to these products over 
manufacturer concerns about the ability of these products to meet these 
higher efficiency levels. See 79 FR 7866-7867.
    DOE intends to analyze potential efficiency levels for these low-
voltage, high-current EPSs that are more stringent than the EISA Level 
IV standards. DOE plans to conduct a market assessment, energy use 
analysis, and third-party testing to develop a cost-efficiency 
relationship for low-voltage, high-current EPSs to determine whether 
any incremental improvements in energy efficiency are technologically 
feasible and economically justified. DOE is specifically interested in 
gathering particular information through this RFI on the following 
questions:
    In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined that the inherent 
design of a low-voltage high-current EPS limits its achievable 
efficiencies due to input rectification voltage drops relative to the 
output voltage, resistive losses in the higher current outputs, and the 
potential to decrease the utility of these products to improve 
efficiency by forcing manufacturers to utilize more expensive and 
larger components to meet the proposed standards. Is this justification 
for exempting ``low-voltage, high-current'' EPSs from the active mode 
efficiency requirements still valid?
    Are there any products in the current market that would fall in the 
low-voltage high-current product class? If so, which types of products?
    Issue 11: Are there any unique technology or design options 
associated with low-voltage, high-current EPSs? If so, what (if any) 
specific unique design considerations (i.e., special topologies, 
additional component derating, etc.) would be necessary in addressing 
potential energy efficiency improvements for these EPSs?
    Issue 12: What are the specific limitations (if any) associated 
with the achievable efficiencies of low-voltage, high-current EPSs?
    Issue 13: What technology options (if any) would allow low-voltage, 
high-current EPSs to improve their average active-mode efficiency? What 
specific costs (in dollars) are associated with these technology 
options and subsequent efficiency gains?
2. Technology Assessment
    In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy 
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past 
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies 
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of 
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with 
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to 
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of 
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent 
rulemaking for EPSs. A complete list of those prior options appears in 
Table II.2. As certain technologies have progressed since the February 
2014 Final Rule, Table II.3 lists newer technology options that DOE may 
also consider in a future EPS energy conservation standards rulemaking.

Table II.3--Technology Options for EPSs Considered in the Development of
                      the February 2014 Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  Improved Transformers.
2.................................  Switched-Mode Power Supplies.
3.................................  Low-Power Integrated Circuits.
4.................................  Schottky Diodes and Synchronous
                                     Rectification.
5.................................  Low-Loss Transistors.
6.................................  Resonant Switching.
7.................................  Resonant (``Lossless'') Snubbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Table II.4--New Technology Options for EPSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  Adaptive voltage modulation via
                                     digital communication.
2.................................  Wide Band Gap Semiconductors.
3.................................  Advanced Core Materials.
4.................................  Low Equivalent Series Resistance
                                     Capacitors.
5.................................  Litz Wire.
6.................................  Printed Circuit Boards with Higher
                                     Copper Content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 30643]]

    DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table II.2 
regarding their applicability to the current market and how these 
technologies may impact the efficiency of EPSs as measured according to 
the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how these 
technologies may have changed since they were considered in the 
February 2014 Final Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks information 
on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics that are 
currently available for each technology option.
    DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table II.3 
regarding their market adoption, costs, and any concerns with 
incorporating them into products (e.g., impacts on consumer utility, 
potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/implementation 
issues, etc.), particularly as to changes that may have occurred since 
the February 2014 Final Rule.
    Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it 
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies 
may impact product features or consumer utility.

C. Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which 
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which 
will be included in the engineering analysis for further consideration.
    DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from 
further consideration based on the following criteria:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a 
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the 
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or 
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.
    10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are 
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from 
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and 
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the 
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the 
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more 
of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.
    Additionally, DOE notes that the four screening criteria do not 
directly address the propriety status of technology options. DOE only 
considers potential efficiency levels achieved through the use of 
proprietary designs in the engineering analysis if they are not part of 
a unique pathway to achieve that efficiency level (i.e., if there are 
other non-proprietary technologies capable of achieving the same 
efficiency level).
    DOE did not screen out any technology options for EPSs, having 
considered the following four factors: (1) Technological feasibility; 
(2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (3) adverse 
impacts on product utility to consumers; and (4) adverse impacts on 
health or safety.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For additional details, see chapter 4 of the technical 
support document (``TSD'') for the February 2014 Final Rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the four 
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the 
technology options listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 with respect to 
EPSs. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same 
criteria would affect any other technology options not already 
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in 
EPSs.

D. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship 
of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency 
(``efficiency levels''). This relationship serves as the basis for the 
cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. 
In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the 
increase in manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') associated with 
increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline, up to the 
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for 
each product class.
    DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to 
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency 
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which 
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model various 
design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-
level approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving 
increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular 
design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-
assessment (or reverse engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-
up'' manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of 
increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and 
material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that 
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as 
a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or 
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline 
model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or 
typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that 
meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and provides 
basic consumer utility.
    If it determines that a rulemaking is necessary, consistent with 
this analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current 
minimum energy conservations standards that were required for 
compliance on February 10, 2016 as the baseline efficiency levels for 
each product class. The current standards for each product class are 
based on Active Mode Efficiency and No-load mode (standby mode) power 
consumption. The current standards for EPS are found at 10 CFR 430.32.
    Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on whether using the current energy 
conservation standards for EPSs would be appropriate baseline 
efficiency levels for DOE to apply to each product class in evaluating 
whether to amend the current energy conservation standards

[[Page 30644]]

for these products. DOE requests data and suggestions to evaluate the 
baseline efficiency levels in order to better evaluate whether to amend 
the energy conservation standards for these products.
    Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline 
efficiency levels for any newly analyzed product classes that are not 
currently in place or for the contemplated combined product classes, as 
discussed in section II.B.1 of this document. For newly analyzed 
product classes, DOE requests energy use data to develop a baseline 
relationship between energy efficiency and nameplate power ratings.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is determined by the highest efficiency unit currently available on the 
market. For the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not analyze all 4 EPS 
configurations and 8 product classes. Rather, DOE focused the analysis 
on three configurations of EPSs: Direct operation EPSs, multiple-
voltage and high-power EPSs, and indirect operation EPSs. For each 
configuration of EPS, DOE selected certain classes and units as 
``representative'' and concentrated its analytical effort on these 
because they represent a significant majority of units and because 
analysis on these units and classes can be extended to all units and 
classes. For direct operation EPSs, DOE chose four representative units 
and scaled the analysis according to different nameplate power ratings. 
For multiple-voltage EPSs and high-power EPSs, DOE chose one 
representative unit for each class. DOE chose not to conduct an 
engineering analysis for indirect operation EPSs because DOE believed 
that the energy savings associated with these EPSs would be captured in 
a battery charger rulemaking. See 79 FR 57530 and chapter 5 of the 
preliminary analysis TSD for that rulemaking.\12\ The current maximum 
available efficiencies for all product classes are included in Table 
II.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis TSD. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0031.

        Table II.5--Maximum Efficiency Levels Currently Available
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Best-in-market
                     Product class                      efficiencies (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Operation, AC-DC, Basic-Voltage................             93.02
Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage (except those                  91.8
 with nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and
 nameplate output current greater than or equal to
 1,000 milliamps that charge the battery of a product
 that is fully or primarily motor operated)...........
Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage with nameplate                84.86
 output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output
 current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps and
 charges the battery of a product that is fully or
 primarily motor operated.............................
Direct Operation, AC-AC, Basic-Voltage................             90.96
Direct Operation, AC-AC, Low-Voltage..................             87.58
Direct Operation, Multiple-Voltage....................             91.18
Direct Operation, High-Power..........................             93.59
Indirect Operation....................................              88.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the 
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options 
are incorporated in a model. In many cases, the max-tech efficiency 
level is not commercially available because it is not economically 
feasible. In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined max-tech 
efficiency levels using energy modeling. These energy models were based 
on use of all design options applicable to the specific product 
classes. While these product configurations had not likely been tested 
as prototypes, all of the individual design options had been 
incorporated in available products.
    DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency levels 
are appropriate and technologically feasible for potential 
consideration as possible energy conservation standards for the 
products at issue--and if not, why not. DOE also requests feedback on 
whether the maximum available efficiencies presented in Table II.5 are 
representative of those for the other EPS product classes not directly 
analyzed in the February 2014 Final Rule. If the range of possible 
efficiencies is different for the other product classes not directly 
analyzed, what alternative approaches should DOE consider using for 
those product classes and why?
    Issue 18: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be 
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies 
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks 
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain 
combinations of design options.
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of 
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that 
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost 
associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed product 
classes. For the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed the cost-
efficiency relationships by estimating the efficiency improvements and 
costs associated with incorporating specific design options into the 
assumed baseline model for each analyzed product class.
    Issue 19: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would 
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 
to increase energy efficiency in EPSs beyond the baseline. This 
includes information on the order in which manufacturers would 
incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve the 
efficiencies of products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the 
increased energy efficiency would lead to other design changes that 
would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested in information 
regarding any potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's 
ability to incorporate additional functions or attributes in response 
to consumer demand.

[[Page 30645]]

    Issue 20: DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated 
with incorporating each particular design option. Specifically, DOE is 
interested in whether and how the estimated costs for the design 
options used in the February 2014 Final Rule have changed since the 
time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments 
necessary to incorporate specific design options, including, but not 
limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), 
materials, engineering and development efforts to implement each design 
option, and manufacturing/production impacts.
    Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options 
may not be applicable to (or incompatible with) specific product 
classes.
    As described in section II.D.2 of this document, in the February 
2014 Final Rule, DOE concentrated its analytical efforts on certain 
representative product classes and extended the analysis to all other 
product classes. DOE developed cost-efficiency curves for these product 
classes that were used as the input for the downstream analyses 
conducted in support of that rulemaking. See chapter 5 of the February 
2014 Final Rule TSD for the cost-efficiency curves developed in that 
rulemaking.
    Issue 22: DOE seeks feedback on whether the approach of analyzing a 
sub-set of product classes is appropriate for a future EPS energy 
conservation standards rulemaking. DOE requests comment on whether it 
is necessary to individually analyze all the other product classes 
established in the February 2014 Final Rule. For example, analysis of 
product classes with an AC output may not be necessary if the analysis 
performed for AC-DC product classes applies to both. Additionally, DOE 
seeks comment on whether the approach used to apply the analyzed 
product class results to the other product classes is appropriate--and 
if not, why not? For example, if it is necessary to individually 
analyze more than the one product class used in the February 2014 Final 
Rule, please provide information on why aggregating certain products is 
not appropriate. If this approach is not appropriate, what alternative 
approaches should DOE consider using as an alternative and why?
    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') 
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into 
commerce. For the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE used increasing 
manufacturer markups for successive efficiency levels at a given power 
output within a product class. See Tables IV-5 through IV-10 in the 
February 2014 Final Rule for a complete list of all mark-ups used.
    Issue 23: DOE requests feedback on whether the various manufacturer 
markups used in the February 2014 Final Rule are still appropriate and 
applicable.

E. Distribution Channels

    In generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost 
(``LCC'') analysis and national impact analysis (``NIA''), DOE must 
identify distribution channels (i.e., how the products are distributed 
from the manufacturer to the consumer), and estimate relative sales 
volumes through each channel.
    Issue 24: DOE requests information on the existence of any 
distribution channels, other than the retail outlet distribution 
channel, that are used to distribute the products at issue into the 
market.
    Issue 25: Do the distribution channels and markups identified in 
DOE's analysis for the final rule published in February 10, 2014, still 
apply to the current EPS market? If not, what adjustments (if any) 
would be needed to account for the current EPS market? In this regard, 
DOE also seeks any supporting data that would help in making these 
adjustments to its analyses.

F. Energy Use Analysis

    As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use 
analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and thereby 
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency 
improvements. DOE bases the energy consumption of EPSs on the rated 
annual energy consumption as determined by the DOE test procedure. 
Along similar lines, the energy use analysis is meant to represent 
typical energy consumption in the field.
1. Active-Mode and No-Load Mode of External Power Supplies
    DOE will review existing industry, international, and voluntary 
standards to assist in its analysis of whether (and how, as 
appropriate) to amend the current active-mode and no-load mode 
efficiency standards for EPSs. Current mandatory standards programs for 
EPSs include the European Union (``EU'') Code of Conduct, Version 4, 
the Level IV Congressional standards; the Tier 1 EPS standards 
established by National Resources Canada (``NRCan''); and DOE's Level 
VI efficiency standards. DOE will also consider such voluntary 
standards programs as the EU Code of Conduct, Version 5 (``Code of 
Conduct v5'') \13\ when analyzing the impacts of more stringent 
standards on manufacturers and consumers. All of these standards-
setting programs use active-mode and no-load mode metrics similar to 
DOE's EPS standards to regulate the energy efficiency and power 
consumption of EPSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ European Union: Code of Conduct on External Power Supplies 
Version 5 (available at https://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/files/documents/ICT_CoC/code_of_conduct_for_eps_version_5_-_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE defines ``active-mode'' as the mode of operation when the EPS 
is connected to the main electricity supply and the output is connected 
to a load. See section 2.a of Appendix Z. In this mode, EPS efficiency 
is the conversion efficiency from the mains (i.e., the electrical 
outlet) to the end-use load when the load draws some or all of the 
maximum rated output power of the EPS. DOE averages the active-mode 
efficiency at four loading conditions--25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of 
maximum rated output current--to assess the performance of an EPS when 
powering diverse loads.
    Unlike active-mode efficiency, however, no-load mode is 
characterized by power consumption rather than conversion efficiency. 
This is because the EPS does not deliver power to the end use load in 
this mode. DOE defines ``no-load mode'' as the mode of operation where 
the EPS is connected to the main electricity supply and the output is 
not connected to a load. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix Z, 
section 2.q. The EPS test procedure measures the no-load performance of 
a given EPS at 0 percent of the maximum rated output current where the 
power consumed by the EPS is that drawn from the mains with all loads, 
either electronic or resistive, physically and electrically 
disconnected from the output of the EPS.
    The Level IV and Level VI standards both use average active-mode 
efficiency, calculated as a percentage, to regulate the active-mode of 
EPSs and no-load power consumption, in watts, to regulate the standby 
mode of EPSs. DOE analyzed the CCMS database and sorted the product 
reports based on the compliance characteristics of Level VI EPSs. Of 
the models DOE could accurately categorize using the manufacturer-
submitted output power and current data, more than 38% surpassed the 
minimum average active-mode efficiency standard by at least 2 
percentage points (i.e., more than 38% of models were more efficient 
than required by the standard by at least 2 percentage points). 
Similarly, DOE

[[Page 30646]]

identified over 7,700 models from NRCan's EPS database \14\ that met or 
surpassed the Level VI standards, including 3,100 models that exceeded 
the minimum average active-mode efficiency standard by at least 2 
percentage points. The majority of these efficiency increases were seen 
in EPSs with nameplate output powers greater than 49 watts, which may 
indicate that these types of EPSs are capable of achieving even higher 
average active-mode efficiencies than the minimum efficiency standards 
prescribed by DOE's Level VI standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Natural Resources Canada. Energy Efficiency Ratings: 
Search. Last Accessed on January 20, 2017. <https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/index.cfm?language_langue=en&action=app%2Esearch%2Drecherche&appliance=EPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other efficiency programs have recognized the potential efficiency 
gains for these types of EPSs as well and have established energy 
efficiency guidelines more stringent than the standards developed by 
DOE. For instance, the EU's Code of Conduct v5 lays out the foundation 
for a set of voluntary guidelines for individual manufacturers to meet 
and includes specifications regarding EPS coverage, energy efficiency, 
and monitoring provisions. The Code of Conduct v5 measures the active-
mode efficiency of an EPS at the same loading conditions as DOE's 
standards program and also includes a no-load power consumption metric 
at 0 percent load. Also like DOE's efficiency standards, the Code of 
Conduct v5's prescribed energy efficiency levels at the specified five 
loading points rely on equations that generate a minimum average 
active-mode efficiency requirement as a function of nameplate output 
power of an EPS. The energy efficiency provisions are divided into two 
groupings--Tier 1 and Tier 2. These tiers delineate two separate sets 
of voluntary energy efficiency guidelines with two unique effective 
dates. Tier 1 went into effect in January 2014, and the more stringent 
guidelines in Tier 2 in January 2016. These tiers sort the applicable 
efficiency guidelines for EPSs based on the type of power conversion 
and the nameplate output voltage in an identical manner to DOE's own 
direct operation product classes. However, the Code of Conduct v5 
provisions do not address some of the products addressed by DOE's 
direct operation standards, such as EPSs with nameplate output powers 
greater than 250 watts and EPSs that output more than one voltage 
simultaneously. Instead, Code of Conduct v5 outlines unique efficiency 
standards for low-voltage \15\ EPSs and EPSs that are not low-voltage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The EU Code of Conduct on External Power Supplies considers 
a low-voltage EPS to be any EPS with a nameplate output voltage of 
less than 6 volts and a nameplate output current greater than or 
equal to 550 milliamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Code of Conduct v5 efficiency program is voluntary, an 
assessment published in 2014 by the European Council for an Energy 
Efficient Economy (``ECEEE'') analyzed the benefits and burdens of 
harmonizing the EU Ecodesign Directive standards for EPSs \16\ with 
both mandatory and voluntary international regulations. The Ecodesign 
Directive outlines mandatory energy consumption and energy efficiency 
standards for consumer and commercial products in the EU, and revises 
those standards based on their Ecodesign Working Plan.\17\ The study 
concluded that any revised standards for EPSs in the EU should 
harmonize with DOE's Level VI standards while making the Code of 
Conduct v5's Tier 2 standards mandatory at a later date, and that 
failing to harmonize with, at the minimum, Level VI standards would 
risk having poorer efficiency products circulating through the EU that 
cannot be sold in the U.S. Currently, EPSs are regulated as part of the 
Ecodesign Directive under Commission Regulation (``EC'') No. 278/
2009,\18\ but an April 2015 working document \19\ proposed to harmonize 
the EU standards for EPSs with DOE's Level VI requirements by January 
2017 and implement standards equivalent to those found in Tier 2 of the 
Code of Conduct by January 2018. While this document was later revised 
to propose harmonization with DOE's Level VI standards by April 2020 
and abandon pursuit of Tier 2 standards altogether, DOE found that more 
than 73% of the entries in its own CCMS database met or surpassed the 
Tier 2 standards initially proposed in the Code of Conduct v5 as did 
67% of the units in the NRCan database. Therefore, DOE intends to 
analyze the impact of the Tier 2 standards on the EPS market for 
products sold in the U.S. and countries within the EU to determine 
whether more stringent efficiency standards in the U.S. are appropriate 
for EPSs. DOE welcomes feedback on its proposed approach to re-examine 
the minimum federal requirements for both the active-mode and no-load 
mode for all EPSs subject to the Level VI standards. Additionally, DOE 
seeks feedback from interested parties on the following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Additional Assessment in the Frame of the Review Study on 
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 278/2009 External Power Supplies. 
March 2014. Final Report. <https://www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/battery-chargers/eps-review-additional-assessment-up-dated-final-report.pdf.
    \17\ Ecodesign and Labeling. ErP Working Plan. <https://www.eceee.org/ecodesign/Horizontal-matters/working-plan/.
    \18\ Commission Regulation (EC) No. 278/2009 of April 6 2009. 
<https://www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/battery-chargers/finalreg-eps.pdf.
    \19\ Ecodesign and Labeling. 278/2009: Battery chargers and 
external power supplies. <https://www.eceee.org/ecodesign/products/battery-chargers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 26: What impact (if any) does the EU Code of Conduct v5 
currently have on the EPS industry in the United States? If the effects 
are currently negligible, will the Code of Conduct v5 standards be 
likely to have an effect in the future? If so, what are those impacts 
likely to be and how long would it take for those impacts to impact the 
U.S. market?
    Issue 27: Is active mode still the most energy consumptive state of 
operation for EPSs? If so, why? If not, why not?
    Issue 28: Are there any specific types of EPSs for which it would 
be difficult to meet standards more stringent than the existing Level 
VI standards? If so, would it be difficult to meet the more stringent 
standards for average active mode efficiency, no-load mode power, or 
both? Which specific types of EPSs will find it difficult to meet more 
stringent standards and why?
    Issue 29: Are there any specific types of EPSs for which increasing 
the efficiency requirement would impact the utility to consumers? If 
so, which types of EPSs will be impacted and how?
    Issue 30: What design options exist for improving the efficiency of 
EPSs beyond the Level VI standard levels? Are any of the options 
proprietary--and if so, which ones?
    Issue 31: Can manufacturers comply with the originally proposed 
Tier 2 Ecodesign requirements? If not, what are the technical and 
production barriers that would prevent manufacturers from meeting those 
proposed requirements? Will certain types of EPSs be likely to have 
greater difficulty in meeting these proposed requirements compared to 
other EPSs? If so, which types and why?
    Issue 32: What are the costs (in dollars) associated with each of 
the design options utilized to implement efficiencies greater than the 
Level VI standards? Are there any currently available features that 
would likely be sacrificed if standards were made more stringent than 
Level VI?
    Issue 33: Does the current average active-mode efficiency metric 
capture appropriately representative loading points for EPSs? If not, 
should DOE consider other loading points in active mode? If so, which 
ones and why?

[[Page 30647]]

    Issue 34: What impact would alternate loading points have on any 
determination of active mode efficiency for EPSs? Should different 
loading points be weighted differently from others based on usage when 
considering overall energy consumption? If not, why not? If so, how?
    Issue 35: Can EPSs achieve lower no-load values than those 
described in the Level VI standard? If not, why not? If so, how?
    Issue 36: The EU Code of Conduct v5 Tier 2 levels for no-load mode 
are much more stringent than DOE's no-load requirements in the Level VI 
standard. What technical difficulties (if any) are there in meeting the 
EU Code of Conduct v5 Tier 2 levels for the no-load mode condition? 
What barriers (if any) do manufacturers face meeting or exceeding the 
EU Code of Conduct v5 Tier 2 levels for no-load mode?
2. Idle Mode and Sleep Mode of External Power Supplies
    As part of its review and evaluation that led to the Level VI 
standards, DOE analyzed the energy usage profiles of a number of 
different EPSs based on the end-use application. These usage profiles 
considered a number of different modes such as active mode, idle/
standby mode, sleep mode, no-load mode, and unplugged mode and then 
assigned specific daily percentages to each mode based on the expected 
operation. DOE used these weightings to calculate the overall energy 
impact of more stringent standards because the loading conditions used 
to determine the average active-mode efficiency metric for EPSs are 
most often associated with the operating mode of the consumer products 
they power.\20\ While DOE evaluated the energy impacts of all operating 
modes, the Level VI standards do not account for any loading points 
below those specified in the average active mode efficiency metric 
(i.e., 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the nameplate output current of 
the EPS). DOE has been made aware that several consumer products may 
operate at lower loading conditions in standby or idle/standby modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Chapter 7 and Appendix 7A of the TSD for further 
details. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 37: Do EPSs spend a significant portion of time operating at 
loading conditions outside the range currently considered by the EPS 
standards? If so, which ones?
    Issue 38: What are the design options associated with improving 
low-load efficiency? Are any of the design options proprietary? What 
are the associated costs (in dollars) with implementing such options?
    Issue 39: What EPS loading points would best represent idle mode, 
sleep mode, or other low-power loading conditions associated with 
consumer products in a low-power state? For each loading point, please 
explain why it would be best for the applicable mode.
    Issue 40: Would improving low-load conversion efficiency result in 
any significant energy reduction over the lifetime of an EPS? If so, 
would these anticipated reductions be limited to those EPSs that are 
paired with particular types of associated end-use products--and if 
this is the case, which ones and why?
    Issue 41: What impact would lower loading points have on any 
determination of average efficiency for EPSs--and why? Should different 
loading points be weighted differently from others based on usage when 
considering overall energy consumption--if so, why? And if not, why 
not?
    Issue 42: If DOE were to consider including additional loading 
conditions into its test procedure, should they be integrated into 
DOE's standards--and if so, how? Should the active mode efficiencies at 
the additional loading conditions be included in the calculation for 
the overall average active mode efficiency of a unit? If so, what 
impact (if any) would the additional active mode efficiencies have on 
overall efficiency ratings? If not, should DOE consider using a 
separate efficiency metric for low-loading points? Is there another 
approach that may be more appropriate for considering standby or idle 
mode energy savings?
    Issue 43: Are there any additional resources concerning the 
operation of EPSs during idle or standby mode that DOE should consider 
when evaluating the EPS standards?
    Issue 44: How has the typical usage of EPSs changed, if at all, 
since the Level VI standards became required, among the various modes 
of operation (e.g., no-load, maintenance, active)? If the EPS usage has 
changed, what is the nature of those usage pattern changes and what are 
the technical reasons as to why those usage patterns have changed in 
that manner?

G. Shipments

    DOE develops shipments forecasts of EPSs to calculate the national 
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy 
consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future manufacturer cash 
flows. DOE shipments projections are based on available historical data 
broken out by product class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales 
estimates allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends 
in the market.
    Issue 45: DOE requests 2018 annual sales data (i.e., number of 
shipments) for EPSs and product classes. If disaggregated fractions of 
annual sales are not available at the EPS class level, DOE requests 
more aggregated fractions of annual sales at the EPS category level. 
DOE also requests data and reports on future market shipment trends.
    If disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available at the 
product type level, DOE requests more aggregated fractions of annual 
sales at the category level.
    Issue 46: If available, DOE requests the same annual sales 
information of the various classes of EPSs for the five years prior to 
2019 (i.e., 2014-2018).
    Issue 47: What are the potential impacts (if any) on EPS shipments 
if the current energy conservation standards for EPSs were to be 
amended to become more stringent?
    Issue 48: Since compliance requirements with the Level VI standards 
began in 2016, what is the percentage of shipments in each product 
class at different efficiencies in the EPS market? In the absence of 
any further amendments to the current energy conservation standards, 
what are the current projected market trends (if any) in EPS efficiency 
and why? If the current standards were to be amended in a manner 
consistent with one of the approaches described elsewhere in this 
document (e.g., increased stringency, combining of current classes, 
etc.), what impact(s) (if any) would be likely to occur in response?

H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to 
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards 
on EPS manufacturers, and to evaluate the potential impact of such 
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA 
includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative 
part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact 
Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted for each product 
in this analysis, with the key output of industry net present value 
(``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential 
impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and 
industry competition, as well as factors such as product 
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and 
important market and product trends.

[[Page 30648]]

    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered 
products, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small 
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to 
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are 
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System 
(``NAICS'') code.\21\ Manufacturing of consumer EPS is classified under 
NAICS 335999, ``All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and 
Component Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 1500 
employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small 
business. This employee threshold includes all employees in a business' 
parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product lines or markets with lower than expected future returns than 
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.
    Issue 49: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact 
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that 
distribute EPSs in the United States.
    Issue 50: DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of 
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended 
energy conservation standards. In the manufacturer impact analysis for 
the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not identify any small business 
manufacturers of EPSs. DOE also did not identify any domestic 
manufacturers of EPSs (i.e., DOE found that all residential EPSs sold 
in the U.S. were imported).\22\ If the previous determinations are no 
longer valid, DOE requests the names and contact information of small 
business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, of EPSs 
that distribute products in the United States. In addition, DOE 
requests comment on any other manufacturer subgroups that could be 
disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation standards. 
DOE requests feedback on any potential approaches that could be 
considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small 
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See chapter 12 of the TSD for the February 2014 Final Rule. 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 51: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative 
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of EPSs associated with (1) 
other DOE standards applying to different products that these 
manufacturers may also make and (2) product-specific regulatory actions 
of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology 
for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether there are any 
flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this burden while 
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
    Issue 52: Are there any additional maintenance or repair costs (in 
dollars), or differences in product lifetime, associated with EPSs at 
efficiencies higher than the Level VI standards? If so, what are they 
and what is the magnitude of those costs--both on a total basis and by 
application. If such costs exist, how do they compare with respect to 
the same types of costs for EPSs that were manufactured that did not 
meet the Level VI standards? With respect to any impacts on product 
lifetime, what is the extent of those impacts in light of the Level VI 
requirements--i.e. have they increased, decreased, or stayed constant?

I. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics

1. Market Failures
    In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which 
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome 
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on 
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of 
amended energy conservation standards for EPSs such as a lack, or 
excess of information which leads to misinformed purchases, misaligned 
incentives between purchasers and users, and negative effects on 
external factors related to public health, environmental protection, or 
energy security.
2. Network/``Smart'' Technology
    DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and 
equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought 
information to better understand market trends and issues in the 
emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that 
incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to 
ensure that the Department did not inadvertently impede such innovation 
in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards 
for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks comments, data and 
information on the issues presented in the RFI as they may be 
applicable to energy conservation standards for EPSs.
3. Other Issues
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of its assessment in determining whether to amend the current 
EPS energy conservation standards that may not have been specifically 
identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under 
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs,'' Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage 
the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to 
comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (February 3, 2017). 
Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to 
provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its 
energy conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, and compliance and certification requirements applicable 
to EPSs while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
specified previously in the DATES section of this document, comments 
and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other 
matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservation 
standards for EPSs. After the close of the comment period, DOE will 
review the public comments received and may begin collecting data, 
conducting the analyses discussed in this document.

[[Page 30649]]

    Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will 
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, 
organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). 
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical 
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your 
comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through 
https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov 
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of 
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being 
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to 
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that 
www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles 
(faxes) will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: 
One copy of the document marked confidential including all the 
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document 
marked ``non-confidential''a with the information believed to be 
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if 
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing energy conservations standards for consumer 
products. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of 
the public during the comment period in each stage of the rulemaking 
process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a 
balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking 
process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to 
receive future notices and information about this rulemaking should 
contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program at (202) 287-1445, or 
via email at [email protected]

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 2, 
2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with 
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way 
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-09988 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.