Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery Chargers, 55090-55132 [2022-18717]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55090
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE–2020–BT–TP–0012]
RIN 1904–AE49
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Battery Chargers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this final rule, the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) amends
the existing test procedures for battery
chargers to reorganize certain
subsections, clarify symbology and
references, correct an incorrect cross
reference and section title, update the
list of battery chemistries, and terminate
an existing test procedure waiver
because the covered subject models
have been discontinued. This final rule
also establishes in new appendix Y1 a
new a test procedure for battery chargers
that expands coverage to include
inductive wireless battery chargers and
establishes associated definitions and
test provisions; establishes a new test
procedure approach that relies on
separate metrics for active mode,
standby mode, and off mode; and
updates the EPS selection criteria. The
new test procedure Y1 will be used for
the evaluation and issuance of updated
efficiency standards, as well as to
determine compliance with the updated
standards, should such standards be
established.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
October 11, 2022. The amendments to
the current test procedure will be
mandatory for product testing starting
March 7, 2023. Manufacturers will be
required to use the amended test
procedure in appendix Y until the
compliance date of any final rule
establishing amended energy
conservation standards based on the
newly established test procedure in
appendix Y1. At such time,
manufacturers will be required to begin
using the newly established test
procedure in appendix Y1.
The incorporation by reference of
certain materials listed in this rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on October 11, 2022.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be
found at www.regulations.gov/docket/
EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012. The docket
web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including
public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket contact the Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287–1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
9870. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
5709. Email: Nolan.Brickwood@
hq.doe.gov.
DOE
incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR part 430:
ANSI/NEMA WD 6–2016, ‘‘Wiring
Devices—Dimensional Specifications;’’
IEC 62040–3 Ed. 2.0, ‘‘Uninterruptible
power systems (UPS)—Part 3: Method of
specifying the performance and test
requirements, Edition 2.0, 2011–03;’’
IEC 62301, ‘‘Household electrical
appliances—Measurement of standby
power, (Edition 2.0, 2011–01), (‘‘IEC
62301’’)’’.
Copies of ANSI/NEMA WD 6–2016
can be obtained from the American
National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036,
(212) 642–4900, webstore.ansi.org.
Copies of IEC 62040–3 Ed.2.0 and IEC
62301 can be obtained from the
International Electrotechnical
Commission at 446 Main Street,
Sixteenth floor, Worcester, MA 01608,
or by going to www.iec.ch., and is
available from the American National
Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212)
642–4900, or go to webstore.ansi.org.
For a further discussion of these
standards, see section IV.N. of this
document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
1. Battery Chargers
2. Inductive Wireless Battery Chargers
B. Test Procedure
1. Wireless Charger Test Procedure
2. External Power Supply Selection
3. Battery Chemistry and End-of-Discharge
Voltages
4. Battery Selection
5. Mode-Specific Metrics
6. Active Mode Test
7. Standby Mode Tests
8. Non-Battery-Charging Related Functions
C. Corrections and Non-Substantive
Changes
1. Certification Flowcharts
2. Testing and Certification Clarifications
3. Cross-Reference Corrections
4. Sub-Section Corrections
D. Effective and Compliance Dates
E. Test Procedure Costs
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by
Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Battery chargers are included among
the consumer products for which the
U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is
authorized to establish and amend
energy conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1))
DOE’s energy conservation standards
and test procedures for battery chargers
are currently prescribed at title 10 CFR
430.32(z) and 10 CFR part 430 subpart
B, appendix Y (‘‘appendix Y’’),
respectively. The following sections
discuss DOE’s authority to establish test
procedures for battery chargers and
relevant background information
regarding DOE’s consideration of test
procedures for this product.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
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, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Battery
chargers, the subject of this final rule,
are products included in the Energy
Policy Conservation Program. (42 U.S.C.
6291(32); 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1))
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), the authority
to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The testing requirements consist of
test procedures that manufacturers of
covered products must use as the basis
for (1) certifying to DOE that their
products comply with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted
under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2)
making other representations about the
efficiency of those products (42 U.S.C.
6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the products comply with any relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6295(s))
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)
DOE may, however, grant waivers of
Federal preemption for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions of
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products.
EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended be reasonably
designed to produce test results which
measure energy efficiency, energy use or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use, as
determined by the Secretary, and shall
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA also requires that DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered
product, including battery chargers, at
least once every 7 years to determine
whether amended test procedures
would more accurately or fully comply
with the requirements for the test
procedures to be reasonably designed to
produce test results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and
to not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
Additionally, EPCA requires DOE to
amend its test procedures for all covered
products to include standby mode and
off mode energy consumption, with
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption integrated into the overall
energy efficiency, energy consumption,
or other energy descriptor unless the
Secretary determines that (i) the current
test procedures already fully account for
and incorporate the standby mode and
off mode energy consumption, or (ii)
such an integrated test procedure is
technically infeasible for a particular
covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A); see also 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(B)(i))) If an integrated test
procedure is technically infeasible, DOE
must prescribe separate standby mode
and off mode energy use test
procedures, if separate tests are
technically feasible. (Id.) Any such
amendment must consider the most
current versions of the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
Standard 62301 3 and IEC Standard
62087 4 as applicable. (Id.)
If the Secretary determines, on her
own behalf or in response to a petition
by any interested person, that a test
procedure should be prescribed or
amended, the Secretary shall promptly
publish in the Federal Register
proposed test procedures and afford
interested persons an opportunity to
present oral and written data, views,
and arguments with respect to such
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) The
comment period on a proposed rule to
amend a test procedure shall be at least
60 days and may not exceed 270 days.
Id. In prescribing or amending a test
procedure, the Secretary shall take into
account such information as the
Secretary determines relevant to such
3 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances—
Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011–
01).
4 IEC 62087, Audio, video and related
equipment—Methods of measurement for power
consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1–6: 2015, Part 7:
2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55091
procedure, including technological
developments relating to energy use or
energy efficiency of the type (or class)
of covered products involved. Id. If DOE
determines that test procedure revisions
are not appropriate, DOE must publish
its determination not to amend the test
procedures. Id.
DOE is publishing this final rule in
satisfaction of the 7-year review
requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
B. Background
On May 4, 2020, DOE published a
request for information (‘‘May 2020
RFI’’) seeking comments and data on
whether, since the last test procedure
update, there have been changes in
battery charger testing methodology or
new products introduced to the market
since the last test procedure update that
may necessitate amending the test
procedure for battery chargers. 85 FR
26369, 26370. DOE specifically solicited
feedback on possible approaches to
testing inductive wireless battery
chargers not designed for use in a wet
environment. 85 FR 26369, 26371. DOE
requested comment on the
characteristics of the EPSs typically
used by manufacturers for testing and
certification purposes for battery charger
products that require an EPS but do not
come prepackaged with one, and the
characteristics of the EPS used by
consumers in real-world settings. Id.
DOE also requested comment on
whether using a reference EPS for
testing would be appropriate in such a
situation. Id. DOE similarly requested
comment on the appropriateness of
testing a battery charger using a
reference battery load. 85 FR 26369,
26372. DOE further requested comment
on whether other parts of the battery
charger test procedure need to be
updated such as end-of-discharge
voltages, prescribed battery chemistries,
consumer usage profiles, battery
selection criteria, and the battery
charger waiver process. 85 FR 26369,
26372–26373.
On November 23, 2021, DOE
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘November 2021 NOPR’’),
in which DOE responded to comments
received in response to the May 2020
RFI and proposed amendments to the
test procedures for battery chargers in
appendix Y and in a new appendix Y1.
86 FR 66878. DOE’s proposed
amendments to appendix Y included
reorganizing two subsections, clarifying
symbology and references, correcting an
incorrect cross reference and section
title, updating the list of battery
chemistries, and terminating an existing
test procedure waiver because the
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
55092
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
covered subject models have been
discontinued. 86 FR 66878, 66881,
66885–66886, 66889–66894.
DOE also proposed to establish a new
appendix Y1 that, in addition to the
changes proposed for appendix Y,
would expand the scope of the test
procedure to include inductive wireless
battery chargers beyond those designed
and manufactured to operate in a wet
environment (removing that distinction
altogether), increase the rated battery
energy limit of fixed location wireless
chargers in appendix Y1 from ≤5 Wh to
≤100 Wh, establish associated
definitions for fixed-location wireless
chargers and open-placement wireless
chargers and corresponding test
provisions; establish a new test
procedure approach that relies on
separate metrics for active mode,
standby mode, and off mode
(consequently removing the battery
charger usage profiles and single-metric
unit energy consumption calculation);
and update the EPS selection criteria. 86
FR 66878, 66881, 66883–66885, 66887–
66889.
On January 7, 2022, DOE published
an extension of the comment period in
response to a joint request submitted by
some stakeholders.5 87 FR 890.
DOE received comments in response
to the November 2021 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in Table II.1.
TABLE II.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 2021 NOPR
Commenter(s)
Reference in
this final rule
American Honda Motor Co., INC ..............................................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of
America, Natural Resources Defense Council.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Outdoor
Power Equipment Institute, Power Tool Institute, Inc.
California Investor-Owned Utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California
Edison).
CSA Group ...............................................................................
Delta-Q Technologies ...............................................................
Information Technology Industry Council .................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .......................................
Schumacher Electric Corporation .............................................
STIHL ........................................................................................
Wireless Power Consortium .....................................................
Honda .....................................
Joint Efficiency Advocates ......
26
23
Manufacturer.
Efficiency Organizations.
Joint Trade Associations ........
24
Trade Associations.
CA IOUs ..................................
25
Utilities.
CSA .........................................
Delta-Q ....................................
ITI ............................................
NEEA ......................................
Schumacher ............................
STIHL ......................................
WPC ........................................
12
28
20
27
21
16
22
Efficiency Organization.
Manufacturer.
Trade Association.
Efficiency Organization.
Manufacturer
Manufacturer.
Efficiency Organization.
Commenter type
separate metrics for active mode,
standby mode, and off mode using Ea,
Psb, and Poff, respectively, as measured
by the newly established appendix Y1;
and
In this final rule, DOE amends
appendix Y by adopting the proposed
test procedure changes as follows:
(1) Updates terms used in the battery
chemistry table;
(2) Provides further direction
regarding the application for a battery
charger test procedure waiver when
battery energy cannot be directly
measured;
(3) Provides more descriptive terms
for battery energy and battery voltage
values used for determining product
class and calculating unit energy; and
(4) Corrects a cross-reference and a
table title, further clarifies certain
references and terminologies, and
reorganizes certain subsections for
improved readability.
DOE is also adopting the proposed
new appendix Y1, which would
generally require that testing be
conducted as provided in appendix Y as
amended in this final rule, but with the
following additional changes:
(1) Establishing definitions associated
with inductive wireless power transfer,
and differentiating between wireless
chargers that incorporate a physical
receiver locating feature (e.g., a peg,
cradle, dock, locking mechanism,
magnet, etc.) for aligning or orienting
the position of the receiver (‘‘fixedlocation’’ wireless chargers) to the
transmitter and those that do not
(‘‘open-placement’’ wireless chargers);
(2) Including within the scope of the
test procedure fixed-location inductive
wireless battery chargers, and adding a
separate no-battery mode test for openplacement wireless chargers;
(3) Removing the unit energy
consumption (‘‘UEC’’) 7 calculations and
usage profiles and instead relying on
5 The joint request was submitted by the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers,
Consumer Technology Association, Information
Technology Industry Council, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, Outdoor Power
Equipment Institute, Plumbing Manufacturers
Institute, and Power Tool Institute. Comment no.
EERE–BT–2020–TP–0012–0017 (available at
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-TP0012-0017).
6 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop test procedures for battery
chargers. (Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–TP–0012,
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter
name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
7 The UEC represents the annualized amount of
the non-useful energy consumed by a battery
charger among all tested modes of operation. Nonuseful energy is the energy consumed by a battery
charger that is not transferred and stored in a
battery as a result of charging, i.e., the losses.
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.6
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Document No.
in docket
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(4) Specifying EPS selection priority
and amending selection requirements
for battery chargers that do not ship
with an EPS and for which one is not
recommended by the manufacturer.
Manufacturers would not be required
to test according to appendix Y1 until
such time as compliance is required
with any amended energy conservation
standards for battery chargers
established after September 8, 2022.
The adopted amendments are
summarized in Table II.1 compared to
the test procedure provision prior to the
amendment, as well as the reason for
the adopted change.
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
55093
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE AMENDED TEST PROCEDURE
Current DOE
test procedure
Amended
test procedure
Applicable
test procedure
Only those wireless chargers that operate in ‘‘wet
environments’’ and have a battery energy of less
than or equal to 5 watt-hours (Wh) are in scope
of the battery charger test procedure.
Increases the 5 Wh limit to 100Wh and replaces
the ‘‘wet environment’’ designation with ‘‘fixed-location wireless chargers’’, such that wireless
chargers meant for dry as well as wet environments would be in scope.
Addresses open-placement wireless chargers and
fixed-location wireless chargers, and adds definitions for both.
Adds a no-battery mode test method for openplacement wireless chargers in a newly created
section of the appendix.
Adds EPS selection order priority and removes the
5.0V DC input criteria. For battery chargers that
do not ship with an EPS and do not have a recommended adapter, requires that the charger be
tested using an EPS that is minimally compliant
with the applicable energy conservation standard
and supplies the rated input voltage and current.
Updates ‘‘Lithium Polymer’’ to ‘‘Lithium-Ion Polymer,’’ and changes ‘‘Nanophosphate Lithium-Ion’’
to ‘‘Lithium Iron Phosphate’’.
Removes battery charger usage profiles and the
UEC calculation; adopts separate metrics, Ea,
Psb and Poff, for the energy performance of a
battery charger in each of the following three
modes of operation respectively: active mode,
standby mode and off mode.
Prolongs the test duration until maintenance mode
power has been captured representatively, if
needed.
Provides specific direction to apply for a test procedure waiver if the battery energies cannot be directly measured.
Appendix Y1 ...........
To reflect changes in the market.
Appendix Y1 ...........
To reflect changes in the market.
Appendix Y1 ...........
To reflect changes in the market
and to improve representativeness.
To reflect changes in technology
and to improve representativeness and comparability of results.
Changes the denotations to ‘‘Measured Ebatt’’ for
experimentally measured battery energy, and
‘‘Representative Ebatt’’ for representative battery
energy, with further clarification in the footnotes.
Corrects the cross-section reference to Table 3.3.2
Does not differentiate between types of wireless
chargers.
Does not provide a test method for open-placement
wireless chargers.
Does not provide EPS selection priority for chargers
that do have associated EPSs. For those that do
not, current test procedure requires DC battery
chargers be tested with 5.0 V DC for USB port
powered devices, or the midpoint of the rated
input voltage range for others.
Battery chemistries specified in Table 3.3.2 do not
reflect the latest industry naming conventions.
UEC calculation relies on usage profiles to determine the length of time spent in each mode of
operation.
Total test duration might not capture a representative measure of maintenance mode power of certain battery chargers.
Manufacturer can report the battery discharge energy and the charging and maintenance mode
energy as ‘‘Not Applicable’’ if the measurements
cannot be made.
Uses the designation ‘‘Ebatt’’ for both experimentally
measured battery energy and representative battery energy.
Section 3.3.4 incorrectly references section 3.3.2 for
instructions on how to discharge batteries.
Table 3.3.2 is located after Section 3.3.10 (Determining the 24-hour Energy Consumption) but is
required for use in section 3.3.8 (Battery Discharge Energy Test).
Certain sections use terms such as ‘‘above’’ or
‘‘below’’ for references.
Battery charger standby mode and off mode can be
inappropriately tested if manufacturer does not
follow the test procedure in order.
Column title in Table 3.3.3 states ‘‘Special characteristic or rated battery voltage’’.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Uses the term ‘‘wall adapters’’ to refer to external
power supplies, which is inconsistent with certification requirements and reporting templates.
Definition of ‘‘C-Rate’’ does not provide a straightforward translation between charge or discharge
rate and charge or discharge time.
DOE has determined that the
amendments to appendix Y described in
section III and adopted in this document
will not alter the measured efficiency of
battery chargers, or require retesting or
recertification solely as a result of DOE’s
adoption of the amendments to the test
procedure at appendix Y. Additionally,
DOE has determined that the
amendments will not increase the cost
of testing under appendix Y.
DOE has determined that the newly
established appendix Y1, which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
Moves Table 3.3.2 to Section 3.3.8 .........................
Further clarifies the referenced sections ..................
Reorganizes sections 3.3.11 and 3.3.12 so battery
charger standby and off modes can be tested
correctly even if the test procedure order is not
followed.
Corrects the title to read ‘‘Special characteristic or
highest rated battery voltage’’ to clarify that for
multi-voltage chargers, the highest battery voltage must be used to determine product class.
Changes the ‘‘wall adapter’’ terms to more technically correct term of ‘‘EPSs’’.
Adds clarification that a 0.2 C-Rate would translate
to a charge or discharge period of 5 hours.
Appendix Y1 ...........
Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.
To reflect changes in the market.
Appendix Y1 ...........
To improve representativeness.
Appendix Y1 ...........
To improve representativeness.
Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.
To improve representativeness.
Appendix Y .............
To improve readability.
Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.
Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.
To improve readability.
Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.
Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.
To improve readability.
Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.
To improve readability.
Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.
To improve readability.
Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.
To improve readability.
specifies testing with a minimally
compliant EPS, increases scope of
wireless chargers, and removes the
usage profiles and UEC calculation
would result in a value for measured
energy use that is different from that
measured using the current test
procedure. However, testing in
accordance with the newly established
appendix Y1 would not be required
until such time as compliance is
required with new and amended energy
conservation standards, should DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Attribution
To improve readability.
To improve readability.
establish such standards. Additionally,
DOE has determined that testing under
appendix Y1 would not increase the
cost of testing as compared to testing
under appendix Y. Discussion of DOE’s
actions are addressed in detail in
section III of this document.
The effective date for the amended
test procedures adopted in this final
rule is 30 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register.
Representations of energy use or energy
efficiency must be based on testing in
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
55094
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
accordance with the amended appendix
Y test procedures beginning 180 days
after the publication of this final rule.
Manufacturers will be required to certify
compliance using the new appendix Y1
test procedure beginning on the
compliance date of any final rule
published after the effective date of this
final rule that establishes amended
energy conservation standards for
battery chargers.
III. Discussion
In this battery chargers test procedure
final rule, DOE is amending appendix Y
and establishing a new appendix Y1 as
described throughout the following
sections.
EPCA requires DOE to review the test
procedure for battery chargers at least
once every 7 years and to determine
whether amendments to the test
procedure would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for
test procedures to be reasonably
designed to produce representative test
results without undue burden. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) In response to the
November 2021 NOPR, the Joint Trade
Associations stated that DOE proposed
several changes that improve the clarity
but not representativeness of the test
procedure and urged DOE to prioritize
other rulemakings. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 1) DOE
reiterates that it is undertaking this
rulemaking pursuant to the periodic
review required by EPCA. As discussed
in the following sections, DOE has
determined that appendix Y, as
amended in this final rule, and
appendix Y1 as established in this final
rule, more accurately and fully comply
with the requirements in EPCA for test
procedures to be reasonably designed to
produce representative test results
without undue burden. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3))
A. Scope of Applicability
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
1. Battery Chargers
This rulemaking applies to battery
chargers, which are devices that charge
batteries for consumer products,
including battery chargers embedded in
other consumer products. (42 U.S.C.
6291(32); 10 CFR 430.2) A battery
charger may be wholly embedded in
another consumer product, partially
embedded in another consumer
product, or wholly separate from
another consumer product. Id.
Appendix Y differentiates among
different types of battery chargers,
including batch chargers, multi-port
chargers, and multi-voltage chargers, as
well as various battery chemistries. For
each type of battery charger, appendix Y
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
specifies test setup requirements and
test battery selection, such as battery
preparation steps, battery end-ofdischarge voltages, and battery charger
usage profiles based on the respective
product classes. These different
specifications are intended to ensure
that each battery charger is tested to
produce results that measure energy use
during a representative average use
cycle or period of use.
DOE’s current battery charger test
procedure applies to battery chargers
that operate at either direct current
(‘‘DC’’) or United States alternating
current (‘‘AC’’) line voltage (115 Volts
(‘‘V’’) at 60 Hertz), as well as to
uninterruptible power supplies that
have an AC output and utilize the
standardized National Electrical
Manufacturer Association (‘‘NEMA’’)
plug, 1–15P or 5–15P, as specified in
American National Standards Institute
(‘‘ANSI’’)/NEMA WD 6–2016.
The CA IOUs stated in their comment
responding to the November 2021 NOPR
that new consumer products powered
by batteries require more power, and
therefore current battery chargers are
more powerful than when DOE initially
developed its battery charger standard
and test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at
p. 7) These more powerful battery
chargers, they claimed, offer larger
energy savings potential through energy
efficiency standards. Id. CA IOUs
therefore recommended that DOE clarify
the scope of the test procedure, and
expand it to cover battery chargers that
can operate on either 115V or 230V AC
voltage levels. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7)
CA IOUs noted that US residences
typically offer AC electricity at both
115V and 230V at 60Hz and that
modern battery chargers may be
designed for either voltage, and
therefore DOE should expand the test
procedure to include both voltage
levels. Id.
DOE notes that AC line voltage for
common household electrical outlets in
the United States is typically limited to
115V 8 at 60Hz for residential
environments, with specialized 230V
60Hz AC line voltage outlets reserved
for limited number of heavy-duty
applications such as clothes washers,
dryers, and electric cooking products.
While battery chargers with universal
inputs exist (i.e., that support a range of
115V to 230V as input voltage), such
products support 230V generally only to
facilitate travel outside of the United
States without the need for a travel
adapter. These products, when used
8 DOE refers to AC line voltage here as 115V,
recognizing that United States line voltage is also
often referred to as 120V or 110V in some contexts.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
within the United States, operate at
115V and therefore should be tested as
such. The scope of the test procedure
includes any battery charger capable of
operating at either DC or United States
AC line voltage without regard to
whether it is also capable of operating
at other voltages.
The CA IOUs further requested that
DOE clarify the extent of DOE’s
authority on automobile chargers and
other products. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p.
7) CA IOUs stated that DOE possessed
the authority to regulate battery chargers
embedded in consumer products, and
therefore DOE could regulate chargers
embedded in automobiles even if DOE
cannot regulate the efficiency of electric
vehicles themselves. Id. CA IOUs asked
DOE to clarify its authority under EPCA
to set standards for chargers embedded
in automobiles, both those that charge
other consumer products and those that
charge the automobile’s internal battery.
Id. NEEA also encouraged DOE to cover
electric vehicle (‘‘EV’’) chargers under
the test procedure scope, stating that
market data and policy trends illustrate
the need for EV charger efficiency
standards. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 10)
NEEA noted there are three types of
energy losses associated with EV
charging, and that consumers are paying
for these energy losses as though the lost
energy were gasoline leaking from the
hose as a tank is filled. (NEEA, No. 27
at p. 10) NEEA further suggested that
because public policy and market
designs are not focusing on promoting
higher efficiency charging, EV chargers
focus on lower cost and lower weight,
and that even small efficiency
differences from standards could have
large nationwide impacts. (NEEA, No.
27 at p. 11)
DOE notes, however, that due to the
definition of battery chargers in EPCA,
DOE’s authority to regulate battery
chargers extends only to battery
chargers that charge batteries for
consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32))
As defined by EPCA, ‘‘consumer
products’’ statutorily excludes
automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1))
Regardless, DOE further notes that its
test procedure for battery chargers as
established in appendix Y (and newly
established appendix Y1) cannot be
adapted to measure the energy
performance of battery chargers
designed to charge electric vehicles
without significant modifications that
were not proposed in the November
2021 NOPR. Therefore, in this final rule
DOE clarifies that this battery charger
test procedure does not provide a
method for testing electric vehicle
battery chargers, and they remain
outside the test procedure’s scope.
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Finally, CA IOUs requested
clarification regarding whether chargers
used by (i) electric trucks, E-bikes,
electric motorcycles, electric boats, and
other consumer electric vehicles that are
not automobiles; (ii) aerial drones and
other battery-powered, remotely
operated devices marketed to
consumers; (iii) battery-powered electric
riding lawn mowers and walk-behind
lawnmowers sold to consumers; and (iv)
battery chargers commonly referred to
as ‘‘DC fast chargers’’ or ‘‘Level 3
chargers’’ (e.g., Wallbox and SETEC)
that are not embedded in electric
automobiles but are designed to charge
batteries in electric automobiles by
bypassing the on-board battery charger.
(CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7)
A manufacturer is best positioned to
know the nuances of their model’s
characteristics and design, which
impact how regulations apply. DOE
however notes that most battery
chargers intended for use with
consumer electronics, including E-bikes,
aerial drones and lawn mowers are in
scope of the battery charger test
procedure. While DOE cannot comment
on the test procedure’s applicability to
all the battery chargers for a specific
end-use product group, DOE suggests
inquiring with the department directly
for clarifications on a case-by-case basis.
2. Inductive Wireless Battery Chargers
DOE’s current energy conversation
standards for battery chargers were
established in a final rule published on
June 13, 2016 (‘‘June 2016 Final Rule’’).
The standards cover inductive wireless
battery charger products (also referred to
as ‘‘wireless power devices’’) only to the
extent that such products are designed
and manufactured to operate in a wet
environment (i.e., Product Class 1). 81
FR 38266, 38282; 10 CFR 430.32(z)(1).
DOE established standards for these
wet-environment inductive wireless
battery chargers (e.g., battery chargers
found in wireless toothbrushes and
electric shavers) after finding that the
technology used in those products was
mature. Id. DOE did not establish
standards for other types of inductive
wireless battery chargers to avoid
restricting the development of newer,
less mature inductively charged
products. Id. Similarly, DOE did not
generate usage profiles for other types of
inductive wireless chargers at the time
because of their nascent state of
development and their lack of
widespread availability in the
marketplace. Id. Without usage profiles,
a corresponding unit energy
consumption value cannot be calculated
under the test procedure in appendix Y.
Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to define fixed-location
wireless chargers and open-placement
wireless chargers in a new appendix Y1
to include these chargers within the
scope; and to expand the scope of the
proposed appendix Y1 test procedure to
cover testing of fixed-location wireless
chargers in all modes of operation, as
well as testing of open-placement
wireless charger in no-battery mode
only. 86 FR 66878, 66882–66884. DOE
proposed to define the term ‘‘fixed
location’’ wireless charger in appendix
Y1 to refer to inductive wireless battery
chargers that incorporate a physical
receiver locating feature (e.g., a peg,
cradle, dock, locking mechanism,
magnet, etc.) to repeatably align or
orient the position of the receiver with
respect to the transmitter. DOE then
proposed to define the term ‘‘openplacement’’ wireless chargers in
appendix Y1 to address wireless
charging products that do not have a
physical locating feature (e.g., charging
mats). DOE proposed to remove the
‘‘wet environment’’ products distinction
for wireless chargers, as a result of these
changes. 86 FR 66878, 66883.
ITI, the Joint Efficiency Advocates,
the Joint Trade Associations, the CA
IOUs, NEEA, and Delta-Q expressed
general support for DOE’s proposed
approach to expand the scope in
appendix Y1 to remove the wet
environment definition and to classify
and cover both fixed-location and openplacement wireless chargers. (ITI, No.
20 at p. 2; Joint Efficiency Advocates,
No. 23 at pp. 1–2; Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 8; CA IOUs,
No. 25 at pp. 2–3; NEEA, No. 27 at pp.
4–6; Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 1) However,
NEEA urged DOE to adopt technologyneutral definitions for wireless chargers
rather than specifying only an inductive
connection, to allow future products to
be tested and considered under the test
procedures regardless of specific
product technology used (citing
inductive, magnetic resonant, radio
frequency as examples) and allow free
competition to deliver wireless charging
without restriction by technology
specific test procedures. (NEEA, No. 27
at pp. 6–7) Instead, NEEA recommended
a definition for wireless chargers that
defines wireless chargers as those
chargers that transmit energy without a
wired connection to a receiving device.
(NEEA, No. 27 at p. 7) DOE notes that
other wireless charging methods beyond
those addressed in appendix Y and new
appendix Y1 are still nascent and lack
widespread availability in the market.
Defining such technologies and
addressing them in the test procedure at
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55095
this time could potentially restrict the
development of these less mature
technologies.
DOE proposed in the November 2021
NOPR to cover fixed-location wireless
chargers, having tentatively determined
that the physical receiver locating
feature would allow accurate and
repeatable relative receiver alignment or
orientation. 86 FR 66878, 66883. NEEA
noted that DOE’s proposal for fixedlocation wireless chargers addresses the
technical challenges associated with
physical displacement of the transmitter
and receiver, and that wireless charger
efficiency depends on the product’s
horizontal and vertical displacement
from the transmitter but that fixedlocation charger’s magnetic or physical
guides ensure proper and consistent
positioning. (NEEA, No. 27 at 6). ITI
suggested that DOE clarify in its
definition that fixed-location wireless
chargers should be able to align or
orient the receiver position in both
vertical and horizontal orientations
through the receiver locating feature,
whereas open-placement chargers do
not incorporate a physical receiver
locating feature. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 1–
2) ITI further inquired whether a
wireless charger that relies on LED or
another form of indication to indicate
correct placement in lieu of physical
locating features, would be considered
as an open-placement one. (ITI, No. 20
at p. 2)
DOE concludes that the definition as
proposed, specifying that the locating
feature should ‘‘repeatably align or
orient the position of the receiver with
respect to the transmitter’’, to be
sufficiently specific without respect to
whether such alignment is in the
vertical or horizontal (or any other)
position. DOE finds that this
specification in the definition
sufficiently minimizes test to test
variation without prescribing additional
design constraints. In cases where the
charger only employs indication of
correct placement, such as by visual
indication or audio indication, but does
not have physical locating features that
ensures repeatable alignment or
orientation, DOE notes that relative
receiver placement can still vary ever so
slightly for such chargers, which causes
variation in active mode testing.
Therefore, such wireless charger would
still be considered as open-placement
wireless charger because of the lack of
locating feature that can ‘‘repeatably
align or orient the position of the
receiver with respect to the transmitter.’’
NEEA stated that for future fixedlocation wireless chargers able to charge
a variety of products (interoperable
fixed-location chargers), different
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
55096
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
receiver-battery combinations could
result in efficiency differences. (NEEA,
No. 27 at p. 6) NEEA suggested that DOE
either address these chargers with an
active mode test procedure waiver, or
further specify that these chargers must
be tested with a manufacturer-specified
range of receivers but not other products
that use the same power transfer
standard. (Id.) The CA IOUs referred
DOE to WPC’s comment that fixedlocation wireless chargers risk efficiency
variations for different receivers, which
prevents WPC from releasing a receiverindependent active mode power transfer
efficiency metric. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p.
5) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
continue to measure performance and
regulate fixed-location wireless charging
systems under the current approach,
and suggested that DOE require
combinations of new receiver devices
used in conjunction with previous
wireless charger models to meet the
minimum efficiency requirement. (Id.)
The CA IOUs further encouraged DOE to
clarify that if a change in receiver were
to reduce efficiency beyond a nominal
threshold for a particular fixed-location
wireless charger, then it should be
regulated as a new basic model. (Id.)
DOE notes that the definitions of
‘‘fixed-location wireless charger’’ and
‘‘open-placement wireless charger’’
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR
and adopted in this final rule indicate
that the term ‘‘wireless battery charger’’
encompasses both the transmitter (i.e.,
the charging mat, for example) and the
receiver (i.e., the end-use product
containing the battery). Neither the
transmitter nor the receiver on its own
constitutes a ‘‘battery charger.’’ As such,
each combination of transmitter and
receiver 9 that has different electrical,
physical, or functional characteristics
that affect energy consumption would
be considered a different basic model
and would be required to be certified
accordingly.
ITI further suggested that although ITI
is unaware of any type of wireless
chargers other than fixed-location or
open-placement wireless chargers, DOE
should leave open the possibility that
future wireless chargers may not fall
into either fixed-location or openplacement wireless chargers. (ITI No. 20
at p. 2) DOE agrees with ITI that all
current wireless chargers would fall in
either fixed-location wireless charger or
open-placement wireless charger
9 DOE further notes that applicable to transmitters
that can accommodate multiple receivers or
batteries, only the manufacturer recommended
combinations are tested. See section 3.1.4(b) of
appendix Y and appendix Y1 as finalized, which
specifies testing battery chargers with an EPS
recommended by the manufacturer.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
category. As such, the adopted fixedlocation and open-placement wireless
charger definitions would capture the
current wireless charger market
accurately. DOE will make thorough
reviews of the battery charger test
procedure, should new charger types
mature in the market.
The Joint Trade Associations, noting
that they support maintaining the UEC
approach, also suggested DOE add Table
3.3.3 to a UEC-compatible version of
appendix Y1 so that Product Class 1 is
preserved with lower battery energy
limits, and a new Product Class 1A can
be established for higher battery energy
inductive chargers. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 8) The Joint
Trade Associations stated that it would
be appropriate to separate wireless
chargers from wired chargers under this
approach, and further suggested DOE
would need to account for the expanded
scope and create a new Product Class
1A for higher energy inductive chargers.
(Id.) DOE notes that DOE is adopting the
proposed multi-metric approach, and
under the multi-metric approach, DOE
does not need to further separate
product classes, as the testing method
and calculation steps for determining
the tested values are the same for battery
chargers in all product classes. To the
extent that consideration of different
product classes may be warranted, DOE
would do so in a future energy
conservation standards rulemaking.
ITI inquired as to the applicability of
standards to a product that can take
either wired or wireless charging; and
the applicability of standards to a
wireless charger shipped without an
end use device. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6) As
stated earlier, different wired/wireless
charger and end use product/battery
combinations could result in different
charging efficiencies. Therefore, they
would constitute different battery
charger models and would need to be
tested and certified separately. DOE
notes that manufacturers have already
been certifying products in this way
under the current test procedure.
Furthermore, under the new appendix
Y1 test procedure if a consumer product
can accept charge either wired or
wirelessly, each charging configuration
would also need to be tested and
certified separately.
The CA IOUs supported DOE
expanding coverage to ‘‘combination
products’’ with integrated wireless
chargers such as bedside or desk lamps,
clocks, and furniture that has built in
wireless chargers. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at
pp. 5–6) The CA IOUs suggested that
these products are currently not covered
under DOE’s battery charger test
procedure and are expected to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
significantly displace DOE-regulated
battery chargers in some product
classes. Id. The CA IOUs stated that they
are analyzing combination products and
recommended DOE establish clear
definitions for combination products to
clarify what combination products are
not covered by DOE’s test procedures
and standards, so that they can be
covered under other energy efficiency
regulations or guidelines such as CEC
Low Power Mode Roadmap.10 (CA
IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 5–6) The Joint
Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE
to expand the no-battery mode only test
coverage to include dual-purpose openplacement chargers such as alarm clocks
and table lamps with embedded
wireless chargers, because they are
becoming increasingly common. (Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2)
DOE’s definition for battery charger
includes battery chargers embedded in
other consumer products. 10 CFR 430.2.
For combination products that have
multiple functions, if they do come with
a battery charger, then the battery
charging component of the combination
product would still need to be tested
under DOE’s battery charger test
procedure.
The Joint Trade Associations stated
that there was some confusion in DOE’s
proposal for expanded wireless chargers
in appendix Y1, as they noted the
preamble proposed a change to Product
Class 1 in appendix Y1 to include all
fixed-location wireless chargers, but that
this change was not present in the
regulatory text, and the proposed
regulatory text for Table 3.3.3 of
appendix Y shows a measured battery
energy of 20Wh, a value not discussed
anywhere in the preamble. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 8) DOE notes
that the reference to 20 Wh in the
proposed regulatory text for appendix Y
was an error and has been corrected to
5 Wh for this final rule.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to increase the rated battery
energy limit of fixed-location wireless
chargers in appendix Y1 from ≤5 Wh to
100 Wh. 86 FR 66878, 66883. At the
time of the June 2016 Final Rule, all
inductive wireless chargers designed for
use in wet environments (the prior
scope of coverage) had a battery energy
under 5 Wh. Id. In discussion of the
increased limit in the November 2021
NOPR and in light of the removal of the
wet environment distinction, DOE
stated that it had conducted initial
research and found that although most
10 CEC Low Power Road Map is available on
www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/
appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/applianceefficiency-proceedings-6.
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
of the fixed-location inductive wireless
chargers were designed for batteries
with lower energy ratings, typically
within 20Wh, there are some fixedlocation inductive wireless chargers that
can charge products with higher battery
energy levels of around 80 Wh, namely
inductively charged power tool
products. Id. The expansion of the limit
to 100 Wh was made to accommodate
potential future product designs that
may have larger battery energies. Id. In
their response to the November 2021
NOPR, NEEA noted that wireless
charging for consumer products is
already commonplace and continued
growth is expected, along with
substantially increased energy use.
(NEEA, No. 27 at p. 4) ITI and the Joint
Trade Association supported the
proposal to expand the scope to include
those with battery energies up to
100Wh. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2, Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 8)
WPC stated that wireless chargers
(referred to as ‘‘wireless power
transmitters’’ by WPC) should be
categorized as external power supplies
(‘‘EPSs’’) because they can power
devices without batteries. (WPC, No. 22
at p. 1) WPC stated that although they
believe wireless chargers should be
tested as EPSs with appropriate resistive
loads, the usage profile is very different
from wired chargers, and they are more
frequently used for ‘‘top-ups’’. (WPC,
No. 22 at pp. 1–2)
In the November 2019 NOPR, the
department acknowledged that openplacement wireless chargers are
sometimes designed to work with third
party products, some of which may not
be battery operated. DOE’s research of
the marketplace however shows that the
vast majority of these third-party
applications continue to be primarily
reliant on battery power, with power
received from an open-placement
charger used to charge that battery. This
conclusion is reasonable, considering
the inherent limitation in the distance
across which wireless power can be
transmitted. As such, DOE maintains
that the revised battery charger test
procedure is appropriate for capturing
the energy performance of openplacement wireless chargers in nobattery mode. With regards to WPC’s
comment that wireless chargers should
be measured with resistive loads, DOE
notes that testing with a load is only
relevant for active mode testing, which
DOE did not propose for the reasons
stated in section III.B.1 of this final rule.
For the reasons discussed in the
preceding paragraphs and in the
November 2021 NOPR, DOE is adopting
the proposals made in the November
2021 NOPR to establish definitions for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
both fixed-location wireless chargers
and open-placement wireless chargers,
to increase the rated battery energy limit
for fixed-location inductive chargers
from <5 Wh to <100 Wh, and, as
discussed below to expand the test
procedure’s scope to cover testing openplacement wireless chargers in nobattery mode only.
B. Test Procedure
1. Wireless Charger Test Procedure
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to expand the scope of the
proposed appendix Y1 test procedure to
cover testing of fixed-location wireless
chargers in all modes of operation, and
to cover testing of open-placement
wireless charger in no-battery mode
only. 86 FR 66878, 66882–66884.
The CA IOUs further recommended
that DOE collaborate with industry and
standards organizations to develop a
suitable method of measurement for
active mode power for interoperable
open placement chargers, such as the
approach proposed by WPC that
measures active mode power
consumption at several key locations on
the charging device. (CA IOUs, No. 25
at p. 3) The CA IOUs modeled the
savings potential from applying
potential standby and active mode
power regulations to inductive battery
chargers. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 3–4)
The CA IOUs estimated the lifetime unit
energy savings from regulating standby
mode to be about 1.4 GWh for 5 years
of shipments. (Id.) The CA IOUs
estimated the lifetime unit energy
savings from regulating active mode to
be about 60 GWh for 5 years of
shipments. (Id.)
NEEA supported the development of
a standby test method for openplacement wireless chargers using
International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) 62301 in appendix
Y1 and encouraged DOE to continue
developing an active mode test
procedure with industry. (NEEA, No. 27
at 6). NEEA further recommended that
DOE in the interim retain a placeholder
for future active mode or other low
power mode testing of open-placement
wireless chargers. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp.
6–7). WPC agreed that no appropriate
active mode test can be prescribed for
open-placement wireless chargers yet,
because of varying receiver efficiency
and the capability for one open
placement charger to simultaneously
charge multiple receivers. (WPC, No. 22
at p. 1) However, WPC noted that
covering only fixed-location wireless
chargers in the active mode test
procedures can discourage
manufacturers from choosing more
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55097
efficient fixed-location wireless charger
designs. (WPC, No. 22 at pp. 1–2) WPC
recommended that DOE extend the nobattery only test to fixed-location
chargers designed for receivers that can
take open-placement chargers as well
(for example, exclude certain wireless
charging stands and specific in-car
wireless chargers from the active
charging test). (WPC, No. 22 at pp. 1–
2)
DOE acknowledges the difficulty in
establishing a repeatable and
representative open-placement wireless
charger (including interoperable openplacement wireless charger) test
procedure for active mode. As stated in
the November 2021 NOPR, first,
efficiency of wireless power transfer
varies greatly depending on the
alignment of the receiver with respect to
the transmitter. A test procedure
designed to capture the representative
energy performance of such a device
would need to repeatably measure the
average power transfer efficiency across
the full range of possible placement
positions on the transmitter. Second,
representative test load(s) would need to
account for all charging scenarios
because these open-placement wireless
chargers are designed to work with
various third-party products. Third,
these devices also typically incorporate
other non-battery-charging related
features inherent to implementing an
open-placement design, such as foreign
object detection circuits, that may affect
charging efficiency. 86 FR 66884. DOE,
working in conjunction with industry
organizations such as the WPC, has
found that mitigating these challenges is
difficult. To-date, that work has yielded
test methods that either lack
repeatability or result in significant test
burden. In addition, evaluating whether
a particular test procedure measures the
energy performance of open-placement
wireless chargers during a
representative average use cycle,
specifically during active mode
operation, requires data on consumer
usage at the various modes of operation.
DOE lacks, and is unaware of, such data.
Id.
Based on further evaluation and
consideration of the comments received,
DOE concludes that a representative and
repeatable test procedure for measuring
the active mode energy performance of
open-placement wireless chargers
cannot be prescribed at this time
without undue burden. DOE will
continue its efforts, working with
industry bodies, such as WPC, IEC, and
ANSI/CTA, to develop an active mode
test procedure for open-placement
wireless chargers that appropriately
addresses the impact of receiver
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
55098
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
placement on charging efficiency, and
will continue to gather relevant
consumer usage data. WPC stated that
fixed-placement does not necessarily
mean battery charger, because the
battery management and control
circuitry are often placed in the wireless
receiver. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 3) WPC
agreed that the present ‘‘interoperable’’
wireless charger (regardless of openplacement or fixed-location) efficiency
testing method is not representative of
real-world performance and is likely not
repeatable. WPC stated that to make
such a test method repeatable would
require a placement coordinate table
that moves the receiver in 1mm
increments within the charging area,
developing accurate user placement
models, and limiting the receiver to one
specific product design. (Id.)
For fixed-location wireless battery
chargers that can work with multiple
end use products, each different
wireless charger and end use product/
battery combinations could result in
different charging efficiencies, therefore,
they would constitute as different
battery charger models and would need
to be tested and certified separately.
DOE notes that manufacturers have
already been certifying products in this
way under the current test procedure.
As for open-placement wireless
chargers, DOE notes that for even a
relatively small wireless charging coil of
30 by 30 square millimeters, to
accurately and repeatably capture the
overall active mode energy consumption
by moving the relative receiver
placement in 1mm increments, as
described by WPC, would result in 900
iterations. Even if the technician were to
measure the efficiency differences
across 5mm or 10mm increments, it
would still result in dozens of repeated
active mode tests, which adds
significant undue burden to the test
procedure. Additionally, because of the
open-placement wireless charger design,
it would be virtually impossible to
develop representative relative receiver
placement models. Therefore, DOE
reiterates that a representative and
repeatable test procedure for measuring
the active mode energy performance of
open-placement wireless chargers
cannot be prescribed at this time
without undue burden.
WPC further suggested that the name
for open-placement chargers ‘‘no-battery
mode’’ test should be changed to ‘‘no
receiver mode’’. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 2)
DOE notes that wirelessly charged
devices usually have batteries and
receiving circuitry built-in the device;
therefore, batteries and receivers cannot
be separated without tearing down the
product. To maintain test mode
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
language consistency, DOE is not
changing the ‘‘no-battery mode’’
designation.
DOE appreciates the remainder of
WPC’s comments and notes that this
final rule establishes only a test
procedure and not energy conservation
standards for fixed-location wireless
chargers. DOE does not believe simply
providing a method for testing the
efficiency of these technologies without
a corresponding energy conservation
standard would impact manufacturer’s
design choices.
In this final rule, DOE is finalizing its
proposal from the November 2021
NOPR to test fixed-location wireless
chargers in all modes of operation, and
to capture the no-battery mode energy
performance of open-placement wireless
chargers in the new appendix Y1. DOE
is also adopting the proposal to leave a
placeholder section in the new
appendix Y1 to be reserved for a
potential active mode test procedure for
open-placement wireless chargers.
2. External Power Supply Selection
Most battery chargers require the use
of an EPS to convert 115-volt (‘‘V’’) AC
line voltage into a low-voltage DC or AC
output suitable for powering the battery
charger. DOE’s current battery charger
test procedure specifies that the battery
charger be tested with the EPS packaged
with the charger, or the EPS that is sold
or recommended by the manufacturer. If
an EPS is not packaged with the charger,
or if the manufacturer does not sell or
recommend an EPS, then the battery
charger is tested using a 5.0V DC input
for products that draw power from a
computer USB port, or using the
midpoint of the rated input voltage
range for all other products. Appendix
Y, sections 3.1.4.(b) and 3.1.4.(c).
However, the 5.0 V DC specification for
products drawing power from a
computer USB port may not be
representative for battery chargers
designed for operation only on DC input
voltage and for which the manufacturer
does not package the charger with an
EPS or sell or recommend an EPS. The
current generation USB specification
can support up to 20 V, per the voltage
and current provisions of the most
recent version of the International
Electrotechnical Commission’s (‘‘IEC’’)
‘‘Universal serial bus interfaces for data
and power—Part 1–2: Common
components—USB Power Delivery’’
(‘‘IEC 62680–1–2’’) specification.
To resolve this issue and improve test
procedure representativeness and test
results comparability, in the November
2021 NOPR DOE proposed to require in
appendix Y1 that when an EPS is not
pre-packaged with a battery charger
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(and the charger manufacturer does not
sell or recommend a compatible
charger), testing would be performed
using any commercially-available EPS
that is both (i) minimally compliant
with DOE’s energy conservation
standards for EPS found in 10 CFR
430.32(w) and (ii) satisfies the EPS
output criteria specified by the battery
charger manufacturer. 86 FR 66878,
66885. DOE further proposed that if the
certified EPS is no longer available in
the market, then for DOE’s compliance
and enforcement testing DOE would test
the battery charger with any compatible
minimally compliant EPS that meets the
performance criteria. Id. Additionally,
in appendix Y1, DOE proposed to
clarify the EPS selection priority when
one is provided or recommended, to
maintain test procedure repeatability.
Id.
In response to these proposals
regarding EPSs, DOE received several
comments. Schumacher suggested DOE
allow manufacturers describe the
recommended EPSs in their user
manuals for customers’ reference and
that such recommendations direct the
use of an EPS when testing a battery
charger that does not ship with one.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 5) ITI asked
DOE to clarify whether the ‘‘minimally
compliant EPS’’ language simply means
any compliant EPS, currently level VI,
and nothing more. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2)
Both the Joint Efficiency Advocates and
NEEA suggested DOE further specify the
efficiency range for these minimally
compliant EPSs to improve
reproducibility and maintain a level
playing field. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 27
at pp. 9–10) WPC and the CA IOUs
recommended DOE prescribe a
standardized EPS when none is
recommended. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 2; CA
IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6)
The CA IOUs also commented that
there is a trend towards shipping
chargers without an EPS, and that many
consumers are reusing AC to DC EPSs
whose efficiency under load contributes
to an important part of the battery
charger efficiency and should not be
eliminated via an adjustment factor
approach unless significant
experimental validation confirms this
model. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6) The CA
IOUs further requested that DOE
consider how new battery chargers will
typically be powered by older EPSs if
current trends continue. (Id.)
As an initial matter, DOE will also
continue studying the trends of
shipping battery chargers without an
EPS and the effect of reusing old EPSs.
The proposal to require testing with a
minimally compliant EPS reflects the
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
wide selection of EPSs readily available
and ensures that the battery charger is
tested in a configuration representative
of actual use, as most battery chargers
require the use of an EPS to convert
115V AC line voltage into a low-voltage
DC or AC output. By ‘‘minimally
compliant EPS’’, DOE is referring to
EPSs that are minimally compliant with
their respective EPS product class
energy conservation standard, or in
other words, EPSs with Compliance
Certification Database (‘‘CCD’’) reported
efficiencies as close to their respective
minimum product class energy
conservation standard as possible.
Requiring the use of a minimally
compliant EPS for testing will help
improve test procedure reproducibility.
Requiring the use of an EPS with an
efficiency as close to the minimum as
possible also ensures that manufacturers
who do not package, sell, or recommend
an EPS for testing with their battery
chargers do not get an unfair advantage,
by preventing the use of a very efficient
third-party EPS for testing. DOE
reiterates that the make and model of
such minimally compliant EPS used for
testing would also need to be reported
to CCD, as prescribed by battery charger
certification reporting requirements at
10 CFR 429.39. Specifying the use of a
minimally compliant EPS results in
battery chargers shipped without an EPS
being tested with EPSs of comparable
efficiency. As such, DOE is not
prescribing specific EPSs, or the
acceptable range of EPS efficiencies for
testing with battery chargers.
The Joint Trade Associations opposed
DOE’s proposal to test battery chargers
with a minimally compliant EPS, when
applicable. The Joint Trade Associations
claimed that manufacturers do not know
which adapters are minimally
compliant until after testing them. The
Joint Trade Associations instead
suggested DOE to continue allow 5V DC
input option for conventional USB
connections. For other connections,
including for USB–PDs, the Joint Trade
Associations proposed allowing any
other commercially available EPS to be
used. The Joint Trade Associations
asserted that this would avoid possible
circumvention through use of a
specially designed adapter, but that
DOE should study whether adapters
vary enough in efficiency that this
approach may cause an increase in
unacceptable testing variations. (Joint
Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 9)
DOE clarifies that the ‘‘minimally
compliant’’ qualification applies to the
EPS and compliance with the applicable
energy conservation standards
applicable to EPSs. By adopting the
proposal to test with a minimally
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
compliant EPS for applicable battery
chargers, it would further avoid
accounting for adapter efficiency
differences, leading to unacceptable
testing variation. The efficiencies of
DOE compliant EPSs can be found on
DOE’s publicly available CCD. As
discussed in the November 2021 NOPR,
testing with a 5V DC input is less
representative than testing with an EPS.
86 FR 66878, 66885. Additionally,
testing with a 5V DC input does not
provide as comparable of results with
battery chargers that are shipped and
tested with an EPS. Therefore, in order
to improve the representativeness and
comparability of testing, DOE is
adopting the provisions discussed in the
preceding paragraphs to test with a
‘‘minimally compliant EPS,’’ as
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR.
These battery chargers are operated with
an EPS by the consumer and testing the
chargers without an EPS is not
representative of actual use. DOE is also
adopting the proposed enforcement
testing change in appendix Y1 from the
November 2021 NOPR to address
instances in which the certified EPS
relied on in testing is no longer
available in the market. 86 FR 66878,
66885. In such an instance, DOE will
test the battery charger with any
compatible minimally compliant EPS
that meets the performance criteria.
Regarding DOE’s proposal in
appendix Y1 to further specify the EPS
selection priority when one is provided
or recommended, DOE did not receive
comments opposing such proposal, with
both WPC and the Joint Efficiency
Advocates expressing their support for
this proposal. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 2; Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2) As
such, DOE is adopting the proposal that
a battery charger would first be tested
using the pre-packaged wall adapter; if
the battery charger does not include a
pre-packaged wall adapter, then the
battery charger would be tested with a
wall adapter sold and recommended by
the manufacturer; if the manufacturer
does not recommend a wall adapter that
it sells, then the battery charger is to be
tested with a wall adapter
recommended by the manufacturer.
DOE reiterates that only if when the
manufacturer does not package, sell, or
recommend an EPS to be used with the
battery charger, then the battery charger
should be tested with a minimally
compliant EPS, or in other words, and
EPS that is no more efficient than the
corresponding baseline EPS standard.
For the reasons presented in the
November 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is adopting
the proposals from the November 2021
NOPR to specify the EPS selection
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55099
priority and require applicable battery
chargers to test with a minimally
compliant EPS in the new appendix Y1.
3. Battery Chemistry and End-ofDischarge Voltages
The battery charger test procedure
requires that, as part of the battery
discharge energy test, the battery must
be discharged at a specified discharge
rate until it reaches the specified endof-discharge voltage stipulated in Table
3.3.2 of appendix Y. Appendix Y,
section 3.3.8(c)(2). Table 3.3.2 defines
different end-of-discharge voltages for
different battery chemistries. A footnote
to Table 3.3.2 provides that if the
presence of protective circuitry prevents
the battery cells from being discharged
to the end-of-discharge voltage
specified, then the battery cells must be
discharged to the lowest possible
voltage permitted by the protective
circuitry. Id.
DOE stated in the November 2021
NOPR that although the presence of
protective circuitries allows some
batteries to discharge to end-ofdischarge voltages that are different
from the voltages prescribed in Table
3.3.2 of appendix Y, such circuits are
not universal, and accurate values for
end-of-discharge voltages are required to
ensure batteries are safely and
representatively discharged when such
circuits are not present. 86 FR 66878,
66886. Therefore, DOE proposed no
changes for the footnote regarding
protective circuitries. Id. However, DOE
proposed to update the term used for
battery chemistry in Table 3.3.2 from
‘‘Lithium Polymer’’ to ‘‘Lithium-Ion
Polymer’’ and to change
‘‘Nanophosphate Lithium-Ion’’ to
‘‘Lithium Iron Phosphate’’ in order to
reflect changes in the market. 86 FR
66878, 66886.
The Joint Trade Associations
supported DOE’s proposal to update the
battery chemistry terms, and also
supported not changing the foot note
regarding end-of-discharge voltages. The
Joint Trade Associations further stated
that they are not aware of new cut off
voltages and the new battery chemistries
DOE considered are still in their
infancy. (Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at p. 9)
Schumacher requested that DOE add
Lead-Carbon based Valve-Regulated
Lead Acid (‘‘VRLA’’) batteries to the list
of batteries, stating that such batteries
are quickly developing and are mostly
used in Solar Charging and RVs.
However, Schumacher indicated that
they were not sure of the per-cell rating
or end-of-discharge voltage for these
batteries. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2)
In response to Schumacher’s comment,
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
55100
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
DOE reviewed the Lead-Carbon based
VRLA battery market and was not able
to find valid data to establish the endof-discharge voltages for these batteries.
At this time, the Lead-Carbon based
VRLA battery market appears to still be
developing. As such, DOE is not
including Lead-Carbon based VRLA
batteries in Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y.
Schumacher also suggested DOE
provide a tolerance to end-of-discharge
voltage to ensure uniformity, because
not all test equipment stops the
discharge test at the exact voltage.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 3) DOE notes
that battery voltages can fluctuate
during discharge and might drop
suddenly around end-of-discharge
voltage. Therefore, it would be more
accurate for the test equipment and lab
technician to determine when exactly
should discharge be stopped once it
reaches close to DOE specified end-ofdischarge voltage. From DOE’s own
testing according to the current test
procedure, the discharge tests are
usually terminated by either the battery
analyzer at the specified end-ofdischarge voltage, or by the built-in
battery protection circuitry. DOE does
not anticipate the current test procedure
language to cause repeatability or
reproducibility issues, nor did DOE
receive other stakeholder concerns on
the current approach.
Delta-Q claimed that the name change
from ‘‘Lithium Polymer’’ to ‘‘LithiumIon Polymer’’ does not address the issue
that virtually all commercialized
lithium-ion batteries have a polymer
separator. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 1) DeltaQ further proposed DOE to simply
delete ‘‘Lithium Polymer’’ from the table
to avoid confusion and redundancy. Id.
DOE notes that although most lithiumion batteries on the market utilize a
polymer separator, there are still
potentially some batteries that do not
have the polymer separator, and the
additional battery chemistry would not
cause variation in test results. Therefore,
DOE will maintain both the Lithium-Ion
Polymer and Lithium-Ion chemistries.
For the reasons discussed in the
November 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule
DOE is adopting the proposed updates
to the battery chemistry table to update
‘‘Lithium Polymer’’ term to ‘‘LithiumIon Polymer’’ and updating the term
‘‘Nanophosphate Lithium-ion’’ to
‘‘Lithium Iron Phosphate’’.
4. Battery Selection
Table 3.2.1 of appendix Y specifies
battery selection criteria based on the
type of charger being tested;
specifically, whether the charger is
multi-voltage, multi-port, and/or multi-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
capacity. For multi-capacity chargers,
Table 3.2.1 specifies using a battery
with the highest charge capacity.
Similarly, for multi-voltage chargers,
Table 3.2.1 specifies using the highest
voltage battery. Section 3.2.3(b)(2) of
appendix Y specifies that if the battery
selection criteria specified in Table 3.2.1
results in two or more batteries or
configurations of batteries with same
voltage and capacity ratings, but made
of different chemistries, the battery or
configuration of batteries that results in
the highest maintenance mode power
must be used for testing.
Although DOE did not propose to
make changes to the current battery
selection criteria in the November 2021
NOPR, Schumacher suggested DOE
reconsider the battery selection method
for automotive chargers. (Schumacher,
No. 21 at pp. 1–2) Schumacher stated
that it is better to use 12V Absorbent
Glass Mat (‘‘AGM’’) batteries with Thin
Plate Pure Lead (‘‘TPPL’’) technology for
testing multi-voltage automotive battery
chargers because they have lower
stratification, do not need electrolytes
measurement, are easier to maintain, are
safer, have lower losses, and have more
repeatable and reproducible results.
Schumacher also indicated that these
batteries are more popular, with 12V
batteries being the most common
voltage. Schumacher stated that for
multi-voltage automotive battery
chargers that can charge 12V batteries,
batteries of other voltages should not be
required for testing because of their
significantly fewer annual volumes. (Id.)
Schumacher added that these batteries
can be reused more times to keep test
costs lower. Schumacher further
suggested DOE add reusing of
automotive batteries and float charging
specifications to the test procedure as
many automotive battery chargers reuse
the same batteries for testing.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2)
DOE reiterates that its current battery
selection criteria specifically states that
if multiple batteries meet the battery
selection criteria, the battery or
configuration of batteries with the
highest maintenance mode power
should be selected for testing. Section
3.2.3.(b)(2) of appendix Y. In real world
scenarios, consumers do not always
choose the most efficient battery
chemistry to use with their battery
chargers. Therefore, testing a lead acid
charger with more efficient AGM
batteries with TPPL technology would
not be representative. If a manufacturer
can select either a regular AGM battery
or an AGM battery with TPPL
technology, the battery with higher
maintenance mode power would be
selected for testing. As for selecting
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
batteries for testing with multi-voltage
chargers, Table 3.2.1 of appendix Y
specifically states that battery with the
highest voltage should be used for
testing.
DOE’s battery charger test procedure
requires manufacturers to use new
battery chargers and associated
batteries. Section 3.2.2 of appendix Y.
Battery charge capacity can vary with
number of charge cycles and discharge
rates, especially for lead acid batteries.
As such, testing a battery charger with
a new battery versus with the same
battery, but after repeated number of
charge and discharge cycles, can result
in significant variation that diminishes
the accuracy and repeatability of the
testing. To determine if a used battery
is still suitable for testing would require
monitoring and testing of various
factors, which can also add undue
burden. Therefore, DOE is not changing
the requirement that new batteries be
used for testing, to maintain test
procedure repeatability as well as test
result reproducibility and
comparability.
5. Mode-Specific Metrics
Currently, DOE’s battery charger test
procedure is based on the integrated
UEC approach. The UEC equation in
section 3.3.13 of appendix Y integrates
active mode, standby mode, and off
mode power measurements by
combining certain parameters, including
24-hour energy, measured battery
energy, maintenance mode power,
standby mode power, off mode power,
charge test duration, and usage profiles.
Table 3.3.3 specifies the usage profile
for each battery charger product class,
meaning the values for time spent (in
hours per day) in active and
maintenance mode, standby mode, off
mode; number of charges per day; and
threshold charge time (in hours). In
incorporating usage profiles into the
integrated metric, DOE in the June 2016
Final Rule stated that aggregating the
performance parameters of battery
chargers into one metric and applying a
usage profile would allow
manufacturers more flexibility for
improving performance during the
modes of operation most beneficial to
their consumers, rather than being
required to improve the performance in
each mode of operation, including those
which may not provide any appreciable
benefit. 81 FR 38266, 38286–38287.
UEC integrates active mode, standby
mode, and off mode energy use in order
to estimate the amount of non-useful
energy (i.e., energy not transferred to the
battery) consumed by the battery
charger over the course of a year. The
UEC approach therefore requires the use
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
of usage profiles to appropriately reflect
the period of time a product spends in
each mode, in order to maintain the
representativeness of the metric for an
average use cycle or period of use as
required by EPCA. The usage profiles
provide a weighted average of
application-specific usage for battery
chargers within a specific product class.
The usage profiles are based on data for
a variety of applications from user
surveys, metering studies, and
stakeholder input that DOE considered
in the June 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR
38266, 38287. DOE’s product-class
specific usage profiles were initially
also developed using the shipmentweighted average usage hours of all the
applications of battery chargers whose
battery voltage and energy met the
criteria for each product class. The
intended result was for each usage
profile to be representative of the usage
of the product class as a whole.
EPCA requires that DOE amend its
test procedures for all covered products
to include standby mode and off mode
energy consumption, with such energy
consumption integrated into the overall
energy efficiency, energy consumption,
or other energy descriptor for each
covered product, unless the Secretary
determines that (i) the current test
procedures for a covered product
already fully account for and
incorporate the standby mode and off
mode energy consumption of the
covered product; or (ii) such an
integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible for a particular covered
product, in which case the Secretary
shall prescribe a separate standby mode
and off mode energy use test procedure
for the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
EPCA requires the use of an integrated
metric unless such a test procedure is
technically infeasible. If an integrated
test procedure is technically infeasible,
DOE must prescribe separate standby
mode and off mode energy use test
procedures, if a separate test is
technically feasible. (Id.)
However, under EPCA, DOE is
required to establish test procedures
that are reasonably designed to produce
test results which measure energy
efficiency and/or energy use of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use, as
determined by the Secretary, and such
test procedures must not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) The requirement for a
representative test procedure that does
not impose an undue burden underpins
EPCA’s ability to develop and enforce
standards, and therefore is a
fundamental requirement of EPCA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
EPCA does not define what is
technically infeasible or what it means.
But DOE finds it reasonable when
considering the technical feasibility of a
test procedure that provides for a metric
that integrates active mode, standby
mode, and off mode energy use to
consider the representativeness and
burden of a test procedure using that
metric. An integrated test procedure
metric that cannot be reasonably
expected to produce representative test
results or that would result in undue
burden cannot be considered
technically feasible under EPCA,
because it is unable to meet the
requirements to be a permissible test
procedure under the statute—even if an
integrated metric is theoretically
possible approach were those
requirements to not apply.
As explained in the November 2021
NOPR, as the battery charger market
continues to evolve, DOE has observed
that the relative share of shipments
among different types of products
within a product class has changed; the
types of products within a given
product class as well as the usage
patterns of the products within a
product class have become more varied.
86 FR 66878, 66887. In the November
2021 NOPR DOE presented the example
of the current Product Class 2, which
includes both smartphones and small
capacity home power tools—two
products with widely different usage
patterns and annual shipments. Id. A
more recent market review shows that
the shipments for certain applications,
such as smartphones, cordless phones,
wireless headsets, have changed
significantly since the usage profiles in
appendix Y were originally established.
Id. Furthermore, there has been a recent
but rapid market adoption of smart
wearable devices, tablets, consumer
drones, and mobility scooters from
DOE’s internal research. Some of these
products would have drastically
different usage profiles from their
respective product classes, which
adversely impacts the
representativeness of the corresponding
usage profiles. Changes in consumer use
of a number of products within a
product class or the emergence of new
or altered end use products impacts the
representativeness of the usage profile
for that product class under the UEC
metric. DOE anticipates that the battery
charger market will continue to change
dynamically at a rate that will render
usage profiles unrepresentative more
quickly than EPCA’s review cycles
anticipate. Because the UEC metric
requires integrating active mode,
standby mode, and off mode energy use,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55101
which requires representative usage
profiles, the need for new or amended
usage profiles to maintain
representativeness would result in the
need to repeatedly and frequently
amend test procedures, which in turn
potentially would require manufacturers
to update representations, increasing
undue manufacturer burden.
In an effort to maintain the
representativeness of the test procedure
for battery chargers in light of the
rapidly changing market, while
maintaining a consistent test procedure
for manufacturers, in the November
2021 NOPR, DOE proposed an approach
that does not rely on the UEC equation
or usage profiles. 86 FR 66878, 66887.
Specifically, DOE proposed in appendix
Y1 to establish an approach that relies
on a separate metric for each of the
following modes of operation: active
mode, standby mode, and off mode. Id.
DOE is not aware and has not been
made aware of any other integrated
approach that integrates the energy
consumption of different battery charger
modes of operations.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates and
CA IOUs noted in response to DOE’s
proposal that developing accurate and
representative usage profiles has
become more difficult with the constant
development of new end use product
types and changes in consumer usage
patterns, risking the market usage
assumptions used to calculate UEC
becoming obsolete for specific classes of
battery chargers unless continuously
updated. (See, Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2–3; CA IOUs
No. 25 at p. 2) The Joint Efficiency
Advocates noted that the multi-metric
approach presented a more
representative method. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2–3) The Joint
Efficiency Advocates commented that
they found it would be more
representative to separate the test
procedure to three separate metrics for
active mode, standby mode, and off
mode. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No.
23 at pp. 2–3) The CA IOUs also
supported the development of separate
reported metrics for active charge
energy, standby mode, and off mode
energy use. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 1).
The CA IOUs agreed that the evolving
nature of battery charger technology
tends to quickly make obsolete the
market usage assumptions used to
calculate UEC obsolete for specific
classes of battery chargers. Id. The CA
IOUs stated that the benefits of the
disaggregated metric test procedure
have become increasingly relevant for
reasons such as products having
different usage profiles within the same
product class, evolving technology and
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
55102
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
usage patterns, increases in battery
energy density and capacity across
products, and variation in charge time
profiles. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2) The
CA IOUs stated that as battery charger
technologies and markets evolve, an
integrated metric becomes less
representative of the product classes as
currently defined in the test procedure
and stated that because DOE’s proposed
approach does not rely on a UEC
equation or usage profiles, it should be
more flexible. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2)
NEEA also supported DOE’s proposed
multi-metric approach and noted that its
research demonstrated that the use of
separate active, standby, and off mode
metrics aligns with the current battery
charger market. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 2)
NEEA noted that battery charger end
uses are substantially more varied than
when DOE promulgated its UEC metric,
citing AHAM’s comment that there are
hundreds, if not, thousands of batterycharged consumer products in the
market. NEEA noted that there are many
factors that contribute to this growth,
such as price reduction for lithium-ion
batteries, increased wireless
applications, and smaller charger
formats. NEEA stated that this
proliferation makes it technically
inappropriate to continue using usage
profiles to represent the energy use of
hundreds of widely varying
applications. (Id.) NEEA explained as
well that markets for and shipments of
battery chargers can change rapidly, as
products evolve and consumer demand
shifts. NEEA listed certain products as
examples, such as landlines,
smartphones, drones, cameras and MP3
players. Id. NEEA stated that while the
UEC approach is appropriate for more
stable appliance categories such as
refrigerators, it is not a useful measure
for the continuously evolving array of
battery charger end uses. (NEEA, No. 27
at p. 3) In contrast, NEEA noted that
there are multiple advantages to DOE’s
multi-metric approach: increasing
representativeness of the range of
battery chargers, both now and as the
market continues to change; improving
harmonization with DOE’s EPS test
procedure approach; and enabling more
detailed standards analysis. (NEEA, No.
27 at p. 3)
ITI suggested, however, that DOE
continue using the UEC metric while
gathering active charge energy data to
fully understand the complexity of these
energy use parameters before deciding
to switch metrics. (ITI, No. 20 at 3) ITI
and the Joint Trade Associations stated
that current class groupings are not
perfect, but that they were based on
objective criteria and still provide a
clear indication of which product class
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
a charger should fall into. (ITI, No. 20
at 3; Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at
p. 3) Delta-Q acknowledged the
imperfection of the UEC and its usage
profiles but did not support replacing
the usage profiles-based UEC system
with the multi-metric approach, stating
that the multi-metric approach will
unduly constrain design options to
minimize overall energy use while
managing trade-offs with cost and
customer value. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 1)
Delta-Q suggested that the multi-metric
approach would cause uncertainty and
could require redesigns, increase costs,
and remove features that may not
reduce energy consumption in realworld usage. Id.
DOE does not agree that the multimetric approach lacks the potential to
reduce energy consumption in realworld usage. DOE’s UEC metric
currently represents the annualized
amount of the non-useful energy
consumed by a battery charger (i.e.,
energy losses) among all tested modes of
operation. As battery and battery
charger technology develops along with
change in usage profiles, DOE is
noticing that more and more energy
losses happen during maintenance
mode and no-battery mode, as battery
chargers are simply either maintaining
the battery at a fully charged state or
monitoring the charger circuitry to
facilitate active charging when a battery
is inserted. In these modes, the battery
charger is not doing any useful work to
transfer energy into the battery, and
because these modes can last
indefinitely, they can result in
significant energy savings potential if
regulated separately from active mode.
DOE further notes that the potential
redesign and additional costs are not
associated with change to multi-metric
testing approach, but directly related to
the energy conservation standards
rulemaking. However, DOE notes that
any energy savings potential and cost
burdens from increased efficiency levels
would be analyzed thoroughly in the
separate energy conservation standards
rulemaking.
The Joint Trade Associations opposed
the proposed multi-metric approach,
asserting that the multi-metric approach
does not satisfy EPCA’s intent or
requirements, and it would make
savings and energy savings difficult for
the consumer to understand as well as
for DOE to analyze. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at pp. 1–3) The
Joint Trade Associations asserted that
DOE failed to demonstrate that its
proposals are justified and are not
arbitrary and capricious, and that DOE’s
proposal does not meet the
requirements of the Administrative
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Procedure Act or the Data Quality Act.
(Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p.
3) The Joint Trade Associations asserted
that DOE has not shown that the current
approach does not represent an average
consumer use cycle, that it cannot be
updated to maintain its
representativeness of average consumer
use, that it is infeasible to integrate
active mode and standby mode, or that
the current test procedure approach
would be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at pp. 2–4) The Joint Trade
Associations also noted that the
proposed appendix Y1 would add
significant burden and is contrary to
EPCA’s clear preference for aggregated
metrics. (Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at pp. 1–2)
The Joint Trade Associations
acknowledged, however, that the
current product classes are not perfect
and that they have acknowledged their
imperfection from the beginning; they
acknowledged that there are difficulties
in developing product classes for battery
chargers, with thousands of different
end use products, and that usage and
shipments of products within classes
differs. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24
at pp. 2–3) The Joint Trade Associations
solution to these issues was not to
remove the UEC metric and usage
profiles but to update the usage profiles
and shipments analysis more regularly,
considering the breadth of products in
each class from both usage and
shipments perspectives. The Joint Trade
Associations offered to provide data to
assist in that analysis. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 3). The Joint
Trade Associations noted that EPCA
requires DOE to review and update test
procedures at least once every 7 years,
and that DOE has further discretion to
initiate an early review if usage profiles
or shipments for product classes become
unrepresentative. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 4) Because
DOE is already required to update the
test procedures periodically, the Joint
Trade Associates could not see how the
multi-metric approach solved any issue.
The Joint Trade Associations noted that
these reviews and updates are critical to
DOE’s analysis, and it is difficult to
understand why it is too challenging to
do these as part of the test procedure
review. The Joint Trade Associations
speculated that DOE did not want to be
bothered re-assessing its categorizations
and updating usage profiles. Id.
DOE is undertaking this rulemaking
in compliance with its requirement
under EPCA to review and update test
procedures at least once every 7 years.
However, the issue DOE identified with
keeping the current integrated UEC
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
approach was not the need to update the
test procedures according to the
requirements of EPCA, but the
frequency of updates required to
maintain the UEC metric as a
representative approach to testing as
required under EPCA. DOE reiterates
that it has determined it would need to
update the test procedures more often
than the 6- and 7-year standards and test
procedure update cycles to maintain the
UEC metric; as other commenters also
noted, the battery chargers’ dynamic
market already would warrant far more
frequent updates and DOE projects this
need to only increase over time. While
the Joint Trade Associations pointed out
that DOE regularly updates annual use
cycles for products such as residential
dishwashers, laundry products, and air
treatment products based on varying
sets of data, DOE notes an approach that
is both feasible and representative for
some products may not be feasible or
representative for others where there are
clear and significant differences
between the products such as quantity
of end use products for battery chargers.
The Joint Trade Associations further
stated that DOE failed to present data
supporting its conclusions from a recent
market review showing that shipments
for certain applications have changed
significantly since the usage profiles
were established, or that market and
shipments of battery chargers change
quickly as the market and consumer use
changes. (Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at p. 3) The Joint Trade Associations
further disputed that the current
approach is no longer representative,
and that DOE has presented no
compelling evidence that the test
procedure has become overly
burdensome, noting that the simple
solution is to simply update the test
procedures. They concluded that
because the current test procedure has
accomplished EPCA’s requirements of
representative results without undue
burden relatively well, DOE cannot
show it is infeasible to have an
integrated metric representative of
consumer use. They therefore also
disputed DOE’s findings of a repeated
need to update leading to increased
manufacturer burden and claimed the
multi-metric approach would be more
burdensome than minor revisions to
update usage profiles and shipments. Id.
DOE notes that an approach’s
historical success or validity does not
necessarily justify maintaining that
approach in the face of changed and
changing circumstances. DOE has
projected that the battery chargers’
market and the variety of consumer end
uses make the UEC metric increasingly
infeasible and untenable to maintain,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
both administratively and for regulated
parties. The technical requirements to
maintain the UEC metric and its
attendant usage profiles are no longer
feasible to meet. The need to frequently
review and update usage profiles, while
known in the 2016 rulemaking, was of
a different scope than the need for
review and updating dictated by the
current market for battery chargers. DOE
believes this need to update would only
increase in rapidity. And as DOE has
noted, even if DOE were able to
maintain these profiles on its own end
the frequent changes to the test
procedures and standards would require
frequent recertifications for
manufacturers and may cause
impermissible undue burden.
The Joint Trade Associations disputed
that the test procedure must be
representative of consumer use at every
moment, noting that this is not only
impossible, but also unnecessary and
not consistent with EPCA’s intent. (Joint
Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 4) DOE
agrees that this is not the statutory
standard, but DOE notes that DOE is
required to maintain test procedures
reasonably designed to produce
representative test results without
undue burden. Maintaining the current
battery charger test procedure, which
DOE reasonably believes will lead to
foreseeably unrepresentative test results
on a regular basis, is contrary to EPCA’s
requirements where an alternative test
procedure exists to provide more
representative results without undue
burden. While EPCA expresses a
preference for an integrated metric, this
preference yields before EPCA’s more
fundamental need for accurate and
representative test results, without
which EPCA’s standards are
undermined.
The Joint Trade Associations also
argued that DOE originally grouped
products with different usage profiles
into the same product class, and that
DOE did not present data in the
November 2021 NOPR on what has
changed since the initial test procedure
and standards development. (Joint
Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 2) The
Joint Trade Associations stated that DOE
was placing the burden of proof for
retaining the integrated metric on
commenters but claimed that the burden
was in fact on DOE to demonstrating
that its proposals were justified and not
arbitrary and capricious. Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 3) DOE has
acknowledged that it is changing its
position on whether the UEC metric can
meet the requirements of EPCA but
disagrees that it has not explained the
basis for this change in position. DOE,
and other commenters in response,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55103
noted that the changes in the market
justified reconsideration and ultimately
departure from the UEC and usage
profile approach. The market review has
shown that the UEC integrated metric
approach can no longer feasibly be
reasonably expected to produce
representative test results as required by
EPCA, absent such frequent updates to
the test procedures as to constitute
undue hardship—which itself would
contravene EPCA. DOE is adopting its
multi-metric approach because an
integrated metric is now infeasible.
The Joint Trade Associations asserted
that UEC is a more representative
approach because it accounts for
consumer usage, whereas DOE’s multimetric approach does not account for
the contribution of each to the overall
product efficiency. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 7) However,
as DOE has noted the representativeness
of the UEC approach is dependent on
representativeness of the usage profiles
and shipment data underpinning the
metric, and the current battery chargers
market dynamics make maintaining the
representativeness of that metric
infeasible without incurring undue
burden. DOE’s UEC approach would
only be representative of the annual
non-useful energy resulting from battery
chargers, provided that the usage
profiles are updated frequently and
repeatedly. DOE’s multi-metric
approach would, still representatively
but separately, measure and certify the
active mode energy, standby mode
energy, and off mode energy. As battery
charger overall efficiency is highly
dependent on usage profiles, the multimetric approach can further help
consumers in learning which battery
charger would provide best overall
efficiency under that specific
consumer’s usage profile by providing
the separate metrics.
The Joint Trade Associations stated
that not only is DOE’s proposal
inconsistent with EPCA’s clear
preference for integrated metrics, but it
is also inconsistent with DOE’s systems
approach, which aims to allow
flexibility in component designs while
ensuring an overall efficiency
requirement. The Joint Trade
Associations stated that they assumed
the proposed appendix Y1 will translate
to three separate energy conservation
standards requirements and noted that
not all products have the capability to
reduce energy consumption of a
particular mode which may require
redesign to meet DOE standards. The
Joint Trade Associations commented
that by separating active, standby, and
off modes into three metrics DOE is
requiring the redesign of products and
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
55104
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
effectively increased design complexity.
The Joint Trade Associations stated that
manufacturers are allowed flexibility to
distribute energy across the different
modes with the current UEC compliance
requirements. The Joint Trade
Associations stated that the integrated
UEC approach therefore allows more
innovation and flexibility in designs
and posited that the burden associated
with DOE’s multi-metric approach will
likely be more significant as it will
inhibit innovation inhibit innovation
and the ability to differentiate one’s
products from others in the market.
(Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp.
4–6) DOE acknowledges that the
original UEC approach provides greater
design flexibility because of its
integrated nature, and that this was one
purpose of the UEC metric. 81 FR
38266, 38286–38287. However, DOE
cannot maintain an approach that will
not meet EPCA’s requirement of
representative test procedures or lead to
undue burden. Furthermore, DOE’s
multi-metric approach will still regulate
the integrated power draw of battery
chargers in standby mode operations,
allowing manufacturers to still have
significant design flexibility in
improving either maintenance mode or
no-battery mode efficiency.
The Joint Trade Associations further
stated that manufactures have already
developed their products to comply
with DOE’s current standards, which is
challenging for some battery chargers,
especially the infrequently charged
ones. The Joint Trade Associations
claimed that if DOE were to change its
approach, some products will likely
need to be redesigned and the
investments manufacturers have made
to comply with the current standards
would be stranded. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 2)
The Joint Trade Associations
commented that they cannot fully
comment on DOE’s proposal when DOE
has not provided more detail on how
the product classes or standards would
be amended. The Joint Trade
Associations stated it is likely that that
some currently compliant products may
no longer be compliant under the newly
proposed approach but with no real
savings but only additional costs on
consumers and manufacturers. The Joint
Trade Associations suggested DOE
analyze this further during
manufacturer interviews. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 5)
Schumacher stated that if DOE’s
amended test procedure impacts
existing CCD reported models, they
recommend the currently compliant
products to be grandfathered in under
the amended standards or required to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
updated several years after the revised
standard publication. (Schumacher, No.
21 at p. 6) Schumacher argued that if a
newly revised standard was to be put
into effect immediately, it would result
in higher cost to manufacturers; whereas
a buffer period of several years would
minimize costs and let manufacturers
retest the products or redesign the
products. Id.
DOE is adopting the mode-specific
metric approach as proposed in the
December 2021 NOPR and consistent
with its authority and duties under
EPCA. As previously noted, when
considering the feasibility of a test
procedure with a metric integrating
active mode, standby mode, and off
mode energy use, DOE must also
consider whether that metric will satisfy
the test procedure criteria prescribed by
EPCA: the representativeness of the test
procedure and whether a test procedure
is unduly burdensome. The UEC test
procedure approach specifies an
integrated metric relying on usage
profiles. However, changes in consumer
use and the emergence of new products
can both impact the representativeness
of that usage profile and therefore the
UEC metric overall. While the Joint
Trade Associations suggested that
maintaining the representativeness of
the current usage factors is simply a
matter of updating the data, as
discussed in the November 2021 NOPR
the market and shipments of battery
chargers has been shown to change over
short periods of time as new products
that rely on battery chargers emerge and
are adopted by the market, and as
consumer use of products that rely on
battery charger changes. 86 FR 66878,
66887. As an example, DOE noted that
the shipments for Digital Audio Players
and Digital Cameras have declined
significantly with the advent of smart
phones that have similar built-in
capabilities. Id.
Because of the nature of battery
chargers, they serve a great variety of
end use products, updated on an annual
basis. Although DOE collects and
reviews usage profiles and shipment
data constantly, going through the
process of updating the test procedure
and energy conservation standards in a
similar way would impose undue
burden on manufacturers. Needing to
update the test procedure in order to
avoid reliance on obsolete usage profiles
and comply with EPCA’s
representativeness requirement would
in turn require updating the energy
conservation standards to reflect the test
procedure changes. Manufacturers
would then need to frequently retest
and recertify their products, creating
significant and undue burden.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
By regulating the different battery
charger operating modes separately,
DOE avoids the risk of usage profiles
becoming increasingly unrepresentative
before having a chance to update them,
as the multi-metric approach is not
reliant on usage profiles, but rather
performance in individual operating
modes. The multi-metric approach
provides for a more stable regulatory
environment, by minimizing the
possibility that manufacturers would
need to retest and recertify products
with changes in the market and the
associated usage profiles, thereby
reducing potential test burden.
DOE notes that the multi-metric test
procedure approach in appendix Y1,
adopted in this final rule, would not be
required until such time as compliance
is required with amended battery
chargers energy conservation standards
developed based on the new test
procedure, should DOE establish such
standards. Were DOE to establish
amended energy conservation standards
reflective of the multi-metrics, DOE
would consider, in part, the efficiencies
of battery chargers on the current market
at each metric and the technologies
available to improve the efficiencies at
each metric.
DOE reiterates that adoption of the
multi-metric test procedure in appendix
Y1 itself will not require manufacturers
to redesign their products. Moreover,
the multi-metric testing approach
provides results that more directly
correlate to direct testing of a battery
charger, as opposed to results that are
dependent on shipments data and data
regarding consumer usage patterns. As
such, the test procedure is less
dependent on data that may quickly
become obsolete or data that may be
unable to fully reflect appropriate
market and consumer usage conditions.
Therefore, DOE anticipates that it will
provide a more stable regulatory
environment for manufacturers moving
forward.
DOE also notes that it is adopting the
alternate active mode test method
proposed in the NOPR, which
essentially relies on the current active
and maintenance modes test method
found in appendix Y with only an
added step for test technicians to
analytically compute the integrated
active mode energy from the active
mode and maintenance mode test data.
DOE estimates the additional time
required to perform the active energy
calculation would be roughly the same
as that for calculating UEC. However,
because technicians would no longer
need to compute UEC under the multimetric approach, overall testing burden
would be the same between the multi-
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
metric approach and the current UEC
approach.
The CA IOUs further recommended
that DOE require manufacturers to
report values for different operating
modes, and that DOE publish these
values in the CCD to allow calculations
of UECs for specific products in specific
use cases. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2) The
CA IOUs stated this performance data
would be essential for assessing the
impacts of the new test procedure
metrics. Id. DOE notes that the
performance values are already
presented on the CCD, and DOE will
make necessary amendments to the
reporting template to account for the
reporting changes under the multimetric approach.
ITI also requested DOE to consider
harmonizing and coordinating the test
procedure with Canada so they remain
consistent. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6) DOE
notes that Canada’s Department of
Natural Resources primarily references
DOE’s existing test procedure for battery
chargers, which relies on the
consolidated UEC metric. While there is
an effort to harmonize with widely and
internationally adopted industry
standards, DOE is required by EPCA to
ensure that its test procedure for a
covered product is representative. For
the reasons stated above relating to
DOE’s own UEC-based test procedure
metric, DOE is therefore unable to
continue harmonizing with Canada’s
test procedure for battery chargers. DOE
notes however that the test procedure’s
conduct between the current UEC
approach and the adopted multi-metric
approach still remains largely the same;
therefore, DOE does not anticipate there
to be significant difference between how
tests are conducted in Canada and in the
US. DOE will work with international
agencies to reduce manufacturer burden
to a reasonable extent, where doing so
aligns with DOE’s statutory
requirements under EPCA.
Based on the discussion presented in
the November 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE has
determined that the adopted multimetric approach more fully meets the
representativeness requirements of
EPCA without being unduly
burdensome. Moving to a multi-metric
approach avoids DOE imposing an
undue burden on manufacturers by
requiring frequent recertification and
retesting due to frequent updates to an
integrated metric, updates that would be
needed to maintain the metric’s
compliance with EPCA’s
representativeness requirement in a
shifting market landscape. DOE
reiterates that testing under the new
multi-metric approach would not be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
required until after DOE’s battery
charger energy conservation standards
have been amended. DOE will also
study the potential redesign needs and
costs because of the multi-metric
approach in the separate standards
rulemaking.
6. Active Mode Test
Battery charger active mode is the
state (condition) in which the battery
charger system is connected to a main
electricity supply (main power source)
and is actively delivering power to bring
the depleted battery to a fully charged
state (the charger’s main function), as
defined in section 2.1 of appendix Y.—
(See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(i))
Appendix Y currently tests the active
mode power consumption along with
battery maintenance mode power 11 to
produce a consolidated 24-hour energy
consumption value, or E24, which is
then used in the UEC calculation. As
previously discussed, in the new
appendix Y1, DOE is replacing the UEC
metric system with a discrete multimetric approach that determines the
energy efficiency and energy use of the
active mode, standby mode, and off
mode power consumption separately.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to use a charge test in which
the test period would begin upon
insertion of a depleted battery and
would end when the battery is fully
charged. 86 FR 66878, 66888. The active
mode energy, Ea, would represent the
accumulated input energy, meaning the
average input power integrated over this
test period. Similar to the procedure
currently in section 3.3.2 of appendix Y
(Determining the Duration of the Charge
and Maintenance Mode Test), if a
battery charger has an indicator to show
that the battery is fully charged, that
indicator would be used to terminate
the active mode test. Id. If no indicator
besides the manufacturer’s instructions
indicates how long it should take to
charge the test battery, the active mode
test would be conducted for the longest
estimated charge time provided in the
manufacturer’s materials. Id. If the
battery charger does not have such an
indicator and a manufacturer does not
provide such a time estimate, the length
of the active mode test would be 1.4
multiplied by the rated charge capacity
of the battery divided by the maximum
11 Maintenance mode is the operation of a battery
charger to maintain a battery at full charge while
a battery remains in the charger after fully charged.
Under the current test procedure the
characterization of maintenance mode as active
mode or standby mode is less critical because the
current test procedure metric integrates the modes.
As discussed in the following section, DOE has
tentatively characterized maintenance mode as part
of standby mode.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55105
charge current. DOE also proposes to
arrange sections of appendix Y1 so that
the battery discharge test is performed
immediately after this active mode test
is completed, but prior to the 24-hour
charge and maintenance mode test that
would then be used to determine
maintenance mode power. Id.
Joint Trade Associations commented
that the November 2021 NOPR preamble
stated the battery discharge test would
be performed immediately after the
active mode test, but the proposed
appendix Y1 regulatory text
appropriately included a wait period.
The Joint Trade Associations urged DOE
to retain the wait periods, should DOE
continue with the amended test
procedure. The Joint Trade Associations
expressed concern that going
immediately from active mode testing to
maintenance mode testing 12 would
impact the test because the battery
could be hot and stated the wait times
are important for reducing test variation.
(Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p.
7)
DOE’s proposed charge test would
begin upon insertion of a depleted
battery and would end when the battery
is fully charged and require that the test
be terminated when there is indication
that the charge test has ended. DOE’s
intent was to explain that manufacturers
should terminate charging immediately
after the battery reaches full charge,
rather than wait for the original total
charge and maintenance mode test
duration to complete. The proposal was
not intended to remove the wait period
between the charge and discharge test.
As such, DOE clarifies in this final rule
that it is not removing the wait period
between the charge and battery
discharge test, and a wait period
continues to be included in the newly
established appendix Y1.
ITI suggested that the proposed
charging test would be challenging to
conduct for the following reasons: the
maintenance mode power would be
difficult to measure under the new
approach for products with integrated
battery; and if a battery charger does not
have charge status indicator, it would be
hard to monitor when the battery is
fully charged as there many variables
that can affect the total charging time,
which makes it difficult to develop an
automated and consistently accurate
process. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 3) ITI
suggested DOE collect more power data
before proceeding with the new active
charge test and reiterated that separating
12 As discussed in the following section, in this
final rule DOE has determined that energy use
during maintenance mode is appropriately assigned
to standby mode.
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
55106
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
active charge test with maintenance
mode test would require significantly
longer testing time, and the
maintenance mode power would not be
possible to measure after battery
discharge test for products with
integrated batteries. (Id.) ITI suggested
that DOE also consider the cost
associated with potential redesign of
battery charger products. (ITI, No. 20 at
p. 6)
ITI and the Joint Trade Associations
stated that the multi-metric test would
either require active technician
monitoring or additional special
equipment for monitoring, which adds
significant time and cost. (ITI, No. 20 at
p. 6; (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24
at pp. 5–6) The Joint Trade Associations
opposed the proposed active mode test
procedure, stating it would significantly
increase test burden and incur undue
burden. (Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at p. 5) The Joint Trade Associations
stated that because the test takes longer,
fewer tests can be conducted. (Joint
Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 5–6)
CSA commented that the current
appendix Y allows laboratory
technicians leave the battery charger
unattended for 19 hours before having
to check on the charging status to
determine total test duration, and the
batteries will usually be charged within
19 hours for the test to be terminated at
the 24-hour mark; this test can be left
running overnight and requires very
little time and effort from the lab
technician. (CSA, No. 12 at p. 1) CSA
further commented that if the active
charge test needs to be terminated
immediately after indication of battery
is fully charged, the lab technician
would need to continuously monitor the
charge indicator and immediately
terminate the charge when the fully
charged indicator turns on. (CSA, No. 12
at pp. 1–2) Although CSA conceded this
could be done by implementing sensors
and other controls, CSA stated that it
would be more burdensome than the
appendix Y test method. Id. Similarly,
Delta-Q argued that the proposed test
procedure change adds test complexity
and duration with the addition of the
separate maintenance mode test. (DeltaQ, No. 28 at p. 2) Delta-Q also noted that
the active mode test procedure was
problematic both because it appeared to
require constant monitoring and
because it reduces battery rest time,
which can increase test-to-test variation.
Id.
NEEA recommended DOE test a wide
variety of battery chargers to evaluate
appropriateness of the active mode test.
(NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 7–8) NEEA
asserted that relying on a battery charge
indicator may result in different charge
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
levels at the end of the active mode
tests, because not all chargers indicate
charge status and those that do may
signal full charge at different thresholds,
which could result in unfair
comparisons. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 7–8)
DOE notes that battery chargers are
typically designed for a specific battery
or combination of batteries. Therefore,
manufacturers should already have an
understanding of the full charge time for
each battery and charger combination,
making it unlikely that a technician
would need to monitor a unit under test
during the entire test period.
However, DOE also stated in the
November 2021 NOPR that in its
experience, it may be possible to
analyze the resulting data from the 24hour charge and maintenance mode
energy consumption test and divide it
into its constituents: the active mode
energy and maintenance mode power.
86 FR 66878, 66888. DOE therefore
considered this alternative approach, in
which active mode energy consumption,
Ea, would be the time series integral of
the power consumed from the point
when the battery was first inserted (or
plugged in for chargers with integrated
batteries) until the measured data
indicate a drop in power associated
with the transition from active charging
to maintenance mode. Under this
approach, a single test period would
provide the necessary measurements for
the active mode energy, Ea, from the 24hour charge and maintenance mode test
data. DOE stated that it would consider
the discussed alternate approach in the
development of the final rule. Id. Under
this approach, lab technicians do not
need to rely on charge status indicator
to determine when the battery reaches
the full charge, which would ensure that
the test battery would always be fully
charged at the end of the combined
charge and maintenance mode test.
CA IOUs agreed that calculating
energy in active mode as the integral of
applied power during the charge period
is a practical and reasonable approach
based on sound physics. (CA IOUs No.
25 at p. 2) The Joint Trade Associations
stated the alternative active mode test
would not work because battery
chargers may have points at which the
battery power is turned off, such as a
series of pulses at the end where the
battery attempts to get full charge. The
Joint Trade Associations stated that
such instances could be misinterpreted
at the end of the appendix Y1 active
test, and for products with complex
charge profiles, it is difficult to detect
the end of active mode given different
battery sizes. (Joint Trade Associations,
No. 24 at p. 7)
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NEEA similarly commented that
analyzing charge status based on AC
input power is difficult for slower
trickle chargers because input power
may not indicate a transition from active
to battery maintenance mode. (NEEA,
No. 27 at p. 8) NEEA also suggested that
although additional instrumentation can
be used to monitor battery charger
output and more accurately determine
the state of charge, measuring additional
charger DC output may interfere battery
and charger communication signals,
impacting testing safety; affect the
measurement directly; and increase test
burden. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 8–9) NEEA
claimed that determining charge status
by using AC input power may result in
different charge levels for fast chargers
because these chargers transition from
fast to slow charging with different
algorithms. (Id.) NEEA encouraged DOE
to investigate the issues it identified,
and to retain its current appendix Y
active and maintenance mode testing
approach if the challenges prove
difficult to overcome. (Id.) NEEA stated
that advantages of the appendix Y 24hour active mode test include reduced
test burden for technicians, the ability to
address both slow and fast chargers
through a uniform approach and
eliminating the need to determine/
define charge status. (Id.)
WPC supported DOE’s alternate
approach of conducting a single 24-hour
charge and maintenance mode test and
determining active charge energy based
on the data generated. (WPC, No. 22 at
pp. 2–3) WPC also commented however
that it may be difficult to define the
actual transitioning point between
active mode and maintenance mode.
(Id.)
To minimize any potential additional
burden that may be associated with an
active-mode only test as noted by
commenters, DOE is adopting the
alternative active charge energy
approach discussed in the November
2021 NOPR, under which active mode
energy is calculated from the combined
charge and maintenance mode test,
similar to the test procure in appendix
Y. DOE notes that battery chargers may
have different charging profiles. Based
on DOE’s testing, most battery chargers
exhibit a distinctive drop off in power
indicating a transition to maintenance
mode. In certain limited instances, the
battery charger shows unstable power
consumption towards the end of
charging phase. However, such periods
would be classified as active charging
because the battery is pining the charger
to get full charge, and as stated in
section 2.1 of appendix Y and the new
appendix Y1 active mode is when ‘‘the
battery charger is delivering current,
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
equalizing the cells, and performing
other one-time or limited-time functions
in order to bring the battery to a fully
charged state.’’ Therefore, by defining
the state that would be classified as
active mode and by determining when
the charger enters maintenance mode,
lab technicians can precisely identify
the transition point from active mode to
maintenance mode and calculate the
active charge energy from this
alternative approach, as prescribed in
sections 3.3.9 and 3.3.10 of appendix
Y1.
Schumacher commented that the best
way to calculate the efficiency of an
automotive battery charger with nonintegrated batteries is similar to the
calculation used for UPSs.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 1)
Schumacher further noted that
including a non-integrated battery into
the efficiency calculation is not an
effective measure of the charger’s
efficiency because different batteries
have different losses, and the charger
has no control over these batteries. Id.
Schumacher therefore stated that it is
better and more accurate to measure the
efficiency of the charger directly, by
itself, so that the chargers would not be
affected by the battery efficiencies. Id.
Schumacher stated that lower quality
batteries can result in manually reduced
charge cycles just to pass the standard,
which causes faster battery degrading
and adds user costs with greater
environmental impact. (Id.)
DOE understands that for battery
chargers designed for large-capacity
lead-acid batteries, manufacturers are
less involved in the end use product
design and usually cannot pick which
battery will be used with their chargers.
However, battery performance is a
crucial part for measuring battery
charger efficiencies. Different battery
chemistries have different self-discharge
rate, affecting the charge and
maintenance modes algorithms. DOE’s
battery charger test procedure also
determines the amount of ‘‘useful
energy’’ by measuring how much energy
the fully charged battery can output.
In this final rule, DOE is adopting the
alternate active charge energy approach
discussed in the November 2021 NOPR,
in which active mode energy is
calculated from the combined charge
and maintenance mode test that is
similar to the test procure in appendix
Y.
7. Standby Mode Tests
Standby mode is the condition in
which an energy-using product is:
(1) Connected to a main power source;
and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
(2) Offers 1 or more of the following
user-oriented or protective functions:
(aa) To facilitate the activation or
deactivation of other functions
(including active mode) by remote
switch (including remote control),
internal sensor, or timer.
(bb) Continuous functions, including
information or status displays
(including clocks) or sensor-based
functions.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii))
Appendix Y defines standby mode for
battery chargers as the condition in
which a battery charger is connected to
mains electricity supply, the battery is
not connected to the charger—and for
battery chargers with manual on-off
switches, all switches are turned on.
Section 2.25 of appendix Y. Appendix
Y also includes a definition for
maintenance mode in section 2.8, to
mean the mode of operation in which
the battery charger is connected to the
main electricity supply and the battery
is fully charged but still connected to
the charger. In maintenance mode, a
battery charger continuously monitors
the voltage of the fully charged battery
and periodically supplies charge current
to maintain the battery at the fullycharged state. As mentioned previously,
because the test procedure in appendix
Y relies on a metric that integrates
active mode, standby mode, and off
mode, it is less critical in that context
as to whether maintenance mode is
characterized as standby mode as
compared to the proposed multi-metric
approach.
The current ‘‘standby mode’’
definition in appendix Y only captures
what can be referred to as ‘‘no-battery
mode,’’ i.e., the condition where a
battery charger is connected to a mains
power source but a battery itself has not
yet been inserted. In the context of the
proposed multi-metric approach, DOE
tentatively determined in the November
2021 NOPR that maintenance mode is
also appropriately characterized as a
standby power mode. 86 FR 66878,
66888. In maintenance mode, a battery
charger provides continuous monitoring
of the battery charge. While a battery
charger provides some limited charging
in maintenance mode in order to
maintain the battery at full charge, it is
not charging a depleted battery. Unlike
active mode, maintenance mode can
persist indefinitely. As an example,
DOE referenced power tool chargers in
the November 2021 NOPR, which in
residential environments routinely
spend an indefinite amount of time
maintaining batteries that are not
regularly used but are required to be
fully charged. Id. In addition to
balancing and mitigating self-discharge
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55107
of the cells, these chargers also typically
provide a status display indicating that
the battery is in the fully charged state
and ready for use.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
tentatively determined that these
continuous functions in maintenance
mode satisfy both EPCA’s and IEC
62301’s definition of standby. 86 FR
66878, 66888–66889. To better account
for these conditions, DOE proposed to
first rename what is currently defined in
appendix Y as standby mode to ‘‘nobattery mode’’ in appendix Y1 (and
reference this term, as appropriate,
throughout appendix Y1). Id. DOE
proposed to then define in appendix Y1
the term ‘‘standby mode’’ to include
both no-battery mode and maintenance
mode. Id. Specifically, DOE proposed
that in appendix Y1, standby mode
power of a battery charger (Psb), would
be calculated as the sum of the nobattery mode power (Pnb), and
maintenance mode power (Pm). Id.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates
supported DOE’s proposal to regulate
no-battery mode and maintenance as
standby mode. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 23 at p. 3) NEEA
supported DOE’s proposal to include
both battery maintenance mode and no
battery mode within standby mode but
encouraged DOE to require reporting of
these two modes separately to support
more accurate standards analysis.
(NEEA, No. 27 at p. 3) NEEA also
supported DOE’s proposal to regulate
standby power mode as the sum of
maintenance mode power and no
battery mode power, as this metric gives
manufacturers greater design flexibility.
(NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 3–4)
ITI stated that the new proposed test
procedure would prolong the
maintenance mode test until
maintenance mode power has been
captured representatively, and that it
does not make sense to combine nobattery mode power and maintenance
mode power as products spend different
time in each of these states. (ITI, No. 20
at p. 3) The CA IOUs, while otherwise
supportive, stated that the proposed
integrated standby metric does not
clearly delineate no-battery and
maintenance modes power. (CA IOUs,
No. 25 at p. 2) The CA IOUs
recommended that the no-battery and
maintenance modes power be reported
separately as unique values, especially
in the case of combination products that
provide battery charging in addition to
other functions. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p.
2) The CA IOUs also reiterated their
support of using IEC 62301 to develop
a no-load standby measurement so that
DOE’s test procedure can harmonize
with industry practices and improve
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
55108
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
low power factor treatment. (CA IOUs,
No. 25 at p. 3) DOE notes that the nobattery mode test procedure was indeed
developed based on IEC 62301 test
procedure, with resolution parameters
for power measurements and
uncertainty methodologies, including
input crest factor tolerance parameters,
referenced directly from IEC 62301.
Honda disagreed with DOE’s
approach of combining maintenance
mode power and no-battery mode power
under standby mode power, stating that
the approach would not properly
evaluate standby power and would
result in double evaluation of the power
to boot up the battery charger. (Honda,
No. 26 at pp. 1–2) Honda additionally
asked DOE to monitor the current
supply in maintenance mode when
calculating standby power, because
there can be differences when the
charger is ‘‘providing limited charge’’
and when the charger is ‘‘not charging’’.
(Id.) DOE reiterates that in maintenance
mode operation, the battery charger is
only continuously monitoring the fully
charged battery’s voltage to facilitate
limited charging, if the voltage drops
below a certain threshold. In no-battery
mode, the battery charger is constantly
‘‘scanning’’ to determine if a battery has
been inserted, or connected, to activate
charging. The actual power to boot up
the battery charging function to charge
the depleted battery would be regulated
in active mode itself. Therefore,
combining maintenance mode power
and no-battery mode power would not
be double evaluating the power to boot
up the battery charger.
WPC stated that it may be more
accurate to determine the start of
maintenance mode by measuring the
decrease in power rather than using a
charge indicator or timed rate of charge,
as some device charge indicators may
show a premature full charge state when
compared to the rated capacity or after
a period of maintenance mode charging.
(WPC, No. 22 at p. 2) WPC, however,
did not agree with DOE’s proposal to
combine no-battery mode and
maintenance mode power into standby
mode power for fixed-location wireless
chargers, and suggested that focusing on
‘‘no battery’’ or ‘‘no receiver’’ mode
would let DOE focus on standby power
reduction. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 3)
DOE is aware of some instances in
which battery chargers may enter a low
power mode similar to no battery mode
prior to entering maintenance mode,
which exhibits higher power
consumptions in comparison. Therefore,
to ensure test procedure repeatability
and representativeness, DOE adopts the
proposal that the maintenance mode
testing period should continue until 5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
hours after true maintenance mode has
been captured. This ensures that the
consumption in the alternate low power
mode described above is not being
inadvertently captured as maintenance
mode. For example, if a battery charger
does not enter maintenance mode until
the 50th hour of being in the active
charge and maintenance mode test, then
the total active and maintenance mode
test period should be 55 hours, which
ends at 5 hours after the charger enters
maintenance mode.
EPCA requires DOE to include
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, taking into consideration
the most current versions of Standards
62301 and 62087 of the IEC, and to
integrate such energy consumption into
the overall descriptor for each covered
product, unless technically infeasible,
such as here. However, where
integration into an overall metric is
infeasible, EPCA directs DOE to
prescribe a separate standby mode and
off mode energy use test procedure for
the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) The
operation of a battery charger in
maintenance mode meets the definition
of ‘‘standby mode’’ as that term is
defined by EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii)) As discussed,
maintenance mode provides the
continuous function of maintaining a
battery at full charge following active
mode until such time as the fully
charged battery is removed from the
charger by the user. (Id.) The energy
used during this continuous (and
potentially indefinite) mode is distinct
from energy use during active mode, the
discrete period following placement of a
depleted battery on the charger, as the
energy used in maintenance mode does
not contribute to direct battery charging.
Further, because it is providing a useroriented or protective function,
maintenance mode does not meet the
definition of off mode, which is defined
as the condition in which an energyusing product is connected to a main
power source; and is not providing any
standby or active mode function. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii))
As noted in section III.B.5 of this
document, most energy losses happen
during maintenance mode and nobattery mode, with the battery charger
not doing any useful work to transfer
energy into the battery. As these modes
can last indefinitely based on different
consumer usage and product types,
calculating the energy losses based on a
weighting factor would not be
representative, which is also why DOE
is discontinuing the integrated UEC
approach. By combining the power
draw of battery charger in maintenance
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mode and no-battery mode, DOE would
be able to representatively capture the
energy usage metrics for battery chargers
in these states regardless of how much
time the battery charger spends in each
state, while still giving manufacturers
freedom in design flexibility. Unlike
with the overall UEC metric, DOE
would not be reliant on usage profiles
and the requisite updates here;
therefore, it is not infeasible to combine
maintenance mode and no-battery
mode. Furthermore, because
maintenance mode power computes the
average power during at least the last
four hours of maintenance mode period,
it would not be necessary to separately
measure the power of when the battery
charger is providing limited charge.
As stated in section III.B.6 of this
document, DOE is adopting the NOPR
discussed alternative approach that
calculates the active mode energy and
maintenance mode power analytically
from the combined charge and
maintenance mode test. DOE reiterates
that from extensive internal testing,
DOE found that by monitoring battery
charger input power, most battery
chargers would exhibit a distinctive
drop off in power, indicating a clear
transition to maintenance mode. In rare
instances when the battery charger
shows unstable power consumption
towards the end of charging phase, DOE
notes that technically, they would still
be considered as active charging phase
as the battery is pining the charger to get
full charge. Therefore, DOE does not
anticipate there to be obstacles that
prevents stakeholders from identifying
the maintenance mode power under the
alternative approach.
DOE is adopting the NOPR proposal
to combine both maintenance mode and
no-battery mode under battery charger
standby mode. DOE further clarifies that
for open-placement chargers, only nobattery mode power would need to be
tested, as prescribed in section 5 of
appendix Y1.
8. Non-Battery-Charging Related
Functions
DOE granted Dyson, Inc. (‘‘Dyson’’) a
waiver from the current battery charger
test procedure for a specified battery
charger model (used in a robotic
vacuum cleaner) and provided an
alternate means for disabling nonbattery-charging functions during
testing.13 82 FR 16580 (Apr. 5, 2017). As
described in the petition for waiver, the
13 Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to
Dyson, Inc. From the Department of Energy Battery
Charger Test Procedure (Case No. BC–001).
Subsequently, DOE issued an Extension of Waiver
to Dyson, Inc. to cover an additional basic model
(Case No. 2018– 012). 84 FR 12240 (Apr. 1, 2019).
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
battery charger basic models subject to
the waiver have a number of settings
and remote management features not
associated with the battery charging
function but are instead associated with
the vacuum cleaner end product that
must remain on at all times. 82 FR
16580, 16581. Dyson explained that it
would be inappropriate to make these
functions user controllable, as they are
integral to the function of the robot. Id.
The DOE test procedure for battery
chargers requires that any function
controlled by the user and not
associated with the battery charging
process must be switched off; or, for
functions not possible to switch off, be
set to the lowest power consuming
mode. Section 3.2.4.b of appendix Y.
DOE determined that the current test
procedure at appendix Y would
evaluate the battery charger basic
models specified in the Orders granting
the waiver and (related waiver
extension) in a manner so
unrepresentative of its true energy
consumption characteristics as to
provide materially inaccurate
comparatively data. 82 FR 16580, 16581
and 84 FR 12240, 12241. Pursuant to the
approved test procedure waiver, the
specified basic models must be tested
and rated such that power to functions
not associated with the battery charging
process are disabled by isolating a
terminal of the battery pack using
isolating tape. Id.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
reviewed the market and initially
determined that the products subject to
the waivers granted to Dyson are no
longer available; therefore, DOE
proposed to not amend the test
procedure to include instructions
regarding disabling power to functions
not associated with the battery charging
process that are not consumer
controllable, or to allow adders for such
functions. 86 FR 66878, 66889–66890.
DOE noted that this proposal would also
terminate the existing Dyson waivers
consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3) and
10 CFR 430.27(l). Id.
In response to DOE’s proposal, the
Joint Efficiency Advocates supported
DOE’s proposal to maintain the current
approach for disabling power to nonbattery-charging related functions, and
supported DOE’s proposal to terminate
Dyson’s waivers as these products are
no longer available on the market. (Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 3)
NEEA supported maintaining the
present approach to waiver petitions,
auxiliary functions in the test
procedure, and DOE’s decision to
terminate the existing waiver granted to
Dyson. (NEEA, No. 27 at 11)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
The Joint Trade Associations asked
DOE to provide additional clarity on
requirements regarding disabling power
to non-battery-charging related
functions, because although some
functions do not contribute to battery
charging, they cannot be disabled
directly by the user. The Joint Trade
Associations stated that DOE and
stakeholders have struggled with how to
address these functions in the past and
suggested a proposal to allow disabling
of these functions but with noncircumventing language. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 10) The Joint
Trade Associations suggested DOE to
include a publicly viewable column
with the CCD so that the public can
know when an alternative means is used
to isolate the charging function. The
Joint Trade Associations further
suggested DOE to add a confidential
column so manufacturers can report
instructions on how to disable the nonbattery-charging related functions or set
them to the lowest power consuming
state. The Joint Trade Associations also
proposed to DOE that anticircumvention language should be
added to make the intent that batterycharging related circuit or function
cannot be changed in the test procedure
clear, as such language has been
successful in other appliances
categories. (Id.) ITI and Delta-Q also
supported the joint comments. (ITI, No.
20 at pp. 4–5; Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2)
Delta-Q further expressed their support
of the existing Dyson waiver approach
and suggested that DOE integrate
allowances to more battery charger
models, because it is not always
practical or desirable for the user to
have the ability to manually disable
non-charging-features or reduce their
consumption. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2)
STIHL commented that when STIHL’s
lawn mower battery is charging, there
are some non-battery-charging related
functions still running, such as
connected functions or safety functions.
(STIHL, No. 16 at p. 1) STIHL inquired
if these functions can be deactivated or
be given appropriate power adders
when calculating for energy
consumption during testing, because
they do not relate to the charging
process. Id.
DOE’s current battery charger test
procedure specifically requires nonbattery-charging functions to be turned
off during testing, unless manufacturers
did not provide ways for end user to
disable these functions. Section 3.2.4 of
appendix Y. DOE notes that, due to the
intricate nature of battery charger
products, disabling non-battery-charging
related functions through non-useraccessible ways can have unexpected
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55109
effects on the battery charging circuitry,
which raises repeatability and
reproducibility concerns. Therefore,
DOE is not amending the test procedure
to allow disabling of non-batterycharging related functions through
alternative means. In the case suggested
by STIHL’s comment, the same
requirements would also apply, and the
battery charger would only be tested
with these non-battery-charging
functions on if they cannot be switched
off by the end user. Due to the huge
variety of non-battery-charging related
functions and different ways they can be
implemented, DOE is not prescribing
power adders for these non-batterycharging related functions.
Schumacher added that there is new
automotive battery charger technology
that uses internal super capacitors or LiIon batteries, which charges the
standalone (end-use product’s) battery
normally, and then the internal battery
or supercapacitor, if needed, after
charge is complete. (Schumacher, No.
21 at p. 6) Schumacher asked if the
charging of these internal batteries
should be included into E24 or Pm or
some other parts of the standard that are
yet to be described. (Schumacher, No.
21 at p. 6) DOE’s notes that its battery
charger test procedure only measures
the energy consumption at the input of
the charger. Based on when charging of
these super capacitors occur, it could be
regulated either under active charge
mode or maintenance mode of DOE’s
test procedure.
C. Corrections and Non-Substantive
Changes
Since the publication of DOE’s
current battery charger test procedure
and energy conservation standards, DOE
has received numerous stakeholder
inquiries regarding various topics
involving battery charger testing and
certification. Based on these inquiries,
DOE identified the need for certain
minor corrections. These corrections are
addressed in the following sections.
Additionally, in the interest of
improving overall clarity, DOE will
include a flowchart in the docket
outlining the required testing and
certification process with this final rule.
1. Certification Flowcharts
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to include certification
flowcharts in the docket upon
publication of the final rule, shown in
Figure III.C.1 and Figure III.C.2,14 to
14 Figures III.C.1 and III.C.2 are included to clarify
the process in this rulemaking only. Manufacturers
should not rely solely on the flowcharts as
substantive guides for testing and compliance.
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
55110
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
help manufacturers better understand
the battery charger testing and
certification process. The flowcharts
provide an overview of the testing and
certification process, including an
overview of the basic model definition,
the scope of DOE’s battery charger test
procedure; the required sample size, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
difference between a rated value, a
represented value, and a certified rating,
and the statistical criteria for
determining compliance with energy
conservation standards. The flowcharts
are not intended to address all aspects
of the testing and certification
requirements, but instead provide a
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
general-level guide to the process. As
such, manufacturers should not rely
solely on the flowcharts for testing and
compliance. Manufacturers of battery
chargers are required to comply with the
applicable provisions under 10 CFR
parts 429 and 430.
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
55111
Figure 111.C.1 Appendix Y Battery Charger Certification Testing and Certification
Flowchart
Battery Charge< Basic Model
DOE's definition of a basic model is presaibed at 10 CFR 430.2
Must be manufactured by a single manufacturer.
Must have one rated value for all models within the basic model
May be distributed under different brand names.
May contain multiple individual models/model numbers.
May be made up of only one individual model.
• May not contain individual models from multiple product classes.
Minimum test sample size of 2 units.
Test Procedure
The basic model is not in
scope of DOE's baltely
charger test procedure.
Each randomly selected test unit in the sample must be representative of
production units and tested per the instructions in Appendix Y. Each unit
in the sample being tested is referred to as a UUT.
Test each UUT and measure the following parameters per the indicated
section of Appendix Y:
1. E24: 24~hour energy consumption as indicated in section 3.3.6;
Eo,u: Battery discharge energy as Indicated In section 3.3.8;
3. Pm: Maintenance mode power as indicated in section 3.3.9;
2.
4. P9 b: Standby mode power as indicated in section 3.3.11;
5. Poff: Off mode power as indicated In section 3.3.12.
1 The battery charger test procedin
scope can al80 be found In section 1
ofAppendixY..
Detennlnlng
Represented Value
For each UUT, calculate UEC using the above measured values (E24, Ebatt,
Pm, Psb• P0 tt) and the usage profile parameters (faam, tsb, t0 tt, n, tcd) from
Table 3.3.3 as inputs to Equation (i) or (ii) of section 3.3.13 of Appendix Y.
For a basic model, the manufacturer must certify to DOE a value for each of
the metrics listed above that is representative of the basic model's true
energy performance based on the values determined In the prior steps.
These are referred to as represented values or certified ratings and must
be the same as any value used to represent the energy performance of the
basic model elsewhere by the manufacturer. Produd class Is determined In
accordance with Table 3.3.3 of Appendix Y by using the measured Ebatt and
highest Individual battery nameplate voltage.
Certification roquinoment at 10 CFR 429.39(a)(2)(II) requires that
a represented value for UEC must be greater than or equal to the
higher of the mean UEC of the sample or the UCL of the true mean
divided by 1.05.
Represented values for Pm, Ptb, Poff, Et,., E24 and tcdwill be their
respective sample mean, according to 10 CFR 429.39(a)(2)(111).
~nnlnlng Validity
of RepNISented Yalue
Using the represented Ebalt value (i.e. mean Ebatt from all
the tested samples), calculate the maxJmum allowable
UEC, as prescribed In 10 CFR 430.32(z)2.
Represented value is
No
not valid and
cannot be distributed into
commerce.
2 Terme. 8UCh 88 ·rat«J UEC", "rated Ebett", etc. used In DO E's battery
charger en9f9Y conservation standards refer to the represented values
submitted by a manufacturer to cartify a basic model to DOE's battery
Yes
-regulations.
Certification
Certification complete.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Manufacturers should not rely solely on the
flowchart, which only provides a general-level
guide. Manufacturers are required to comply
with the applicable provisions under 10 CFR
parts 429 and 430.
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
ER08SE22.000</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Using tho Complianoo Certification Management System (CCMS),
certify tho basic model to DOE by submitting the represented values (as
prescribed In 10 CFR 429.39) using tho battery charger certification
product template.
55112
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Figure 111.C.2 Appendix Yl Battery Charger Testing and Certification Flowchart15
-ry Charger Basic Model
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DOE's definition of a basic mode1 is prescribed at 10 CFR 430.2
Must be manufactured by a single manufacturer.
Must have one rated value for all models within the basic model
May be distributed under different brand names.
May contain multiple individual models/model numbers.
May be made up of only one individual model.
May not contain individual models from multiple product classes.
Minimum test sample size of 2 units.
Test Procedure
The basic model is not in
scope of DOE's battery
charger test procedure.
Each randomly selected test unit in the sample must be representative of
production units and tested per the instructions in Appendix Y1. Each unit
in the sample being tested is referred to as a UUT.
Test each UUT and measure or calculate the following parameters per the
indicated section of Appendix Y1:
1. Ea: Active mode energy consumption per section 3.3.6 and 3.3.10;
1 The battery charger test procedure
scope can also be found in section 1
ofAppendixY1.
Determining
Represented Value
2. Ebatt: Battery discharge energy as indicated in section 3.3.8;
5. Poff Off mode power as indicated in section 3.3.12;
6. P sb: Standby power calculated according to section 3.3.13.
According to DOE's battery charger certification requirements at 10 CFR
429.39, for a basic model, the manufacturer must certify to DOE a value for
each of the mebics listed atxJve that is representative of the basic model's
true energy performance based on the values determined in the prior steps.
These are referred to as represented values or certified ratings and must
be the same as any value used to represent the energy performance of the
basic model elsewhere by the manufacturer.
• A represented value for Ea, Psb, and Poff must be greater than or
equal to the higher of the sample mean or the UCL of the true mean
divided by 1.05.
• Represented values for
Et.au, and fat wiU be their respective sample
mean.
Determining Validity
f Represented Value
Using the represented Ebatt value (i.e. mean '=bait from all
the tested samples), calcuJate the maximum allowable Ea,
and P,.as prescribed in 10 CFR430.32(z)2.
cannot be distributed into
commerce.
2 Termssuch as "rated E2 •, •ratec1 9,au•, etc. used in DOE's battery
charger energy conservation standards refer to the represented values
submitted by a manufacturer to certify a basic model to DOE's battery
charger regulations.
Yes
Certification
Using the Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS),
certify the basic m-I to DOE by submitting the represented values (as
prescribed in 10 CFR 429.39) using tho battery charger certification
product template.
Manufacturers should not rely solely on the
flowchart, which only provides a general-level
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
guide. Manufacturers are required to comply
with the applicable provisions under 10 CFR
parts 429 and 430.
The Joint Trade Associations
suggested that DOE consistently update
the flowcharts as needed and make it
clear that the regulatory text would
override anything in the flowcharts
15 Appendix Y1 test procedure would not be
effective until after energy conservation standards
have been amended to account for the multi-metric
approach.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
because many manufacturers will rely
on these flowcharts, if finalized. (Joint
Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 11) ITI
also supported this comment. (ITI, No.
20 at p. 6)
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
ER08SE22.001</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Certification complete.
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
DOE acknowledges these comments
and will ensure that the flowcharts are
updated as necessary. DOE also
reemphasizes that the regulatory text
would override anything in the
flowcharts.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
2. Testing and Certification
Clarifications
DOE’s current battery charger UEC
calculation is prescribed in section
3.3.13 of appendix Y, with product
specific certification requirements
prescribed in 10 CFR 429.39. DOE
proposed clarifications in the November
2021 NOPR, based on stakeholder
comments.
a. Measured vs. Rated Battery Energy
The product class distinctions
provided in Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y
are based in part on rated battery energy
as determined in 10 CFR 429.39(a),
which in turn references the represented
value of battery discharge energy. 10
CFR 429.39(a)(1). The calculation of
UEC in section 3.3.13 of appendix Y is
based in part on the tested (measured)
battery energy.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to further clarify the
nomenclature in appendix Y by
modifying the ‘‘Ebatt’’ term used in the
UEC calculation and usage profile
selection in Table 3.3.3 to ‘‘Measured
Ebatt’’. As for the proposed appendix Y1,
DOE noted that all of the instructions
rely on measured Ebatt, making it
unnecessary to distinguish between
measured and rated Ebatt. 86 FR 66878,
66893.
Delta-Q supported the extra
clarifications on measured and
nameplate nomenclature. (Delta-Q, No.
28 at p. 2)
The Joint Trade Associations stated
that it is not clear whether measured or
rated values for battery energy should be
used, and they would support DOE’s
proposal to update the nomenclature if
coupled with an enforcement provision
that allows for tolerance, as there could
be inherent variations in test and
production that affect how standard and
product class applies. The Joint Trade
Associations stated that their proposed
approach is consistent with DOE’s
enforcement approach for other
appliances, such as measured volume
for refrigerators, freezers, clothes
washers, dehumidifiers, etc. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 11) ITI
supported this comment and further
requested DOE to continue using the
term ‘‘rated’’ instead of ‘‘represented’’,
unless DOE can provide a clear
definition on when should the
‘‘represented’’ term be used. (ITI, No. 20
at p. 5)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
DOE recognizes the inherent
variations in testing and production,
especially for tested battery energies.
However, DOE notes that due to the
nature of how battery energy differs
even for the same models from the same
batch, when determining compliance
through enforcement testing DOE would
be looking at the individual sample
performance more closely and
determine compliance based on per
sample basis, if necessary. DOE will also
ensure that its battery charger energy
conservation standards would show
comparable standards for battery
chargers that fall on the border of two
neighboring product classes.
DOE notes that under the term
‘‘rated’’, some manufacturers might
confuse it with ‘‘nameplate’’ values,
which can differ for batteries. Therefore,
to ensure test procedure repeatability
and reproducibility, DOE is avoiding
using the term ‘‘rated’’, and is updating
the terms to ‘‘represented’’,
‘‘nameplate’’, and ‘‘measured’’ instead.
b. Other Nomenclatures
Schumacher stated that appendix Y’s
specified 5-hour discharge time resulted
from the 0.2 C-rate, and conflicts with
real world automotive battery ratings
which are usually based on 10-to-20hour rates. Schumacher stated that the
5-hour discharge time results in a much
lower rating than the nameplate rating
because of energy loss through heat.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2)
Schumacher proposed DOE to clarify
the 0.2C C-rate means a 5-hour
discharge rate to ensure manufacturers
are conducting the tests correctly and
reporting correctly. (Schumacher, No.
21 at pp.2–3)
DOE notes that discharge rates will
vary by end-use application. It would be
infeasible and add burden if DOE was
to prescribe a unique discharge rate for
each type of application in the test
procedure. DOE’s specified 0.2C
discharge rate offers a practical and
repeatable solution for different
applications with either slow or fast
discharge rates. By maintaining the
same discharge rate, it would also
improve comparability in results. For
batteries that serve the same end-use
application, although the tested value
may differ from manufacturer designed
ratings, they would still be comparable
to other batteries from the same
application.
The definition for C-rate is prescribed
at section 2.10 of appendix Y, which
specifies that the C-rate is calculated by
dividing the charge or discharge current
by the nameplate battery charge
capacity of the battery. DOE has not
received stakeholder comments
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55113
suggesting that the current 0.2 discharge
C-rate causes confusion prior to
Schumacher’s comment. DOE is also
unaware of any manufacturer
discharging the batteries differently than
the prescribed 0.2C discharge rate.
However, to further improve test
procedure language clarity, DOE will
amend the C-rate definition in both
appendix Y and appendix Y1 to give an
example that time needed to charge or
discharge with a 0.2 C-rate would equal
5 hours.
Schumacher stated that the term used
to refer to ‘‘Product Classes’’ and ‘‘wall
adapters’’ are not consistent between the
standard, test procedure, and CCD
report template. (Schumacher, No. 21 at
pp. 4–5) Schumacher commented that
making consistent use of terms would
avoid ambiguity and DOE should clarify
that wall adapters indeed refer to EPSs.
Id.
DOE’s mention of wall adapters in the
test procedure was to facilitate
understanding and readability of the test
procedure. In most cases, the term ‘‘wall
adapter’’ can be used interchangeably
with ‘‘EPS’’. To further improve
language consistency, DOE is changing
the ‘‘wall adapter’’ terms used in
appendices Y and Y1 to the more
technically appropriate term ‘‘EPSs’’. As
for the term ‘‘Product Classes’’, DOE
notes that in the CCD reporting
template, they are referred to as
‘‘Product Group Codes’’, which should
not cause confusion as the ‘‘Product
Group Codes’’ worksheet details the
product groups with matching product
classes.
c. Alternate Test Method for Small
Electronic Devices
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
did not propose to amend the test
procedure to rely on the measured
battery energy value for the purpose of
the testing and certification, because
DOE has observed several occasions in
which the measured battery energy was
lower than the marked nameplate
energy, which could lead to
unrepresentative value of UEC or active
energy consumption. 86 FR 66878,
66893.
ITI reiterated their recommendation
for DOE to simplify the test procedure
for small electronics by relying on the
nameplate battery energy so that testers
would not need to obtain special
standalone battery samples or solder on
tiny terminals. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 6–7)
ITI suggested DOE to reconsider its
stance on these devices because
inconsistencies caused by these small
energy batteries would have negligible
impact on overall results. (Id.) ITI also
requested DOE to review data from
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
55114
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
small electronics as they normally have
passed the UEC standard with large
margins, but with maintenance mode
energy contributing to majority of
energy consumption. (Id.) NEEA
expressed general support for DOE’s
assertion that rated and measured
battery capacities can differ
substantially, and that requiring
measurement ensures fair competition
under the standard. (NEEA, No. 27 at p.
11)
DOE reemphasizes that DOE’s battery
charger test procedure relies on the
tested battery energy to carry out UEC
calculation. DOE has encountered
several occasions where the actual
battery energy differs from the rated
battery energy. Relying on the rated
battery energy to test the product
therefore would result in inaccurate
measurements and certifications,
contrary to EPCA’s requirement that
DOE adopt test procedures reasonably
designed to produce representative
results. Therefore, DOE is not
prescribing any alternative test methods
for small electronics.
d. Inability To Directly Measure Battery
Energy
Section 3.2.5.(f) of appendix Y states
that when the battery discharge energy
and the charging and maintenance mode
energy cannot be measured directly due
to any of the following conditions: (1)
inability to access the battery terminals;
(2) access to the battery terminals
destroys charger functionality; or (3)
inability to draw current from the test
battery, the battery discharge energy and
the charging and maintenance mode
energy shall be reported as ‘‘Not
Applicable.’’ In such cases, the test
procedure does not provide instruction
on how to proceed with the remainder
of the test, and an alternate test method
must be used to measure battery
discharge energy and the charging and
maintenance mode energy.
DOE therefore proposed to update
section 3.2.5(f) of appendix Y to
explicitly state that if any of the
aforementioned conditions are
applicable, preventing the measurement
of the battery discharge energy and the
charging and maintenance mode energy,
a manufacturer must submit a petition
for a test procedure waiver in
accordance with 10 CFR 430.27. The
same provision would also be included
as part of the new appendix Y1. 86 FR
66878, 66893. DOE did not receive
comments on this topic and is adopting
the proposed changes in this final rule.
e. Determining Battery Voltage
The product class distinctions
provided in Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
are based in part on ‘‘battery voltage’’ in
addition to rated battery energy or
special charging characteristics, as
described previously. Section 3.3.1 of
appendix Y specifies recording the
nameplate battery voltage of the test
battery. Section 2.21 of appendix Y
defines ‘‘nameplate battery voltage’’ as
specified by the battery manufacturer
and typically printed on the label of the
battery itself. If there are multiple
batteries that are connected in a series,
the nameplate battery voltage of the
batteries is the total voltage of the series
configuration—that is, the nameplate
voltage of each battery multiplied by the
number of batteries connected in series.
Connecting multiple batteries in parallel
does not affect the nameplate battery
voltage. Section 2.21 of appendix Y.
Additionally, for a multi-voltage
charger, the battery with the highest
battery voltage must be selected for
testing, as prescribed by Table 3.2.1 of
appendix Y. Consequently, the highest
supported battery voltage should also be
used to determine product class, which
is not reflected by the current term
‘‘battery voltage’’ in Table 3.3.3.
Updating the language in Table 3.3.3
would avoid the potential for future
confusion with regard to multi-voltage
products.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed to amend Table 3.3.3 of
appendices Y and Y1 by replacing the
term ‘‘battery voltage’’ with ‘‘highest
nameplate battery voltage’’ to provide
clearer direction that the battery voltage
used to determine product class is based
on its nameplate battery voltage, and
that for multi-voltage products, the
highest voltage is used. 86 FR 66878,
66893–66894. The Joint Trade
Associations supported DOE’s proposal
to clarify that the highest nameplate
battery voltage should be used in
determining product class. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 12)
In this final rule, DOE is adopting the
proposed editorial change on battery
voltage specification in Table 3.3.3.
f. UEC and Reporting Discrepancies
Schumacher noted that Ebatt and UEC
allow 3 decimal places for entry, while
the other measured, calculated, and
determined values only allow 2 decimal
places, which sometimes creates
calculation errors. (Schumacher, No. 21
at p. 3) Schumacher proposed that DOE
change all finished calculated values to
3 decimal places, except for UEC and
max UEC which should be 2 decimal
places; and all the constants provided
by DOE to change from 2 decimal places
to 5 or with fractions to reduce rounding
errors, which sometimes prevents
submission. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3) Schumacher claimed that the UEC
calculation selection formula can have
discrepancies from the use of only 2
decimal places. For example, a battery
charger with 64.271 hours of total
charge time can use either UEC equation
(i) or (ii) from the selection formula.
(Id.) Schumacher stated that increasing
the decimal places to 5 for constants
and rounding the finished results to 3
decimal places or keeping the constants
in fractions would reduce these
discrepancies. (Schumacher, No. 21 at
pp. 3–4)
DOE’s CCD already allows
manufacturers to report values with
multiple decimal places. DOE notes that
it cannot change the constants provided
in appendix Y to more decimal places
or fractions, as doing so could affect the
currently CCD reported basic models.
For example, even a slight change in
usage profiles or threshold charge time
could cause numerous currently
reported basic models to have slightly
different UEC. This change would also
result in unnecessary need for
manufacturers to recertify their basic
models. DOE’s CCD reporting form does
not specifically look for rounding errors,
and it was not clear from Schumacher’s
comment on how the submission
rejection occurred. However, if
stakeholders continue to have
submission related questions,
stakeholders can contact DOE’s
Compliance Certification Management
System directly for help.
Schumacher also included a chart to
illustrate that there is a 5-hour transition
shift between UEC formula (i) and (ii),
which does not lead to a smooth
transition and asked DOE to provide
some explanation. (Schumacher, No. 21
at p. 4) UEC equation (i) was developed
based on usage profiles. To account for
chargers that takes significantly longer
to charge than DOE’s threshold charge
time, DOE developed UEC equation (ii)
with close reference to equation (i).
Because DOE’s UEC equation (ii)
accounts for the prolonged charge time
that exceeds DOE’s standard threshold
charge time, it could negatively impact
a battery charger’s UEC in very limited
cases.
g. Testing Setup
Schumacher suggested that the DOE
battery charger test procedure should
reference appendix Z or add greater
detail on test measurement setup with
proper connection sequence, to provide
a more uniform standard and ensure
reproducibility. (Schumacher, No. 21 at
p. 5) Schumacher suggested that the
sense leads should be placed directly on
the battery terminals and not the charger
terminals to ensure voltage loss of the
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
charger terminals are measured and
should be repeated for discharge
measurement so that the terminal
connection losses can be accounted for,
which ensures a more uniform standard.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at pp. 5–6)
Battery charger testing setup can vary
significantly depending on different
product configurations. DOE has already
prescribed language in section 3.2.1 for
manufacturers to set up the battery
chargers according to manufacturer
instructions or the default settings. DOE
notes that the measurement setup figure
used in appendix Z is for reference only
and has language indicating that actual
test setup may vary pursuant to
appendix Z requirements. DOE has not
encountered scenarios in which
manufacturers cannot successfully set
up measurement for battery charger
testing; therefore, DOE is not providing
greater detail on how manufacturers
should set up test measurement.
DOE’s battery charger test procedure
measures the charging efficiency as a
whole. Therefore, DOE is not adding
requirements for manufacturers to
measure the charger input at battery
terminals, because adding the battery
input terminal measurements would not
representatively measure the useful
energy being put into the battery and
would add undue burden. Furthermore,
battery chargers can have different
designs that impact how discharge tests
can be performed. As such, DOE is not
prescribing additional requirements on
where the battery output connections
should be made for measurement to
avoid undue burden.
3. Cross-Reference Corrections
Section 3.3.4 of appendix Y,
‘‘Preparing the Battery for Charge
Testing,’’ specifies that the test battery
shall be fully discharged for the
duration specified in section 3.3.2 of
appendix Y, or longer using a battery
analyzer. However, DOE’s intention was
to instruct the user to discharge a test
battery not for a set duration but until
it reaches the end of discharge voltages
listed in Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y.
While a battery would be fully
discharged with either set of
instructions, current instructions would
lead to a battery preparation step that is
significantly longer. Additionally, there
are several instances in appendix Y of
which DOE used generic terms such as
‘‘specified above’’ or ‘‘noted below’’.
While these generic reference terms are
referring to the test procedure sections
immediately preceding or following,
identifying the specific referenced
sections would improve the test
procedure clarity. Therefore, DOE
proposed to further clarify these cross-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
55115
references in appendix Y, and
incorporate this same change into
proposed appendix Y1, to reduce test
burden and avoid potential confusion.
To further streamline the readability of
appendix Y, DOE proposed to move the
end-of-discharge Table 3.3.2 so that it
immediately follows the battery
discharge energy test at section 3.3.8. 86
FR 66878, 66894.
Honda suggested that the proposed
Table 3.1.1 for appendix Y1 includes
incorrect subsection references. (Honda,
No. 26 at p. 1) Honda also stated that the
proposed Table 4.3.1 of appendix Y1
appears to have a typographical error
and that it should remain the same for
current appendix Y Table 4.3.1. (Honda,
No. 26 at p. 2)
DOE appreciates Honda’s comment.
The incorrect subsection references
were unintentional typographical errors.
For the proposed Table 4.3.1 of
appendix Y1, it was incorrectly
formatted upon publication. Table 4.3.1
should still remain the same as the one
in appendix Y. DOE is correcting these
two typographical errors in this final
rule. DOE is also adopting the rest of the
proposed cross-reference corrections.
to section 3.3.11(b), to provide clearer
indication that these three subsections
refer to three different types of products
with integral batteries. The same
structure would be applied in section
3.3.12(b) for off mode. 86 FR 66878,
66894.
ITI requested DOE to further explain
how sections 3.3.11 and 3.3.12 will be
reorganized. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6)
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
stated in the preamble and in the
proposed appendix Y and Y1 regulatory
text section that subsections 3.3.11.(b)
through (d) would be reorganized as
subsections (1) through (3) subordinate
to section 3.3.11(b), to provide clearer
indication that these three subsections
refer to three different types of products
with integral batteries. The same
structure would be applied in section
3.3.12(b) for off mode. 86 FR 66878,
66894. These would improve readability
and DOE does not anticipate any
impacts to current test procedure from
these reorganizations. Therefore, DOE is
adopting the proposed subsection
corrections.
4. Sub-Section Corrections
Sections 3.3.11(b) and 3.3.12(b) of
appendix Y provide instructions for
testing the standby and off mode power
consumption, respectively, of a battery
charger with integral batteries. Section
2.6 of appendix Y describes an integral
battery as a battery that is contained
within the consumer product and is not
removed from the consumer product for
charging purposes. Sections 3.3.11(c),
3.3.11(d), 3.3.12(c), and 3.3.12(d)
provide instructions applicable to
products containing ‘‘integrated power
conversion and charging circuitry,’’
which is intended to refer to products
with integral batteries for which the
circuitry is integrated within the battery
charger, in contrast to being integrated
within a cradle or an external adapter
(as referred to in sections 3.3.11(b) and
3.3.12(b)).
To improve the readability of the test
procedure and avoid potential
confusion as to the applicability of
sections 3.3.11(c), 3.3.11(d), 3.3.12(c),
and 3.3.12(d) in relation to sections
3.3.11(b) and 3.3.12(b), DOE in the
November 2021 NOPR proposed to
reorder these sections of appendix Y
such that section 3.3.11(b) would
include only the statement that standby
mode may also apply to products with
integral batteries. 86 FR 66878, 66894.
The remainder of current section
3.3.11(b), as well as 3.3.11(c) and
3.3.11(d) would be reorganized as
subsections (1) through (3) subordinate
The effective date for the adopted test
procedure amendment will be 30 days
after publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. EPCA prescribes that
all representations of energy efficiency
and energy use, including those made
on marketing materials and product
labels, must be made in accordance with
an amended test procedure, beginning
180 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C.
6293(c)(2)) EPCA provides an allowance
for individual manufacturers to petition
DOE for an extension of the 180-day
period if the manufacturer would
experience undue hardship in meeting
the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To
receive such an extension, petitions
must be filed with DOE no later than 60
days before the end of the 180-day
period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue
hardship. (Id.) To the extent the
modified test procedure adopted in this
final rule is required only for the
evaluation and issuance of updated
efficiency standards, compliance with
the amended test procedure does not
require use of such modified test
procedure provisions until the
compliance date of updated standards.
Upon the compliance date of test
procedure provisions in this final rule,
waivers that had been previously issued
to Dyson (Case No. BC–001 and Case
No. 2018–012) are terminated. 10 CFR
430.27(h)(3). Because these Dyson
products are no longer distributed in the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
D. Effective and Compliance Dates
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
55116
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
market, DOE does not anticipate further
testing for these products.
E. Test Procedure Costs
In this final rule, DOE incorporates
some editorial changes in the preceding
test procedure for battery chargers at
appendix Y to: (1) update battery
chemistry table to improve
representativeness; (2) explicitly refer
manufacturers to the test procedure
waiver provisions when battery energy
cannot be measured; and (3) provide
more descriptive designation of the
different battery energy and battery
voltage values used for determining
product class and calculating unit
energy consumption. The changes to
appendix Y also include minor cross
reference corrections and test procedure
organization improvements. DOE is also
terminating the existing Dyson test
procedure waiver.
Appendix Y1 would include all the
changes previously listed, as well as: (1)
remove the ‘‘wet environment’’
designation and expand the 5 Wh
battery energy limit to 100 Wh for fixedlocation wireless chargers; (2) add
definitions for ‘‘fixed-location’’ and
‘‘open-placement’’ wireless chargers; (3)
introduce a new no-battery mode only
test for open-placement wireless
chargers; (4) amend the wall adapter
selection for chargers that do not come
with one; and (5) establish an approach
that relies on separate metrics for active
mode, standby mode, and off mode, in
place of the UEC calculation in
appendix Y. DOE has determined that
these proposed amendments would not
be unduly burdensome for
manufacturers to conduct.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Appendix Y Test Procedure
Amendments
The amendments specific to appendix
Y would not alter the scope of
applicability or the measured energy use
of basic models currently certified to
DOE. DOE does not anticipate that the
proposals specific to appendix Y would
cause any manufacturer to re-test any
currently covered battery chargers or
incur any additional testing costs.
Appendix Y1 Test Procedure Proposal
All the amendments specific to
appendix Y1 would not be required to
be used until DOE amends energy
conservation standards for battery
chargers in a future rulemaking and
requires battery charger manufacturers
to rate their products using appendix
Y1. DOE is aware that certain
manufacturers may be voluntarily
reporting under state programs the
energy efficiency as determined under
appendix Y of a limited number of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
fixed-location wireless chargers that are
not currently subject to the DOE test
procedure. DOE is not aware of such
representations being included in
manufacturer literature. Given that such
reporting appears limited to state
programs and manufacturers are not
otherwise making representations of the
energy efficiency or energy use of such
products, DOE is unable to estimate the
extent of such reporting. Beginning 180
days following the final rule requiring
the use of appendix Y1, were
manufacturers to continue such
voluntary reporting any such
representations would have to be based
on the DOE test procedure as amended.
To the extent there is a limited number
of models for which manufacturers are
making voluntary representations, such
models may require re-testing. Further
details regarding the cost impact of the
proposed amendments for when battery
charger manufacturers are required to
test their products using appendix Y1
are presented in the following
paragraphs.
Appendix Y1—Wireless Chargers
The amendment to remove the ‘‘wet
environment’’ designation and increase
the battery energy limit will increase the
scope of the existing battery charger test
procedure to include wireless battery
chargers other than those with inductive
connection and designed for use in a
wet environment.
DOE has estimated the testing cost
associated to test these fixed-location
and open-placement wireless chargers
in accordance with the test procedure.
DOE estimates that it would take
approximately 40 hours to conduct
testing for one fixed-location wireless
charger unit and 2.2 hours to conduct
the no-battery mode only test for one
open-placement wireless charger unit.
These tests do not require the wireless
charger unit being tested to be
constantly monitored by a lab
technician. DOE estimates that a lab
technician would spend approximately
2.5 hours to test a fixed-location
wireless charger unit and 1 hour to test
an open-placement wireless charger
unit.
Based on data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics’ (‘‘BLS’s’’) Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics, the
mean hourly wage for electrical and
electronic engineering technologist and
technician is $32.84.16 DOE also used
16 DOE used the mean hourly wage of the ‘‘17–
3023 Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Technologists and Technicians’’ from the most
recent BLS Occupational Employment and Wage
Statistics (May 2020) to estimate the hourly wage
rate of a technician assumed to perform this testing.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
data from BLS’s Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation to estimate the
percent that wages comprise the total
compensation for an employee. DOE
estimates that wages make up 70.4
percent of the total compensation for
private industry employees.17
Therefore, DOE estimates that the total
hourly compensation (including all
fringe benefits) of a technician
performing these tests is approximately
$46.65.18 Using these labor rates and
time estimates, DOE estimates that it
would cost wireless charger
manufacturers approximately $117 to
conduct a single test on a fixed-location
wireless charger unit and approximately
$47 to conduct a single test on an openplacement wireless charger unit.19
DOE requires that at least two units be
tested for each basic model prior to
certifying a rating. Therefore, DOE
estimates that manufacturers would
incur testing costs of approximately
$234 per fixed-location wireless charger
basic model and approximately $94 per
open-placement wireless charger basic
model, when testing these wireless
chargers. However, this amendment to
remove the ‘‘wet environment’’
designation and increase the battery
energy limit for wireless battery
chargers would only be applicable for
appendix Y1, and manufacturers would
not be required to use appendix Y1 for
wireless battery chargers that are not
currently covered by appendix Y until
DOE amends the energy conservation
standards for battery chargers as part of
a future rulemaking. DOE will further
address the expected costs to industry if
and when DOE establishes energy
conservation standards for wireless
chargers.
Appendix Y1—EPS Selection
The update to require the use of a
minimally compliant power supply
selection criteria for battery chargers
that are not sold with one ensures that
these products are tested in a manner
that is representative of actual use, as
required by EPCA. This update would
not create additional cost or require
additional time as compared to the prior
test procedure, as these battery chargers
See https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/
oes173023.htm. Last accessed on July 22, 2021.
17 DOE used the March 2021 ‘‘Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation’’ to estimate that for
‘‘Private Industry Workers,’’ ‘‘Wages and Salaries’’
are 70.4 percent of the total employee
compensation. See www.bls.gov/news.release/
archives/ecec_06172021.pdf. Last accessed on July
22, 2021.
18 $32.84 ÷ 0.704 = $46.65.
19 Fixed-location wireless charger: $46.65 × 2.5
hours = $116.63 (rounded to $117).
Open-placement wireless charger: $46.65 × 1
hour = $46.65 (rounded to $47).
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
currently require a low voltage input;
this change will only specify how the
low voltage input must be provided and
is not expected to result in additional
costs. DOE also anticipates this update
to impact the measured energy
consumption of battery chargers, but
only for scenarios where the
manufacturer previously certified the
product using an EPS that is either not
minimally compliant or used a bench
power supply and failed to include its
energy consumption as part of the
battery charger system.
However, the amended test procedure
would only apply to the new appendix
Y1, meaning it would not be required
for testing until DOE amends energy
conservation standards and requires
manufacturers to use appendix Y1.
Based on DOE’s market research, DOE
estimates that most battery charger
models do not remain on the market for
more than four years because of frequent
battery charger model updates and
retirement of old models. Therefore,
DOE anticipates that most battery
chargers required to use appendix Y1
will likely be introduced into the market
after this test procedure amendment is
finalized.20 Should the use of appendix
Y1 be required due to amended energy
conservation standards, battery chargers
introduced prior to this test procedure’s
finalization would likely no longer be
on the market and therefore DOE does
not anticipate manufacturers needing to
re-test those charger models. Battery
chargers introduced into the market
after this test procedure takes effect will
have the option to test those models
using the new power supply selection
criteria. Battery charger manufacturers
using the proposed selection criteria of
a power supply would not incur any
additional testing costs compared to the
current battery charger testing costs.
Any manufacturer seeking to avoid any
risk of retesting costs can choose to
comply with the new selection criteria
of a power supply earlier than required.
If a manufacturer chooses this option,
they would incur the same testing costs
when using the new selection criteria as
they currently incur and would not have
to retest those battery chargers after
appendix Y1 is required. DOE will
examine the potential retesting costs of
manufacturers continuing to test battery
charger models that do not use the new
power supply selection criteria in any
future energy conservation standard.
20 For this cost analysis DOE estimates that the
battery charger test procedures will be finalized in
2022. Similarly, amended energy conservation
standards, if justified, would be finalized in 2024
with an estimated 2026 compliance date.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
Appendix Y1—Modes of Operation
DOE has also estimated the testing
costs associated with battery charger
testing under appendix Y1. Removing
usage profiles and switching the UEC
metric to the active, standby, and off
modes multi-metric system in appendix
Y1 will cause battery charger
manufacturers to re-test their products
when DOE amends energy conservation
standards requiring manufacturers to
test their products using appendix Y1.
Under appendix Y1, if the manufacturer
has (i) already tested and certified the
battery charger basic model under the
current appendix Y and (ii) still has the
original testing data from the appendix
Y testing available for standby power
calculation, those battery charger basic
models would only need to be
recertified with the active charge energy
and standby power data analysis. For
these battery charger basic models, DOE
estimates an extra labor time of 10
minutes would be needed to reanalyze
the test results. Using the previously
calculated fully-burdened labor rate of
$46.65 per hour for an employee
conducting these tests, DOE estimates
manufacturers would incur
approximately $7.78 to analyze the test
results for these battery chargers. DOE
requires at least two units be tested per
basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates
manufacturers would incur
approximately $15.56 per battery
charger basic model for these battery
chargers.
Basic models that will either be newly
covered under the expanded scope or
that are missing the original test data
from their appendix Y testing would
need to be fully tested under appendix
Y1. DOE estimates a total testing time of
approximately 40 hours would be
needed, with 2.5 hours of technician
intervention required to test each
additional battery charger unit. Using
the previously calculated fullyburdened labor rate of $46.65 for an
electrical technician to conduct these
tests, manufacturers would incur
approximately $116.63 per unit. DOE
requires at least two units be tested per
basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates
manufacturers would incur
approximately $233.25 per battery
charger basic model to conduct the
complete testing under appendix Y1.
All Other Test Procedure Amendments
The remainder of the final rule would
add additional detail and instruction to
improve the readability of the test
procedure. The cross-reference
corrections, sub-section corrections and
reorganizations also help improve the
test procedure readability and clarity
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55117
without modifying or adding any steps
to the test method. As such, these
amendments will not result in increased
test burden.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21,
2011), requires agencies, to the extent
permitted by law, to (1) propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its
costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify); (2)
tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking
into account, among other things, and to
the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management
and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized
that such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, this final
regulatory action is consistent with
these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review.
OIRA has determined that this final
regulatory action does not constitute a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
55118
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
this action was not submitted to OIRA
for review under E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) for any final rule where the
agency was first required by law to
publish a proposed rule for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel.
The following sections detail DOE’s
FRFA for this test procedure final rule.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
DOE is amending the existing DOE
test procedures for battery chargers.
DOE shall amend test procedures with
respect to any covered product, if the
Secretary determines that amended test
procedures would more accurately
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
DOE is required to review existing
DOE test procedures for all covered
products every 7 years. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A))
3. Description and Estimate of Small
Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of battery chargers,
the Small Business Administration
(‘‘SBA’’) has set a size threshold, which
defines those entities classified as
‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of
the statute. The size standards are listed
by North American Industry
Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) code
and industry description and are
available at: www.sba.gov/document/
support-table-size-standards. Battery
charger manufacturing is classified
under NAICS 335999, ‘‘All Other
Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and
Component Manufacturing.’’ The SBA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
sets a threshold of 500 employees or
fewer for an entity to be considered as
a small business in this category.
DOE used the SBA’s small business
size standards to determine whether any
small entities would be subject to the
requirements of the proposed rule. 13
CFR part 121. DOE reviewed the test
procedures in this final rule under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and the procedures and policies
published on February 19, 2003.
model to 183 models, with an average
of approximately 25 models.
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements
Wired Battery Chargers
Wireless Battery Chargers
DOE used publicly available data
from the Wireless Power Consortium
and the aforementioned manufacturer
list generated from the CCD and
MAEDbS databases to estimate the
number of wireless battery charger
manufacturers and number of wireless
battery charger models.24 The majority
of these companies are foreign owned
and operated, as most wireless battery
charger manufacturing is done abroad.
DOE identified 13 potential domestic
small businesses that manufacture
approximately 327 wireless battery
charger models. The number of wireless
battery charger models made by each
potential small business ranges from 1
DOE assumes that each small
business’s regulatory costs would
depend on the number of unique basic
battery charger models and applications
using a battery charger that small
business manufactures. It is likely that
some unique applications using a
battery charger may use the same battery
charging component as another unique
application listed in DOE’s CCD,
meaning the cost of testing would be
double counted in this analysis.
However, DOE has conservatively
estimated the cost associated with retesting each unique application using a
battery charger. Additionally, while
some battery charger manufacturers
could partially rely on previous testing
conducted under appendix Y for their
battery chargers (as described in section
III.E of this document), DOE
conservatively estimates each small
business would need to conduct the
entire test under appendix Y1 for each
unique basic model they manufacture.
As discussed in section III.E of this
document, battery chargers would only
need to be tested under appendix Y1
when DOE sets future energy
conservation standards for battery
chargers that require appendix Y1. DOE
estimates that the total time for
conducting testing under appendix Y1
would be approximately 40 hours, and
that it would require approximately 2.5
hours of technician intervention to test
each additional battery charger unit.
Using the previously calculated fullyburdened labor rate of $46.65 for an
electrical technician to conduct these
tests,25 manufacturers would incur
approximately $116.63 of testing costs
per unit. DOE requires at least two units
be tested per basic model. Therefore,
DOE estimates manufacturers would
incur approximately $233.25 of testing
costs per battery charger basic model to
conduct the complete testing under
appendix Y1.
DOE estimates that all small
businesses combined would incur
21 See www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata. Last accessed on August 11, 2021.
22 See cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/
ApplianceSearch.aspx. Last accessed on August 11,
2021.
23 These entities consist of both battery charger
manufacturers and manufacturers of devices that
use a battery charger (e.g., toys or small electronic
devices that have a battery charger embedded in the
product).
24 See www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/
products. Last accessed on September 8, 2021.
25 Based on data from the BLS’s Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics, the mean hourly
wage for an electrical and electronic engineering
technologist and technician is $32.84 (www.bls.gov/
oes/current/oes173023.htm). Additionally, DOE
used data from BLS’s Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation to estimate the percent that wages
comprise the total compensation for an employee.
DOE estimates that wages make up 70.4 percent of
the total compensation for private industry
employees (www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/
ecec_06172021.pdf). $32.84 ÷ 0.704 = $46.65.
Wired Battery Chargers
DOE used data from DOE’s publicly
available Compliance Certification
Database (‘‘CCD’’) 21 and the California
Energy Commission’s Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System
(‘‘MAEDbS’’).22 DOE identified over
2,000 companies that submitted entries
for Federally regulated battery
chargers.23 DOE screened out
companies that do not meet the SBA
definition of a ‘‘small entity’’ or are
foreign-owned and operated. DOE
identified approximately 294 potential
small businesses that currently certify
battery chargers or applications using
battery chargers to DOE’s CCD. These
294 potential small businesses
manufacture approximately 3,456
unique basic models of battery chargers
or applications using battery chargers.
The number of battery charger models
made by each potential small business
ranges from 1 model to 263 models,
with an average of approximately 12
unique basic models.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
approximately $0.81 million 26 if these
small businesses re-tested all their
unique basic models of battery chargers
or applications using battery chargers
under appendix Y1. The potential range
of testing costs for an individual small
business would be between $233.25 (to
re-test one basic model to) and
approximately $61,340 (to re-test 263
basic models,), with an average cost of
approximately $2,799 to re-test 12 basic
models (the average number of models)
under appendix Y1. As noted in section
III.E of this document, manufacturers
could alternatively keep their original
test data and extract an active charge
energy metric for appendix Y1, which
would avoid retesting costs for newly
introduced basic models. As DOE
estimated previously, most battery
chargers will not stay on the market for
more than four years, accordingly, small
business manufacturers may be able to
avoid most retesting costs by analyzing
and keeping record of the active charge
energy data, while conducting tests
according to appendix Y.
DOE was able to find annual revenue
estimates for 289 of the 294 small
businesses DOE identified. DOE was not
able to identify any reliable annual
revenue estimates for the remaining five
small businesses. Based on the number
of unique basic models of battery
chargers or applications using battery
chargers each small business
manufactures, DOE estimates that the
$233.25 per model potential re-testing
cost would represent less than 2 percent
of annual revenue for 286 of the 289
small businesses. DOE estimates that
three small businesses could incur retesting costs that would exceed 2.0
percent of their annual revenue.27
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Wireless Battery Chargers
DOE assumed that each small
business’s regulatory costs would
depend on the number of wireless
battery charger models that each small
business manufactures. As discussed in
section III.E, wireless battery chargers
26 $233.25 (testing cost per basic model) × 3,456
(number of unique basic models manufactured by
all small businesses) = $806,112.
27 One small business manufactures eight unique
basic models, which if all basic models were retested could cost up to $3,136. This small business
has an estimated annual revenue of $52,000,
meaning testing costs could comprise up to 6.0
percent of their annual revenue. Another small
business manufactures six basic models, which if
all basic models were re-tested could cost up to
$2,352. This small business has an estimated
annual revenue of $94,000, meaning testing costs
could comprise up to 2.5 percent of their annual
revenue. The remaining small business
manufactures five basic models, which if all basic
models were re-tested could cost up to $1,960. This
small business has an estimated annual revenue of
$68,400, meaning testing costs could comprise up
to 2.9 percent of their annual revenue.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
would only need to be tested under
appendix Y1 when DOE sets future
energy conservation standards for
battery chargers. DOE estimates that a
total testing time for conducting testing
under appendix Y1 for wireless battery
chargers would take approximately 40
hours to conduct the test for one fixedlocation wireless charger unit, and 2.2
hours to conduct the no-battery mode
only test for one open-placement
wireless charger unit. These tests do not
require the wireless charger unit being
tested to be constantly monitored by a
lab technician. DOE estimates that a lab
technician would spend approximately
2.5 hours to test a fixed-location
wireless charger unit and 1 hour to test
an open-placement wireless charger
unit.
The Wireless Power Consortium
database does not identify if the
wireless charger is a fixed-location or an
open-placement wireless charger. Based
on DOE’s market research, the vast
majority of wireless chargers are openplacement wireless chargers. Therefore,
DOE is estimating the costs to small
businesses using the estimated per unit
open-placement wireless charger testing
costs.
Using the previously calculated fullyburdened labor rate of $46.65 for an
electrical technician to conduct these
tests, manufacturers would incur
approximately $47 per unit. DOE
requires at least two units be tested per
basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates
manufacturers would incur
approximately $94 to conduct the nobattery mode test for one openplacement wireless charger unit under
appendix Y1.
DOE estimates that all small
businesses combined would incur
approximately $31,000 to test all their
wireless chargers under appendix Y1.28
The potential range of testing costs for
an individual small business would be
between $94 (to test one wireless
charger model) to approximately
$17,200 (to test 183 wireless charger
models), with an average cost of
approximately $2,350 to test 25 wireless
charger models (the average number of
models) under appendix Y1.
DOE was able to find annual revenue
estimates for 12 of the 13 wireless
charger small businesses DOE
identified. DOE was not able to identify
any reliable annual revenue estimates
for the remaining wireless charger small
businesses DOE identified. Based on the
number of wireless charger models each
small business manufactures, DOE
28 $94 (testing cost per model) × 327 (number of
wireless charger models manufactured by all small
businesses) = $30,738.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55119
estimates that the $94 per model testing
cost would represent less than 2 percent
of annual revenue for all 12 of the
wireless charger small businesses that
DOE found annual revenue estimates
for.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict
With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the final rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
As previously stated in this section,
DOE is required to review existing DOE
test procedures for all covered products
every 7 years. Additionally, DOE shall
amend test procedures with respect to
any covered product, if the Secretary
determines that amended test
procedures would more accurately
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE has
determined that appendix Y1 would
more accurately produce test results to
measure the energy efficiency of battery
chargers.
While DOE recognizes that requiring
that battery charger manufacturers use
appendix Y1 to comply with future
energy conservation standards would
cause manufacturers to re-test some
battery charger models or test some
wireless chargers, for most battery
charger manufacturers it will be
inexpensive to re-test or test these
models. Additionally, some
manufacturers might be able to partially
rely on previous test data used
manufacturers tested their wired battery
chargers under appendix Y.
DOE has determined that there are no
better alternatives than this amended
test procedure in terms of meeting the
agency’s objectives to more accurately
measure energy efficiency and reducing
burden on manufacturers. Therefore,
DOE is, in this final rule, amending the
DOE test procedure for battery chargers.
Additional compliance flexibilities
may be available through other means.
EPCA provides that a manufacturer
whose annual gross revenue from all of
its operations does not exceed $8
million may apply for an exemption
from all or part of an energy
conservation standard for a period not
longer than 24 months after the effective
date of a final rule establishing the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t))
Additionally, section 504 of the
Department of Energy Organization Act,
42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for
the Secretary to adjust a rule issued
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
55120
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
under EPCA in order to prevent ‘‘special
hardship, inequity, or unfair
distribution of burdens’’ that may be
imposed on that manufacturer as a
result of such rule. Manufacturers
should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional
details.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of battery chargers
must certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy
conservation standards. To certify
compliance, manufacturers must first
obtain test data for their products
according to the DOE test procedures,
including any amendments adopted for
those test procedures. DOE has
established regulations for the
certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer
products and commercial equipment,
including battery chargers. (See
generally 10 CFR part 429.) The
collection-of-information requirement
for the certification and recordkeeping
is subject to review and approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA). This requirement has been
approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1910–1400. Public reporting
burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
DOE is not amending the certification
or reporting requirements for battery
chargers in this final rule. Instead, DOE
may consider proposals to amend the
certification requirements and reporting
for battery chargers under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification. DOE will
address changes to OMB Control
Number 1910–1400 at that time, as
necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes test
procedure amendments that it expects
will be used to develop and implement
future energy conservation standards for
battery chargers. DOE has determined
that this rule falls into a class of actions
that are categorically excluded from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, DOE has determined
that adopting test procedures for
measuring energy efficiency of
consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities
identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6.
Accordingly, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE examined this final rule
and determined that it will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the products that are the subject of this
final rule. States can petition DOE for
exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order
13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this final rule
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
regulatory action resulting in a rule that
may cause the expenditure by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section
202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency
to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits,
and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State,
local, and Tribal governments on a
proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental
mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing
any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820; also available at
www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this final rule
according to UMRA and its statement of
policy and determined that the rule
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
contains neither an intergovernmental
mandate, nor a mandate that may result
in the expenditure of $100 million or
more in any year, so these requirements
do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
final rule will not have any impact on
the autonomy or integrity of the family
as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
will not result in any takings that might
require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB
Memorandum M–19–15, Improving
Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final
%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines
%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final rule under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
by an agency that promulgated or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement on energy supply,
distribution, or use if the regulation is
implemented, and of reasonable
alternatives to the action and their
expected benefits on energy supply,
distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as
a significant energy action by the
Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is
not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The modifications to the test
procedure for battery chargers adopted
in this final rule incorporates testing
methods contained in certain sections of
IEC 62301, IEC 62040–3, and ANSI/
NEMA WD 6–2016. DOE has evaluated
these standards and is unable to
conclude whether it fully complies with
the requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in
a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review.)
DOE has consulted with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the FTC about the impact on
competition of using the methods
contained in these standards and has
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55121
received no comments objecting to their
use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule before its effective date. The
report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by
reference the following industry
standards into the new appendix Y1:
1. ANSI/NEMA WD 6–2016, ‘‘Wiring
Devices—Dimensional Specifications,’’
ANSI approved February 11, 2016.
Appendix Y1 references the input plug
requirements in Figure 1–15 and Figure
5–15 of ANSI/NEMA WD 6–2016.
ANSI/NEMA WD 6–2016 is an industry
standard that covers the plugs,
receptacles, and wall plates used in
most electrical installations in
residential, commercial, and industrial
buildings.
2. IEC 62040–3, ‘‘Uninterruptible
power systems (UPS)—Part 3: Methods
of specifying the performance and test
requirements,’’ Edition 2.0, 2011–03.
Appendix Y1 references various
sections from IEC 62040 for test
requirements of uninterruptible power
supplies. IEC 62040 is an international
test standard that specifies the
performance and test requirements
applied to movable, stationary, and
fixed electronic uninterruptible power
systems.
3. IEC 62301, ‘‘Household electrical
appliances—Measurement of standby
power, (Edition 2.0, 2011–01)’’ into the
new appendix Y1. Appendix Y1
references various sections from IEC
62301 for test conditions, standby
power measurement, and measurement
uncertainty determination. IEC 62301 is
an international test standard that
specifies methods of measurement of
electrical power consumption of
household electrical appliances in
standby mode(s) and other low power
modes, as applicable.
Copies of ANSI/NEMA WD 6–2016
can be obtained from American National
Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212)
642–4900, or by going to www.ansi.org.
Copies of IEC 62040–3 and IEC 62301
can be obtained from the International
Electrotechnical Commission at 446
Main Street, Sixteenth floor, Worcester,
MA 01608, or by going to www.iec.ch.,
and are also available from the
American National Standards Institute,
25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York,
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
55122
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
NY 10036, (212) 642–4900, or go to
webstore.ansi.org.
■
2. Section 429.134 is amended by
adding paragraph (u) to read as follows:
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
§ 429.134 Product specific enforcement
provisions.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
*
*
*
*
(u) Battery chargers—verification of
reported represented value obtained
from testing in accordance with
appendix Y1 of 10 CFR part 430 subpart
B when using an external power supply.
If the battery charger basic model
requires the use of an external power
supply (‘‘EPS’’), and the manufacturer
reported EPS is no longer available on
the market, then DOE will test the
battery charger with any compatible EPS
that is minimally compliant with DOE’s
energy conservation standards for EPSs
as prescribed in § 430.32(w) of this
subchapter and that meets the battery
charger input power criteria.
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
3. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on August 25, 2022,
Dr. Geraldine L. Richmond,
Undersecretary of Science and
Innovation, 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 August 25,
2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
§ 430.23 Test procedures for the
measurement of energy and water
consumption.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
*
PART 429—CERTIFICATION,
COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT
FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 429
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
§ 430.3
[Amended]
4. Section 430.3 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (e)(22) introductory
text, removing the text ‘‘Appendix Y’’,
and adding in its place the text
‘‘appendices Y and Y1’’;
■ b. In paragraph (p)(3) introductory
text, removing the text ‘‘appendix Y’’,
and adding in its place the text
‘‘appendices Y and Y1’’; and
■ c. In paragraph (p)(6), removing the
text ‘‘Y, Z,’’, and adding in its place the
text ‘‘Y, Y1, Z’’.
■ 5. Section 430.23 is amended by
revising paragraph (aa) to read as
follows:
■
■
*
*
*
*
*
(aa) Battery Chargers. (1) For battery
chargers subject to compliance with the
relevant standard at § 430.32(z) as that
standard appeared in the January 1,
2022, edition of 10 CFR parts 200–499:
(i) Measure the maintenance mode
power, standby power, off mode power,
battery discharge energy, 24-hour energy
consumption and measured duration of
the charge and maintenance mode test
for a battery charger other than
uninterruptible power supplies in
accordance with appendix Y to this
subpart;
(ii) Calculate the unit energy
consumption of a battery charger other
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
than uninterruptible power supplies in
accordance with appendix Y to this
subpart;
(iii) Calculate the average load
adjusted efficiency of an uninterruptible
power supply in accordance with
appendix Y to this subpart.
(2) For a battery charger subject to
compliance with any amended relevant
standard provided in § 430.32 that is
published after September 8, 2022:
(i) Measure active mode energy,
maintenance mode power, no-battery
mode power, off mode power and
battery discharge energy for a battery
charger other than uninterruptible
power supplies in accordance with
appendix Y1 to this subpart.
(ii) Calculate the standby power of a
battery charger other than
uninterruptible power supplies in
accordance with appendix Y1, to this
subpart.
(iii) Calculate the average load
adjusted efficiency of an uninterruptible
power supply in accordance with
appendix Y1 to this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Appendix Y to subpart B of part 430
is amended by:
■ a. Revising the introductory note and
introductory text;
■ b. Revising sections 2.1.0, 3.1.4.(b),
3.2.5.(f), 3.3.4, 3.3.6.(c)(5), and 3.3.8.;
■ c. Revising Table 3.3.2 to section
3.3.10.; and
■ d. Revising sections 3.3.11. through
3.3.13.
The revisions read as follows:
Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Battery
Chargers
Note: Manufacturers must use the results of
testing under appendix Y to determine
compliance with the relevant standard from
§ 430.32(z) as that standard appeared in the
January 1, 2022, edition of 10 CFR parts 200–
499. Specifically, before March 7, 2023
representations must be based upon results
generated either under this appendix or
under appendix Y as it appeared in the 10
CFR parts 200–499 edition revised as of
January 1, 2022.
For any amended standards for battery
chargers published after September 8, 2022,
manufacturers must use the results of testing
under appendix Y1 to determine compliance.
Representations related to energy
consumption must be made in accordance
with the appropriate appendix that applies
(i.e., appendix Y or appendix Y1) when
determining compliance with the relevant
standard. Manufacturers may also use
appendix Y1 to certify compliance with
amended standards, published after
September 8, 2022, prior to the applicable
compliance date for those standards.
*
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
*
*
08SER2
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
2.10. C-Rate (C) is the rate of charge or
discharge, calculated by dividing the charge
or discharge current by the nameplate battery
charge capacity of the battery. For example,
a 0.2 C-rate would result in a charge or
discharge period of 5 hours.
*
*
*
*
*
3.1.4. Verifying the UUT’s Input Voltage and
Input Frequency
*
*
*
*
*
(b) If a charger is powered by a low-voltage
DC or AC input, and the manufacturer
packages the charger with an external power
supply (‘‘EPS’’), sells, or recommends an
optional EPS capable of providing that low
voltage input, then the charger shall be tested
using that EPS and the input reference source
shall be 115 V at 60 Hz. If the EPS cannot
be operated with AC input voltage at 115 V
at 60 Hz, the charger shall not be tested.
*
*
*
*
*
3.2.5. Accessing the Battery for the Test
*
*
*
*
(3) Inability to draw current from the test
battery.
*
*
*
*
3.3.4. Preparing the Battery for Charge
Testing
Following any conditioning prior to
beginning the battery charge test (section
3.3.6 of this appendix), the test battery shall
be fully discharged to the end of discharge
voltage prescribed in Table 3.3.2 of this
appendix, or until the UUT circuitry
terminates the discharge.
*
*
*
*
*
3.3.6. Testing Charge Mode and Battery
Maintenance Mode
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(5) Connect the test battery to the battery
charger within 3 minutes of beginning
logging. For integral battery products,
connect the product to a cradle or EPS within
3 minutes of beginning logging;
*
*
(f) If any of the following conditions noted
immediately below in sections 3.2.5.(f)(1) to
3.2.5.(f)(3) are applicable, preventing the
measurement of the Battery Discharge Energy
and the Charging and Maintenance Mode
Energy, a manufacturer must submit a
petition for a test procedure waiver in
accordance with § 430.27:
(1) Inability to access the battery terminals;
(2) Access to the battery terminals destroys
charger functionality; or
*
*
*
*
*
3.3.8. Battery Discharge Energy Test
(a) If multiple batteries were charged
simultaneously, the discharge energy is the
sum of the discharge energies of all the
batteries.
(1) For a multi-port charger, batteries that
were charged in separate ports shall be
discharged independently.
(2) For a batch charger, batteries that were
charged as a group may be discharged
individually, as a group, or in sub-groups
55123
connected in series and/or parallel. The
position of each battery with respect to the
other batteries need not be maintained.
(b) During discharge, the battery voltage
and discharge current shall be sampled and
recorded at least once per minute. The values
recorded may be average or instantaneous
values.
(c) For this test, the technician shall follow
these steps:
(1) Ensure that the test battery has been
charged by the UUT and rested according to
sections 3.3.6. and 3.3.7 of this appendix.
(2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant
discharge rate and the end-of-discharge
voltage in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the
relevant battery chemistry.
(3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer
and begin recording the voltage, current, and
wattage, if available from the battery
analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage
is reached or the UUT circuitry terminates
the discharge, the test battery shall be
returned to an open-circuit condition. If
current continues to be drawn from the test
battery after the end-of-discharge condition is
first reached, this additional energy is not to
be counted in the battery discharge energy.
(d) If not available from the battery
analyzer, the battery discharge energy (in
watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the
voltage (in volts), current (in amperes), and
sample period (in hours) for each sample,
and then summing over all sample periods
until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 3.3.2—REQUIRED BATTERY DISCHARGE RATES AND END-OF-DISCHARGE BATTERY VOLTAGES
Discharge rate
(C)
Battery chemistry
Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) ............................................................................................................
Flooded Lead Acid .......................................................................................................................................
Nickel Cadmium (NiCd) ...............................................................................................................................
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) .......................................................................................................................
Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) .......................................................................................................................................
Lithium-Ion Polymer .....................................................................................................................................
Lithium Iron Phosphate ................................................................................................................................
Rechargeable Alkaline .................................................................................................................................
Silver Zinc ....................................................................................................................................................
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
End-of-discharge
voltage *
(volts per cell)
1.75
1.70
1.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
0.9
1.2
* If the presence of protective circuitry prevents the battery cells from being discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage specified, then discharge battery cells to the lowest possible voltage permitted by the protective circuitry.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
3.3.11. Standby Mode Energy Consumption
Measurement
The standby mode measurement depends
on the configuration of the battery charger, as
follows:
(a) Conduct a measurement of standby
power consumption while the battery charger
is connected to the power source. Disconnect
the battery from the charger, allow the
charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, and
record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as
the time series integral of the power
consumed over a 10-minute test period,
divided by the period of measurement. If the
battery charger has manual on-off switches,
all must be turned on for the duration of the
standby mode test.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
(b) Standby mode may also apply to
products with integral batteries, as follows:
(1) If the product uses a cradle and/or
adapter for power conversion and charging,
then ‘‘disconnecting the battery from the
charger’’ will require disconnection of the
end-use product, which contains the
batteries. The other enclosures of the battery
charging system will remain connected to the
main electricity supply, and standby mode
power consumption will equal that of the
cradle and/or adapter alone.
(2) If the product is powered through a
detachable AC power cord and contains
integrated power conversion and charging
circuitry, then only the cord will remain
connected to mains, and standby mode
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
power consumption will equal that of the AC
power cord (i.e., zero watts).
(3) If the product contains integrated power
conversion and charging circuitry but is
powered through a non-detachable AC power
cord or plug blades, then no part of the
system will remain connected to mains, and
standby mode measurement is not
applicable.
3.3.12. Off Mode Energy Consumption
Measurement
The off mode measurement depends on the
configuration of the battery charger, as
follows:
(a) If the battery charger has manual on-off
switches, record a measurement of off mode
energy consumption while the battery
charger is connected to the power source.
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
55124
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Remove the battery from the charger, allow
the charger to operate for at least 30 minutes,
and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed
as the time series integral of the power
consumed over a 10-minute test period,
divided by the period of measurement, with
all manual on-off switches turned off. If the
battery charger does not have manual on-off
switches, record that the off mode
measurement is not applicable to this
product.
(b) Off mode may also apply to products
with integral batteries, as follows:
(1) If the product uses a cradle and/or
adapter for power conversion and charging,
then ‘‘disconnecting the battery from the
charger’’ will require disconnection of the
end-use product, which contains the
batteries. The other enclosures of the battery
charging system will remain connected to the
main electricity supply, and off mode power
consumption will equal that of the cradle
and/or adapter alone.
(2) If the product is powered through a
detachable AC power cord and contains
integrated power conversion and charging
circuitry, then only the cord will remain
connected to mains, and off mode power
consumption will equal that of the AC power
cord (i.e., zero watts).
(3) If the product contains integrated power
conversion and charging circuitry but is
powered through a non-detachable AC power
cord or plug blades, then no part of the
Where:
E24 = 24-hour energy as determined in
section 3.3.10 of this appendix,
Measured Ebatt = Measured battery energy as
determined in section 3.3.8. of this
appendix,
Pm = Maintenance mode power as
determined in section 3.3.9. of this
appendix,
Psb = Standby mode power as determined in
section 3.3.11. of this appendix,
Poff = Off mode power as determined in
section 3.3.12. of this appendix,
system will remain connected to mains, and
off mode measurement is not applicable.
3.3.13. Unit Energy Consumption Calculation
Unit energy consumption (UEC) shall be
calculated for a battery charger using one of
the two equations (equation (i) or equation
(ii)) listed in this section. If a battery charger
is tested and its charge duration as
determined in section 3.3.2 of this appendix
minus 5 hours is greater than the threshold
charge time listed in Table 3.3.3 of this
appendix (i.e. (tcd ¥ 5) * n > ta&m), equation
(ii) shall be used to calculate UEC; otherwise
a battery charger’s UEC shall be calculated
using equation (i).
tcd = Charge test duration as determined in
section 3.3.2. of this appendix, and
ta&m, n, tsb, and toff, are constants used
depending upon a device’s product class
and found in Table 3.3.3:
TABLE 3.3.3—BATTERY CHARGER USAGE PROFILES
Product class
Number
Description
Measured battery
energy
(measured Ebatt) **
1 ..........
Low-Energy ..........
≤5 Wh ...................
2 ..........
Low-Energy, LowVoltage.
Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage.
Low-Energy, HighVoltage.
Medium-Energy,
Low-Voltage.
Medium-Energy,
High-Voltage.
High-Energy ..........
<100 Wh ...............
3 ..........
4 ..........
5 ..........
6 ..........
7 ..........
100–3000 Wh .......
>3000 Wh .............
Special
characteristic
or highest nameplate battery
voltage
Active +
maintenance
(ta&m)
Standby
(tsb)
Off
(toff)
Charges
(n)
Threshold
charge time *
Number
per day
Hours
Inductive Connection ****.
<4 V ......................
20.66
0.10
0.00
0.15
137.73
7.82
5.29
0.00
0.54
14.48
4–10 V ..................
6.42
0.30
0.00
0.10
64.20
>10 V ....................
16.84
0.91
0.00
0.50
33.68
<20 V ....................
6.52
1.16
0.00
0.11
59.27
≥20 V ....................
17.15
6.85
0.00
0.34
50.44
...............................
8.14
7.30
0.00
0.32
25.44
* If the duration of the charge test (minus 5 hours) as determined in section 3.3.2. of this appendix exceeds the threshold charge time, use
equation (ii) to calculate UEC otherwise use equation (i).
** Measured Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in section 3.3.8.
*** If the total time does not sum to 24 hours per day, the remaining time is allocated to unplugged time, which means there is 0 power consumption and no changes to the UEC calculation needed.
**** Fixed-location inductive wireless charger only.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:05 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
ER08SE22.002</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Hours per day ***
*
*
*
*
*
7. Appendix Y1 to subpart B of part
430 is added to read as follows:
■
Appendix Y1 to Subpart B of Part 430—
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Battery
Chargers
Note: Manufacturers must use the results of
testing under this appendix Y1 to determine
compliance with any amended standards for
battery chargers provided in § 430.32 that are
published after September 8, 2022.
Representations related to energy or water
consumption must be made in accordance
with the appropriate appendix that applies
(i.e., appendix Y or appendix Y1) when
determining compliance with the relevant
standard. Manufacturers may also use
appendix Y1 to certify compliance with
amended standards, published after
September 8, 2022, prior to the applicable
compliance date for those standards.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
1. Scope
This appendix provides the test
requirements used to measure the energy
consumption of battery chargers, including
fixed-location wireless chargers designed for
charging batteries with less than 100 watthour battery energy and open-placement
wireless chargers, operating at either DC or
United States AC line voltage (nominally
115V at 60Hz). This appendix also provides
the test requirements used to measure the
energy efficiency of uninterruptible power
supplies as defined in section 2 of this
appendix that utilize the standardized
National Electrical Manufacturer Association
(NEMA) plug, 1–15P or 5–15P, as specified
in ANSI/NEMA WD 6–2016 (incorporated by
reference, see § 430.3) and have an AC
output. This appendix does not provide a
method for testing back-up battery chargers.
2. Definitions
The following definitions are for the
purposes of explaining the terminology
associated with the test method for
measuring battery charger energy
consumption.1
1 For clarity on any other terminology used
in the test method, please refer to IEEE 1515–
2000, (Sources for information and guidance,
see § 430.4).
2.1. Active mode or charge mode is the
state in which the battery charger system is
connected to the main electricity supply, and
the battery charger is delivering current,
equalizing the cells, and performing other
one-time or limited-time functions in order to
bring the battery to a fully charged state.
2.2. Active power or real power (P) means
the average power consumed by a unit. For
a two terminal device with current and
voltage waveforms i(t) and v(t), which are
periodic with period T, the real or active
power P is:
P
= T1IT
v(t)i(t)dt
O
2.3. Ambient temperature is the
temperature of the ambient air immediately
surrounding the unit under test.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
2.4. Apparent power (S) is the product of
root-mean-square (RMS) voltage and RMS
current in volt-amperes (VA).
2.5. Batch charger is a battery charger that
charges two or more identical batteries
simultaneously in a series, parallel, seriesparallel, or parallel-series configuration. A
batch charger does not have separate voltage
or current regulation, nor does it have any
separate indicators for each battery in the
batch. When testing a batch charger, the term
‘‘battery’’ is understood to mean, collectively,
all the batteries in the batch that are charged
together. A charger can be both a batch
charger and a multi-port charger or multivoltage charger.
2.6. Battery or battery pack is an assembly
of one or more rechargeable cells and any
integral protective circuitry intended to
provide electrical energy to a consumer
product, and may be in one of the following
forms:
(a) Detachable battery (a battery that is
contained in a separate enclosure from the
consumer product and is intended to be
removed or disconnected from the consumer
product for recharging); or
(b) Integral battery (a battery that is
contained within the consumer product and
is not removed from the consumer product
for charging purposes). The word ‘‘intended’’
in this context refers to whether a battery has
been designed in such a way as to permit its
removal or disconnection from its associated
consumer product.
2.7. Battery energy is the energy, in watthours, delivered by the battery under the
specified discharge conditions in the test
procedure.
2.8. Battery maintenance mode or
maintenance mode, is a subset of standby
mode in which the battery charger is
connected to the main electricity supply and
the battery is fully charged, but is still
connected to the charger.
2.9. Battery rest period is a period of time
between discharge and charge or between
charge and discharge, during which the
battery is resting in an open-circuit state in
ambient air.
2.10. C-Rate (C) is the rate of charge or
discharge, calculated by dividing the charge
or discharge current by the nameplate battery
charge capacity of the battery. For example,
a 0.2 C-rate would result in a charge or
discharge period of 5 hours.
2.11. Cradle is an electrical interface
between an integral battery product and the
rest of the battery charger designed to hold
the product between uses.
2.12. Energy storage system is a system
consisting of single or multiple devices
designed to provide power to the UPS
inverter circuitry.
2.13. Equalization is a process whereby a
battery is overcharged, beyond what would
be considered ‘‘normal’’ charge return, so
that cells can be balanced, electrolyte mixed,
and plate sulfation removed.
2.14. Instructions or manufacturer’s
instructions means the documentation
packaged with a product in printed or
electronic form and any information about
the product listed on a website maintained
by the manufacturer and accessible by the
general public at the time of the test. It also
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
55125
includes any information on the packaging or
on the product itself. ‘‘Instructions’’ also
includes any service manuals or data sheets
that the manufacturer offers to independent
service technicians, whether printed or in
electronic form.
2.15. Measured charge capacity of a battery
is the product of the discharge current in
amperes and the time in decimal hours
required to reach the specified end-ofdischarge voltage.
2.16. Manual on-off switch is a switch
activated by the user to control power
reaching the battery charger. This term does
not apply to any mechanical, optical, or
electronic switches that automatically
disconnect mains power from the battery
charger when a battery is removed from a
cradle or charging base, or for products with
non-detachable batteries that control power
to the product itself.
2.17. Multi-port charger means a battery
charger that charges two or more batteries
(which may be identical or different)
simultaneously. The batteries are not
connected in series or in parallel but with
each port having separate voltage and/or
current regulation. If the charger has status
indicators, each port has its own indicator(s).
A charger can be both a batch charger and a
multi-port charger if it is capable of charging
two or more batches of batteries
simultaneously and each batch has separate
regulation and/or indicator(s).
2.18. Multi-voltage charger is a battery
charger that, by design, can charge a variety
of batteries (or batches of batteries, if also a
batch charger) that are of different nameplate
battery voltages. A multi-voltage charger can
also be a multi-port charger if it can charge
two or more batteries simultaneously with
independent voltages and/or current
regulation.
2.19. Normal mode is a mode of operation
for a UPS in which:
(a) The AC input supply is within required
tolerances and supplies the UPS,
(b) The energy storage system is being
maintained at full charge or is under
recharge, and
(c) The load connected to the UPS is
within the UPS’s specified power rating.
2.20. Off mode is the condition, applicable
only to units with manual on-off switches, in
which the battery charger:
(a) Is connected to the main electricity
supply;
(b) Is not connected to the battery; and
(c) All manual on-off switches are turned
off.
2.21. Nameplate battery voltage is
specified by the battery manufacturer and
typically printed on the label of the battery
itself. If there are multiple batteries that are
connected in series, the nameplate battery
voltage of the batteries is the total voltage of
the series configuration—that is, the
nameplate voltage of each battery multiplied
by the number of batteries connected in
series. Connecting multiple batteries in
parallel does not affect the nameplate battery
voltage.
2.22. Nameplate battery charge capacity is
the capacity, claimed by the battery
manufacturer on a label or in instructions,
that the battery can store, usually given in
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
ER08SE22.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
55126
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
ampere-hours (Ah) or milliampere-hours
(mAh) and typically printed on the label of
the battery itself. If there are multiple
batteries that are connected in parallel, the
nameplate battery charge capacity of the
batteries is the total charge capacity of the
parallel configuration, that is, the nameplate
charge capacity of each battery multiplied by
the number of batteries connected in parallel.
Connecting multiple batteries in series does
not affect the nameplate charge capacity.
2.23. Nameplate battery energy capacity
means the product (in watts-hours (Wh)) of
the nameplate battery voltage and the
nameplate battery charge capacity.
2.24. No-battery mode is a subset of
standby mode and means the condition in
which:
(a) The battery charger is connected to the
main electricity supply;
(b) The battery is not connected to the
charger; and
(c) For battery chargers with manual on-off
switches, all such switches are turned on.
2.25. Reference test load is a load or a
condition with a power factor of greater than
0.99 in which the AC output socket of the
UPS delivers the active power (W) for which
the UPS is rated.
2.26. Standby mode means the condition in
which the battery charge is either in
maintenance mode or no battery mode as
defined in this appendix.
2.27. Total harmonic distortion (THD),
expressed as a percent, is the root mean
square (RMS) value of an AC signal after the
fundamental component is removed and
interharmonic components are ignored,
divided by the RMS value of the fundamental
component.
2.28. Uninterruptible power supply or UPS
means a battery charger consisting of a
combination of convertors, switches and
energy storage devices (such as batteries),
constituting a power system for maintaining
continuity of load power in case of input
power failure.
2.28.1. Voltage and frequency dependent
UPS or VFD UPS means a UPS that produces
an AC output where the output voltage and
frequency are dependent on the input voltage
and frequency. This UPS architecture does
not provide corrective functions like those in
voltage independent and voltage and
frequency independent systems.
Note to 2.28.1: VFD input dependency may
be verified by performing the AC input
failure test in Section 6.2.2.7 of IEC 62040–
3 Ed. 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 430.3) and observing that, at a minimum,
the UPS switches from normal mode of
operation to battery power while the input is
interrupted.
2.28.2. Voltage and frequency independent
UPS, or VFI UPS, means a UPS where the
device remains in normal mode producing an
AC output voltage and frequency that is
independent of input voltage and frequency
variations and protects the load against
adverse effects from such variations without
depleting the stored energy source.
Note to 2.28.2: VFI input dependency may
be verified by performing the steady state
input voltage tolerance test and the input
frequency tolerance test in Sections 6.4.1.1
and 6.4.1.2 of IEC 62040–3 Ed. 2.0
respectively, and observing that, at a
minimum, the UPS produces an output
voltage and frequency within the specified
output range when the input voltage is varied
by ±10 percent of the rated input voltage and
the input frequency is varied by ±2 percent
of the rated input frequency.
2.28.3. Voltage independent UPS or VI UPS
means a UPS that produces an AC output
within a specific tolerance band that is
independent of under-voltage or over-voltage
variations in the input voltage without
depleting the stored energy source. The
output frequency of a VI UPS is dependent
on the input frequency, similar to a voltage
and frequency dependent system.
Note to 2.28.3: VI input dependency may
be verified by performing the steady state
input voltage tolerance test in Section 6.4.1.1
of IEC 62040–3 Ed. 2.0 and ensuring that the
UPS remains in normal mode with the output
voltage within the specified output range
when the input voltage is varied by ±10% of
the rated input voltage.
2.29. Unit under test (UUT) in this
appendix refers to the combination of the
battery charger and battery being tested.
2.30. Wireless charger is a battery charger
that can charge batteries inductively.
2.30.1. Fixed-location wireless charger is
an inductive wireless battery charger that
incorporates a physical receiver locating
feature (e.g., by physical peg, cradle, locking
mechanism, magnet, etc.) to repeatably align
or orient the position of the receiver with
respect to the transmitter.
2.30.2. Open-placement wireless charger is
an inductive wireless charger that does not
incorporate a physical receiver locating
feature (e.g., by a physical peg, cradle,
locking mechanism, magnet etc.) to
repeatably align or orient the position of the
receiver with respect to the transmitter.
3. Testing Requirements for all Battery
Chargers Other Than Uninterruptible Power
Supplies and Open-Placement Wireless
Chargers
3.1. Standard Test Conditions
3.1.1. General
The values that may be measured or
calculated during the conduct of this test
procedure have been summarized for easy
reference in Table 3.1.1 of this appendix.
TABLE 3.1.1—LIST OF MEASURED OR CALCULATED VALUES
Name of measured or calculated value
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Duration of the Charge and Maintenance Modes test ............................................................................................................
Battery Discharge Energy (Ebatt) .............................................................................................................................................
Initial time and power (W) of the input current of connected battery ......................................................................................
Active and Maintenance Modes Energy Consumption ...........................................................................................................
Maintenance Mode Power (Pm) ...............................................................................................................................................
Active mode Energy Consumption (Ea) ...................................................................................................................................
No-Battery Mode Power (Pnb) .................................................................................................................................................
Off Mode Power (Poff) ..............................................................................................................................................................
Standby Mode Power (Psb) .....................................................................................................................................................
3.1.2. Verifying Accuracy and Precision of
Measuring Equipment
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Reference
Any power measurement equipment
utilized for testing must conform to the
uncertainty and resolution requirements
outlined in Section 4, ‘‘General conditions
for measurement’’, as well as Annexes B,
‘‘Notes on the measurement of low-power
modes’’, and D, ‘‘Determination of
uncertainty of measurement’’, of IEC 62301
(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3).
with an air speed immediately surrounding
the UUT of ≤0.5 m/s. The ambient
temperature shall be maintained at 20 °C ±
5 °C throughout the test. There shall be no
intentional cooling of the UUT such as by use
of separately powered fans, air conditioners,
or heat sinks. The UUT shall be conditioned,
rested, and tested on a thermally nonconductive surface. When not undergoing
active testing, batteries shall be stored at
20 °C ± 5 °C.
3.1.3. Setting Up the Test Room
All tests, battery conditioning, and battery
rest periods shall be carried out in a room
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
3.3.2.
3.3.8.
3.3.6.
3.3.6.
3.3.9.
3.3.10.
3.3.11.
3.3.12.
3.3.13.
3.1.4. Verifying the UUT’s Input Voltage and
Input Frequency
(a) If the UUT is intended for operation on
AC line-voltage input in the United States, it
shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. If the UUT
is intended for operation on AC line-voltage
input but cannot be operated at 115 V at 60
Hz, it shall not be tested.
(b) If a battery charger is powered by a lowvoltage DC or AC input and the manufacturer
packages the battery charger with an external
power supply (‘‘EPS’’), test the battery
charger using the packaged EPS; if the battery
charger does not include a pre-packaged EPS,
then test the battery charger with an EPS sold
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
and recommended by the manufacturer; if
the manufacturer does not recommend an
EPS that it sells, test the battery charger with
an EPS that the manufacturer recommends
for use in the manufacturer materials. The
input reference source shall be 115 V at 60
Hz. If the EPS cannot be operated with AC
input voltage at 115 V at 60 Hz, the charger
shall not be tested.
(c) If a battery charger is designed for
operation only on DC input voltage and if the
provisions of section 3.1.4.(b) of this
appendix do not apply, test the battery
charger with an external power supply that
minimally complies with the applicable
energy conservation standard and meets the
external power supply parameters specified
by the battery charger manufacturer. The
input voltage shall be within ±1 percent of
the battery charger manufacturer specified
voltage.
(d) If the input voltage is AC, the input
frequency shall be within ±1 percent of the
specified frequency. The THD of the input
voltage shall be ≤2 percent, up to and
including the 13th harmonic. The crest factor
of the input voltage shall be between 1.34
and 1.49.
(e) If the input voltage is DC, the AC ripple
voltage (RMS) shall be:
(1) ≤0.2 V for DC voltages up to 10 V; or
(2) ≤2 percent of the DC voltage for DC
voltages over 10 V.
3.2. Unit Under Test Setup Requirements
3.2.1. General Setup
(a) The battery charger system shall be
prepared and set up in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions, except where
those instructions conflict with the
requirements of this test procedure. If no
instructions are given, then factory or
‘‘default’’ settings shall be used, or where
there are no indications of such settings, the
UUT shall be tested in the condition as it
would be supplied to an end user.
(b) If the battery charger has user controls
to select from two or more charge rates (such
as regular or fast charge) or different charge
currents, the test shall be conducted at the
fastest charge rate that is recommended by
the manufacturer for everyday use, or, failing
any explicit recommendation, the factorydefault charge rate. If the charger has user
controls for selecting special charge cycles
that are recommended only for occasional
use to preserve battery health, such as
equalization charge, removing memory, or
battery conditioning, these modes are not
required to be tested. The settings of the
controls shall be listed in the report for each
test.
3.2.2. Selection and Treatment of the Battery
Charger
The UUT, including the battery charger
and its associated battery, shall be new
products of the type and condition that
would be sold to a customer. If the battery
is lead-acid chemistry and the battery is to
be stored for more than 24 hours between its
initial acquisition and testing, the battery
shall be charged before such storage.
3.2.3. Selection of Batteries To Use for
Testing
(a) For chargers with integral batteries, the
battery packaged with the charger shall be
used for testing. For chargers with detachable
batteries, the battery or batteries to be used
for testing will vary depending on whether
there are any batteries packaged with the
battery charger.
(1) If batteries are packaged with the
charger, batteries for testing shall be selected
from the batteries packaged with the battery
charger, according to the procedure in
section 3.2.3(b) of this appendix.
(2) If no batteries are packaged with the
charger, but the instructions specify or
recommend batteries for use with the
charger, batteries for testing shall be selected
from those recommended or specified in the
55127
instructions, according to the procedure in
section 3.2.3(b) of this appendix.
(3) If no batteries are packaged with the
charger and the instructions do not specify or
recommend batteries for use with the
charger, batteries for testing shall be selected
from any that are suitable for use with the
charger, according to the procedure in
section 3.2.3(b) of this appendix.
(b)(1) From the detachable batteries
specified in section 3.2.3.(a) of this appendix,
use Table 3.2.1 of this appendix to select the
batteries to be used for testing, depending on
the type of battery charger being tested. The
battery charger types represented by the rows
in the table are mutually exclusive. Find the
single applicable row for the UUT, and test
according to those requirements. Select only
the single battery configuration specified for
the battery charger type in Table 3.2.1 of this
section.
(2) If the battery selection criteria specified
in Table 3.2.1 of this appendix results in two
or more batteries or configurations of
batteries of different chemistries, but with
equal voltage and capacity ratings, determine
the maintenance mode power, as specified in
section 3.3.9 of this appendix, for each of the
batteries or configurations of batteries, and
select for testing the battery or configuration
of batteries with the highest maintenance
mode power.
(c) A charger is considered as:
(1) Single-capacity if all associated
batteries have the same nameplate battery
charge capacity (see definition) and, if it is
a batch charger, all configurations of the
batteries have the same nameplate battery
charge capacity.
(2) Multi-capacity if there are associated
batteries or configurations of batteries that
have different nameplate battery charge
capacities.
(d) The selected battery or batteries will be
referred to as the ‘‘test battery’’ and will be
used through the remainder of this test
procedure.
TABLE 3.2.1—BATTERY SELECTION FOR TESTING
Type of charger
Multi-voltage
Multi-port
Multi-capacity
Battery selection
(from all configurations of all associated batteries)
No ..........................
No ..........................
No ..........................
No ..........................
No ..........................
Yes ........................
No ..........................
Yes ........................
Yes or No ..............
Yes .........................
No ..........................
No ..........................
Any associated battery.
Highest charge capacity battery.
Use all ports. Use the maximum number of identical batteries with the highest
nameplate battery charge capacity that the charger can accommodate.
Highest voltage battery.
Yes .........................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Tests to perform
Yes to either or both
3.2.4. Limiting Other Non-Battery-Charger
Functions
(a) If the battery charger or product
containing the battery charger does not have
any additional functions unrelated to battery
charging, this section may be skipped.
(b) Any optional functions controlled by
the user and not associated with the battery
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
Use all ports. Use the battery or configuration of batteries with the highest individual voltage. If multiple batteries meet this criteria, then use the battery
or configuration of batteries with the highest total nameplate battery charge
capacity at the highest individual voltage.
charging process (e.g., the answering
machine in a cordless telephone charging
base) shall be switched off. If it is not
possible to switch such functions off, they
shall be set to their lowest power-consuming
mode during the test.
(c) If the battery charger takes any
physically separate connectors or cables not
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
required for battery charging but associated
with its other functionality (such as phone
lines, serial or USB connections, Ethernet,
cable TV lines, etc.), these connectors or
cables shall be left disconnected during the
testing.
(d) Any manual on-off switches
specifically associated with the battery
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
55128
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
charging process shall be switched on for the
duration of the charge, maintenance, and nobattery mode tests, and switched off for the
off mode test.
3.2.5. Accessing the Battery for the Test
(a) The technician may need to
disassemble the end-use product or battery
charger to gain access to the battery terminals
for the Battery Discharge Energy Test in
section 3.3.8 of this appendix. If the battery
terminals are not clearly labeled, the
technician shall use a voltmeter to identify
the positive and negative terminals. These
terminals will be the ones that give the
largest voltage difference and are able to
deliver significant current (0.2 C or 1/hr) into
a load.
(b) All conductors used for contacting the
battery must be cleaned and burnished prior
to connecting in order to decrease voltage
drops and achieve consistent results.
(c) Manufacturer’s instructions for
disassembly shall be followed, except those
instructions that:
(1) Lead to any permanent alteration of the
battery charger circuitry or function;
(2) Could alter the energy consumption of
the battery charger compared to that
experienced by a user during typical use, e.g.,
due to changes in the airflow through the
enclosure of the UUT; or
(3) Conflict requirements of this test
procedure.
(d) Care shall be taken by the technician
during disassembly to follow appropriate
safety precautions. If the functionality of the
device or its safety features is compromised,
the product shall be discarded after testing.
(e) Some products may include protective
circuitry between the battery cells and the
remainder of the device. If the manufacturer
provides a description for accessing the
connections at the output of the protective
circuitry, these connections shall be used to
discharge the battery and measure the
discharge energy. The energy consumed by
the protective circuitry during discharge
shall not be measured or credited as battery
energy.
(f) If any of the following conditions
specified in sections 3.2.5.(f)(1) to 3.2.5.(f)(3)
of this appendix are applicable, preventing
the measurement of the Battery Discharge
Energy and the Charging and Maintenance
Mode Energy, a manufacturer must submit a
petition for a test procedure waiver in
accordance with § 430.27:
(1) Inability to access the battery terminals;
(2) Access to the battery terminals destroys
charger functionality; or
(3) Inability to draw current from the test
battery.
3.2.6. Determining Charge Capacity for
Batteries With No Rating
(a) If there is no rating for the battery
charge capacity on the battery or in the
instructions, then the technician shall
determine a discharge current that meets the
following requirements. The battery shall be
fully charged and then discharged at this
constant-current rate until it reaches the endof-discharge voltage specified in Table 3.3.2
of this appendix. The discharge time must be
not less than 4.5 hours nor more than 5
hours. In addition, the discharge test (section
3.3.8 of this appendix) (which may not be
starting with a fully-charged battery) shall
reach the end-of-discharge voltage within 5
hours. The same discharge current shall be
used for both the preparations step (section
3.3.4 of this appendix) and the discharge test
(section 3.3.8 of this appendix). The test
report shall include the discharge current
used and the resulting discharge times for
both a fully-charged battery and for the
discharge test.
(b) For this section, the battery is
considered as ‘‘fully charged’’ when either: it
has been charged by the UUT until an
indicator on the UUT shows that the charge
is complete; or it has been charged by a
battery analyzer at a current not greater than
the discharge current until the battery
analyzer indicates that the battery is fully
charged.
(c) When there is no capacity rating, a
suitable discharge current must generally be
determined by trial and error. Since the
conditioning step does not require constantcurrent discharges, the trials themselves may
also be counted as part of battery
conditioning.
3.3. Test Measurement
The test sequence to measure the battery
charger energy consumption is summarized
in Table 3.3.1 of this appendix, and
explained in detail in this appendix.
Measurements shall be made under test
conditions and with the equipment specified
in sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this appendix.
TABLE 3.3.1—TEST SEQUENCE
Equipment needed
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
1. Record general data on UUT; Section
3.3.1.
2. Determine Active and Maintenance
Modes Test duration; Section 3.3.2.
3. Battery conditioning; Section 3.3.3 ........
4. Prepare battery for Active Mode test;
Section 3.3.4.
5. Battery rest period; Section 3.3.5 ..........
6. Conduct Active and Maintenance
Modes Test; Section 3.3.6.
7. Battery Rest Period; Section 3.3.7 ........
8. Battery Discharge Energy Test; Section
3.3.8.
9. Determine the Maintenance Mode
Power; Section 3.3.9.
10. Determine Active Charge Energy; Section 3.3.10.
11. Conduct No-Battery Mode Test; Section 3.3.11.
12. Conduct Off Mode Test; Section
3.3.12.
13. Calculating Standby Mode Power;
Section 3.3.13.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
AC power
meter
Thermometer
(for flooded
lead-acid
battery
chargers only)
Data taken?
Test battery
Charger
Battery
analyzer or
constantcurrent load
Yes ..............
X
X
........................
........................
........................
No ...............
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
No ...............
No ...............
X
X
X
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
No ................
Yes ..............
X
X
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
X
X
........................
No ................
Yes ..............
X
X
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
X
........................
Yes ..............
X
X
........................
X
........................
Yes ..............
X
X
........................
X
........................
Yes ..............
........................
X
........................
X
........................
Yes ..............
........................
X
........................
X
........................
Yes ..............
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Step/description
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
3.3.2. Determining the Duration of the Charge
and Maintenance Modes Test
(a) The charge and maintenance modes
test, described in detail in section 3.3.6 of
this appendix, shall be 24 hours in length or
longer, as determined by the items in
sections 3.3.2.(a)(1) to 3.3.2.(a)(3) of this
appendix. Proceed in order until a test
duration is determined. In case when the
battery charger does not enter its true battery
maintenance mode, the test shall continue
until 5 hours after the true battery
maintenance mode has been captured.
(1) If the battery charger has an indicator
to show that the battery is fully charged, that
indicator shall be used as follows: if the
indicator shows that the battery is charged
after 19 hours of charging, the test shall be
.
Duration
(b) If none of section 3.3.2.(a) applies, the
duration of the test shall be 24 hours.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
3.3.3. Battery Conditioning
(a) No conditioning is to be done on
lithium-ion batteries. The test technician
shall proceed directly to battery preparation,
section 3.3.4 of this appendix, when testing
chargers for these batteries.
(b) Products with integral batteries will
have to be disassembled per the instructions
in section 3.2.5 of this appendix, and the
battery disconnected from the charger for
discharging.
(c) Batteries of other chemistries that have
not been previously cycled are to be
conditioned by performing two charges and
two discharges, followed by a charge, as
sections 3.3.3.(c)(1) to 3.3.3.(c)(5) of this
appendix. No data need be recorded during
battery conditioning.
(1) The test battery shall be fully charged
for the duration specified in section 3.3.2 of
this appendix or longer using the UUT.
(2) The test battery shall then be fully
discharged using either:
(i) A battery analyzer at a rate not to exceed
1 C, until its average cell voltage under load
reaches the end-of-discharge voltage
specified in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for
the relevant battery chemistry; or
(ii) The UUT, until the UUT ceases
operation due to low battery voltage.
(3) The test battery shall again be fully
charged per step in section 3.3.3(c)(1) of this
appendix.
(4) The test battery shall again be fully
discharged per step in section 3.3.3(c)(2) of
this appendix.
(5) The test battery shall be again fully
charged per step in section 3.3.3(c)(1) of this
appendix.
(d) Batteries of chemistries, other than
lithium-ion, that are known to have been
through at least two previous full charge/
discharge cycles shall only be charged once
per step in section 3.3.3(c)(5) of this
appendix.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
= 1.4 *
RatedChargeCapacity(Ah)
Ch arge Current (A)
3.3.4. Preparing the Battery for Charge
Testing
Following any conditioning prior to
beginning the battery charge test (section
3.3.6 of this appendix), the test battery shall
be fully discharged to the end of discharge
voltage prescribed in Table 3.3.2 of this
appendix, or until the UUT circuitry
terminates the discharge.
3.3.5. Resting the Battery
The test battery shall be rested between
preparation and the battery charge test. The
rest period shall be at least one hour and not
exceed 24 hours. For batteries with flooded
cells, the electrolyte temperature shall be less
than 30 °C before charging, even if the rest
period must be extended longer than 24
hours.
3.3.6. Testing Active Charge Mode and
Battery Maintenance Mode
(a) The Active Charge and Battery
Maintenance Modes test measures energy
consumed during charge mode and some
time spent in the maintenance mode of the
UUT. Functions required for battery
conditioning that happen only with some
user-selected switch or other control shall
not be included in this measurement. (The
technician shall manually turn off any
battery conditioning cycle or setting.)
Regularly occurring battery conditioning or
maintenance functions that are not controlled
by the user will, by default, be incorporated
into this measurement.
(b) During the measurement period, input
power values to the UUT shall be recorded
at least once every minute.
(1) If possible, the technician shall set the
data logging system to record the average
power during the sample interval. The total
energy is computed as the sum of power
samples (in watts) multiplied by the sample
interval (in hours).
(2) If this setting is not possible, then the
power analyzer shall be set to integrate or
accumulate the input power over the
measurement period and this result shall be
used as the total energy.
(c) The technician shall follow these steps:
PO 00000
terminated at 24 hours. Conversely, if the
full-charge indication is not yet present after
19 hours of charging, the test shall continue
until 5 hours after the indication is present.
(2) If there is no indicator, but the
manufacturer’s instructions indicate that
charging this battery or this capacity of
battery should be complete within 19 hours,
the test shall be for 24 hours. If the
instructions indicate that charging may take
longer than 19 hours, the test shall be run for
the longest estimated charge time plus 5
hours.
(3) If there is no indicator and no time
estimate in the instructions, but the charging
current is stated on the charger or in the
instructions, calculate the test duration as the
longer of 24 hours or:
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
+ Sh
(1) Ensure that the user-controllable device
functionality not associated with battery
charging and any battery conditioning cycle
or setting are turned off, as instructed in
section 3.2.4 of this appendix;
(2) Ensure that the test battery used in this
test has been conditioned, prepared,
discharged, and rested as described in
sections 3.3.3. through 3.3.5. of this
appendix;
(3) Connect the data logging equipment to
the battery charger;
(4) Record the start time of the
measurement period, and begin logging the
input power;
(5) Connect the test battery to the battery
charger within 3 minutes of beginning
logging. For integral battery products,
connect the product to a cradle or EPS within
3 minutes of beginning logging;
(6) After the test battery is connected,
record the initial time and power (W) of the
input current to the UUT. These
measurements shall be taken within the first
10 minutes of active charging;
(7) Record the input power for the duration
of the ‘‘Maintenance Mode Test’’ period, as
determined by section 3.3.2. of this
appendix. The actual time that power is
connected to the UUT shall be within ±5
minutes of the specified period; and
(8) Disconnect power to the UUT,
terminate data logging, and record the final
time.
3.3.7. Resting the Battery
The test battery shall be rested between
charging and discharging. The rest period
shall be at least 1 hour and not more than
4 hours, with an exception for flooded cells.
For batteries with flooded cells, the
electrolyte temperature shall be less than
30 °C before charging, even if the rest period
must be extended beyond 4 hours.
3.3.8. Battery Discharge Energy Test
(a) If multiple batteries were charged
simultaneously, the discharge energy (Ebatt) is
the sum of the discharge energies of all the
batteries.
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
ER08SE22.004</GPH>
3.3.1. Recording General Data on the UUT
The technician shall record:
(a) The manufacturer and model of the
battery charger;
(b) The presence and status of any
additional functions unrelated to battery
charging;
(c) The manufacturer, model, and number
of batteries in the test battery;
(d) The nameplate battery voltage of the
test battery;
(e) The nameplate battery charge capacity
of the test battery; and
(f) The nameplate battery charge energy of
the test battery.
(g) The settings of the controls, if battery
charger has user controls to select from two
or more charge rates.
55129
55130
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
(1) For a multi-port charger, batteries that
were charged in separate ports shall be
discharged independently.
(2) For a batch charger, batteries that were
charged as a group may be discharged
individually, as a group, or in sub-groups
connected in series and/or parallel. The
position of each battery with respect to the
other batteries need not be maintained.
(b) During discharge, the battery voltage
and discharge current shall be sampled and
recorded at least once per minute. The values
recorded may be average or instantaneous
values.
(c) For this test, the technician shall follow
these steps:
(1) Ensure that the test battery has been
charged by the UUT and rested according to
the procedures prescribed in sections 3.3.6
and 3.3.7 of this appendix.
(2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant
discharge rate and the end-of-discharge
voltage in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the
relevant battery chemistry.
(3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer
and begin recording the voltage, current, and
wattage, if available from the battery
analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage
is reached or the UUT circuitry terminates
the discharge, the test battery shall be
returned to an open-circuit condition. If
current continues to be drawn from the test
battery after the end-of-discharge condition is
first reached, this additional energy is not to
be counted in the battery discharge energy.
(d) If not available from the battery
analyzer, the battery discharge energy (in
watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the
voltage (in volts), current (in amperes), and
sample period (in hours) for each sample,
and then summing over all sample periods
until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached.
TABLE 3.3.2—REQUIRED BATTERY DISCHARGE RATES AND END-OF-DISCHARGE BATTERY VOLTAGES
Battery chemistry
Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) ........................................................................................................................
Flooded Lead Acid ...................................................................................................................................................
Nickel Cadmium (NiCd) ...........................................................................................................................................
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) ...................................................................................................................................
Lithium-ion (Li-Ion) ...................................................................................................................................................
Lithium-ion Polymer .................................................................................................................................................
Lithium Iron Phosphate ............................................................................................................................................
Rechargeable Alkaline .............................................................................................................................................
Silver Zinc ................................................................................................................................................................
*If the presence of protective circuitry
prevents the battery cells from being
discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage
specified, then discharge battery cells to the
lowest possible voltage permitted by the
protective circuitry.
3.3.9. Determining the Maintenance Mode
Power
After the measurement period is complete,
the technician shall determine the average
maintenance mode power consumption (Pm)
by examining the power-versus-time data
from the charge and maintenance mode test
and:
(a) If the maintenance mode power is
cyclic or shows periodic pulses, compute the
average power over a time period that spans
a whole number of cycles and includes at
least the last 4 hours.
(b) Otherwise, calculate the average power
value over the last 4 hours.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
3.3.10. Determining the Active Charge Energy
After the measurement period is complete,
the technician shall determine the total
active charge energy (Ea) by examining the
power-versus-time data from the charge and
maintenance mode test and:
(a) First determine when the battery
charger enters maintenance mode by
examining the power-versus-time data to
identify when the input power enters either
a steady state or a cyclic state with average
power for that period being the same as the
maintenance mode power determined in
section 3.3.9. of this appendix.
(b) The accumulated energy or the average
input power, integrated over the test period
from the initial recorded input time up until
when the battery charger enters maintenance
mode would be the active charge energy, Ea.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
3.3.11. No-Battery Mode Energy Consumption
Measurement
The no-battery mode measurement
depends on the configuration of the battery
charger, as follows:
(a) Conduct a measurement of no-battery
power consumption while the battery charger
is connected to the power source. Disconnect
the battery from the charger, allow the
charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, and
record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as
the time series integral of the power
consumed over a 10-minute test period,
divided by the period of measurement. If the
battery charger has manual on-off switches,
all must be turned on for the duration of the
no-battery mode test.
(b) No-battery mode may also apply to
products with integral batteries, as follows:
(1) If the product uses a cradle and/or
adapter for power conversion and charging,
then ‘‘disconnecting the battery from the
charger’’ will require disconnection of the
end-use product, which contains the
batteries. The other enclosures of the battery
charging system will remain connected to the
main electricity supply, and no-battery mode
power consumption will equal that of the
cradle and/or adapter alone.
(2) If the product is powered through a
detachable AC power cord and contains
integrated power conversion and charging
circuitry, then only the cord will remain
connected to mains, and no-battery mode
power consumption will equal that of the AC
power cord (i.e., zero watts).
(3) If the product contains integrated power
conversion and charging circuitry but is
powered through a non-detachable AC power
cord or plug blades, then no part of the
system will remain connected to mains, and
no-battery mode measurement is not
applicable.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Discharge rate
(C)
End-ofdischarge
voltage*
(volts per cell)
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.75
1.70
1.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
0.9
1.2
3.3.12. Off Mode Energy Consumption
Measurement
The off mode measurement depends on the
configuration of the battery charger, as
follows:
(a) If the battery charger has manual on-off
switches, record a measurement of off mode
energy consumption while the battery
charger is connected to the power source.
Remove the battery from the charger, allow
the charger to operate for at least 30 minutes,
and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed
as the time series integral of the power
consumed over a 10-minute test period,
divided by the period of measurement, with
all manual on-off switches turned off. If the
battery charger does not have manual on-off
switches, record that the off mode
measurement is not applicable to this
product.
(b) Off mode may also apply to products
with integral batteries, as follows:
(1) If the product uses a cradle and/or
adapter for power conversion and charging,
then ‘‘disconnecting the battery from the
charger’’ will require disconnection of the
end-use product, which contains the
batteries. The other enclosures of the battery
charging system will remain connected to the
main electricity supply, and off mode power
consumption will equal that of the cradle
and/or adapter alone.
(2) If the product is powered through a
detachable AC power cord and contains
integrated power conversion and charging
circuitry, then only the cord will remain
connected to mains, and off mode power
consumption will equal that of the AC power
cord (i.e., zero watts).
(3) If the product contains integrated power
conversion and charging circuitry but is
powered through a non-detachable AC power
cord or plug blades, then no part of the
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
4.1.1. Measuring Equipment
(a) The power or energy meter must
provide true root mean square (r.m.s)
measurements of the active input and output
measurements, with an uncertainty at full
rated load of less than or equal to 0.5 percent
at the 95 percent confidence level
notwithstanding that voltage and current
waveforms can include harmonic
components. The meter must measure input
and output values simultaneously.
(b) All measurement equipment used to
conduct the tests must be calibrated within
the measurement equipment manufacturer
specified calibration period by a standard
traceable to International System of Units
such that measurements meet the uncertainty
requirements specified in section 4.1.1(a) of
this appendix.
4.1.2. Test Room Requirements
All portions of the test must be carried out
in a room with an air speed immediately
surrounding the UUT of ≤0.5 m/s in all
directions. Maintain the ambient temperature
in the range of 20.0 °C to 30.0 °C, including
all inaccuracies and uncertainties introduced
by the temperature measurement equipment,
throughout the test. No intentional cooling of
the UUT, such as by use of separately
powered fans, air conditioners, or heat sinks,
is permitted. Test the UUT on a thermally
non-conductive surface.
4.1.3. Input Voltage and Input Frequency
The AC input voltage and frequency to the
UPS during testing must be within 3 percent
of the highest rated voltage and within 1
percent of the highest rated frequency of the
device.
4.2.2. Additional Features
(a) Any feature unrelated to maintaining
the energy storage system at full charge or
delivery of load power (e.g., LCD display)
shall be switched off. If it is not possible to
switch such features off, they shall be set to
their lowest power-consuming mode during
the test.
(b) If the UPS takes any physically separate
connectors or cables not required for
maintaining the energy storage system at full
charge or delivery of load power but
associated with other features (such as serial
or USB connections, Ethernet, etc.), these
connectors or cables shall be left
disconnected during the test.
(c) Any manual on-off switches specifically
associated with maintaining the energy
storage system at full charge or delivery of
load power shall be switched on for the
duration of the test.
4.2. Unit Under Test Setup Requirements
4.3. Test Measurement and Calculation
Efficiency can be calculated from either
average power or accumulated energy.
4.2.1. General Setup
Configure the UPS according to Section J.2
of Annex J of IEC 62040–3 Ed. 2.0 with the
following additional requirements:
(a) UPS Operating Mode Conditions. If the
UPS can operate in two or more distinct
4.3.1. Average Power Calculations
If efficiency calculation are to be made
using average power, calculate the average
power consumption (Pavg) by sampling the
power at a rate of at least 1 sample per
second and computing the arithmetic mean
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Percentage difference
If the percentage difference of Eff1 and Eff2
as described in the equation, is less than 1
percent, the product is at steady state.
(f) If the percentage difference is greater
than or equal to 1 percent, the product is not
at steady state. Repeat the steps listed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
=
4.3.3. Power Measurements and Efficiency
Calculations
Measure input and output power of the
UUT according to Section J.3 of Annex J of
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
p.i
i=1
Where:
Pavg = average power
Pi = power measured during individual
measurement (i)
n = total number of measurements
4.3.2. Steady State
Operate the UUT and the load for a
sufficient length of time to reach steady state
conditions. To determine if steady state
conditions have been attained, perform the
following steady state check, in which the
difference between the two efficiency
calculations must be less than 1 percent:
(a)(1) Simultaneously measure the UUT’s
input and output power for at least 5
minutes, as specified in section 4.3.1 of this
appendix, and record the average of each
over the duration as Pavg_in and Pavg_out,
respectively; or,
(2) Simultaneously measure the UUT’s
input and output energy for at least 5
minutes and record the accumulation of each
over the duration as Ein and Eout, respectively.
(b) Calculate the UUT’s efficiency, Eff1,
using one of the following two equations:
(1)
Eff
Pavg_out
= -----"Pavg_in
Where:
Eff is the UUT efficiency
Pavg_out is the average output power in watts
Pavg_in is the average input power in watts
(2)
Eout
Eff=Ein
Where:
Eff is the UUT efficiency
Eout is the accumulated output energy in
watt-hours
Ein in the accumulated input energy in watthours
(c) Wait a minimum of 10 minutes.
(d) Repeat the steps listed in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of section 4.3.2 of this appendix to
calculate another efficiency value, Eff2.
(e) Determine if the product is at steady
state using the following equation:
IEff1 - Effzl
Average(Eff1, Eff2)
paragraphs (c) to (e) of section 4.3.2 of this
appendix until the product is at steady state.
PO 00000
1I
Pavg - n
Sfmt 4700
IEC 62040–3 Ed. 2.0, or measure the input
and output energy of the UUT for efficiency
calculations with the following exceptions:
(a) Test the UUT at the following reference
test load conditions, in the following order:
100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25
percent of the rated output power.
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
ER08SE22.008</GPH>
4.1. Standard Test Conditions
n
ER08SE22.007</GPH>
4. Testing Requirements for Uninterruptible
Power Supplies
of all samples over the time period specified
for each test as follows:
ER08SE22.006</GPH>
3.3.13. Standby Mode Power
The standby mode power (Psb) is the
summation power of battery maintenance
mode power (Pm) and no-battery mode power
(Pnb).
normal modes as more than one UPS
architecture, conduct the test in its lowest
input dependency as well as in its highest
input dependency mode where VFD
represents the lowest possible input
dependency, followed by VI and then VFI.
(b) Energy Storage System. The UPS must
not be modified or adjusted to disable energy
storage charging features. Minimize the
transfer of energy to and from the energy
storage system by ensuring the energy storage
system is fully charged (at the start of testing)
as follows:
(1) If the UUT has a battery charge
indicator, charge the battery for 5 hours after
the UUT has indicated that it is fully
charged.
(2) If the UUT does not have a battery
charge indicator but the user manual shipped
with the UUT specifies a time to reach full
charge, charge the battery for 5 hours longer
than the time specified.
(3) If the UUT does not have a battery
charge indicator or user manual instructions,
charge the battery for 24 hours.
(c) DC output port(s). All DC output port(s)
of the UUT must remain unloaded during
testing.
ER08SE22.005</GPH>
system will remain connected to mains, and
off mode measurement is not applicable.
55131
55132
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Perform the test at each of the reference
test loads by simultaneously measuring the
UUT’s input and output power in Watts (W),
or input and output energy in Watt-Hours
(Wh) over a 15 minute test period at a rate
of at least 1 Hz. Calculate the efficiency for
that reference load using one of the following
two equations:
(1)
pavg_
outn%
_
Effn%
= Pavg_inn%
Where:
Effn% = the efficiency at reference test load
n%
Pavg_out n% = the average output power at
reference load n%
Pavg_in n% = the average input power at
reference load n%
by performing the tests specified in the
definitions of VI, VFD, and VFI (sections
2.28.1 through 2.28.3 of this appendix).
(2)
Effn%
=
4.3.5. Output Efficiency Calculation
Eoutn%
Einn%
Where:
Effn% = the efficiency at reference test load
n%
Eout n% = the accumulated output energy at
reference load n%
Ein n% = the accumulated input energy at
reference load n%
4.3.4. UUT Classification
Optional Test for determination of UPS
architecture. Determine the UPS architecture
(a) Use the load weightings from Table
4.3.1 to determine the average load adjusted
efficiency as follows:
Effavg = (t25% × Eff ⎢25%) + (t50% × Eff ⎢50%) +
(t75% × Eff ⎢75%) + (t100% × Eff ⎢100%)
Where:
Effavg = the average load adjusted efficiency
tn% = the portion of time spent at reference
test load n% as specified in Table 4.3.1
Eff ⎢n% = the measured efficiency at reference
test load n%
TABLE 4.3.1—LOAD WEIGHTINGS
Portion of time spent at reference load
Rated output power
(W)
UPS architecture
P ≤ 1500 W .......................................
VFD ..................................................
VI or VFI ...........................................
VFD, VI, or VFI ................................
P > 1500 W .......................................
25%
50%
0.2
0*
0*
75%
0.2
0.3
0.3
100%
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
* Measuring efficiency at loading points with 0 time weighting is not required.
(b) Round the calculated efficiency value to
one tenth of a percentage point.
5.2. Active Mode Test
[Reserved]
5. Testing Requirements for Open-Placement
Wireless Chargers
5.3. No-Battery Mode Test
(a) Connect the UUT to mains power and
place it in no-battery mode by ensuring there
are no foreign objects on the charging surface
(i.e., without any load).
(b) Monitor the AC input power for a
period of 5 minutes to assess the stability of
the UUT. If the power level does not drift by
more than 1percent from the maximum value
observed, the UUT is considered stable.
(c) If the AC input power is not stable,
follow the specifications in Section 5.3.3. of
[FR Doc. 2022–18717 Filed 9–7–22; 8:45 am]
ER08SE22.010</GPH>
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Sep 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\08SER2.SGM
08SER2
ER08SE22.009</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
5.1. Standard Test Conditions and UUT
Setup Requirements
The technician will set up the testing
environment according to the test conditions
as specified in sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.1.4
of this appendix. The unit under test will be
configurated according to section 3.2.1 and
all other non-battery charger related
functions will be turned off according to
section 3.2.4.
IEC 62301 for measuring average power or
accumulated energy over time for the input.
If the UUT is stable, record the measurements
of the AC input power over a 5-minute
period.
(d) Power consumption calculation. The
power consumption of the no-battery mode is
equal to the active AC input power (W).
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55090-55132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18717]
[[Page 55089]]
Vol. 87
Thursday,
No. 173
September 8, 2022
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery Chargers; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 55090]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012]
RIN 1904-AE49
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery Chargers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
amends the existing test procedures for battery chargers to reorganize
certain subsections, clarify symbology and references, correct an
incorrect cross reference and section title, update the list of battery
chemistries, and terminate an existing test procedure waiver because
the covered subject models have been discontinued. This final rule also
establishes in new appendix Y1 a new a test procedure for battery
chargers that expands coverage to include inductive wireless battery
chargers and establishes associated definitions and test provisions;
establishes a new test procedure approach that relies on separate
metrics for active mode, standby mode, and off mode; and updates the
EPS selection criteria. The new test procedure Y1 will be used for the
evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, as well as to
determine compliance with the updated standards, should such standards
be established.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is October 11, 2022. The
amendments to the current test procedure will be mandatory for product
testing starting March 7, 2023. Manufacturers will be required to use
the amended test procedure in appendix Y until the compliance date of
any final rule establishing amended energy conservation standards based
on the newly established test procedure in appendix Y1. At such time,
manufacturers will be required to begin using the newly established
test procedure in appendix Y1.
The incorporation by reference of certain materials listed in this
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on October 11,
2022.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as those containing information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to review the docket contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-5709. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR part 430:
ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016, ``Wiring Devices--Dimensional
Specifications;''
IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0, ``Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)--Part 3:
Method of specifying the performance and test requirements, Edition
2.0, 2011-03;''
IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power, (Edition 2.0, 2011-01), (``IEC 62301'')''.
Copies of ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 can be obtained from the American
National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY
10036, (212) 642-4900, webstore.ansi.org.
Copies of IEC 62040-3 Ed.2.0 and IEC 62301 can be obtained from the
International Electrotechnical Commission at 446 Main Street, Sixteenth
floor, Worcester, MA 01608, or by going to www.iec.ch., and is
available from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to
webstore.ansi.org.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N. of
this document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
1. Battery Chargers
2. Inductive Wireless Battery Chargers
B. Test Procedure
1. Wireless Charger Test Procedure
2. External Power Supply Selection
3. Battery Chemistry and End-of-Discharge Voltages
4. Battery Selection
5. Mode-Specific Metrics
6. Active Mode Test
7. Standby Mode Tests
8. Non-Battery-Charging Related Functions
C. Corrections and Non-Substantive Changes
1. Certification Flowcharts
2. Testing and Certification Clarifications
3. Cross-Reference Corrections
4. Sub-Section Corrections
D. Effective and Compliance Dates
E. Test Procedure Costs
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Battery chargers are included among the consumer products for which
the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is authorized to establish and
amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for
battery chargers are currently prescribed at title 10 CFR 430.32(z) and
10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix Y (``appendix Y''), respectively.
The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test
procedures for battery chargers and relevant background information
regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this product.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes
[[Page 55091]]
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, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Battery chargers, the
subject of this final rule, are products included in the Energy Policy
Conservation Program. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32); 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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), the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1)
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2)
making other representations about the efficiency of those products (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
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) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of
use, as determined by the Secretary, and shall not be unduly burdensome
to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA also requires that DOE evaluate test procedures for each type
of covered product, including battery chargers, at least once every 7
years to determine whether amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to be reasonably designed to produce test results that
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs
during a representative average use cycle or period of use and to not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3))
Additionally, EPCA requires DOE to amend its test procedures for
all covered products to include standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, with standby mode and off mode energy consumption
integrated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or
other energy descriptor unless the Secretary determines that (i) the
current test procedures already fully account for and incorporate the
standby mode and off mode energy consumption, or (ii) such an
integrated test procedure is technically infeasible for a particular
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A); see also 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(B)(i))) If an integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode
energy use test procedures, if separate tests are technically feasible.
(Id.) Any such amendment must consider the most current versions of the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301 \3\ and
IEC Standard 62087 \4\ as applicable. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\4\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments
with respect to such procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) The comment
period on a proposed rule to amend a test procedure shall be at least
60 days and may not exceed 270 days. Id. In prescribing or amending a
test procedure, the Secretary shall take into account such information
as the Secretary determines relevant to such procedure, including
technological developments relating to energy use or energy efficiency
of the type (or class) of covered products involved. Id. If DOE
determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must
publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. Id.
DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the 7-year
review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
B. Background
On May 4, 2020, DOE published a request for information (``May 2020
RFI'') seeking comments and data on whether, since the last test
procedure update, there have been changes in battery charger testing
methodology or new products introduced to the market since the last
test procedure update that may necessitate amending the test procedure
for battery chargers. 85 FR 26369, 26370. DOE specifically solicited
feedback on possible approaches to testing inductive wireless battery
chargers not designed for use in a wet environment. 85 FR 26369, 26371.
DOE requested comment on the characteristics of the EPSs typically used
by manufacturers for testing and certification purposes for battery
charger products that require an EPS but do not come prepackaged with
one, and the characteristics of the EPS used by consumers in real-world
settings. Id. DOE also requested comment on whether using a reference
EPS for testing would be appropriate in such a situation. Id. DOE
similarly requested comment on the appropriateness of testing a battery
charger using a reference battery load. 85 FR 26369, 26372. DOE further
requested comment on whether other parts of the battery charger test
procedure need to be updated such as end-of-discharge voltages,
prescribed battery chemistries, consumer usage profiles, battery
selection criteria, and the battery charger waiver process. 85 FR
26369, 26372-26373.
On November 23, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``November 2021 NOPR''), in which DOE responded to comments received
in response to the May 2020 RFI and proposed amendments to the test
procedures for battery chargers in appendix Y and in a new appendix Y1.
86 FR 66878. DOE's proposed amendments to appendix Y included
reorganizing two subsections, clarifying symbology and references,
correcting an incorrect cross reference and section title, updating the
list of battery chemistries, and terminating an existing test procedure
waiver because the
[[Page 55092]]
covered subject models have been discontinued. 86 FR 66878, 66881,
66885-66886, 66889-66894.
DOE also proposed to establish a new appendix Y1 that, in addition
to the changes proposed for appendix Y, would expand the scope of the
test procedure to include inductive wireless battery chargers beyond
those designed and manufactured to operate in a wet environment
(removing that distinction altogether), increase the rated battery
energy limit of fixed location wireless chargers in appendix Y1 from
<=5 Wh to <=100 Wh, establish associated definitions for fixed-location
wireless chargers and open-placement wireless chargers and
corresponding test provisions; establish a new test procedure approach
that relies on separate metrics for active mode, standby mode, and off
mode (consequently removing the battery charger usage profiles and
single-metric unit energy consumption calculation); and update the EPS
selection criteria. 86 FR 66878, 66881, 66883-66885, 66887-66889.
On January 7, 2022, DOE published an extension of the comment
period in response to a joint request submitted by some
stakeholders.\5\ 87 FR 890.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The joint request was submitted by the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers, Consumer Technology Association,
Information Technology Industry Council, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute,
Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, and Power Tool Institute. Comment
no. EERE-BT-2020-TP-0012-0017 (available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012-0017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received comments in response to the November 2021 NOPR from
the interested parties listed in Table II.1.
Table II.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the November 2021 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final Document No.
Commenter(s) rule in docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co., INC........... Honda..................... 26 Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Efficiency Advocates 23 Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation
of America, Natural Resources Defense
Council.
Association of Home Appliance Joint Trade Associations.. 24 Trade Associations.
Manufacturers, Outdoor Power Equipment
Institute, Power Tool Institute, Inc.
California Investor-Owned Utilities CA IOUs................... 25 Utilities.
(Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
Diego Gas and Electric, Southern
California Edison).
CSA Group............................... CSA....................... 12 Efficiency Organization.
Delta-Q Technologies.................... Delta-Q................... 28 Manufacturer.
Information Technology Industry Council. ITI....................... 20 Trade Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.... NEEA...................... 27 Efficiency Organization.
Schumacher Electric Corporation......... Schumacher................ 21 Manufacturer
STIHL................................... STIHL..................... 16 Manufacturer.
Wireless Power Consortium............... WPC....................... 22 Efficiency Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for battery chargers. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-
0012, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE amends appendix Y by adopting the proposed
test procedure changes as follows:
(1) Updates terms used in the battery chemistry table;
(2) Provides further direction regarding the application for a
battery charger test procedure waiver when battery energy cannot be
directly measured;
(3) Provides more descriptive terms for battery energy and battery
voltage values used for determining product class and calculating unit
energy; and
(4) Corrects a cross-reference and a table title, further clarifies
certain references and terminologies, and reorganizes certain
subsections for improved readability.
DOE is also adopting the proposed new appendix Y1, which would
generally require that testing be conducted as provided in appendix Y
as amended in this final rule, but with the following additional
changes:
(1) Establishing definitions associated with inductive wireless
power transfer, and differentiating between wireless chargers that
incorporate a physical receiver locating feature (e.g., a peg, cradle,
dock, locking mechanism, magnet, etc.) for aligning or orienting the
position of the receiver (``fixed-location'' wireless chargers) to the
transmitter and those that do not (``open-placement'' wireless
chargers);
(2) Including within the scope of the test procedure fixed-location
inductive wireless battery chargers, and adding a separate no-battery
mode test for open-placement wireless chargers;
(3) Removing the unit energy consumption (``UEC'') \7\ calculations
and usage profiles and instead relying on separate metrics for active
mode, standby mode, and off mode using Ea, Psb,
and Poff, respectively, as measured by the newly established
appendix Y1; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The UEC represents the annualized amount of the non-useful
energy consumed by a battery charger among all tested modes of
operation. Non-useful energy is the energy consumed by a battery
charger that is not transferred and stored in a battery as a result
of charging, i.e., the losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Specifying EPS selection priority and amending selection
requirements for battery chargers that do not ship with an EPS and for
which one is not recommended by the manufacturer.
Manufacturers would not be required to test according to appendix
Y1 until such time as compliance is required with any amended energy
conservation standards for battery chargers established after September
8, 2022.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
test procedure provision prior to the amendment, as well as the reason
for the adopted change.
[[Page 55093]]
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE test procedure Amended test procedure Applicable test procedure Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only those wireless chargers that Increases the 5 Wh Appendix Y1................. To reflect changes in
operate in ``wet environments'' limit to 100Wh and the market.
and have a battery energy of less replaces the ``wet
than or equal to 5 watt-hours (Wh) environment''
are in scope of the battery designation with
charger test procedure. ``fixed-location
wireless chargers'',
such that wireless
chargers meant for
dry as well as wet
environments would be
in scope.
Does not differentiate between Addresses open- Appendix Y1................. To reflect changes in
types of wireless chargers. placement wireless the market.
chargers and fixed-
location wireless
chargers, and adds
definitions for both.
Does not provide a test method for Adds a no-battery mode Appendix Y1................. To reflect changes in
open-placement wireless chargers. test method for open- the market and to
placement wireless improve
chargers in a newly representativeness.
created section of
the appendix.
Does not provide EPS selection Adds EPS selection Appendix Y1................. To reflect changes in
priority for chargers that do have order priority and technology and to
associated EPSs. For those that do removes the 5.0V DC improve
not, current test procedure input criteria. For representativeness
requires DC battery chargers be battery chargers that and comparability of
tested with 5.0 V DC for USB port do not ship with an results.
powered devices, or the midpoint EPS and do not have a
of the rated input voltage range recommended adapter,
for others. requires that the
charger be tested
using an EPS that is
minimally compliant
with the applicable
energy conservation
standard and supplies
the rated input
voltage and current.
Battery chemistries specified in Updates ``Lithium Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To reflect changes in
Table 3.3.2 do not reflect the Polymer'' to the market.
latest industry naming conventions. ``Lithium-Ion
Polymer,'' and
changes
``Nanophosphate
Lithium-Ion'' to
``Lithium Iron
Phosphate''.
UEC calculation relies on usage Removes battery Appendix Y1................. To improve
profiles to determine the length charger usage representativeness.
of time spent in each mode of profiles and the UEC
operation. calculation; adopts
separate metrics, Ea,
Psb and Poff, for the
energy performance of
a battery charger in
each of the following
three modes of
operation
respectively: active
mode, standby mode
and off mode.
Total test duration might not Prolongs the test Appendix Y1................. To improve
capture a representative measure duration until representativeness.
of maintenance mode power of maintenance mode
certain battery chargers. power has been
captured
representatively, if
needed.
Manufacturer can report the battery Provides specific Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
discharge energy and the charging direction to apply representativeness.
and maintenance mode energy as for a test procedure
``Not Applicable'' if the waiver if the battery
measurements cannot be made. energies cannot be
directly measured.
Uses the designation ``Ebatt'' for Changes the Appendix Y.................. To improve
both experimentally measured denotations to readability.
battery energy and representative ``Measured Ebatt''
battery energy. for experimentally
measured battery
energy, and
``Representative
Ebatt'' for
representative
battery energy, with
further clarification
in the footnotes.
Section 3.3.4 incorrectly Corrects the cross- Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
references section 3.3.2 for section reference to readability.
instructions on how to discharge Table 3.3.2.
batteries.
Table 3.3.2 is located after Moves Table 3.3.2 to Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
Section 3.3.10 (Determining the 24- Section 3.3.8. readability.
hour Energy Consumption) but is
required for use in section 3.3.8
(Battery Discharge Energy Test).
Certain sections use terms such as Further clarifies the Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
``above'' or ``below'' for referenced sections. readability.
references.
Battery charger standby mode and Reorganizes sections Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
off mode can be inappropriately 3.3.11 and 3.3.12 so readability.
tested if manufacturer does not battery charger
follow the test procedure in order. standby and off modes
can be tested
correctly even if the
test procedure order
is not followed.
Column title in Table 3.3.3 states Corrects the title to Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
``Special characteristic or rated read ``Special readability.
battery voltage''. characteristic or
highest rated battery
voltage'' to clarify
that for multi-
voltage chargers, the
highest battery
voltage must be used
to determine product
class.
Uses the term ``wall adapters'' to Changes the ``wall Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
refer to external power supplies, adapter'' terms to readability.
which is inconsistent with more technically
certification requirements and correct term of
reporting templates. ``EPSs''.
Definition of ``C-Rate'' does not Adds clarification Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
provide a straightforward that a 0.2 C-Rate readability.
translation between charge or would translate to a
discharge rate and charge or charge or discharge
discharge time. period of 5 hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has determined that the amendments to appendix Y described in
section III and adopted in this document will not alter the measured
efficiency of battery chargers, or require retesting or recertification
solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the amendments to the test
procedure at appendix Y. Additionally, DOE has determined that the
amendments will not increase the cost of testing under appendix Y.
DOE has determined that the newly established appendix Y1, which
specifies testing with a minimally compliant EPS, increases scope of
wireless chargers, and removes the usage profiles and UEC calculation
would result in a value for measured energy use that is different from
that measured using the current test procedure. However, testing in
accordance with the newly established appendix Y1 would not be required
until such time as compliance is required with new and amended energy
conservation standards, should DOE establish such standards.
Additionally, DOE has determined that testing under appendix Y1 would
not increase the cost of testing as compared to testing under appendix
Y. Discussion of DOE's actions are addressed in detail in section III
of this document.
The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this
final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be
based on testing in
[[Page 55094]]
accordance with the amended appendix Y test procedures beginning 180
days after the publication of this final rule. Manufacturers will be
required to certify compliance using the new appendix Y1 test procedure
beginning on the compliance date of any final rule published after the
effective date of this final rule that establishes amended energy
conservation standards for battery chargers.
III. Discussion
In this battery chargers test procedure final rule, DOE is amending
appendix Y and establishing a new appendix Y1 as described throughout
the following sections.
EPCA requires DOE to review the test procedure for battery chargers
at least once every 7 years and to determine whether amendments to the
test procedure would more accurately or fully comply with the
requirements for test procedures to be reasonably designed to produce
representative test results without undue burden. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) In response to the November 2021 NOPR, the Joint Trade
Associations stated that DOE proposed several changes that improve the
clarity but not representativeness of the test procedure and urged DOE
to prioritize other rulemakings. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at
p. 1) DOE reiterates that it is undertaking this rulemaking pursuant to
the periodic review required by EPCA. As discussed in the following
sections, DOE has determined that appendix Y, as amended in this final
rule, and appendix Y1 as established in this final rule, more
accurately and fully comply with the requirements in EPCA for test
procedures to be reasonably designed to produce representative test
results without undue burden. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
A. Scope of Applicability
1. Battery Chargers
This rulemaking applies to battery chargers, which are devices that
charge batteries for consumer products, including battery chargers
embedded in other consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32); 10 CFR 430.2)
A battery charger may be wholly embedded in another consumer product,
partially embedded in another consumer product, or wholly separate from
another consumer product. Id. Appendix Y differentiates among different
types of battery chargers, including batch chargers, multi-port
chargers, and multi-voltage chargers, as well as various battery
chemistries. For each type of battery charger, appendix Y specifies
test setup requirements and test battery selection, such as battery
preparation steps, battery end-of-discharge voltages, and battery
charger usage profiles based on the respective product classes. These
different specifications are intended to ensure that each battery
charger is tested to produce results that measure energy use during a
representative average use cycle or period of use.
DOE's current battery charger test procedure applies to battery
chargers that operate at either direct current (``DC'') or United
States alternating current (``AC'') line voltage (115 Volts (``V'') at
60 Hertz), as well as to uninterruptible power supplies that have an AC
output and utilize the standardized National Electrical Manufacturer
Association (``NEMA'') plug, 1-15P or 5-15P, as specified in American
National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/NEMA WD 6-2016.
The CA IOUs stated in their comment responding to the November 2021
NOPR that new consumer products powered by batteries require more
power, and therefore current battery chargers are more powerful than
when DOE initially developed its battery charger standard and test
procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7) These more powerful battery
chargers, they claimed, offer larger energy savings potential through
energy efficiency standards. Id. CA IOUs therefore recommended that DOE
clarify the scope of the test procedure, and expand it to cover battery
chargers that can operate on either 115V or 230V AC voltage levels. (CA
IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7) CA IOUs noted that US residences typically offer
AC electricity at both 115V and 230V at 60Hz and that modern battery
chargers may be designed for either voltage, and therefore DOE should
expand the test procedure to include both voltage levels. Id.
DOE notes that AC line voltage for common household electrical
outlets in the United States is typically limited to 115V \8\ at 60Hz
for residential environments, with specialized 230V 60Hz AC line
voltage outlets reserved for limited number of heavy-duty applications
such as clothes washers, dryers, and electric cooking products. While
battery chargers with universal inputs exist (i.e., that support a
range of 115V to 230V as input voltage), such products support 230V
generally only to facilitate travel outside of the United States
without the need for a travel adapter. These products, when used within
the United States, operate at 115V and therefore should be tested as
such. The scope of the test procedure includes any battery charger
capable of operating at either DC or United States AC line voltage
without regard to whether it is also capable of operating at other
voltages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ DOE refers to AC line voltage here as 115V, recognizing that
United States line voltage is also often referred to as 120V or 110V
in some contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs further requested that DOE clarify the extent of DOE's
authority on automobile chargers and other products. (CA IOUs, No. 25
at p. 7) CA IOUs stated that DOE possessed the authority to regulate
battery chargers embedded in consumer products, and therefore DOE could
regulate chargers embedded in automobiles even if DOE cannot regulate
the efficiency of electric vehicles themselves. Id. CA IOUs asked DOE
to clarify its authority under EPCA to set standards for chargers
embedded in automobiles, both those that charge other consumer products
and those that charge the automobile's internal battery. Id. NEEA also
encouraged DOE to cover electric vehicle (``EV'') chargers under the
test procedure scope, stating that market data and policy trends
illustrate the need for EV charger efficiency standards. (NEEA, No. 27
at p. 10) NEEA noted there are three types of energy losses associated
with EV charging, and that consumers are paying for these energy losses
as though the lost energy were gasoline leaking from the hose as a tank
is filled. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 10) NEEA further suggested that because
public policy and market designs are not focusing on promoting higher
efficiency charging, EV chargers focus on lower cost and lower weight,
and that even small efficiency differences from standards could have
large nationwide impacts. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 11)
DOE notes, however, that due to the definition of battery chargers
in EPCA, DOE's authority to regulate battery chargers extends only to
battery chargers that charge batteries for consumer products. (42
U.S.C. 6291(32)) As defined by EPCA, ``consumer products'' statutorily
excludes automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) Regardless, DOE further notes
that its test procedure for battery chargers as established in appendix
Y (and newly established appendix Y1) cannot be adapted to measure the
energy performance of battery chargers designed to charge electric
vehicles without significant modifications that were not proposed in
the November 2021 NOPR. Therefore, in this final rule DOE clarifies
that this battery charger test procedure does not provide a method for
testing electric vehicle battery chargers, and they remain outside the
test procedure's scope.
[[Page 55095]]
Finally, CA IOUs requested clarification regarding whether chargers
used by (i) electric trucks, E-bikes, electric motorcycles, electric
boats, and other consumer electric vehicles that are not automobiles;
(ii) aerial drones and other battery-powered, remotely operated devices
marketed to consumers; (iii) battery-powered electric riding lawn
mowers and walk-behind lawnmowers sold to consumers; and (iv) battery
chargers commonly referred to as ``DC fast chargers'' or ``Level 3
chargers'' (e.g., Wallbox and SETEC) that are not embedded in electric
automobiles but are designed to charge batteries in electric
automobiles by bypassing the on-board battery charger. (CA IOUs, No. 25
at p. 7)
A manufacturer is best positioned to know the nuances of their
model's characteristics and design, which impact how regulations apply.
DOE however notes that most battery chargers intended for use with
consumer electronics, including E-bikes, aerial drones and lawn mowers
are in scope of the battery charger test procedure. While DOE cannot
comment on the test procedure's applicability to all the battery
chargers for a specific end-use product group, DOE suggests inquiring
with the department directly for clarifications on a case-by-case
basis.
2. Inductive Wireless Battery Chargers
DOE's current energy conversation standards for battery chargers
were established in a final rule published on June 13, 2016 (``June
2016 Final Rule''). The standards cover inductive wireless battery
charger products (also referred to as ``wireless power devices'') only
to the extent that such products are designed and manufactured to
operate in a wet environment (i.e., Product Class 1). 81 FR 38266,
38282; 10 CFR 430.32(z)(1). DOE established standards for these wet-
environment inductive wireless battery chargers (e.g., battery chargers
found in wireless toothbrushes and electric shavers) after finding that
the technology used in those products was mature. Id. DOE did not
establish standards for other types of inductive wireless battery
chargers to avoid restricting the development of newer, less mature
inductively charged products. Id. Similarly, DOE did not generate usage
profiles for other types of inductive wireless chargers at the time
because of their nascent state of development and their lack of
widespread availability in the marketplace. Id. Without usage profiles,
a corresponding unit energy consumption value cannot be calculated
under the test procedure in appendix Y. Id.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define fixed-location
wireless chargers and open-placement wireless chargers in a new
appendix Y1 to include these chargers within the scope; and to expand
the scope of the proposed appendix Y1 test procedure to cover testing
of fixed-location wireless chargers in all modes of operation, as well
as testing of open-placement wireless charger in no-battery mode only.
86 FR 66878, 66882-66884. DOE proposed to define the term ``fixed
location'' wireless charger in appendix Y1 to refer to inductive
wireless battery chargers that incorporate a physical receiver locating
feature (e.g., a peg, cradle, dock, locking mechanism, magnet, etc.) to
repeatably align or orient the position of the receiver with respect to
the transmitter. DOE then proposed to define the term ``open-
placement'' wireless chargers in appendix Y1 to address wireless
charging products that do not have a physical locating feature (e.g.,
charging mats). DOE proposed to remove the ``wet environment'' products
distinction for wireless chargers, as a result of these changes. 86 FR
66878, 66883.
ITI, the Joint Efficiency Advocates, the Joint Trade Associations,
the CA IOUs, NEEA, and Delta-Q expressed general support for DOE's
proposed approach to expand the scope in appendix Y1 to remove the wet
environment definition and to classify and cover both fixed-location
and open-placement wireless chargers. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2; Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 1-2; Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at p. 8; CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 2-3; NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 4-6; Delta-
Q, No. 28 at p. 1) However, NEEA urged DOE to adopt technology-neutral
definitions for wireless chargers rather than specifying only an
inductive connection, to allow future products to be tested and
considered under the test procedures regardless of specific product
technology used (citing inductive, magnetic resonant, radio frequency
as examples) and allow free competition to deliver wireless charging
without restriction by technology specific test procedures. (NEEA, No.
27 at pp. 6-7) Instead, NEEA recommended a definition for wireless
chargers that defines wireless chargers as those chargers that transmit
energy without a wired connection to a receiving device. (NEEA, No. 27
at p. 7) DOE notes that other wireless charging methods beyond those
addressed in appendix Y and new appendix Y1 are still nascent and lack
widespread availability in the market. Defining such technologies and
addressing them in the test procedure at this time could potentially
restrict the development of these less mature technologies.
DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to cover fixed-location
wireless chargers, having tentatively determined that the physical
receiver locating feature would allow accurate and repeatable relative
receiver alignment or orientation. 86 FR 66878, 66883. NEEA noted that
DOE's proposal for fixed-location wireless chargers addresses the
technical challenges associated with physical displacement of the
transmitter and receiver, and that wireless charger efficiency depends
on the product's horizontal and vertical displacement from the
transmitter but that fixed-location charger's magnetic or physical
guides ensure proper and consistent positioning. (NEEA, No. 27 at 6).
ITI suggested that DOE clarify in its definition that fixed-location
wireless chargers should be able to align or orient the receiver
position in both vertical and horizontal orientations through the
receiver locating feature, whereas open-placement chargers do not
incorporate a physical receiver locating feature. (ITI, No. 20 at pp.
1-2) ITI further inquired whether a wireless charger that relies on LED
or another form of indication to indicate correct placement in lieu of
physical locating features, would be considered as an open-placement
one. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2)
DOE concludes that the definition as proposed, specifying that the
locating feature should ``repeatably align or orient the position of
the receiver with respect to the transmitter'', to be sufficiently
specific without respect to whether such alignment is in the vertical
or horizontal (or any other) position. DOE finds that this
specification in the definition sufficiently minimizes test to test
variation without prescribing additional design constraints. In cases
where the charger only employs indication of correct placement, such as
by visual indication or audio indication, but does not have physical
locating features that ensures repeatable alignment or orientation, DOE
notes that relative receiver placement can still vary ever so slightly
for such chargers, which causes variation in active mode testing.
Therefore, such wireless charger would still be considered as open-
placement wireless charger because of the lack of locating feature that
can ``repeatably align or orient the position of the receiver with
respect to the transmitter.''
NEEA stated that for future fixed-location wireless chargers able
to charge a variety of products (interoperable fixed-location
chargers), different
[[Page 55096]]
receiver-battery combinations could result in efficiency differences.
(NEEA, No. 27 at p. 6) NEEA suggested that DOE either address these
chargers with an active mode test procedure waiver, or further specify
that these chargers must be tested with a manufacturer-specified range
of receivers but not other products that use the same power transfer
standard. (Id.) The CA IOUs referred DOE to WPC's comment that fixed-
location wireless chargers risk efficiency variations for different
receivers, which prevents WPC from releasing a receiver-independent
active mode power transfer efficiency metric. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 5)
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to continue to measure performance and
regulate fixed-location wireless charging systems under the current
approach, and suggested that DOE require combinations of new receiver
devices used in conjunction with previous wireless charger models to
meet the minimum efficiency requirement. (Id.) The CA IOUs further
encouraged DOE to clarify that if a change in receiver were to reduce
efficiency beyond a nominal threshold for a particular fixed-location
wireless charger, then it should be regulated as a new basic model.
(Id.)
DOE notes that the definitions of ``fixed-location wireless
charger'' and ``open-placement wireless charger'' proposed in the
November 2021 NOPR and adopted in this final rule indicate that the
term ``wireless battery charger'' encompasses both the transmitter
(i.e., the charging mat, for example) and the receiver (i.e., the end-
use product containing the battery). Neither the transmitter nor the
receiver on its own constitutes a ``battery charger.'' As such, each
combination of transmitter and receiver \9\ that has different
electrical, physical, or functional characteristics that affect energy
consumption would be considered a different basic model and would be
required to be certified accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ DOE further notes that applicable to transmitters that can
accommodate multiple receivers or batteries, only the manufacturer
recommended combinations are tested. See section 3.1.4(b) of
appendix Y and appendix Y1 as finalized, which specifies testing
battery chargers with an EPS recommended by the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITI further suggested that although ITI is unaware of any type of
wireless chargers other than fixed-location or open-placement wireless
chargers, DOE should leave open the possibility that future wireless
chargers may not fall into either fixed-location or open-placement
wireless chargers. (ITI No. 20 at p. 2) DOE agrees with ITI that all
current wireless chargers would fall in either fixed-location wireless
charger or open-placement wireless charger category. As such, the
adopted fixed-location and open-placement wireless charger definitions
would capture the current wireless charger market accurately. DOE will
make thorough reviews of the battery charger test procedure, should new
charger types mature in the market.
The Joint Trade Associations, noting that they support maintaining
the UEC approach, also suggested DOE add Table 3.3.3 to a UEC-
compatible version of appendix Y1 so that Product Class 1 is preserved
with lower battery energy limits, and a new Product Class 1A can be
established for higher battery energy inductive chargers. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 8) The Joint Trade Associations stated that
it would be appropriate to separate wireless chargers from wired
chargers under this approach, and further suggested DOE would need to
account for the expanded scope and create a new Product Class 1A for
higher energy inductive chargers. (Id.) DOE notes that DOE is adopting
the proposed multi-metric approach, and under the multi-metric
approach, DOE does not need to further separate product classes, as the
testing method and calculation steps for determining the tested values
are the same for battery chargers in all product classes. To the extent
that consideration of different product classes may be warranted, DOE
would do so in a future energy conservation standards rulemaking.
ITI inquired as to the applicability of standards to a product that
can take either wired or wireless charging; and the applicability of
standards to a wireless charger shipped without an end use device.
(ITI, No. 20 at p. 6) As stated earlier, different wired/wireless
charger and end use product/battery combinations could result in
different charging efficiencies. Therefore, they would constitute
different battery charger models and would need to be tested and
certified separately. DOE notes that manufacturers have already been
certifying products in this way under the current test procedure.
Furthermore, under the new appendix Y1 test procedure if a consumer
product can accept charge either wired or wirelessly, each charging
configuration would also need to be tested and certified separately.
The CA IOUs supported DOE expanding coverage to ``combination
products'' with integrated wireless chargers such as bedside or desk
lamps, clocks, and furniture that has built in wireless chargers. (CA
IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 5-6) The CA IOUs suggested that these products are
currently not covered under DOE's battery charger test procedure and
are expected to significantly displace DOE-regulated battery chargers
in some product classes. Id. The CA IOUs stated that they are analyzing
combination products and recommended DOE establish clear definitions
for combination products to clarify what combination products are not
covered by DOE's test procedures and standards, so that they can be
covered under other energy efficiency regulations or guidelines such as
CEC Low Power Mode Roadmap.\10\ (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 5-6) The Joint
Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to expand the no-battery mode only
test coverage to include dual-purpose open-placement chargers such as
alarm clocks and table lamps with embedded wireless chargers, because
they are becoming increasingly common. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No.
23 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ CEC Low Power Road Map is available on www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's definition for battery charger includes battery chargers
embedded in other consumer products. 10 CFR 430.2. For combination
products that have multiple functions, if they do come with a battery
charger, then the battery charging component of the combination product
would still need to be tested under DOE's battery charger test
procedure.
The Joint Trade Associations stated that there was some confusion
in DOE's proposal for expanded wireless chargers in appendix Y1, as
they noted the preamble proposed a change to Product Class 1 in
appendix Y1 to include all fixed-location wireless chargers, but that
this change was not present in the regulatory text, and the proposed
regulatory text for Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y shows a measured battery
energy of 20Wh, a value not discussed anywhere in the preamble. (Joint
Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 8) DOE notes that the reference to 20
Wh in the proposed regulatory text for appendix Y was an error and has
been corrected to 5 Wh for this final rule.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to increase the rated
battery energy limit of fixed-location wireless chargers in appendix Y1
from <=5 Wh to 100 Wh. 86 FR 66878, 66883. At the time of the June 2016
Final Rule, all inductive wireless chargers designed for use in wet
environments (the prior scope of coverage) had a battery energy under 5
Wh. Id. In discussion of the increased limit in the November 2021 NOPR
and in light of the removal of the wet environment distinction, DOE
stated that it had conducted initial research and found that although
most
[[Page 55097]]
of the fixed-location inductive wireless chargers were designed for
batteries with lower energy ratings, typically within 20Wh, there are
some fixed-location inductive wireless chargers that can charge
products with higher battery energy levels of around 80 Wh, namely
inductively charged power tool products. Id. The expansion of the limit
to 100 Wh was made to accommodate potential future product designs that
may have larger battery energies. Id. In their response to the November
2021 NOPR, NEEA noted that wireless charging for consumer products is
already commonplace and continued growth is expected, along with
substantially increased energy use. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 4) ITI and the
Joint Trade Association supported the proposal to expand the scope to
include those with battery energies up to 100Wh. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2,
Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 8)
WPC stated that wireless chargers (referred to as ``wireless power
transmitters'' by WPC) should be categorized as external power supplies
(``EPSs'') because they can power devices without batteries. (WPC, No.
22 at p. 1) WPC stated that although they believe wireless chargers
should be tested as EPSs with appropriate resistive loads, the usage
profile is very different from wired chargers, and they are more
frequently used for ``top-ups''. (WPC, No. 22 at pp. 1-2)
In the November 2019 NOPR, the department acknowledged that open-
placement wireless chargers are sometimes designed to work with third
party products, some of which may not be battery operated. DOE's
research of the marketplace however shows that the vast majority of
these third-party applications continue to be primarily reliant on
battery power, with power received from an open-placement charger used
to charge that battery. This conclusion is reasonable, considering the
inherent limitation in the distance across which wireless power can be
transmitted. As such, DOE maintains that the revised battery charger
test procedure is appropriate for capturing the energy performance of
open-placement wireless chargers in no-battery mode. With regards to
WPC's comment that wireless chargers should be measured with resistive
loads, DOE notes that testing with a load is only relevant for active
mode testing, which DOE did not propose for the reasons stated in
section III.B.1 of this final rule. For the reasons discussed in the
preceding paragraphs and in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is adopting the
proposals made in the November 2021 NOPR to establish definitions for
both fixed-location wireless chargers and open-placement wireless
chargers, to increase the rated battery energy limit for fixed-location
inductive chargers from <5 Wh to <100 Wh, and, as discussed below to
expand the test procedure's scope to cover testing open-placement
wireless chargers in no-battery mode only.
B. Test Procedure
1. Wireless Charger Test Procedure
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand the scope of the
proposed appendix Y1 test procedure to cover testing of fixed-location
wireless chargers in all modes of operation, and to cover testing of
open-placement wireless charger in no-battery mode only. 86 FR 66878,
66882-66884.
The CA IOUs further recommended that DOE collaborate with industry
and standards organizations to develop a suitable method of measurement
for active mode power for interoperable open placement chargers, such
as the approach proposed by WPC that measures active mode power
consumption at several key locations on the charging device. (CA IOUs,
No. 25 at p. 3) The CA IOUs modeled the savings potential from applying
potential standby and active mode power regulations to inductive
battery chargers. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs estimated
the lifetime unit energy savings from regulating standby mode to be
about 1.4 GWh for 5 years of shipments. (Id.) The CA IOUs estimated the
lifetime unit energy savings from regulating active mode to be about 60
GWh for 5 years of shipments. (Id.)
NEEA supported the development of a standby test method for open-
placement wireless chargers using International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) 62301 in appendix Y1 and encouraged DOE to continue
developing an active mode test procedure with industry. (NEEA, No. 27
at 6). NEEA further recommended that DOE in the interim retain a
placeholder for future active mode or other low power mode testing of
open-placement wireless chargers. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 6-7). WPC agreed
that no appropriate active mode test can be prescribed for open-
placement wireless chargers yet, because of varying receiver efficiency
and the capability for one open placement charger to simultaneously
charge multiple receivers. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 1) However, WPC noted
that covering only fixed-location wireless chargers in the active mode
test procedures can discourage manufacturers from choosing more
efficient fixed-location wireless charger designs. (WPC, No. 22 at pp.
1-2) WPC recommended that DOE extend the no-battery only test to fixed-
location chargers designed for receivers that can take open-placement
chargers as well (for example, exclude certain wireless charging stands
and specific in-car wireless chargers from the active charging test).
(WPC, No. 22 at pp. 1-2)
DOE acknowledges the difficulty in establishing a repeatable and
representative open-placement wireless charger (including interoperable
open-placement wireless charger) test procedure for active mode. As
stated in the November 2021 NOPR, first, efficiency of wireless power
transfer varies greatly depending on the alignment of the receiver with
respect to the transmitter. A test procedure designed to capture the
representative energy performance of such a device would need to
repeatably measure the average power transfer efficiency across the
full range of possible placement positions on the transmitter. Second,
representative test load(s) would need to account for all charging
scenarios because these open-placement wireless chargers are designed
to work with various third-party products. Third, these devices also
typically incorporate other non-battery-charging related features
inherent to implementing an open-placement design, such as foreign
object detection circuits, that may affect charging efficiency. 86 FR
66884. DOE, working in conjunction with industry organizations such as
the WPC, has found that mitigating these challenges is difficult. To-
date, that work has yielded test methods that either lack repeatability
or result in significant test burden. In addition, evaluating whether a
particular test procedure measures the energy performance of open-
placement wireless chargers during a representative average use cycle,
specifically during active mode operation, requires data on consumer
usage at the various modes of operation. DOE lacks, and is unaware of,
such data. Id.
Based on further evaluation and consideration of the comments
received, DOE concludes that a representative and repeatable test
procedure for measuring the active mode energy performance of open-
placement wireless chargers cannot be prescribed at this time without
undue burden. DOE will continue its efforts, working with industry
bodies, such as WPC, IEC, and ANSI/CTA, to develop an active mode test
procedure for open-placement wireless chargers that appropriately
addresses the impact of receiver
[[Page 55098]]
placement on charging efficiency, and will continue to gather relevant
consumer usage data. WPC stated that fixed-placement does not
necessarily mean battery charger, because the battery management and
control circuitry are often placed in the wireless receiver. (WPC, No.
22 at p. 3) WPC agreed that the present ``interoperable'' wireless
charger (regardless of open-placement or fixed-location) efficiency
testing method is not representative of real-world performance and is
likely not repeatable. WPC stated that to make such a test method
repeatable would require a placement coordinate table that moves the
receiver in 1mm increments within the charging area, developing
accurate user placement models, and limiting the receiver to one
specific product design. (Id.)
For fixed-location wireless battery chargers that can work with
multiple end use products, each different wireless charger and end use
product/battery combinations could result in different charging
efficiencies, therefore, they would constitute as different battery
charger models and would need to be tested and certified separately.
DOE notes that manufacturers have already been certifying products in
this way under the current test procedure. As for open-placement
wireless chargers, DOE notes that for even a relatively small wireless
charging coil of 30 by 30 square millimeters, to accurately and
repeatably capture the overall active mode energy consumption by moving
the relative receiver placement in 1mm increments, as described by WPC,
would result in 900 iterations. Even if the technician were to measure
the efficiency differences across 5mm or 10mm increments, it would
still result in dozens of repeated active mode tests, which adds
significant undue burden to the test procedure. Additionally, because
of the open-placement wireless charger design, it would be virtually
impossible to develop representative relative receiver placement
models. Therefore, DOE reiterates that a representative and repeatable
test procedure for measuring the active mode energy performance of
open-placement wireless chargers cannot be prescribed at this time
without undue burden.
WPC further suggested that the name for open-placement chargers
``no-battery mode'' test should be changed to ``no receiver mode''.
(WPC, No. 22 at p. 2) DOE notes that wirelessly charged devices usually
have batteries and receiving circuitry built-in the device; therefore,
batteries and receivers cannot be separated without tearing down the
product. To maintain test mode language consistency, DOE is not
changing the ``no-battery mode'' designation.
DOE appreciates the remainder of WPC's comments and notes that this
final rule establishes only a test procedure and not energy
conservation standards for fixed-location wireless chargers. DOE does
not believe simply providing a method for testing the efficiency of
these technologies without a corresponding energy conservation standard
would impact manufacturer's design choices.
In this final rule, DOE is finalizing its proposal from the
November 2021 NOPR to test fixed-location wireless chargers in all
modes of operation, and to capture the no-battery mode energy
performance of open-placement wireless chargers in the new appendix Y1.
DOE is also adopting the proposal to leave a placeholder section in the
new appendix Y1 to be reserved for a potential active mode test
procedure for open-placement wireless chargers.
2. External Power Supply Selection
Most battery chargers require the use of an EPS to convert 115-volt
(``V'') AC line voltage into a low-voltage DC or AC output suitable for
powering the battery charger. DOE's current battery charger test
procedure specifies that the battery charger be tested with the EPS
packaged with the charger, or the EPS that is sold or recommended by
the manufacturer. If an EPS is not packaged with the charger, or if the
manufacturer does not sell or recommend an EPS, then the battery
charger is tested using a 5.0V DC input for products that draw power
from a computer USB port, or using the midpoint of the rated input
voltage range for all other products. Appendix Y, sections 3.1.4.(b)
and 3.1.4.(c). However, the 5.0 V DC specification for products drawing
power from a computer USB port may not be representative for battery
chargers designed for operation only on DC input voltage and for which
the manufacturer does not package the charger with an EPS or sell or
recommend an EPS. The current generation USB specification can support
up to 20 V, per the voltage and current provisions of the most recent
version of the International Electrotechnical Commission's (``IEC'')
``Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power--Part 1-2: Common
components--USB Power Delivery'' (``IEC 62680-1-2'') specification.
To resolve this issue and improve test procedure representativeness
and test results comparability, in the November 2021 NOPR DOE proposed
to require in appendix Y1 that when an EPS is not pre-packaged with a
battery charger (and the charger manufacturer does not sell or
recommend a compatible charger), testing would be performed using any
commercially-available EPS that is both (i) minimally compliant with
DOE's energy conservation standards for EPS found in 10 CFR 430.32(w)
and (ii) satisfies the EPS output criteria specified by the battery
charger manufacturer. 86 FR 66878, 66885. DOE further proposed that if
the certified EPS is no longer available in the market, then for DOE's
compliance and enforcement testing DOE would test the battery charger
with any compatible minimally compliant EPS that meets the performance
criteria. Id. Additionally, in appendix Y1, DOE proposed to clarify the
EPS selection priority when one is provided or recommended, to maintain
test procedure repeatability. Id.
In response to these proposals regarding EPSs, DOE received several
comments. Schumacher suggested DOE allow manufacturers describe the
recommended EPSs in their user manuals for customers' reference and
that such recommendations direct the use of an EPS when testing a
battery charger that does not ship with one. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p.
5) ITI asked DOE to clarify whether the ``minimally compliant EPS''
language simply means any compliant EPS, currently level VI, and
nothing more. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2) Both the Joint Efficiency Advocates
and NEEA suggested DOE further specify the efficiency range for these
minimally compliant EPSs to improve reproducibility and maintain a
level playing field. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2; NEEA,
No. 27 at pp. 9-10) WPC and the CA IOUs recommended DOE prescribe a
standardized EPS when none is recommended. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 2; CA
IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6)
The CA IOUs also commented that there is a trend towards shipping
chargers without an EPS, and that many consumers are reusing AC to DC
EPSs whose efficiency under load contributes to an important part of
the battery charger efficiency and should not be eliminated via an
adjustment factor approach unless significant experimental validation
confirms this model. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6) The CA IOUs further
requested that DOE consider how new battery chargers will typically be
powered by older EPSs if current trends continue. (Id.)
As an initial matter, DOE will also continue studying the trends of
shipping battery chargers without an EPS and the effect of reusing old
EPSs. The proposal to require testing with a minimally compliant EPS
reflects the
[[Page 55099]]
wide selection of EPSs readily available and ensures that the battery
charger is tested in a configuration representative of actual use, as
most battery chargers require the use of an EPS to convert 115V AC line
voltage into a low-voltage DC or AC output. By ``minimally compliant
EPS'', DOE is referring to EPSs that are minimally compliant with their
respective EPS product class energy conservation standard, or in other
words, EPSs with Compliance Certification Database (``CCD'') reported
efficiencies as close to their respective minimum product class energy
conservation standard as possible. Requiring the use of a minimally
compliant EPS for testing will help improve test procedure
reproducibility. Requiring the use of an EPS with an efficiency as
close to the minimum as possible also ensures that manufacturers who do
not package, sell, or recommend an EPS for testing with their battery
chargers do not get an unfair advantage, by preventing the use of a
very efficient third-party EPS for testing. DOE reiterates that the
make and model of such minimally compliant EPS used for testing would
also need to be reported to CCD, as prescribed by battery charger
certification reporting requirements at 10 CFR 429.39. Specifying the
use of a minimally compliant EPS results in battery chargers shipped
without an EPS being tested with EPSs of comparable efficiency. As
such, DOE is not prescribing specific EPSs, or the acceptable range of
EPS efficiencies for testing with battery chargers.
The Joint Trade Associations opposed DOE's proposal to test battery
chargers with a minimally compliant EPS, when applicable. The Joint
Trade Associations claimed that manufacturers do not know which
adapters are minimally compliant until after testing them. The Joint
Trade Associations instead suggested DOE to continue allow 5V DC input
option for conventional USB connections. For other connections,
including for USB-PDs, the Joint Trade Associations proposed allowing
any other commercially available EPS to be used. The Joint Trade
Associations asserted that this would avoid possible circumvention
through use of a specially designed adapter, but that DOE should study
whether adapters vary enough in efficiency that this approach may cause
an increase in unacceptable testing variations. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 9)
DOE clarifies that the ``minimally compliant'' qualification
applies to the EPS and compliance with the applicable energy
conservation standards applicable to EPSs. By adopting the proposal to
test with a minimally compliant EPS for applicable battery chargers, it
would further avoid accounting for adapter efficiency differences,
leading to unacceptable testing variation. The efficiencies of DOE
compliant EPSs can be found on DOE's publicly available CCD. As
discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, testing with a 5V DC input is less
representative than testing with an EPS. 86 FR 66878, 66885.
Additionally, testing with a 5V DC input does not provide as comparable
of results with battery chargers that are shipped and tested with an
EPS. Therefore, in order to improve the representativeness and
comparability of testing, DOE is adopting the provisions discussed in
the preceding paragraphs to test with a ``minimally compliant EPS,'' as
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. These battery chargers are operated
with an EPS by the consumer and testing the chargers without an EPS is
not representative of actual use. DOE is also adopting the proposed
enforcement testing change in appendix Y1 from the November 2021 NOPR
to address instances in which the certified EPS relied on in testing is
no longer available in the market. 86 FR 66878, 66885. In such an
instance, DOE will test the battery charger with any compatible
minimally compliant EPS that meets the performance criteria.
Regarding DOE's proposal in appendix Y1 to further specify the EPS
selection priority when one is provided or recommended, DOE did not
receive comments opposing such proposal, with both WPC and the Joint
Efficiency Advocates expressing their support for this proposal. (WPC,
No. 22 at p. 2; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2) As such,
DOE is adopting the proposal that a battery charger would first be
tested using the pre-packaged wall adapter; if the battery charger does
not include a pre-packaged wall adapter, then the battery charger would
be tested with a wall adapter sold and recommended by the manufacturer;
if the manufacturer does not recommend a wall adapter that it sells,
then the battery charger is to be tested with a wall adapter
recommended by the manufacturer. DOE reiterates that only if when the
manufacturer does not package, sell, or recommend an EPS to be used
with the battery charger, then the battery charger should be tested
with a minimally compliant EPS, or in other words, and EPS that is no
more efficient than the corresponding baseline EPS standard.
For the reasons presented in the November 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is adopting the proposals from the November
2021 NOPR to specify the EPS selection priority and require applicable
battery chargers to test with a minimally compliant EPS in the new
appendix Y1.
3. Battery Chemistry and End-of-Discharge Voltages
The battery charger test procedure requires that, as part of the
battery discharge energy test, the battery must be discharged at a
specified discharge rate until it reaches the specified end-of-
discharge voltage stipulated in Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y. Appendix Y,
section 3.3.8(c)(2). Table 3.3.2 defines different end-of-discharge
voltages for different battery chemistries. A footnote to Table 3.3.2
provides that if the presence of protective circuitry prevents the
battery cells from being discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage
specified, then the battery cells must be discharged to the lowest
possible voltage permitted by the protective circuitry. Id.
DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that although the presence of
protective circuitries allows some batteries to discharge to end-of-
discharge voltages that are different from the voltages prescribed in
Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y, such circuits are not universal, and
accurate values for end-of-discharge voltages are required to ensure
batteries are safely and representatively discharged when such circuits
are not present. 86 FR 66878, 66886. Therefore, DOE proposed no changes
for the footnote regarding protective circuitries. Id. However, DOE
proposed to update the term used for battery chemistry in Table 3.3.2
from ``Lithium Polymer'' to ``Lithium-Ion Polymer'' and to change
``Nanophosphate Lithium-Ion'' to ``Lithium Iron Phosphate'' in order to
reflect changes in the market. 86 FR 66878, 66886.
The Joint Trade Associations supported DOE's proposal to update the
battery chemistry terms, and also supported not changing the foot note
regarding end-of-discharge voltages. The Joint Trade Associations
further stated that they are not aware of new cut off voltages and the
new battery chemistries DOE considered are still in their infancy.
(Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 9)
Schumacher requested that DOE add Lead-Carbon based Valve-Regulated
Lead Acid (``VRLA'') batteries to the list of batteries, stating that
such batteries are quickly developing and are mostly used in Solar
Charging and RVs. However, Schumacher indicated that they were not sure
of the per-cell rating or end-of-discharge voltage for these batteries.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2) In response to Schumacher's comment,
[[Page 55100]]
DOE reviewed the Lead-Carbon based VRLA battery market and was not able
to find valid data to establish the end-of-discharge voltages for these
batteries. At this time, the Lead-Carbon based VRLA battery market
appears to still be developing. As such, DOE is not including Lead-
Carbon based VRLA batteries in Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y.
Schumacher also suggested DOE provide a tolerance to end-of-
discharge voltage to ensure uniformity, because not all test equipment
stops the discharge test at the exact voltage. (Schumacher, No. 21 at
p. 3) DOE notes that battery voltages can fluctuate during discharge
and might drop suddenly around end-of-discharge voltage. Therefore, it
would be more accurate for the test equipment and lab technician to
determine when exactly should discharge be stopped once it reaches
close to DOE specified end-of-discharge voltage. From DOE's own testing
according to the current test procedure, the discharge tests are
usually terminated by either the battery analyzer at the specified end-
of-discharge voltage, or by the built-in battery protection circuitry.
DOE does not anticipate the current test procedure language to cause
repeatability or reproducibility issues, nor did DOE receive other
stakeholder concerns on the current approach.
Delta-Q claimed that the name change from ``Lithium Polymer'' to
``Lithium-Ion Polymer'' does not address the issue that virtually all
commercialized lithium-ion batteries have a polymer separator. (Delta-
Q, No. 28 at p. 1) Delta-Q further proposed DOE to simply delete
``Lithium Polymer'' from the table to avoid confusion and redundancy.
Id. DOE notes that although most lithium-ion batteries on the market
utilize a polymer separator, there are still potentially some batteries
that do not have the polymer separator, and the additional battery
chemistry would not cause variation in test results. Therefore, DOE
will maintain both the Lithium-Ion Polymer and Lithium-Ion chemistries.
For the reasons discussed in the November 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule DOE is adopting the proposed
updates to the battery chemistry table to update ``Lithium Polymer''
term to ``Lithium-Ion Polymer'' and updating the term ``Nanophosphate
Lithium-ion'' to ``Lithium Iron Phosphate''.
4. Battery Selection
Table 3.2.1 of appendix Y specifies battery selection criteria
based on the type of charger being tested; specifically, whether the
charger is multi-voltage, multi-port, and/or multi-capacity. For multi-
capacity chargers, Table 3.2.1 specifies using a battery with the
highest charge capacity. Similarly, for multi-voltage chargers, Table
3.2.1 specifies using the highest voltage battery. Section 3.2.3(b)(2)
of appendix Y specifies that if the battery selection criteria
specified in Table 3.2.1 results in two or more batteries or
configurations of batteries with same voltage and capacity ratings, but
made of different chemistries, the battery or configuration of
batteries that results in the highest maintenance mode power must be
used for testing.
Although DOE did not propose to make changes to the current battery
selection criteria in the November 2021 NOPR, Schumacher suggested DOE
reconsider the battery selection method for automotive chargers.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at pp. 1-2) Schumacher stated that it is better to
use 12V Absorbent Glass Mat (``AGM'') batteries with Thin Plate Pure
Lead (``TPPL'') technology for testing multi-voltage automotive battery
chargers because they have lower stratification, do not need
electrolytes measurement, are easier to maintain, are safer, have lower
losses, and have more repeatable and reproducible results. Schumacher
also indicated that these batteries are more popular, with 12V
batteries being the most common voltage. Schumacher stated that for
multi-voltage automotive battery chargers that can charge 12V
batteries, batteries of other voltages should not be required for
testing because of their significantly fewer annual volumes. (Id.)
Schumacher added that these batteries can be reused more times to keep
test costs lower. Schumacher further suggested DOE add reusing of
automotive batteries and float charging specifications to the test
procedure as many automotive battery chargers reuse the same batteries
for testing. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2)
DOE reiterates that its current battery selection criteria
specifically states that if multiple batteries meet the battery
selection criteria, the battery or configuration of batteries with the
highest maintenance mode power should be selected for testing. Section
3.2.3.(b)(2) of appendix Y. In real world scenarios, consumers do not
always choose the most efficient battery chemistry to use with their
battery chargers. Therefore, testing a lead acid charger with more
efficient AGM batteries with TPPL technology would not be
representative. If a manufacturer can select either a regular AGM
battery or an AGM battery with TPPL technology, the battery with higher
maintenance mode power would be selected for testing. As for selecting
batteries for testing with multi-voltage chargers, Table 3.2.1 of
appendix Y specifically states that battery with the highest voltage
should be used for testing.
DOE's battery charger test procedure requires manufacturers to use
new battery chargers and associated batteries. Section 3.2.2 of
appendix Y. Battery charge capacity can vary with number of charge
cycles and discharge rates, especially for lead acid batteries. As
such, testing a battery charger with a new battery versus with the same
battery, but after repeated number of charge and discharge cycles, can
result in significant variation that diminishes the accuracy and
repeatability of the testing. To determine if a used battery is still
suitable for testing would require monitoring and testing of various
factors, which can also add undue burden. Therefore, DOE is not
changing the requirement that new batteries be used for testing, to
maintain test procedure repeatability as well as test result
reproducibility and comparability.
5. Mode-Specific Metrics
Currently, DOE's battery charger test procedure is based on the
integrated UEC approach. The UEC equation in section 3.3.13 of appendix
Y integrates active mode, standby mode, and off mode power measurements
by combining certain parameters, including 24-hour energy, measured
battery energy, maintenance mode power, standby mode power, off mode
power, charge test duration, and usage profiles. Table 3.3.3 specifies
the usage profile for each battery charger product class, meaning the
values for time spent (in hours per day) in active and maintenance
mode, standby mode, off mode; number of charges per day; and threshold
charge time (in hours). In incorporating usage profiles into the
integrated metric, DOE in the June 2016 Final Rule stated that
aggregating the performance parameters of battery chargers into one
metric and applying a usage profile would allow manufacturers more
flexibility for improving performance during the modes of operation
most beneficial to their consumers, rather than being required to
improve the performance in each mode of operation, including those
which may not provide any appreciable benefit. 81 FR 38266, 38286-
38287.
UEC integrates active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use
in order to estimate the amount of non-useful energy (i.e., energy not
transferred to the battery) consumed by the battery charger over the
course of a year. The UEC approach therefore requires the use
[[Page 55101]]
of usage profiles to appropriately reflect the period of time a product
spends in each mode, in order to maintain the representativeness of the
metric for an average use cycle or period of use as required by EPCA.
The usage profiles provide a weighted average of application-specific
usage for battery chargers within a specific product class. The usage
profiles are based on data for a variety of applications from user
surveys, metering studies, and stakeholder input that DOE considered in
the June 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 38266, 38287. DOE's product-class
specific usage profiles were initially also developed using the
shipment-weighted average usage hours of all the applications of
battery chargers whose battery voltage and energy met the criteria for
each product class. The intended result was for each usage profile to
be representative of the usage of the product class as a whole.
EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for all covered
products to include standby mode and off mode energy consumption, with
such energy consumption integrated into the overall energy efficiency,
energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered
product, unless the Secretary determines that (i) the current test
procedures for a covered product already fully account for and
incorporate the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the
covered product; or (ii) such an integrated test procedure is
technically infeasible for a particular covered product, in which case
the Secretary shall prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode
energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) EPCA requires the use of an
integrated metric unless such a test procedure is technically
infeasible. If an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible,
DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode energy use test
procedures, if a separate test is technically feasible. (Id.)
However, under EPCA, DOE is required to establish test procedures
that are reasonably designed to produce test results which measure
energy efficiency and/or energy use of a covered product during a
representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the
Secretary, and such test procedures must not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The requirement for a representative
test procedure that does not impose an undue burden underpins EPCA's
ability to develop and enforce standards, and therefore is a
fundamental requirement of EPCA. EPCA does not define what is
technically infeasible or what it means. But DOE finds it reasonable
when considering the technical feasibility of a test procedure that
provides for a metric that integrates active mode, standby mode, and
off mode energy use to consider the representativeness and burden of a
test procedure using that metric. An integrated test procedure metric
that cannot be reasonably expected to produce representative test
results or that would result in undue burden cannot be considered
technically feasible under EPCA, because it is unable to meet the
requirements to be a permissible test procedure under the statute--even
if an integrated metric is theoretically possible approach were those
requirements to not apply.
As explained in the November 2021 NOPR, as the battery charger
market continues to evolve, DOE has observed that the relative share of
shipments among different types of products within a product class has
changed; the types of products within a given product class as well as
the usage patterns of the products within a product class have become
more varied. 86 FR 66878, 66887. In the November 2021 NOPR DOE
presented the example of the current Product Class 2, which includes
both smartphones and small capacity home power tools--two products with
widely different usage patterns and annual shipments. Id. A more recent
market review shows that the shipments for certain applications, such
as smartphones, cordless phones, wireless headsets, have changed
significantly since the usage profiles in appendix Y were originally
established. Id. Furthermore, there has been a recent but rapid market
adoption of smart wearable devices, tablets, consumer drones, and
mobility scooters from DOE's internal research. Some of these products
would have drastically different usage profiles from their respective
product classes, which adversely impacts the representativeness of the
corresponding usage profiles. Changes in consumer use of a number of
products within a product class or the emergence of new or altered end
use products impacts the representativeness of the usage profile for
that product class under the UEC metric. DOE anticipates that the
battery charger market will continue to change dynamically at a rate
that will render usage profiles unrepresentative more quickly than
EPCA's review cycles anticipate. Because the UEC metric requires
integrating active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use, which
requires representative usage profiles, the need for new or amended
usage profiles to maintain representativeness would result in the need
to repeatedly and frequently amend test procedures, which in turn
potentially would require manufacturers to update representations,
increasing undue manufacturer burden.
In an effort to maintain the representativeness of the test
procedure for battery chargers in light of the rapidly changing market,
while maintaining a consistent test procedure for manufacturers, in the
November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed an approach that does not rely on the
UEC equation or usage profiles. 86 FR 66878, 66887. Specifically, DOE
proposed in appendix Y1 to establish an approach that relies on a
separate metric for each of the following modes of operation: active
mode, standby mode, and off mode. Id. DOE is not aware and has not been
made aware of any other integrated approach that integrates the energy
consumption of different battery charger modes of operations.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates and CA IOUs noted in response to
DOE's proposal that developing accurate and representative usage
profiles has become more difficult with the constant development of new
end use product types and changes in consumer usage patterns, risking
the market usage assumptions used to calculate UEC becoming obsolete
for specific classes of battery chargers unless continuously updated.
(See, Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2-3; CA IOUs No. 25 at
p. 2) The Joint Efficiency Advocates noted that the multi-metric
approach presented a more representative method. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented
that they found it would be more representative to separate the test
procedure to three separate metrics for active mode, standby mode, and
off mode. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) The CA IOUs
also supported the development of separate reported metrics for active
charge energy, standby mode, and off mode energy use. (CA IOUs, No. 25
at p. 1). The CA IOUs agreed that the evolving nature of battery
charger technology tends to quickly make obsolete the market usage
assumptions used to calculate UEC obsolete for specific classes of
battery chargers. Id. The CA IOUs stated that the benefits of the
disaggregated metric test procedure have become increasingly relevant
for reasons such as products having different usage profiles within the
same product class, evolving technology and
[[Page 55102]]
usage patterns, increases in battery energy density and capacity across
products, and variation in charge time profiles. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p.
2) The CA IOUs stated that as battery charger technologies and markets
evolve, an integrated metric becomes less representative of the product
classes as currently defined in the test procedure and stated that
because DOE's proposed approach does not rely on a UEC equation or
usage profiles, it should be more flexible. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2)
NEEA also supported DOE's proposed multi-metric approach and noted
that its research demonstrated that the use of separate active,
standby, and off mode metrics aligns with the current battery charger
market. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 2) NEEA noted that battery charger end uses
are substantially more varied than when DOE promulgated its UEC metric,
citing AHAM's comment that there are hundreds, if not, thousands of
battery-charged consumer products in the market. NEEA noted that there
are many factors that contribute to this growth, such as price
reduction for lithium-ion batteries, increased wireless applications,
and smaller charger formats. NEEA stated that this proliferation makes
it technically inappropriate to continue using usage profiles to
represent the energy use of hundreds of widely varying applications.
(Id.) NEEA explained as well that markets for and shipments of battery
chargers can change rapidly, as products evolve and consumer demand
shifts. NEEA listed certain products as examples, such as landlines,
smartphones, drones, cameras and MP3 players. Id. NEEA stated that
while the UEC approach is appropriate for more stable appliance
categories such as refrigerators, it is not a useful measure for the
continuously evolving array of battery charger end uses. (NEEA, No. 27
at p. 3) In contrast, NEEA noted that there are multiple advantages to
DOE's multi-metric approach: increasing representativeness of the range
of battery chargers, both now and as the market continues to change;
improving harmonization with DOE's EPS test procedure approach; and
enabling more detailed standards analysis. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 3)
ITI suggested, however, that DOE continue using the UEC metric
while gathering active charge energy data to fully understand the
complexity of these energy use parameters before deciding to switch
metrics. (ITI, No. 20 at 3) ITI and the Joint Trade Associations stated
that current class groupings are not perfect, but that they were based
on objective criteria and still provide a clear indication of which
product class a charger should fall into. (ITI, No. 20 at 3; Joint
Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3) Delta-Q acknowledged the
imperfection of the UEC and its usage profiles but did not support
replacing the usage profiles-based UEC system with the multi-metric
approach, stating that the multi-metric approach will unduly constrain
design options to minimize overall energy use while managing trade-offs
with cost and customer value. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 1) Delta-Q
suggested that the multi-metric approach would cause uncertainty and
could require redesigns, increase costs, and remove features that may
not reduce energy consumption in real-world usage. Id.
DOE does not agree that the multi-metric approach lacks the
potential to reduce energy consumption in real-world usage. DOE's UEC
metric currently represents the annualized amount of the non-useful
energy consumed by a battery charger (i.e., energy losses) among all
tested modes of operation. As battery and battery charger technology
develops along with change in usage profiles, DOE is noticing that more
and more energy losses happen during maintenance mode and no-battery
mode, as battery chargers are simply either maintaining the battery at
a fully charged state or monitoring the charger circuitry to facilitate
active charging when a battery is inserted. In these modes, the battery
charger is not doing any useful work to transfer energy into the
battery, and because these modes can last indefinitely, they can result
in significant energy savings potential if regulated separately from
active mode. DOE further notes that the potential redesign and
additional costs are not associated with change to multi-metric testing
approach, but directly related to the energy conservation standards
rulemaking. However, DOE notes that any energy savings potential and
cost burdens from increased efficiency levels would be analyzed
thoroughly in the separate energy conservation standards rulemaking.
The Joint Trade Associations opposed the proposed multi-metric
approach, asserting that the multi-metric approach does not satisfy
EPCA's intent or requirements, and it would make savings and energy
savings difficult for the consumer to understand as well as for DOE to
analyze. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 1-3) The Joint Trade
Associations asserted that DOE failed to demonstrate that its proposals
are justified and are not arbitrary and capricious, and that DOE's
proposal does not meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure
Act or the Data Quality Act. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3)
The Joint Trade Associations asserted that DOE has not shown that the
current approach does not represent an average consumer use cycle, that
it cannot be updated to maintain its representativeness of average
consumer use, that it is infeasible to integrate active mode and
standby mode, or that the current test procedure approach would be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp.
2-4) The Joint Trade Associations also noted that the proposed appendix
Y1 would add significant burden and is contrary to EPCA's clear
preference for aggregated metrics. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at
pp. 1-2)
The Joint Trade Associations acknowledged, however, that the
current product classes are not perfect and that they have acknowledged
their imperfection from the beginning; they acknowledged that there are
difficulties in developing product classes for battery chargers, with
thousands of different end use products, and that usage and shipments
of products within classes differs. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24
at pp. 2-3) The Joint Trade Associations solution to these issues was
not to remove the UEC metric and usage profiles but to update the usage
profiles and shipments analysis more regularly, considering the breadth
of products in each class from both usage and shipments perspectives.
The Joint Trade Associations offered to provide data to assist in that
analysis. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3). The Joint Trade
Associations noted that EPCA requires DOE to review and update test
procedures at least once every 7 years, and that DOE has further
discretion to initiate an early review if usage profiles or shipments
for product classes become unrepresentative. (Joint Trade Associations,
No. 24 at p. 4) Because DOE is already required to update the test
procedures periodically, the Joint Trade Associates could not see how
the multi-metric approach solved any issue. The Joint Trade
Associations noted that these reviews and updates are critical to DOE's
analysis, and it is difficult to understand why it is too challenging
to do these as part of the test procedure review. The Joint Trade
Associations speculated that DOE did not want to be bothered re-
assessing its categorizations and updating usage profiles. Id.
DOE is undertaking this rulemaking in compliance with its
requirement under EPCA to review and update test procedures at least
once every 7 years. However, the issue DOE identified with keeping the
current integrated UEC
[[Page 55103]]
approach was not the need to update the test procedures according to
the requirements of EPCA, but the frequency of updates required to
maintain the UEC metric as a representative approach to testing as
required under EPCA. DOE reiterates that it has determined it would
need to update the test procedures more often than the 6- and 7-year
standards and test procedure update cycles to maintain the UEC metric;
as other commenters also noted, the battery chargers' dynamic market
already would warrant far more frequent updates and DOE projects this
need to only increase over time. While the Joint Trade Associations
pointed out that DOE regularly updates annual use cycles for products
such as residential dishwashers, laundry products, and air treatment
products based on varying sets of data, DOE notes an approach that is
both feasible and representative for some products may not be feasible
or representative for others where there are clear and significant
differences between the products such as quantity of end use products
for battery chargers.
The Joint Trade Associations further stated that DOE failed to
present data supporting its conclusions from a recent market review
showing that shipments for certain applications have changed
significantly since the usage profiles were established, or that market
and shipments of battery chargers change quickly as the market and
consumer use changes. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3) The
Joint Trade Associations further disputed that the current approach is
no longer representative, and that DOE has presented no compelling
evidence that the test procedure has become overly burdensome, noting
that the simple solution is to simply update the test procedures. They
concluded that because the current test procedure has accomplished
EPCA's requirements of representative results without undue burden
relatively well, DOE cannot show it is infeasible to have an integrated
metric representative of consumer use. They therefore also disputed
DOE's findings of a repeated need to update leading to increased
manufacturer burden and claimed the multi-metric approach would be more
burdensome than minor revisions to update usage profiles and shipments.
Id.
DOE notes that an approach's historical success or validity does
not necessarily justify maintaining that approach in the face of
changed and changing circumstances. DOE has projected that the battery
chargers' market and the variety of consumer end uses make the UEC
metric increasingly infeasible and untenable to maintain, both
administratively and for regulated parties. The technical requirements
to maintain the UEC metric and its attendant usage profiles are no
longer feasible to meet. The need to frequently review and update usage
profiles, while known in the 2016 rulemaking, was of a different scope
than the need for review and updating dictated by the current market
for battery chargers. DOE believes this need to update would only
increase in rapidity. And as DOE has noted, even if DOE were able to
maintain these profiles on its own end the frequent changes to the test
procedures and standards would require frequent recertifications for
manufacturers and may cause impermissible undue burden.
The Joint Trade Associations disputed that the test procedure must
be representative of consumer use at every moment, noting that this is
not only impossible, but also unnecessary and not consistent with
EPCA's intent. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 4) DOE agrees
that this is not the statutory standard, but DOE notes that DOE is
required to maintain test procedures reasonably designed to produce
representative test results without undue burden. Maintaining the
current battery charger test procedure, which DOE reasonably believes
will lead to foreseeably unrepresentative test results on a regular
basis, is contrary to EPCA's requirements where an alternative test
procedure exists to provide more representative results without undue
burden. While EPCA expresses a preference for an integrated metric,
this preference yields before EPCA's more fundamental need for accurate
and representative test results, without which EPCA's standards are
undermined.
The Joint Trade Associations also argued that DOE originally
grouped products with different usage profiles into the same product
class, and that DOE did not present data in the November 2021 NOPR on
what has changed since the initial test procedure and standards
development. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 2) The Joint Trade
Associations stated that DOE was placing the burden of proof for
retaining the integrated metric on commenters but claimed that the
burden was in fact on DOE to demonstrating that its proposals were
justified and not arbitrary and capricious. Joint Trade Associations,
No. 24 at p. 3) DOE has acknowledged that it is changing its position
on whether the UEC metric can meet the requirements of EPCA but
disagrees that it has not explained the basis for this change in
position. DOE, and other commenters in response, noted that the changes
in the market justified reconsideration and ultimately departure from
the UEC and usage profile approach. The market review has shown that
the UEC integrated metric approach can no longer feasibly be reasonably
expected to produce representative test results as required by EPCA,
absent such frequent updates to the test procedures as to constitute
undue hardship--which itself would contravene EPCA. DOE is adopting its
multi-metric approach because an integrated metric is now infeasible.
The Joint Trade Associations asserted that UEC is a more
representative approach because it accounts for consumer usage, whereas
DOE's multi-metric approach does not account for the contribution of
each to the overall product efficiency. (Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at p. 7) However, as DOE has noted the representativeness of the UEC
approach is dependent on representativeness of the usage profiles and
shipment data underpinning the metric, and the current battery chargers
market dynamics make maintaining the representativeness of that metric
infeasible without incurring undue burden. DOE's UEC approach would
only be representative of the annual non-useful energy resulting from
battery chargers, provided that the usage profiles are updated
frequently and repeatedly. DOE's multi-metric approach would, still
representatively but separately, measure and certify the active mode
energy, standby mode energy, and off mode energy. As battery charger
overall efficiency is highly dependent on usage profiles, the multi-
metric approach can further help consumers in learning which battery
charger would provide best overall efficiency under that specific
consumer's usage profile by providing the separate metrics.
The Joint Trade Associations stated that not only is DOE's proposal
inconsistent with EPCA's clear preference for integrated metrics, but
it is also inconsistent with DOE's systems approach, which aims to
allow flexibility in component designs while ensuring an overall
efficiency requirement. The Joint Trade Associations stated that they
assumed the proposed appendix Y1 will translate to three separate
energy conservation standards requirements and noted that not all
products have the capability to reduce energy consumption of a
particular mode which may require redesign to meet DOE standards. The
Joint Trade Associations commented that by separating active, standby,
and off modes into three metrics DOE is requiring the redesign of
products and
[[Page 55104]]
effectively increased design complexity. The Joint Trade Associations
stated that manufacturers are allowed flexibility to distribute energy
across the different modes with the current UEC compliance
requirements. The Joint Trade Associations stated that the integrated
UEC approach therefore allows more innovation and flexibility in
designs and posited that the burden associated with DOE's multi-metric
approach will likely be more significant as it will inhibit innovation
inhibit innovation and the ability to differentiate one's products from
others in the market. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 4-6) DOE
acknowledges that the original UEC approach provides greater design
flexibility because of its integrated nature, and that this was one
purpose of the UEC metric. 81 FR 38266, 38286-38287. However, DOE
cannot maintain an approach that will not meet EPCA's requirement of
representative test procedures or lead to undue burden. Furthermore,
DOE's multi-metric approach will still regulate the integrated power
draw of battery chargers in standby mode operations, allowing
manufacturers to still have significant design flexibility in improving
either maintenance mode or no-battery mode efficiency.
The Joint Trade Associations further stated that manufactures have
already developed their products to comply with DOE's current
standards, which is challenging for some battery chargers, especially
the infrequently charged ones. The Joint Trade Associations claimed
that if DOE were to change its approach, some products will likely need
to be redesigned and the investments manufacturers have made to comply
with the current standards would be stranded. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 2)
The Joint Trade Associations commented that they cannot fully
comment on DOE's proposal when DOE has not provided more detail on how
the product classes or standards would be amended. The Joint Trade
Associations stated it is likely that that some currently compliant
products may no longer be compliant under the newly proposed approach
but with no real savings but only additional costs on consumers and
manufacturers. The Joint Trade Associations suggested DOE analyze this
further during manufacturer interviews. (Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at p. 5)
Schumacher stated that if DOE's amended test procedure impacts
existing CCD reported models, they recommend the currently compliant
products to be grandfathered in under the amended standards or required
to be updated several years after the revised standard publication.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 6) Schumacher argued that if a newly revised
standard was to be put into effect immediately, it would result in
higher cost to manufacturers; whereas a buffer period of several years
would minimize costs and let manufacturers retest the products or
redesign the products. Id.
DOE is adopting the mode-specific metric approach as proposed in
the December 2021 NOPR and consistent with its authority and duties
under EPCA. As previously noted, when considering the feasibility of a
test procedure with a metric integrating active mode, standby mode, and
off mode energy use, DOE must also consider whether that metric will
satisfy the test procedure criteria prescribed by EPCA: the
representativeness of the test procedure and whether a test procedure
is unduly burdensome. The UEC test procedure approach specifies an
integrated metric relying on usage profiles. However, changes in
consumer use and the emergence of new products can both impact the
representativeness of that usage profile and therefore the UEC metric
overall. While the Joint Trade Associations suggested that maintaining
the representativeness of the current usage factors is simply a matter
of updating the data, as discussed in the November 2021 NOPR the market
and shipments of battery chargers has been shown to change over short
periods of time as new products that rely on battery chargers emerge
and are adopted by the market, and as consumer use of products that
rely on battery charger changes. 86 FR 66878, 66887. As an example, DOE
noted that the shipments for Digital Audio Players and Digital Cameras
have declined significantly with the advent of smart phones that have
similar built-in capabilities. Id.
Because of the nature of battery chargers, they serve a great
variety of end use products, updated on an annual basis. Although DOE
collects and reviews usage profiles and shipment data constantly, going
through the process of updating the test procedure and energy
conservation standards in a similar way would impose undue burden on
manufacturers. Needing to update the test procedure in order to avoid
reliance on obsolete usage profiles and comply with EPCA's
representativeness requirement would in turn require updating the
energy conservation standards to reflect the test procedure changes.
Manufacturers would then need to frequently retest and recertify their
products, creating significant and undue burden.
By regulating the different battery charger operating modes
separately, DOE avoids the risk of usage profiles becoming increasingly
unrepresentative before having a chance to update them, as the multi-
metric approach is not reliant on usage profiles, but rather
performance in individual operating modes. The multi-metric approach
provides for a more stable regulatory environment, by minimizing the
possibility that manufacturers would need to retest and recertify
products with changes in the market and the associated usage profiles,
thereby reducing potential test burden.
DOE notes that the multi-metric test procedure approach in appendix
Y1, adopted in this final rule, would not be required until such time
as compliance is required with amended battery chargers energy
conservation standards developed based on the new test procedure,
should DOE establish such standards. Were DOE to establish amended
energy conservation standards reflective of the multi-metrics, DOE
would consider, in part, the efficiencies of battery chargers on the
current market at each metric and the technologies available to improve
the efficiencies at each metric.
DOE reiterates that adoption of the multi-metric test procedure in
appendix Y1 itself will not require manufacturers to redesign their
products. Moreover, the multi-metric testing approach provides results
that more directly correlate to direct testing of a battery charger, as
opposed to results that are dependent on shipments data and data
regarding consumer usage patterns. As such, the test procedure is less
dependent on data that may quickly become obsolete or data that may be
unable to fully reflect appropriate market and consumer usage
conditions. Therefore, DOE anticipates that it will provide a more
stable regulatory environment for manufacturers moving forward.
DOE also notes that it is adopting the alternate active mode test
method proposed in the NOPR, which essentially relies on the current
active and maintenance modes test method found in appendix Y with only
an added step for test technicians to analytically compute the
integrated active mode energy from the active mode and maintenance mode
test data. DOE estimates the additional time required to perform the
active energy calculation would be roughly the same as that for
calculating UEC. However, because technicians would no longer need to
compute UEC under the multi-metric approach, overall testing burden
would be the same between the multi-
[[Page 55105]]
metric approach and the current UEC approach.
The CA IOUs further recommended that DOE require manufacturers to
report values for different operating modes, and that DOE publish these
values in the CCD to allow calculations of UECs for specific products
in specific use cases. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2) The CA IOUs stated
this performance data would be essential for assessing the impacts of
the new test procedure metrics. Id. DOE notes that the performance
values are already presented on the CCD, and DOE will make necessary
amendments to the reporting template to account for the reporting
changes under the multi-metric approach.
ITI also requested DOE to consider harmonizing and coordinating the
test procedure with Canada so they remain consistent. (ITI, No. 20 at
p. 6) DOE notes that Canada's Department of Natural Resources primarily
references DOE's existing test procedure for battery chargers, which
relies on the consolidated UEC metric. While there is an effort to
harmonize with widely and internationally adopted industry standards,
DOE is required by EPCA to ensure that its test procedure for a covered
product is representative. For the reasons stated above relating to
DOE's own UEC-based test procedure metric, DOE is therefore unable to
continue harmonizing with Canada's test procedure for battery chargers.
DOE notes however that the test procedure's conduct between the current
UEC approach and the adopted multi-metric approach still remains
largely the same; therefore, DOE does not anticipate there to be
significant difference between how tests are conducted in Canada and in
the US. DOE will work with international agencies to reduce
manufacturer burden to a reasonable extent, where doing so aligns with
DOE's statutory requirements under EPCA.
Based on the discussion presented in the November 2021 NOPR and in
the preceding paragraphs, DOE has determined that the adopted multi-
metric approach more fully meets the representativeness requirements of
EPCA without being unduly burdensome. Moving to a multi-metric approach
avoids DOE imposing an undue burden on manufacturers by requiring
frequent recertification and retesting due to frequent updates to an
integrated metric, updates that would be needed to maintain the
metric's compliance with EPCA's representativeness requirement in a
shifting market landscape. DOE reiterates that testing under the new
multi-metric approach would not be required until after DOE's battery
charger energy conservation standards have been amended. DOE will also
study the potential redesign needs and costs because of the multi-
metric approach in the separate standards rulemaking.
6. Active Mode Test
Battery charger active mode is the state (condition) in which the
battery charger system is connected to a main electricity supply (main
power source) and is actively delivering power to bring the depleted
battery to a fully charged state (the charger's main function), as
defined in section 2.1 of appendix Y.--(See also 42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)(i)) Appendix Y currently tests the active mode power
consumption along with battery maintenance mode power \11\ to produce a
consolidated 24-hour energy consumption value, or E24, which
is then used in the UEC calculation. As previously discussed, in the
new appendix Y1, DOE is replacing the UEC metric system with a discrete
multi-metric approach that determines the energy efficiency and energy
use of the active mode, standby mode, and off mode power consumption
separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Maintenance mode is the operation of a battery charger to
maintain a battery at full charge while a battery remains in the
charger after fully charged. Under the current test procedure the
characterization of maintenance mode as active mode or standby mode
is less critical because the current test procedure metric
integrates the modes. As discussed in the following section, DOE has
tentatively characterized maintenance mode as part of standby mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to use a charge test in
which the test period would begin upon insertion of a depleted battery
and would end when the battery is fully charged. 86 FR 66878, 66888.
The active mode energy, Ea, would represent the accumulated
input energy, meaning the average input power integrated over this test
period. Similar to the procedure currently in section 3.3.2 of appendix
Y (Determining the Duration of the Charge and Maintenance Mode Test),
if a battery charger has an indicator to show that the battery is fully
charged, that indicator would be used to terminate the active mode
test. Id. If no indicator besides the manufacturer's instructions
indicates how long it should take to charge the test battery, the
active mode test would be conducted for the longest estimated charge
time provided in the manufacturer's materials. Id. If the battery
charger does not have such an indicator and a manufacturer does not
provide such a time estimate, the length of the active mode test would
be 1.4 multiplied by the rated charge capacity of the battery divided
by the maximum charge current. DOE also proposes to arrange sections of
appendix Y1 so that the battery discharge test is performed immediately
after this active mode test is completed, but prior to the 24-hour
charge and maintenance mode test that would then be used to determine
maintenance mode power. Id.
Joint Trade Associations commented that the November 2021 NOPR
preamble stated the battery discharge test would be performed
immediately after the active mode test, but the proposed appendix Y1
regulatory text appropriately included a wait period. The Joint Trade
Associations urged DOE to retain the wait periods, should DOE continue
with the amended test procedure. The Joint Trade Associations expressed
concern that going immediately from active mode testing to maintenance
mode testing \12\ would impact the test because the battery could be
hot and stated the wait times are important for reducing test
variation. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As discussed in the following section, in this final rule
DOE has determined that energy use during maintenance mode is
appropriately assigned to standby mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's proposed charge test would begin upon insertion of a depleted
battery and would end when the battery is fully charged and require
that the test be terminated when there is indication that the charge
test has ended. DOE's intent was to explain that manufacturers should
terminate charging immediately after the battery reaches full charge,
rather than wait for the original total charge and maintenance mode
test duration to complete. The proposal was not intended to remove the
wait period between the charge and discharge test. As such, DOE
clarifies in this final rule that it is not removing the wait period
between the charge and battery discharge test, and a wait period
continues to be included in the newly established appendix Y1.
ITI suggested that the proposed charging test would be challenging
to conduct for the following reasons: the maintenance mode power would
be difficult to measure under the new approach for products with
integrated battery; and if a battery charger does not have charge
status indicator, it would be hard to monitor when the battery is fully
charged as there many variables that can affect the total charging
time, which makes it difficult to develop an automated and consistently
accurate process. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 3) ITI suggested DOE collect more
power data before proceeding with the new active charge test and
reiterated that separating
[[Page 55106]]
active charge test with maintenance mode test would require
significantly longer testing time, and the maintenance mode power would
not be possible to measure after battery discharge test for products
with integrated batteries. (Id.) ITI suggested that DOE also consider
the cost associated with potential redesign of battery charger
products. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6)
ITI and the Joint Trade Associations stated that the multi-metric
test would either require active technician monitoring or additional
special equipment for monitoring, which adds significant time and cost.
(ITI, No. 20 at p. 6; (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 5-6) The
Joint Trade Associations opposed the proposed active mode test
procedure, stating it would significantly increase test burden and
incur undue burden. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 5) The
Joint Trade Associations stated that because the test takes longer,
fewer tests can be conducted. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp.
5-6)
CSA commented that the current appendix Y allows laboratory
technicians leave the battery charger unattended for 19 hours before
having to check on the charging status to determine total test
duration, and the batteries will usually be charged within 19 hours for
the test to be terminated at the 24-hour mark; this test can be left
running overnight and requires very little time and effort from the lab
technician. (CSA, No. 12 at p. 1) CSA further commented that if the
active charge test needs to be terminated immediately after indication
of battery is fully charged, the lab technician would need to
continuously monitor the charge indicator and immediately terminate the
charge when the fully charged indicator turns on. (CSA, No. 12 at pp.
1-2) Although CSA conceded this could be done by implementing sensors
and other controls, CSA stated that it would be more burdensome than
the appendix Y test method. Id. Similarly, Delta-Q argued that the
proposed test procedure change adds test complexity and duration with
the addition of the separate maintenance mode test. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at
p. 2) Delta-Q also noted that the active mode test procedure was
problematic both because it appeared to require constant monitoring and
because it reduces battery rest time, which can increase test-to-test
variation. Id.
NEEA recommended DOE test a wide variety of battery chargers to
evaluate appropriateness of the active mode test. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp.
7-8) NEEA asserted that relying on a battery charge indicator may
result in different charge levels at the end of the active mode tests,
because not all chargers indicate charge status and those that do may
signal full charge at different thresholds, which could result in
unfair comparisons. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 7-8)
DOE notes that battery chargers are typically designed for a
specific battery or combination of batteries. Therefore, manufacturers
should already have an understanding of the full charge time for each
battery and charger combination, making it unlikely that a technician
would need to monitor a unit under test during the entire test period.
However, DOE also stated in the November 2021 NOPR that in its
experience, it may be possible to analyze the resulting data from the
24-hour charge and maintenance mode energy consumption test and divide
it into its constituents: the active mode energy and maintenance mode
power. 86 FR 66878, 66888. DOE therefore considered this alternative
approach, in which active mode energy consumption, Ea, would
be the time series integral of the power consumed from the point when
the battery was first inserted (or plugged in for chargers with
integrated batteries) until the measured data indicate a drop in power
associated with the transition from active charging to maintenance
mode. Under this approach, a single test period would provide the
necessary measurements for the active mode energy, Ea, from
the 24-hour charge and maintenance mode test data. DOE stated that it
would consider the discussed alternate approach in the development of
the final rule. Id. Under this approach, lab technicians do not need to
rely on charge status indicator to determine when the battery reaches
the full charge, which would ensure that the test battery would always
be fully charged at the end of the combined charge and maintenance mode
test.
CA IOUs agreed that calculating energy in active mode as the
integral of applied power during the charge period is a practical and
reasonable approach based on sound physics. (CA IOUs No. 25 at p. 2)
The Joint Trade Associations stated the alternative active mode test
would not work because battery chargers may have points at which the
battery power is turned off, such as a series of pulses at the end
where the battery attempts to get full charge. The Joint Trade
Associations stated that such instances could be misinterpreted at the
end of the appendix Y1 active test, and for products with complex
charge profiles, it is difficult to detect the end of active mode given
different battery sizes. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 7)
NEEA similarly commented that analyzing charge status based on AC
input power is difficult for slower trickle chargers because input
power may not indicate a transition from active to battery maintenance
mode. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 8) NEEA also suggested that although
additional instrumentation can be used to monitor battery charger
output and more accurately determine the state of charge, measuring
additional charger DC output may interfere battery and charger
communication signals, impacting testing safety; affect the measurement
directly; and increase test burden. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 8-9) NEEA
claimed that determining charge status by using AC input power may
result in different charge levels for fast chargers because these
chargers transition from fast to slow charging with different
algorithms. (Id.) NEEA encouraged DOE to investigate the issues it
identified, and to retain its current appendix Y active and maintenance
mode testing approach if the challenges prove difficult to overcome.
(Id.) NEEA stated that advantages of the appendix Y 24-hour active mode
test include reduced test burden for technicians, the ability to
address both slow and fast chargers through a uniform approach and
eliminating the need to determine/define charge status. (Id.)
WPC supported DOE's alternate approach of conducting a single 24-
hour charge and maintenance mode test and determining active charge
energy based on the data generated. (WPC, No. 22 at pp. 2-3) WPC also
commented however that it may be difficult to define the actual
transitioning point between active mode and maintenance mode. (Id.)
To minimize any potential additional burden that may be associated
with an active-mode only test as noted by commenters, DOE is adopting
the alternative active charge energy approach discussed in the November
2021 NOPR, under which active mode energy is calculated from the
combined charge and maintenance mode test, similar to the test procure
in appendix Y. DOE notes that battery chargers may have different
charging profiles. Based on DOE's testing, most battery chargers
exhibit a distinctive drop off in power indicating a transition to
maintenance mode. In certain limited instances, the battery charger
shows unstable power consumption towards the end of charging phase.
However, such periods would be classified as active charging because
the battery is pining the charger to get full charge, and as stated in
section 2.1 of appendix Y and the new appendix Y1 active mode is when
``the battery charger is delivering current,
[[Page 55107]]
equalizing the cells, and performing other one-time or limited-time
functions in order to bring the battery to a fully charged state.''
Therefore, by defining the state that would be classified as active
mode and by determining when the charger enters maintenance mode, lab
technicians can precisely identify the transition point from active
mode to maintenance mode and calculate the active charge energy from
this alternative approach, as prescribed in sections 3.3.9 and 3.3.10
of appendix Y1.
Schumacher commented that the best way to calculate the efficiency
of an automotive battery charger with non-integrated batteries is
similar to the calculation used for UPSs. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 1)
Schumacher further noted that including a non-integrated battery into
the efficiency calculation is not an effective measure of the charger's
efficiency because different batteries have different losses, and the
charger has no control over these batteries. Id. Schumacher therefore
stated that it is better and more accurate to measure the efficiency of
the charger directly, by itself, so that the chargers would not be
affected by the battery efficiencies. Id. Schumacher stated that lower
quality batteries can result in manually reduced charge cycles just to
pass the standard, which causes faster battery degrading and adds user
costs with greater environmental impact. (Id.)
DOE understands that for battery chargers designed for large-
capacity lead-acid batteries, manufacturers are less involved in the
end use product design and usually cannot pick which battery will be
used with their chargers. However, battery performance is a crucial
part for measuring battery charger efficiencies. Different battery
chemistries have different self-discharge rate, affecting the charge
and maintenance modes algorithms. DOE's battery charger test procedure
also determines the amount of ``useful energy'' by measuring how much
energy the fully charged battery can output.
In this final rule, DOE is adopting the alternate active charge
energy approach discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, in which active
mode energy is calculated from the combined charge and maintenance mode
test that is similar to the test procure in appendix Y.
7. Standby Mode Tests
Standby mode is the condition in which an energy-using product is:
(1) Connected to a main power source; and
(2) Offers 1 or more of the following user-oriented or protective
functions:
(aa) To facilitate the activation or deactivation of other
functions (including active mode) by remote switch (including remote
control), internal sensor, or timer.
(bb) Continuous functions, including information or status displays
(including clocks) or sensor-based functions.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii))
Appendix Y defines standby mode for battery chargers as the
condition in which a battery charger is connected to mains electricity
supply, the battery is not connected to the charger--and for battery
chargers with manual on-off switches, all switches are turned on.
Section 2.25 of appendix Y. Appendix Y also includes a definition for
maintenance mode in section 2.8, to mean the mode of operation in which
the battery charger is connected to the main electricity supply and the
battery is fully charged but still connected to the charger. In
maintenance mode, a battery charger continuously monitors the voltage
of the fully charged battery and periodically supplies charge current
to maintain the battery at the fully-charged state. As mentioned
previously, because the test procedure in appendix Y relies on a metric
that integrates active mode, standby mode, and off mode, it is less
critical in that context as to whether maintenance mode is
characterized as standby mode as compared to the proposed multi-metric
approach.
The current ``standby mode'' definition in appendix Y only captures
what can be referred to as ``no-battery mode,'' i.e., the condition
where a battery charger is connected to a mains power source but a
battery itself has not yet been inserted. In the context of the
proposed multi-metric approach, DOE tentatively determined in the
November 2021 NOPR that maintenance mode is also appropriately
characterized as a standby power mode. 86 FR 66878, 66888. In
maintenance mode, a battery charger provides continuous monitoring of
the battery charge. While a battery charger provides some limited
charging in maintenance mode in order to maintain the battery at full
charge, it is not charging a depleted battery. Unlike active mode,
maintenance mode can persist indefinitely. As an example, DOE
referenced power tool chargers in the November 2021 NOPR, which in
residential environments routinely spend an indefinite amount of time
maintaining batteries that are not regularly used but are required to
be fully charged. Id. In addition to balancing and mitigating self-
discharge of the cells, these chargers also typically provide a status
display indicating that the battery is in the fully charged state and
ready for use.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that these
continuous functions in maintenance mode satisfy both EPCA's and IEC
62301's definition of standby. 86 FR 66878, 66888-66889. To better
account for these conditions, DOE proposed to first rename what is
currently defined in appendix Y as standby mode to ``no-battery mode''
in appendix Y1 (and reference this term, as appropriate, throughout
appendix Y1). Id. DOE proposed to then define in appendix Y1 the term
``standby mode'' to include both no-battery mode and maintenance mode.
Id. Specifically, DOE proposed that in appendix Y1, standby mode power
of a battery charger (Psb), would be calculated as the sum
of the no-battery mode power (Pnb), and maintenance mode
power (Pm). Id.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates supported DOE's proposal to regulate
no-battery mode and maintenance as standby mode. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 23 at p. 3) NEEA supported DOE's proposal to include
both battery maintenance mode and no battery mode within standby mode
but encouraged DOE to require reporting of these two modes separately
to support more accurate standards analysis. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 3)
NEEA also supported DOE's proposal to regulate standby power mode as
the sum of maintenance mode power and no battery mode power, as this
metric gives manufacturers greater design flexibility. (NEEA, No. 27 at
pp. 3-4)
ITI stated that the new proposed test procedure would prolong the
maintenance mode test until maintenance mode power has been captured
representatively, and that it does not make sense to combine no-battery
mode power and maintenance mode power as products spend different time
in each of these states. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 3) The CA IOUs, while
otherwise supportive, stated that the proposed integrated standby
metric does not clearly delineate no-battery and maintenance modes
power. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2) The CA IOUs recommended that the no-
battery and maintenance modes power be reported separately as unique
values, especially in the case of combination products that provide
battery charging in addition to other functions. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p.
2) The CA IOUs also reiterated their support of using IEC 62301 to
develop a no-load standby measurement so that DOE's test procedure can
harmonize with industry practices and improve
[[Page 55108]]
low power factor treatment. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 3) DOE notes that
the no-battery mode test procedure was indeed developed based on IEC
62301 test procedure, with resolution parameters for power measurements
and uncertainty methodologies, including input crest factor tolerance
parameters, referenced directly from IEC 62301.
Honda disagreed with DOE's approach of combining maintenance mode
power and no-battery mode power under standby mode power, stating that
the approach would not properly evaluate standby power and would result
in double evaluation of the power to boot up the battery charger.
(Honda, No. 26 at pp. 1-2) Honda additionally asked DOE to monitor the
current supply in maintenance mode when calculating standby power,
because there can be differences when the charger is ``providing
limited charge'' and when the charger is ``not charging''. (Id.) DOE
reiterates that in maintenance mode operation, the battery charger is
only continuously monitoring the fully charged battery's voltage to
facilitate limited charging, if the voltage drops below a certain
threshold. In no-battery mode, the battery charger is constantly
``scanning'' to determine if a battery has been inserted, or connected,
to activate charging. The actual power to boot up the battery charging
function to charge the depleted battery would be regulated in active
mode itself. Therefore, combining maintenance mode power and no-battery
mode power would not be double evaluating the power to boot up the
battery charger.
WPC stated that it may be more accurate to determine the start of
maintenance mode by measuring the decrease in power rather than using a
charge indicator or timed rate of charge, as some device charge
indicators may show a premature full charge state when compared to the
rated capacity or after a period of maintenance mode charging. (WPC,
No. 22 at p. 2) WPC, however, did not agree with DOE's proposal to
combine no-battery mode and maintenance mode power into standby mode
power for fixed-location wireless chargers, and suggested that focusing
on ``no battery'' or ``no receiver'' mode would let DOE focus on
standby power reduction. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 3)
DOE is aware of some instances in which battery chargers may enter
a low power mode similar to no battery mode prior to entering
maintenance mode, which exhibits higher power consumptions in
comparison. Therefore, to ensure test procedure repeatability and
representativeness, DOE adopts the proposal that the maintenance mode
testing period should continue until 5 hours after true maintenance
mode has been captured. This ensures that the consumption in the
alternate low power mode described above is not being inadvertently
captured as maintenance mode. For example, if a battery charger does
not enter maintenance mode until the 50th hour of being in the active
charge and maintenance mode test, then the total active and maintenance
mode test period should be 55 hours, which ends at 5 hours after the
charger enters maintenance mode.
EPCA requires DOE to include standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, taking into consideration the most current versions of
Standards 62301 and 62087 of the IEC, and to integrate such energy
consumption into the overall descriptor for each covered product,
unless technically infeasible, such as here. However, where integration
into an overall metric is infeasible, EPCA directs DOE to prescribe a
separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the
covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
The operation of a battery charger in maintenance mode meets the
definition of ``standby mode'' as that term is defined by EPCA. (See 42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii)) As discussed, maintenance mode provides the
continuous function of maintaining a battery at full charge following
active mode until such time as the fully charged battery is removed
from the charger by the user. (Id.) The energy used during this
continuous (and potentially indefinite) mode is distinct from energy
use during active mode, the discrete period following placement of a
depleted battery on the charger, as the energy used in maintenance mode
does not contribute to direct battery charging. Further, because it is
providing a user-oriented or protective function, maintenance mode does
not meet the definition of off mode, which is defined as the condition
in which an energy-using product is connected to a main power source;
and is not providing any standby or active mode function. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii))
As noted in section III.B.5 of this document, most energy losses
happen during maintenance mode and no-battery mode, with the battery
charger not doing any useful work to transfer energy into the battery.
As these modes can last indefinitely based on different consumer usage
and product types, calculating the energy losses based on a weighting
factor would not be representative, which is also why DOE is
discontinuing the integrated UEC approach. By combining the power draw
of battery charger in maintenance mode and no-battery mode, DOE would
be able to representatively capture the energy usage metrics for
battery chargers in these states regardless of how much time the
battery charger spends in each state, while still giving manufacturers
freedom in design flexibility. Unlike with the overall UEC metric, DOE
would not be reliant on usage profiles and the requisite updates here;
therefore, it is not infeasible to combine maintenance mode and no-
battery mode. Furthermore, because maintenance mode power computes the
average power during at least the last four hours of maintenance mode
period, it would not be necessary to separately measure the power of
when the battery charger is providing limited charge.
As stated in section III.B.6 of this document, DOE is adopting the
NOPR discussed alternative approach that calculates the active mode
energy and maintenance mode power analytically from the combined charge
and maintenance mode test. DOE reiterates that from extensive internal
testing, DOE found that by monitoring battery charger input power, most
battery chargers would exhibit a distinctive drop off in power,
indicating a clear transition to maintenance mode. In rare instances
when the battery charger shows unstable power consumption towards the
end of charging phase, DOE notes that technically, they would still be
considered as active charging phase as the battery is pining the
charger to get full charge. Therefore, DOE does not anticipate there to
be obstacles that prevents stakeholders from identifying the
maintenance mode power under the alternative approach.
DOE is adopting the NOPR proposal to combine both maintenance mode
and no-battery mode under battery charger standby mode. DOE further
clarifies that for open-placement chargers, only no-battery mode power
would need to be tested, as prescribed in section 5 of appendix Y1.
8. Non-Battery-Charging Related Functions
DOE granted Dyson, Inc. (``Dyson'') a waiver from the current
battery charger test procedure for a specified battery charger model
(used in a robotic vacuum cleaner) and provided an alternate means for
disabling non-battery-charging functions during testing.\13\ 82 FR
16580 (Apr. 5, 2017). As described in the petition for waiver, the
[[Page 55109]]
battery charger basic models subject to the waiver have a number of
settings and remote management features not associated with the battery
charging function but are instead associated with the vacuum cleaner
end product that must remain on at all times. 82 FR 16580, 16581. Dyson
explained that it would be inappropriate to make these functions user
controllable, as they are integral to the function of the robot. Id.
The DOE test procedure for battery chargers requires that any function
controlled by the user and not associated with the battery charging
process must be switched off; or, for functions not possible to switch
off, be set to the lowest power consuming mode. Section 3.2.4.b of
appendix Y. DOE determined that the current test procedure at appendix
Y would evaluate the battery charger basic models specified in the
Orders granting the waiver and (related waiver extension) in a manner
so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as
to provide materially inaccurate comparatively data. 82 FR 16580, 16581
and 84 FR 12240, 12241. Pursuant to the approved test procedure waiver,
the specified basic models must be tested and rated such that power to
functions not associated with the battery charging process are disabled
by isolating a terminal of the battery pack using isolating tape. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Dyson, Inc. From
the Department of Energy Battery Charger Test Procedure (Case No.
BC-001). Subsequently, DOE issued an Extension of Waiver to Dyson,
Inc. to cover an additional basic model (Case No. 2018- 012). 84 FR
12240 (Apr. 1, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed the market and initially
determined that the products subject to the waivers granted to Dyson
are no longer available; therefore, DOE proposed to not amend the test
procedure to include instructions regarding disabling power to
functions not associated with the battery charging process that are not
consumer controllable, or to allow adders for such functions. 86 FR
66878, 66889-66890. DOE noted that this proposal would also terminate
the existing Dyson waivers consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3) and 10
CFR 430.27(l). Id.
In response to DOE's proposal, the Joint Efficiency Advocates
supported DOE's proposal to maintain the current approach for disabling
power to non-battery-charging related functions, and supported DOE's
proposal to terminate Dyson's waivers as these products are no longer
available on the market. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 3)
NEEA supported maintaining the present approach to waiver petitions,
auxiliary functions in the test procedure, and DOE's decision to
terminate the existing waiver granted to Dyson. (NEEA, No. 27 at 11)
The Joint Trade Associations asked DOE to provide additional
clarity on requirements regarding disabling power to non-battery-
charging related functions, because although some functions do not
contribute to battery charging, they cannot be disabled directly by the
user. The Joint Trade Associations stated that DOE and stakeholders
have struggled with how to address these functions in the past and
suggested a proposal to allow disabling of these functions but with
non-circumventing language. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 10)
The Joint Trade Associations suggested DOE to include a publicly
viewable column with the CCD so that the public can know when an
alternative means is used to isolate the charging function. The Joint
Trade Associations further suggested DOE to add a confidential column
so manufacturers can report instructions on how to disable the non-
battery-charging related functions or set them to the lowest power
consuming state. The Joint Trade Associations also proposed to DOE that
anti-circumvention language should be added to make the intent that
battery-charging related circuit or function cannot be changed in the
test procedure clear, as such language has been successful in other
appliances categories. (Id.) ITI and Delta-Q also supported the joint
comments. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 4-5; Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2) Delta-Q
further expressed their support of the existing Dyson waiver approach
and suggested that DOE integrate allowances to more battery charger
models, because it is not always practical or desirable for the user to
have the ability to manually disable non-charging-features or reduce
their consumption. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2)
STIHL commented that when STIHL's lawn mower battery is charging,
there are some non-battery-charging related functions still running,
such as connected functions or safety functions. (STIHL, No. 16 at p.
1) STIHL inquired if these functions can be deactivated or be given
appropriate power adders when calculating for energy consumption during
testing, because they do not relate to the charging process. Id.
DOE's current battery charger test procedure specifically requires
non-battery-charging functions to be turned off during testing, unless
manufacturers did not provide ways for end user to disable these
functions. Section 3.2.4 of appendix Y. DOE notes that, due to the
intricate nature of battery charger products, disabling non-battery-
charging related functions through non-user-accessible ways can have
unexpected effects on the battery charging circuitry, which raises
repeatability and reproducibility concerns. Therefore, DOE is not
amending the test procedure to allow disabling of non-battery-charging
related functions through alternative means. In the case suggested by
STIHL's comment, the same requirements would also apply, and the
battery charger would only be tested with these non-battery-charging
functions on if they cannot be switched off by the end user. Due to the
huge variety of non-battery-charging related functions and different
ways they can be implemented, DOE is not prescribing power adders for
these non-battery-charging related functions.
Schumacher added that there is new automotive battery charger
technology that uses internal super capacitors or Li-Ion batteries,
which charges the standalone (end-use product's) battery normally, and
then the internal battery or supercapacitor, if needed, after charge is
complete. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 6) Schumacher asked if the charging
of these internal batteries should be included into E24 or Pm or some
other parts of the standard that are yet to be described. (Schumacher,
No. 21 at p. 6) DOE's notes that its battery charger test procedure
only measures the energy consumption at the input of the charger. Based
on when charging of these super capacitors occur, it could be regulated
either under active charge mode or maintenance mode of DOE's test
procedure.
C. Corrections and Non-Substantive Changes
Since the publication of DOE's current battery charger test
procedure and energy conservation standards, DOE has received numerous
stakeholder inquiries regarding various topics involving battery
charger testing and certification. Based on these inquiries, DOE
identified the need for certain minor corrections. These corrections
are addressed in the following sections. Additionally, in the interest
of improving overall clarity, DOE will include a flowchart in the
docket outlining the required testing and certification process with
this final rule.
1. Certification Flowcharts
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include certification
flowcharts in the docket upon publication of the final rule, shown in
Figure III.C.1 and Figure III.C.2,\14\ to
[[Page 55110]]
help manufacturers better understand the battery charger testing and
certification process. The flowcharts provide an overview of the
testing and certification process, including an overview of the basic
model definition, the scope of DOE's battery charger test procedure;
the required sample size, the difference between a rated value, a
represented value, and a certified rating, and the statistical criteria
for determining compliance with energy conservation standards. The
flowcharts are not intended to address all aspects of the testing and
certification requirements, but instead provide a general-level guide
to the process. As such, manufacturers should not rely solely on the
flowcharts for testing and compliance. Manufacturers of battery
chargers are required to comply with the applicable provisions under 10
CFR parts 429 and 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Figures III.C.1 and III.C.2 are included to clarify the
process in this rulemaking only. Manufacturers should not rely
solely on the flowcharts as substantive guides for testing and
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 55111]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.000
[[Page 55112]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.001
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
The Joint Trade Associations suggested that DOE consistently update
the flowcharts as needed and make it clear that the regulatory text
would override anything in the flowcharts because many manufacturers
will rely on these flowcharts, if finalized. (Joint Trade Associations,
No. 24 at p. 11) ITI also supported this comment. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Appendix Y1 test procedure would not be effective until
after energy conservation standards have been amended to account for
the multi-metric approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55113]]
DOE acknowledges these comments and will ensure that the flowcharts
are updated as necessary. DOE also reemphasizes that the regulatory
text would override anything in the flowcharts.
2. Testing and Certification Clarifications
DOE's current battery charger UEC calculation is prescribed in
section 3.3.13 of appendix Y, with product specific certification
requirements prescribed in 10 CFR 429.39. DOE proposed clarifications
in the November 2021 NOPR, based on stakeholder comments.
a. Measured vs. Rated Battery Energy
The product class distinctions provided in Table 3.3.3 of appendix
Y are based in part on rated battery energy as determined in 10 CFR
429.39(a), which in turn references the represented value of battery
discharge energy. 10 CFR 429.39(a)(1). The calculation of UEC in
section 3.3.13 of appendix Y is based in part on the tested (measured)
battery energy.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to further clarify the
nomenclature in appendix Y by modifying the ``Ebatt'' term
used in the UEC calculation and usage profile selection in Table 3.3.3
to ``Measured Ebatt''. As for the proposed appendix Y1, DOE
noted that all of the instructions rely on measured Ebatt,
making it unnecessary to distinguish between measured and rated
Ebatt. 86 FR 66878, 66893.
Delta-Q supported the extra clarifications on measured and
nameplate nomenclature. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2)
The Joint Trade Associations stated that it is not clear whether
measured or rated values for battery energy should be used, and they
would support DOE's proposal to update the nomenclature if coupled with
an enforcement provision that allows for tolerance, as there could be
inherent variations in test and production that affect how standard and
product class applies. The Joint Trade Associations stated that their
proposed approach is consistent with DOE's enforcement approach for
other appliances, such as measured volume for refrigerators, freezers,
clothes washers, dehumidifiers, etc. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24
at p. 11) ITI supported this comment and further requested DOE to
continue using the term ``rated'' instead of ``represented'', unless
DOE can provide a clear definition on when should the ``represented''
term be used. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 5)
DOE recognizes the inherent variations in testing and production,
especially for tested battery energies. However, DOE notes that due to
the nature of how battery energy differs even for the same models from
the same batch, when determining compliance through enforcement testing
DOE would be looking at the individual sample performance more closely
and determine compliance based on per sample basis, if necessary. DOE
will also ensure that its battery charger energy conservation standards
would show comparable standards for battery chargers that fall on the
border of two neighboring product classes.
DOE notes that under the term ``rated'', some manufacturers might
confuse it with ``nameplate'' values, which can differ for batteries.
Therefore, to ensure test procedure repeatability and reproducibility,
DOE is avoiding using the term ``rated'', and is updating the terms to
``represented'', ``nameplate'', and ``measured'' instead.
b. Other Nomenclatures
Schumacher stated that appendix Y's specified 5-hour discharge time
resulted from the 0.2 C-rate, and conflicts with real world automotive
battery ratings which are usually based on 10-to-20-hour rates.
Schumacher stated that the 5-hour discharge time results in a much
lower rating than the nameplate rating because of energy loss through
heat. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2) Schumacher proposed DOE to clarify
the 0.2C C-rate means a 5-hour discharge rate to ensure manufacturers
are conducting the tests correctly and reporting correctly.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at pp.2-3)
DOE notes that discharge rates will vary by end-use application. It
would be infeasible and add burden if DOE was to prescribe a unique
discharge rate for each type of application in the test procedure.
DOE's specified 0.2C discharge rate offers a practical and repeatable
solution for different applications with either slow or fast discharge
rates. By maintaining the same discharge rate, it would also improve
comparability in results. For batteries that serve the same end-use
application, although the tested value may differ from manufacturer
designed ratings, they would still be comparable to other batteries
from the same application.
The definition for C-rate is prescribed at section 2.10 of appendix
Y, which specifies that the C-rate is calculated by dividing the charge
or discharge current by the nameplate battery charge capacity of the
battery. DOE has not received stakeholder comments suggesting that the
current 0.2 discharge C-rate causes confusion prior to Schumacher's
comment. DOE is also unaware of any manufacturer discharging the
batteries differently than the prescribed 0.2C discharge rate. However,
to further improve test procedure language clarity, DOE will amend the
C-rate definition in both appendix Y and appendix Y1 to give an example
that time needed to charge or discharge with a 0.2 C-rate would equal 5
hours.
Schumacher stated that the term used to refer to ``Product
Classes'' and ``wall adapters'' are not consistent between the
standard, test procedure, and CCD report template. (Schumacher, No. 21
at pp. 4-5) Schumacher commented that making consistent use of terms
would avoid ambiguity and DOE should clarify that wall adapters indeed
refer to EPSs. Id.
DOE's mention of wall adapters in the test procedure was to
facilitate understanding and readability of the test procedure. In most
cases, the term ``wall adapter'' can be used interchangeably with
``EPS''. To further improve language consistency, DOE is changing the
``wall adapter'' terms used in appendices Y and Y1 to the more
technically appropriate term ``EPSs''. As for the term ``Product
Classes'', DOE notes that in the CCD reporting template, they are
referred to as ``Product Group Codes'', which should not cause
confusion as the ``Product Group Codes'' worksheet details the product
groups with matching product classes.
c. Alternate Test Method for Small Electronic Devices
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE did not propose to amend the test
procedure to rely on the measured battery energy value for the purpose
of the testing and certification, because DOE has observed several
occasions in which the measured battery energy was lower than the
marked nameplate energy, which could lead to unrepresentative value of
UEC or active energy consumption. 86 FR 66878, 66893.
ITI reiterated their recommendation for DOE to simplify the test
procedure for small electronics by relying on the nameplate battery
energy so that testers would not need to obtain special standalone
battery samples or solder on tiny terminals. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 6-7)
ITI suggested DOE to reconsider its stance on these devices because
inconsistencies caused by these small energy batteries would have
negligible impact on overall results. (Id.) ITI also requested DOE to
review data from
[[Page 55114]]
small electronics as they normally have passed the UEC standard with
large margins, but with maintenance mode energy contributing to
majority of energy consumption. (Id.) NEEA expressed general support
for DOE's assertion that rated and measured battery capacities can
differ substantially, and that requiring measurement ensures fair
competition under the standard. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 11)
DOE reemphasizes that DOE's battery charger test procedure relies
on the tested battery energy to carry out UEC calculation. DOE has
encountered several occasions where the actual battery energy differs
from the rated battery energy. Relying on the rated battery energy to
test the product therefore would result in inaccurate measurements and
certifications, contrary to EPCA's requirement that DOE adopt test
procedures reasonably designed to produce representative results.
Therefore, DOE is not prescribing any alternative test methods for
small electronics.
d. Inability To Directly Measure Battery Energy
Section 3.2.5.(f) of appendix Y states that when the battery
discharge energy and the charging and maintenance mode energy cannot be
measured directly due to any of the following conditions: (1) inability
to access the battery terminals; (2) access to the battery terminals
destroys charger functionality; or (3) inability to draw current from
the test battery, the battery discharge energy and the charging and
maintenance mode energy shall be reported as ``Not Applicable.'' In
such cases, the test procedure does not provide instruction on how to
proceed with the remainder of the test, and an alternate test method
must be used to measure battery discharge energy and the charging and
maintenance mode energy.
DOE therefore proposed to update section 3.2.5(f) of appendix Y to
explicitly state that if any of the aforementioned conditions are
applicable, preventing the measurement of the battery discharge energy
and the charging and maintenance mode energy, a manufacturer must
submit a petition for a test procedure waiver in accordance with 10 CFR
430.27. The same provision would also be included as part of the new
appendix Y1. 86 FR 66878, 66893. DOE did not receive comments on this
topic and is adopting the proposed changes in this final rule.
e. Determining Battery Voltage
The product class distinctions provided in Table 3.3.3 of appendix
Y are based in part on ``battery voltage'' in addition to rated battery
energy or special charging characteristics, as described previously.
Section 3.3.1 of appendix Y specifies recording the nameplate battery
voltage of the test battery. Section 2.21 of appendix Y defines
``nameplate battery voltage'' as specified by the battery manufacturer
and typically printed on the label of the battery itself. If there are
multiple batteries that are connected in a series, the nameplate
battery voltage of the batteries is the total voltage of the series
configuration--that is, the nameplate voltage of each battery
multiplied by the number of batteries connected in series. Connecting
multiple batteries in parallel does not affect the nameplate battery
voltage. Section 2.21 of appendix Y.
Additionally, for a multi-voltage charger, the battery with the
highest battery voltage must be selected for testing, as prescribed by
Table 3.2.1 of appendix Y. Consequently, the highest supported battery
voltage should also be used to determine product class, which is not
reflected by the current term ``battery voltage'' in Table 3.3.3.
Updating the language in Table 3.3.3 would avoid the potential for
future confusion with regard to multi-voltage products.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend Table 3.3.3 of
appendices Y and Y1 by replacing the term ``battery voltage'' with
``highest nameplate battery voltage'' to provide clearer direction that
the battery voltage used to determine product class is based on its
nameplate battery voltage, and that for multi-voltage products, the
highest voltage is used. 86 FR 66878, 66893-66894. The Joint Trade
Associations supported DOE's proposal to clarify that the highest
nameplate battery voltage should be used in determining product class.
(Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 12)
In this final rule, DOE is adopting the proposed editorial change
on battery voltage specification in Table 3.3.3.
f. UEC and Reporting Discrepancies
Schumacher noted that Ebatt and UEC allow 3 decimal places for
entry, while the other measured, calculated, and determined values only
allow 2 decimal places, which sometimes creates calculation errors.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 3) Schumacher proposed that DOE change all
finished calculated values to 3 decimal places, except for UEC and max
UEC which should be 2 decimal places; and all the constants provided by
DOE to change from 2 decimal places to 5 or with fractions to reduce
rounding errors, which sometimes prevents submission. (Schumacher, No.
21 at p. 3) Schumacher claimed that the UEC calculation selection
formula can have discrepancies from the use of only 2 decimal places.
For example, a battery charger with 64.271 hours of total charge time
can use either UEC equation (i) or (ii) from the selection formula.
(Id.) Schumacher stated that increasing the decimal places to 5 for
constants and rounding the finished results to 3 decimal places or
keeping the constants in fractions would reduce these discrepancies.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at pp. 3-4)
DOE's CCD already allows manufacturers to report values with
multiple decimal places. DOE notes that it cannot change the constants
provided in appendix Y to more decimal places or fractions, as doing so
could affect the currently CCD reported basic models. For example, even
a slight change in usage profiles or threshold charge time could cause
numerous currently reported basic models to have slightly different
UEC. This change would also result in unnecessary need for
manufacturers to recertify their basic models. DOE's CCD reporting form
does not specifically look for rounding errors, and it was not clear
from Schumacher's comment on how the submission rejection occurred.
However, if stakeholders continue to have submission related questions,
stakeholders can contact DOE's Compliance Certification Management
System directly for help.
Schumacher also included a chart to illustrate that there is a 5-
hour transition shift between UEC formula (i) and (ii), which does not
lead to a smooth transition and asked DOE to provide some explanation.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 4) UEC equation (i) was developed based on
usage profiles. To account for chargers that takes significantly longer
to charge than DOE's threshold charge time, DOE developed UEC equation
(ii) with close reference to equation (i). Because DOE's UEC equation
(ii) accounts for the prolonged charge time that exceeds DOE's standard
threshold charge time, it could negatively impact a battery charger's
UEC in very limited cases.
g. Testing Setup
Schumacher suggested that the DOE battery charger test procedure
should reference appendix Z or add greater detail on test measurement
setup with proper connection sequence, to provide a more uniform
standard and ensure reproducibility. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 5)
Schumacher suggested that the sense leads should be placed directly on
the battery terminals and not the charger terminals to ensure voltage
loss of the
[[Page 55115]]
charger terminals are measured and should be repeated for discharge
measurement so that the terminal connection losses can be accounted
for, which ensures a more uniform standard. (Schumacher, No. 21 at pp.
5-6)
Battery charger testing setup can vary significantly depending on
different product configurations. DOE has already prescribed language
in section 3.2.1 for manufacturers to set up the battery chargers
according to manufacturer instructions or the default settings. DOE
notes that the measurement setup figure used in appendix Z is for
reference only and has language indicating that actual test setup may
vary pursuant to appendix Z requirements. DOE has not encountered
scenarios in which manufacturers cannot successfully set up measurement
for battery charger testing; therefore, DOE is not providing greater
detail on how manufacturers should set up test measurement.
DOE's battery charger test procedure measures the charging
efficiency as a whole. Therefore, DOE is not adding requirements for
manufacturers to measure the charger input at battery terminals,
because adding the battery input terminal measurements would not
representatively measure the useful energy being put into the battery
and would add undue burden. Furthermore, battery chargers can have
different designs that impact how discharge tests can be performed. As
such, DOE is not prescribing additional requirements on where the
battery output connections should be made for measurement to avoid
undue burden.
3. Cross-Reference Corrections
Section 3.3.4 of appendix Y, ``Preparing the Battery for Charge
Testing,'' specifies that the test battery shall be fully discharged
for the duration specified in section 3.3.2 of appendix Y, or longer
using a battery analyzer. However, DOE's intention was to instruct the
user to discharge a test battery not for a set duration but until it
reaches the end of discharge voltages listed in Table 3.3.2 of appendix
Y. While a battery would be fully discharged with either set of
instructions, current instructions would lead to a battery preparation
step that is significantly longer. Additionally, there are several
instances in appendix Y of which DOE used generic terms such as
``specified above'' or ``noted below''. While these generic reference
terms are referring to the test procedure sections immediately
preceding or following, identifying the specific referenced sections
would improve the test procedure clarity. Therefore, DOE proposed to
further clarify these cross-references in appendix Y, and incorporate
this same change into proposed appendix Y1, to reduce test burden and
avoid potential confusion. To further streamline the readability of
appendix Y, DOE proposed to move the end-of-discharge Table 3.3.2 so
that it immediately follows the battery discharge energy test at
section 3.3.8. 86 FR 66878, 66894.
Honda suggested that the proposed Table 3.1.1 for appendix Y1
includes incorrect subsection references. (Honda, No. 26 at p. 1) Honda
also stated that the proposed Table 4.3.1 of appendix Y1 appears to
have a typographical error and that it should remain the same for
current appendix Y Table 4.3.1. (Honda, No. 26 at p. 2)
DOE appreciates Honda's comment. The incorrect subsection
references were unintentional typographical errors. For the proposed
Table 4.3.1 of appendix Y1, it was incorrectly formatted upon
publication. Table 4.3.1 should still remain the same as the one in
appendix Y. DOE is correcting these two typographical errors in this
final rule. DOE is also adopting the rest of the proposed cross-
reference corrections.
4. Sub-Section Corrections
Sections 3.3.11(b) and 3.3.12(b) of appendix Y provide instructions
for testing the standby and off mode power consumption, respectively,
of a battery charger with integral batteries. Section 2.6 of appendix Y
describes an integral battery as a battery that is contained within the
consumer product and is not removed from the consumer product for
charging purposes. Sections 3.3.11(c), 3.3.11(d), 3.3.12(c), and
3.3.12(d) provide instructions applicable to products containing
``integrated power conversion and charging circuitry,'' which is
intended to refer to products with integral batteries for which the
circuitry is integrated within the battery charger, in contrast to
being integrated within a cradle or an external adapter (as referred to
in sections 3.3.11(b) and 3.3.12(b)).
To improve the readability of the test procedure and avoid
potential confusion as to the applicability of sections 3.3.11(c),
3.3.11(d), 3.3.12(c), and 3.3.12(d) in relation to sections 3.3.11(b)
and 3.3.12(b), DOE in the November 2021 NOPR proposed to reorder these
sections of appendix Y such that section 3.3.11(b) would include only
the statement that standby mode may also apply to products with
integral batteries. 86 FR 66878, 66894. The remainder of current
section 3.3.11(b), as well as 3.3.11(c) and 3.3.11(d) would be
reorganized as subsections (1) through (3) subordinate to section
3.3.11(b), to provide clearer indication that these three subsections
refer to three different types of products with integral batteries. The
same structure would be applied in section 3.3.12(b) for off mode. 86
FR 66878, 66894.
ITI requested DOE to further explain how sections 3.3.11 and 3.3.12
will be reorganized. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6)
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated in the preamble and in the
proposed appendix Y and Y1 regulatory text section that subsections
3.3.11.(b) through (d) would be reorganized as subsections (1) through
(3) subordinate to section 3.3.11(b), to provide clearer indication
that these three subsections refer to three different types of products
with integral batteries. The same structure would be applied in section
3.3.12(b) for off mode. 86 FR 66878, 66894. These would improve
readability and DOE does not anticipate any impacts to current test
procedure from these reorganizations. Therefore, DOE is adopting the
proposed subsection corrections.
D. Effective and Compliance Dates
The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendment will be
30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and
energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product
labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure,
beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) EPCA provides an allowance for
individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-
day period if the manufacturer would experience undue hardship in
meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an
extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days
before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.) To the extent the
modified test procedure adopted in this final rule is required only for
the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, compliance
with the amended test procedure does not require use of such modified
test procedure provisions until the compliance date of updated
standards.
Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions in this final
rule, waivers that had been previously issued to Dyson (Case No. BC-001
and Case No. 2018-012) are terminated. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3). Because
these Dyson products are no longer distributed in the
[[Page 55116]]
market, DOE does not anticipate further testing for these products.
E. Test Procedure Costs
In this final rule, DOE incorporates some editorial changes in the
preceding test procedure for battery chargers at appendix Y to: (1)
update battery chemistry table to improve representativeness; (2)
explicitly refer manufacturers to the test procedure waiver provisions
when battery energy cannot be measured; and (3) provide more
descriptive designation of the different battery energy and battery
voltage values used for determining product class and calculating unit
energy consumption. The changes to appendix Y also include minor cross
reference corrections and test procedure organization improvements. DOE
is also terminating the existing Dyson test procedure waiver.
Appendix Y1 would include all the changes previously listed, as
well as: (1) remove the ``wet environment'' designation and expand the
5 Wh battery energy limit to 100 Wh for fixed-location wireless
chargers; (2) add definitions for ``fixed-location'' and ``open-
placement'' wireless chargers; (3) introduce a new no-battery mode only
test for open-placement wireless chargers; (4) amend the wall adapter
selection for chargers that do not come with one; and (5) establish an
approach that relies on separate metrics for active mode, standby mode,
and off mode, in place of the UEC calculation in appendix Y. DOE has
determined that these proposed amendments would not be unduly
burdensome for manufacturers to conduct.
Appendix Y Test Procedure Amendments
The amendments specific to appendix Y would not alter the scope of
applicability or the measured energy use of basic models currently
certified to DOE. DOE does not anticipate that the proposals specific
to appendix Y would cause any manufacturer to re-test any currently
covered battery chargers or incur any additional testing costs.
Appendix Y1 Test Procedure Proposal
All the amendments specific to appendix Y1 would not be required to
be used until DOE amends energy conservation standards for battery
chargers in a future rulemaking and requires battery charger
manufacturers to rate their products using appendix Y1. DOE is aware
that certain manufacturers may be voluntarily reporting under state
programs the energy efficiency as determined under appendix Y of a
limited number of fixed-location wireless chargers that are not
currently subject to the DOE test procedure. DOE is not aware of such
representations being included in manufacturer literature. Given that
such reporting appears limited to state programs and manufacturers are
not otherwise making representations of the energy efficiency or energy
use of such products, DOE is unable to estimate the extent of such
reporting. Beginning 180 days following the final rule requiring the
use of appendix Y1, were manufacturers to continue such voluntary
reporting any such representations would have to be based on the DOE
test procedure as amended. To the extent there is a limited number of
models for which manufacturers are making voluntary representations,
such models may require re-testing. Further details regarding the cost
impact of the proposed amendments for when battery charger
manufacturers are required to test their products using appendix Y1 are
presented in the following paragraphs.
Appendix Y1--Wireless Chargers
The amendment to remove the ``wet environment'' designation and
increase the battery energy limit will increase the scope of the
existing battery charger test procedure to include wireless battery
chargers other than those with inductive connection and designed for
use in a wet environment.
DOE has estimated the testing cost associated to test these fixed-
location and open-placement wireless chargers in accordance with the
test procedure. DOE estimates that it would take approximately 40 hours
to conduct testing for one fixed-location wireless charger unit and 2.2
hours to conduct the no-battery mode only test for one open-placement
wireless charger unit. These tests do not require the wireless charger
unit being tested to be constantly monitored by a lab technician. DOE
estimates that a lab technician would spend approximately 2.5 hours to
test a fixed-location wireless charger unit and 1 hour to test an open-
placement wireless charger unit.
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (``BLS's'')
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for
electrical and electronic engineering technologist and technician is
$32.84.\16\ DOE also used data from BLS's Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation to estimate the percent that wages comprise the total
compensation for an employee. DOE estimates that wages make up 70.4
percent of the total compensation for private industry employees.\17\
Therefore, DOE estimates that the total hourly compensation (including
all fringe benefits) of a technician performing these tests is
approximately $46.65.\18\ Using these labor rates and time estimates,
DOE estimates that it would cost wireless charger manufacturers
approximately $117 to conduct a single test on a fixed-location
wireless charger unit and approximately $47 to conduct a single test on
an open-placement wireless charger unit.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ DOE used the mean hourly wage of the ``17-3023 Electrical
and Electronic Engineering Technologists and Technicians'' from the
most recent BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (May
2020) to estimate the hourly wage rate of a technician assumed to
perform this testing. See https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes173023.htm. Last accessed on July 22, 2021.
\17\ DOE used the March 2021 ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation'' to estimate that for ``Private Industry Workers,''
``Wages and Salaries'' are 70.4 percent of the total employee
compensation. See www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06172021.pdf. Last accessed on July 22, 2021.
\18\ $32.84 / 0.704 = $46.65.
\19\ Fixed-location wireless charger: $46.65 x 2.5 hours =
$116.63 (rounded to $117).
Open-placement wireless charger: $46.65 x 1 hour = $46.65
(rounded to $47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requires that at least two units be tested for each basic model
prior to certifying a rating. Therefore, DOE estimates that
manufacturers would incur testing costs of approximately $234 per
fixed-location wireless charger basic model and approximately $94 per
open-placement wireless charger basic model, when testing these
wireless chargers. However, this amendment to remove the ``wet
environment'' designation and increase the battery energy limit for
wireless battery chargers would only be applicable for appendix Y1, and
manufacturers would not be required to use appendix Y1 for wireless
battery chargers that are not currently covered by appendix Y until DOE
amends the energy conservation standards for battery chargers as part
of a future rulemaking. DOE will further address the expected costs to
industry if and when DOE establishes energy conservation standards for
wireless chargers.
Appendix Y1--EPS Selection
The update to require the use of a minimally compliant power supply
selection criteria for battery chargers that are not sold with one
ensures that these products are tested in a manner that is
representative of actual use, as required by EPCA. This update would
not create additional cost or require additional time as compared to
the prior test procedure, as these battery chargers
[[Page 55117]]
currently require a low voltage input; this change will only specify
how the low voltage input must be provided and is not expected to
result in additional costs. DOE also anticipates this update to impact
the measured energy consumption of battery chargers, but only for
scenarios where the manufacturer previously certified the product using
an EPS that is either not minimally compliant or used a bench power
supply and failed to include its energy consumption as part of the
battery charger system.
However, the amended test procedure would only apply to the new
appendix Y1, meaning it would not be required for testing until DOE
amends energy conservation standards and requires manufacturers to use
appendix Y1. Based on DOE's market research, DOE estimates that most
battery charger models do not remain on the market for more than four
years because of frequent battery charger model updates and retirement
of old models. Therefore, DOE anticipates that most battery chargers
required to use appendix Y1 will likely be introduced into the market
after this test procedure amendment is finalized.\20\ Should the use of
appendix Y1 be required due to amended energy conservation standards,
battery chargers introduced prior to this test procedure's finalization
would likely no longer be on the market and therefore DOE does not
anticipate manufacturers needing to re-test those charger models.
Battery chargers introduced into the market after this test procedure
takes effect will have the option to test those models using the new
power supply selection criteria. Battery charger manufacturers using
the proposed selection criteria of a power supply would not incur any
additional testing costs compared to the current battery charger
testing costs. Any manufacturer seeking to avoid any risk of retesting
costs can choose to comply with the new selection criteria of a power
supply earlier than required. If a manufacturer chooses this option,
they would incur the same testing costs when using the new selection
criteria as they currently incur and would not have to retest those
battery chargers after appendix Y1 is required. DOE will examine the
potential retesting costs of manufacturers continuing to test battery
charger models that do not use the new power supply selection criteria
in any future energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For this cost analysis DOE estimates that the battery
charger test procedures will be finalized in 2022. Similarly,
amended energy conservation standards, if justified, would be
finalized in 2024 with an estimated 2026 compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix Y1--Modes of Operation
DOE has also estimated the testing costs associated with battery
charger testing under appendix Y1. Removing usage profiles and
switching the UEC metric to the active, standby, and off modes multi-
metric system in appendix Y1 will cause battery charger manufacturers
to re-test their products when DOE amends energy conservation standards
requiring manufacturers to test their products using appendix Y1. Under
appendix Y1, if the manufacturer has (i) already tested and certified
the battery charger basic model under the current appendix Y and (ii)
still has the original testing data from the appendix Y testing
available for standby power calculation, those battery charger basic
models would only need to be recertified with the active charge energy
and standby power data analysis. For these battery charger basic
models, DOE estimates an extra labor time of 10 minutes would be needed
to reanalyze the test results. Using the previously calculated fully-
burdened labor rate of $46.65 per hour for an employee conducting these
tests, DOE estimates manufacturers would incur approximately $7.78 to
analyze the test results for these battery chargers. DOE requires at
least two units be tested per basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates
manufacturers would incur approximately $15.56 per battery charger
basic model for these battery chargers.
Basic models that will either be newly covered under the expanded
scope or that are missing the original test data from their appendix Y
testing would need to be fully tested under appendix Y1. DOE estimates
a total testing time of approximately 40 hours would be needed, with
2.5 hours of technician intervention required to test each additional
battery charger unit. Using the previously calculated fully-burdened
labor rate of $46.65 for an electrical technician to conduct these
tests, manufacturers would incur approximately $116.63 per unit. DOE
requires at least two units be tested per basic model. Therefore, DOE
estimates manufacturers would incur approximately $233.25 per battery
charger basic model to conduct the complete testing under appendix Y1.
All Other Test Procedure Amendments
The remainder of the final rule would add additional detail and
instruction to improve the readability of the test procedure. The
cross-reference corrections, sub-section corrections and
reorganizations also help improve the test procedure readability and
clarity without modifying or adding any steps to the test method. As
such, these amendments will not result in increased test burden.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is
consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly,
[[Page 55118]]
this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any
final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
The following sections detail DOE's FRFA for this test procedure
final rule.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is amending the existing DOE test procedures for battery
chargers. DOE shall amend test procedures with respect to any covered
product, if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would
more accurately produce test results which measure energy efficiency,
energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product
during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A))
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
DOE is required to review existing DOE test procedures for all
covered products every 7 years. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of battery chargers, the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. The size standards are listed by North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry description and are
available at: www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
Battery charger manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335999, ``All
Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing.''
The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or fewer for an entity to be
considered as a small business in this category.
DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
proposed rule. 13 CFR part 121. DOE reviewed the test procedures in
this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003.
Wired Battery Chargers
DOE used data from DOE's publicly available Compliance
Certification Database (``CCD'') \21\ and the California Energy
Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System
(``MAEDbS'').\22\ DOE identified over 2,000 companies that submitted
entries for Federally regulated battery chargers.\23\ DOE screened out
companies that do not meet the SBA definition of a ``small entity'' or
are foreign-owned and operated. DOE identified approximately 294
potential small businesses that currently certify battery chargers or
applications using battery chargers to DOE's CCD. These 294 potential
small businesses manufacture approximately 3,456 unique basic models of
battery chargers or applications using battery chargers. The number of
battery charger models made by each potential small business ranges
from 1 model to 263 models, with an average of approximately 12 unique
basic models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. Last
accessed on August 11, 2021.
\22\ See cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx. Last accessed on August 11, 2021.
\23\ These entities consist of both battery charger
manufacturers and manufacturers of devices that use a battery
charger (e.g., toys or small electronic devices that have a battery
charger embedded in the product).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Battery Chargers
DOE used publicly available data from the Wireless Power Consortium
and the aforementioned manufacturer list generated from the CCD and
MAEDbS databases to estimate the number of wireless battery charger
manufacturers and number of wireless battery charger models.\24\ The
majority of these companies are foreign owned and operated, as most
wireless battery charger manufacturing is done abroad. DOE identified
13 potential domestic small businesses that manufacture approximately
327 wireless battery charger models. The number of wireless battery
charger models made by each potential small business ranges from 1
model to 183 models, with an average of approximately 25 models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/products. Last accessed
on September 8, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
Wired Battery Chargers
DOE assumes that each small business's regulatory costs would
depend on the number of unique basic battery charger models and
applications using a battery charger that small business manufactures.
It is likely that some unique applications using a battery charger may
use the same battery charging component as another unique application
listed in DOE's CCD, meaning the cost of testing would be double
counted in this analysis. However, DOE has conservatively estimated the
cost associated with re-testing each unique application using a battery
charger. Additionally, while some battery charger manufacturers could
partially rely on previous testing conducted under appendix Y for their
battery chargers (as described in section III.E of this document), DOE
conservatively estimates each small business would need to conduct the
entire test under appendix Y1 for each unique basic model they
manufacture.
As discussed in section III.E of this document, battery chargers
would only need to be tested under appendix Y1 when DOE sets future
energy conservation standards for battery chargers that require
appendix Y1. DOE estimates that the total time for conducting testing
under appendix Y1 would be approximately 40 hours, and that it would
require approximately 2.5 hours of technician intervention to test each
additional battery charger unit. Using the previously calculated fully-
burdened labor rate of $46.65 for an electrical technician to conduct
these tests,\25\ manufacturers would incur approximately $116.63 of
testing costs per unit. DOE requires at least two units be tested per
basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates manufacturers would incur
approximately $233.25 of testing costs per battery charger basic model
to conduct the complete testing under appendix Y1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Based on data from the BLS's Occupational Employment and
Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for an electrical and
electronic engineering technologist and technician is $32.84
(www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173023.htm). Additionally, DOE used data
from BLS's Employer Costs for Employee Compensation to estimate the
percent that wages comprise the total compensation for an employee.
DOE estimates that wages make up 70.4 percent of the total
compensation for private industry employees (www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06172021.pdf). $32.84 / 0.704 = $46.65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates that all small businesses combined would incur
[[Page 55119]]
approximately $0.81 million \26\ if these small businesses re-tested
all their unique basic models of battery chargers or applications using
battery chargers under appendix Y1. The potential range of testing
costs for an individual small business would be between $233.25 (to re-
test one basic model to) and approximately $61,340 (to re-test 263
basic models,), with an average cost of approximately $2,799 to re-test
12 basic models (the average number of models) under appendix Y1. As
noted in section III.E of this document, manufacturers could
alternatively keep their original test data and extract an active
charge energy metric for appendix Y1, which would avoid retesting costs
for newly introduced basic models. As DOE estimated previously, most
battery chargers will not stay on the market for more than four years,
accordingly, small business manufacturers may be able to avoid most
retesting costs by analyzing and keeping record of the active charge
energy data, while conducting tests according to appendix Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ $233.25 (testing cost per basic model) x 3,456 (number of
unique basic models manufactured by all small businesses) =
$806,112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE was able to find annual revenue estimates for 289 of the 294
small businesses DOE identified. DOE was not able to identify any
reliable annual revenue estimates for the remaining five small
businesses. Based on the number of unique basic models of battery
chargers or applications using battery chargers each small business
manufactures, DOE estimates that the $233.25 per model potential re-
testing cost would represent less than 2 percent of annual revenue for
286 of the 289 small businesses. DOE estimates that three small
businesses could incur re-testing costs that would exceed 2.0 percent
of their annual revenue.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ One small business manufactures eight unique basic models,
which if all basic models were re-tested could cost up to $3,136.
This small business has an estimated annual revenue of $52,000,
meaning testing costs could comprise up to 6.0 percent of their
annual revenue. Another small business manufactures six basic
models, which if all basic models were re-tested could cost up to
$2,352. This small business has an estimated annual revenue of
$94,000, meaning testing costs could comprise up to 2.5 percent of
their annual revenue. The remaining small business manufactures five
basic models, which if all basic models were re-tested could cost up
to $1,960. This small business has an estimated annual revenue of
$68,400, meaning testing costs could comprise up to 2.9 percent of
their annual revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Battery Chargers
DOE assumed that each small business's regulatory costs would
depend on the number of wireless battery charger models that each small
business manufactures. As discussed in section III.E, wireless battery
chargers would only need to be tested under appendix Y1 when DOE sets
future energy conservation standards for battery chargers. DOE
estimates that a total testing time for conducting testing under
appendix Y1 for wireless battery chargers would take approximately 40
hours to conduct the test for one fixed-location wireless charger unit,
and 2.2 hours to conduct the no-battery mode only test for one open-
placement wireless charger unit. These tests do not require the
wireless charger unit being tested to be constantly monitored by a lab
technician. DOE estimates that a lab technician would spend
approximately 2.5 hours to test a fixed-location wireless charger unit
and 1 hour to test an open-placement wireless charger unit.
The Wireless Power Consortium database does not identify if the
wireless charger is a fixed-location or an open-placement wireless
charger. Based on DOE's market research, the vast majority of wireless
chargers are open-placement wireless chargers. Therefore, DOE is
estimating the costs to small businesses using the estimated per unit
open-placement wireless charger testing costs.
Using the previously calculated fully-burdened labor rate of $46.65
for an electrical technician to conduct these tests, manufacturers
would incur approximately $47 per unit. DOE requires at least two units
be tested per basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates manufacturers would
incur approximately $94 to conduct the no-battery mode test for one
open-placement wireless charger unit under appendix Y1.
DOE estimates that all small businesses combined would incur
approximately $31,000 to test all their wireless chargers under
appendix Y1.\28\ The potential range of testing costs for an individual
small business would be between $94 (to test one wireless charger
model) to approximately $17,200 (to test 183 wireless charger models),
with an average cost of approximately $2,350 to test 25 wireless
charger models (the average number of models) under appendix Y1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ $94 (testing cost per model) x 327 (number of wireless
charger models manufactured by all small businesses) = $30,738.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE was able to find annual revenue estimates for 12 of the 13
wireless charger small businesses DOE identified. DOE was not able to
identify any reliable annual revenue estimates for the remaining
wireless charger small businesses DOE identified. Based on the number
of wireless charger models each small business manufactures, DOE
estimates that the $94 per model testing cost would represent less than
2 percent of annual revenue for all 12 of the wireless charger small
businesses that DOE found annual revenue estimates for.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the final rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
As previously stated in this section, DOE is required to review
existing DOE test procedures for all covered products every 7 years.
Additionally, DOE shall amend test procedures with respect to any
covered product, if the Secretary determines that amended test
procedures would more accurately produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE has determined that appendix Y1
would more accurately produce test results to measure the energy
efficiency of battery chargers.
While DOE recognizes that requiring that battery charger
manufacturers use appendix Y1 to comply with future energy conservation
standards would cause manufacturers to re-test some battery charger
models or test some wireless chargers, for most battery charger
manufacturers it will be inexpensive to re-test or test these models.
Additionally, some manufacturers might be able to partially rely on
previous test data used manufacturers tested their wired battery
chargers under appendix Y.
DOE has determined that there are no better alternatives than this
amended test procedure in terms of meeting the agency's objectives to
more accurately measure energy efficiency and reducing burden on
manufacturers. Therefore, DOE is, in this final rule, amending the DOE
test procedure for battery chargers.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C.
7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued
[[Page 55120]]
under EPCA in order to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or unfair
distribution of burdens'' that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a
result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430,
subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of battery chargers must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To
certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including battery chargers.
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
DOE is not amending the certification or reporting requirements for
battery chargers in this final rule. Instead, DOE may consider
proposals to amend the certification requirements and reporting for
battery chargers under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number
1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for battery chargers. DOE has determined that
this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures
for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule
[[Page 55121]]
contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may
result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these
requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement on energy supply, distribution,
or use if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives
to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply,
distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The modifications to the test procedure for battery chargers
adopted in this final rule incorporates testing methods contained in
certain sections of IEC 62301, IEC 62040-3, and ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016.
DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether it
fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA
(i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for
public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has
received no comments objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into the new appendix Y1:
1. ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016, ``Wiring Devices--Dimensional
Specifications,'' ANSI approved February 11, 2016. Appendix Y1
references the input plug requirements in Figure 1-15 and Figure 5-15
of ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016. ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 is an industry standard
that covers the plugs, receptacles, and wall plates used in most
electrical installations in residential, commercial, and industrial
buildings.
2. IEC 62040-3, ``Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)--Part 3:
Methods of specifying the performance and test requirements,'' Edition
2.0, 2011-03. Appendix Y1 references various sections from IEC 62040
for test requirements of uninterruptible power supplies. IEC 62040 is
an international test standard that specifies the performance and test
requirements applied to movable, stationary, and fixed electronic
uninterruptible power systems.
3. IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power, (Edition 2.0, 2011-01)'' into the new appendix Y1.
Appendix Y1 references various sections from IEC 62301 for test
conditions, standby power measurement, and measurement uncertainty
determination. IEC 62301 is an international test standard that
specifies methods of measurement of electrical power consumption of
household electrical appliances in standby mode(s) and other low power
modes, as applicable.
Copies of ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 can be obtained from American
National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY
10036, (212) 642-4900, or by going to www.ansi.org.
Copies of IEC 62040-3 and IEC 62301 can be obtained from the
International Electrotechnical Commission at 446 Main Street, Sixteenth
floor, Worcester, MA 01608, or by going to www.iec.ch., and are also
available from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York,
[[Page 55122]]
NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to webstore.ansi.org.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Small businesses.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 25,
2022, Dr. Geraldine L. Richmond, Undersecretary of Science and
Innovation, 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 August 25, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Section 429.134 is amended by adding paragraph (u) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.134 Product specific enforcement provisions.
* * * * *
(u) Battery chargers--verification of reported represented value
obtained from testing in accordance with appendix Y1 of 10 CFR part 430
subpart B when using an external power supply. If the battery charger
basic model requires the use of an external power supply (``EPS''), and
the manufacturer reported EPS is no longer available on the market,
then DOE will test the battery charger with any compatible EPS that is
minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards for EPSs
as prescribed in Sec. 430.32(w) of this subchapter and that meets the
battery charger input power criteria.
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 430.3 [Amended]
0
4. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (e)(22) introductory text, removing the text ``Appendix
Y'', and adding in its place the text ``appendices Y and Y1'';
0
b. In paragraph (p)(3) introductory text, removing the text ``appendix
Y'', and adding in its place the text ``appendices Y and Y1''; and
0
c. In paragraph (p)(6), removing the text ``Y, Z,'', and adding in its
place the text ``Y, Y1, Z''.
0
5. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (aa) to read as
follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.
* * * * *
(aa) Battery Chargers. (1) For battery chargers subject to
compliance with the relevant standard at Sec. 430.32(z) as that
standard appeared in the January 1, 2022, edition of 10 CFR parts 200-
499:
(i) Measure the maintenance mode power, standby power, off mode
power, battery discharge energy, 24-hour energy consumption and
measured duration of the charge and maintenance mode test for a battery
charger other than uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with
appendix Y to this subpart;
(ii) Calculate the unit energy consumption of a battery charger
other than uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with appendix Y
to this subpart;
(iii) Calculate the average load adjusted efficiency of an
uninterruptible power supply in accordance with appendix Y to this
subpart.
(2) For a battery charger subject to compliance with any amended
relevant standard provided in Sec. 430.32 that is published after
September 8, 2022:
(i) Measure active mode energy, maintenance mode power, no-battery
mode power, off mode power and battery discharge energy for a battery
charger other than uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with
appendix Y1 to this subpart.
(ii) Calculate the standby power of a battery charger other than
uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with appendix Y1, to this
subpart.
(iii) Calculate the average load adjusted efficiency of an
uninterruptible power supply in accordance with appendix Y1 to this
subpart.
* * * * *
0
6. Appendix Y to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory note and introductory text;
0
b. Revising sections 2.1.0, 3.1.4.(b), 3.2.5.(f), 3.3.4, 3.3.6.(c)(5),
and 3.3.8.;
0
c. Revising Table 3.3.2 to section 3.3.10.; and
0
d. Revising sections 3.3.11. through 3.3.13.
The revisions read as follows:
Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers
Note: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under
appendix Y to determine compliance with the relevant standard from
Sec. 430.32(z) as that standard appeared in the January 1, 2022,
edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499. Specifically, before March 7, 2023
representations must be based upon results generated either under
this appendix or under appendix Y as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts
200-499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022.
For any amended standards for battery chargers published after
September 8, 2022, manufacturers must use the results of testing
under appendix Y1 to determine compliance. Representations related
to energy consumption must be made in accordance with the
appropriate appendix that applies (i.e., appendix Y or appendix Y1)
when determining compliance with the relevant standard.
Manufacturers may also use appendix Y1 to certify compliance with
amended standards, published after September 8, 2022, prior to the
applicable compliance date for those standards.
* * * * *
[[Page 55123]]
2.10. C-Rate (C) is the rate of charge or discharge, calculated
by dividing the charge or discharge current by the nameplate battery
charge capacity of the battery. For example, a 0.2 C-rate would
result in a charge or discharge period of 5 hours.
* * * * *
3.1.4. Verifying the UUT's Input Voltage and Input Frequency
* * * * *
(b) If a charger is powered by a low-voltage DC or AC input, and
the manufacturer packages the charger with an external power supply
(``EPS''), sells, or recommends an optional EPS capable of providing
that low voltage input, then the charger shall be tested using that
EPS and the input reference source shall be 115 V at 60 Hz. If the
EPS cannot be operated with AC input voltage at 115 V at 60 Hz, the
charger shall not be tested.
* * * * *
3.2.5. Accessing the Battery for the Test
* * * * *
(f) If any of the following conditions noted immediately below
in sections 3.2.5.(f)(1) to 3.2.5.(f)(3) are applicable, preventing
the measurement of the Battery Discharge Energy and the Charging and
Maintenance Mode Energy, a manufacturer must submit a petition for a
test procedure waiver in accordance with Sec. 430.27:
(1) Inability to access the battery terminals;
(2) Access to the battery terminals destroys charger
functionality; or
(3) Inability to draw current from the test battery.
* * * * *
3.3.4. Preparing the Battery for Charge Testing
Following any conditioning prior to beginning the battery charge
test (section 3.3.6 of this appendix), the test battery shall be
fully discharged to the end of discharge voltage prescribed in Table
3.3.2 of this appendix, or until the UUT circuitry terminates the
discharge.
* * * * *
3.3.6. Testing Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) Connect the test battery to the battery charger within 3
minutes of beginning logging. For integral battery products, connect
the product to a cradle or EPS within 3 minutes of beginning
logging;
* * * * *
3.3.8. Battery Discharge Energy Test
(a) If multiple batteries were charged simultaneously, the
discharge energy is the sum of the discharge energies of all the
batteries.
(1) For a multi-port charger, batteries that were charged in
separate ports shall be discharged independently.
(2) For a batch charger, batteries that were charged as a group
may be discharged individually, as a group, or in sub-groups
connected in series and/or parallel. The position of each battery
with respect to the other batteries need not be maintained.
(b) During discharge, the battery voltage and discharge current
shall be sampled and recorded at least once per minute. The values
recorded may be average or instantaneous values.
(c) For this test, the technician shall follow these steps:
(1) Ensure that the test battery has been charged by the UUT and
rested according to sections 3.3.6. and 3.3.7 of this appendix.
(2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant discharge rate and
the end-of-discharge voltage in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the
relevant battery chemistry.
(3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer and begin recording
the voltage, current, and wattage, if available from the battery
analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage is reached or the UUT
circuitry terminates the discharge, the test battery shall be
returned to an open-circuit condition. If current continues to be
drawn from the test battery after the end-of-discharge condition is
first reached, this additional energy is not to be counted in the
battery discharge energy.
(d) If not available from the battery analyzer, the battery
discharge energy (in watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the
voltage (in volts), current (in amperes), and sample period (in
hours) for each sample, and then summing over all sample periods
until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached.
* * * * *
Table 3.3.2--Required Battery Discharge Rates and End-of-Discharge
Battery Voltages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-of-discharge
Battery chemistry Discharge rate voltage * (volts
(C) per cell)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA).. 0.2 1.75
Flooded Lead Acid................. 0.2 1.70
Nickel Cadmium (NiCd)............. 0.2 1.0
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH)....... 0.2 1.0
Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion).............. 0.2 2.5
Lithium-Ion Polymer............... 0.2 2.5
Lithium Iron Phosphate............ 0.2 2.0
Rechargeable Alkaline............. 0.2 0.9
Silver Zinc....................... 0.2 1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If the presence of protective circuitry prevents the battery cells
from being discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage specified, then
discharge battery cells to the lowest possible voltage permitted by
the protective circuitry.
3.3.11. Standby Mode Energy Consumption Measurement
The standby mode measurement depends on the configuration of the
battery charger, as follows:
(a) Conduct a measurement of standby power consumption while the
battery charger is connected to the power source. Disconnect the
battery from the charger, allow the charger to operate for at least
30 minutes, and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time
series integral of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period,
divided by the period of measurement. If the battery charger has
manual on-off switches, all must be turned on for the duration of
the standby mode test.
(b) Standby mode may also apply to products with integral
batteries, as follows:
(1) If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and
standby mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or
adapter alone.
(2) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry,
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and standby mode
power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero
watts).
(3) If the product contains integrated power conversion and
charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power
cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain
connected to mains, and standby mode measurement is not applicable.
3.3.12. Off Mode Energy Consumption Measurement
The off mode measurement depends on the configuration of the
battery charger, as follows:
(a) If the battery charger has manual on-off switches, record a
measurement of off mode energy consumption while the battery charger
is connected to the power source.
[[Page 55124]]
Remove the battery from the charger, allow the charger to operate
for at least 30 minutes, and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed
as the time series integral of the power consumed over a 10-minute
test period, divided by the period of measurement, with all manual
on-off switches turned off. If the battery charger does not have
manual on-off switches, record that the off mode measurement is not
applicable to this product.
(b) Off mode may also apply to products with integral batteries,
as follows:
(1) If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and off
mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or adapter
alone.
(2) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry,
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and off mode
power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero
watts).
(3) If the product contains integrated power conversion and
charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power
cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain
connected to mains, and off mode measurement is not applicable.
3.3.13. Unit Energy Consumption Calculation
Unit energy consumption (UEC) shall be calculated for a battery
charger using one of the two equations (equation (i) or equation
(ii)) listed in this section. If a battery charger is tested and its
charge duration as determined in section 3.3.2 of this appendix
minus 5 hours is greater than the threshold charge time listed in
Table 3.3.3 of this appendix (i.e. (tcd - 5) * n >
ta&m), equation (ii) shall be used to calculate UEC;
otherwise a battery charger's UEC shall be calculated using equation
(i).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.002
Where:
E24 = 24-hour energy as determined in section 3.3.10 of this
appendix,
Measured Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in section
3.3.8. of this appendix,
Pm = Maintenance mode power as determined in section 3.3.9. of this
appendix,
Psb = Standby mode power as determined in section 3.3.11. of this
appendix,
Poff = Off mode power as determined in section 3.3.12. of this
appendix,
tcd = Charge test duration as determined in section 3.3.2. of this
appendix, and
ta&m, n, tsb, and toff, are constants used depending upon a device's
product class and found in Table 3.3.3:
Table 3.3.3--Battery Charger Usage Profiles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class Hours per day *** Charges Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (n) charge time *
Special --------------------------
Measured battery characteristic or Active + Standby Off
Number Description energy (measured highest nameplate maintenance (tsb) (toff) Number Hours
Ebatt) ** battery voltage (ta&m) per day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............. Low-Energy........... <=5 Wh.............. Inductive Connection 20.66 0.10 0.00 0.15 137.73
****.
2.............. Low-Energy, Low- <100 Wh............. <4 V................ 7.82 5.29 0.00 0.54 14.48
Voltage.
3.............. Low-Energy, Medium- 4-10 V.............. 6.42 0.30 0.00 0.10 64.20
Voltage.
4.............. Low-Energy, High- >10 V............... 16.84 0.91 0.00 0.50 33.68
Voltage.
5.............. Medium-Energy, Low- 100-3000 Wh......... <20 V............... 6.52 1.16 0.00 0.11 59.27
Voltage.
6.............. Medium-Energy, High- >=20 V.............. 17.15 6.85 0.00 0.34 50.44
Voltage.
7.............. High-Energy.......... >3000 Wh............ .................... 8.14 7.30 0.00 0.32 25.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If the duration of the charge test (minus 5 hours) as determined in section 3.3.2. of this appendix exceeds the threshold charge time, use equation
(ii) to calculate UEC otherwise use equation (i).
** Measured Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in section 3.3.8.
*** If the total time does not sum to 24 hours per day, the remaining time is allocated to unplugged time, which means there is 0 power consumption and
no changes to the UEC calculation needed.
**** Fixed-location inductive wireless charger only.
[[Page 55125]]
* * * * *
0
7. Appendix Y1 to subpart B of part 430 is added to read as follows:
Appendix Y1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers
Note: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this
appendix Y1 to determine compliance with any amended standards for
battery chargers provided in Sec. 430.32 that are published after
September 8, 2022. Representations related to energy or water
consumption must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix
that applies (i.e., appendix Y or appendix Y1) when determining
compliance with the relevant standard. Manufacturers may also use
appendix Y1 to certify compliance with amended standards, published
after September 8, 2022, prior to the applicable compliance date for
those standards.
1. Scope
This appendix provides the test requirements used to measure the
energy consumption of battery chargers, including fixed-location
wireless chargers designed for charging batteries with less than 100
watt-hour battery energy and open-placement wireless chargers,
operating at either DC or United States AC line voltage (nominally
115V at 60Hz). This appendix also provides the test requirements
used to measure the energy efficiency of uninterruptible power
supplies as defined in section 2 of this appendix that utilize the
standardized National Electrical Manufacturer Association (NEMA)
plug, 1-15P or 5-15P, as specified in ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.3) and have an AC output.
This appendix does not provide a method for testing back-up battery
chargers.
2. Definitions
The following definitions are for the purposes of explaining the
terminology associated with the test method for measuring battery
charger energy consumption.\1\
\1\ For clarity on any other terminology used in the test
method, please refer to IEEE 1515-2000, (Sources for information and
guidance, see Sec. 430.4).
2.1. Active mode or charge mode is the state in which the
battery charger system is connected to the main electricity supply,
and the battery charger is delivering current, equalizing the cells,
and performing other one-time or limited-time functions in order to
bring the battery to a fully charged state.
2.2. Active power or real power (P) means the average power
consumed by a unit. For a two terminal device with current and
voltage waveforms i(t) and v(t), which are periodic with period T,
the real or active power P is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.003
2.3. Ambient temperature is the temperature of the ambient air
immediately surrounding the unit under test.
2.4. Apparent power (S) is the product of root-mean-square (RMS)
voltage and RMS current in volt-amperes (VA).
2.5. Batch charger is a battery charger that charges two or more
identical batteries simultaneously in a series, parallel, series-
parallel, or parallel-series configuration. A batch charger does not
have separate voltage or current regulation, nor does it have any
separate indicators for each battery in the batch. When testing a
batch charger, the term ``battery'' is understood to mean,
collectively, all the batteries in the batch that are charged
together. A charger can be both a batch charger and a multi-port
charger or multi-voltage charger.
2.6. Battery or battery pack is an assembly of one or more
rechargeable cells and any integral protective circuitry intended to
provide electrical energy to a consumer product, and may be in one
of the following forms:
(a) Detachable battery (a battery that is contained in a
separate enclosure from the consumer product and is intended to be
removed or disconnected from the consumer product for recharging);
or
(b) Integral battery (a battery that is contained within the
consumer product and is not removed from the consumer product for
charging purposes). The word ``intended'' in this context refers to
whether a battery has been designed in such a way as to permit its
removal or disconnection from its associated consumer product.
2.7. Battery energy is the energy, in watt-hours, delivered by
the battery under the specified discharge conditions in the test
procedure.
2.8. Battery maintenance mode or maintenance mode, is a subset
of standby mode in which the battery charger is connected to the
main electricity supply and the battery is fully charged, but is
still connected to the charger.
2.9. Battery rest period is a period of time between discharge
and charge or between charge and discharge, during which the battery
is resting in an open-circuit state in ambient air.
2.10. C-Rate (C) is the rate of charge or discharge, calculated
by dividing the charge or discharge current by the nameplate battery
charge capacity of the battery. For example, a 0.2 C-rate would
result in a charge or discharge period of 5 hours.
2.11. Cradle is an electrical interface between an integral
battery product and the rest of the battery charger designed to hold
the product between uses.
2.12. Energy storage system is a system consisting of single or
multiple devices designed to provide power to the UPS inverter
circuitry.
2.13. Equalization is a process whereby a battery is
overcharged, beyond what would be considered ``normal'' charge
return, so that cells can be balanced, electrolyte mixed, and plate
sulfation removed.
2.14. Instructions or manufacturer's instructions means the
documentation packaged with a product in printed or electronic form
and any information about the product listed on a website maintained
by the manufacturer and accessible by the general public at the time
of the test. It also includes any information on the packaging or on
the product itself. ``Instructions'' also includes any service
manuals or data sheets that the manufacturer offers to independent
service technicians, whether printed or in electronic form.
2.15. Measured charge capacity of a battery is the product of
the discharge current in amperes and the time in decimal hours
required to reach the specified end-of-discharge voltage.
2.16. Manual on-off switch is a switch activated by the user to
control power reaching the battery charger. This term does not apply
to any mechanical, optical, or electronic switches that
automatically disconnect mains power from the battery charger when a
battery is removed from a cradle or charging base, or for products
with non-detachable batteries that control power to the product
itself.
2.17. Multi-port charger means a battery charger that charges
two or more batteries (which may be identical or different)
simultaneously. The batteries are not connected in series or in
parallel but with each port having separate voltage and/or current
regulation. If the charger has status indicators, each port has its
own indicator(s). A charger can be both a batch charger and a multi-
port charger if it is capable of charging two or more batches of
batteries simultaneously and each batch has separate regulation and/
or indicator(s).
2.18. Multi-voltage charger is a battery charger that, by
design, can charge a variety of batteries (or batches of batteries,
if also a batch charger) that are of different nameplate battery
voltages. A multi-voltage charger can also be a multi-port charger
if it can charge two or more batteries simultaneously with
independent voltages and/or current regulation.
2.19. Normal mode is a mode of operation for a UPS in which:
(a) The AC input supply is within required tolerances and
supplies the UPS,
(b) The energy storage system is being maintained at full charge
or is under recharge, and
(c) The load connected to the UPS is within the UPS's specified
power rating.
2.20. Off mode is the condition, applicable only to units with
manual on-off switches, in which the battery charger:
(a) Is connected to the main electricity supply;
(b) Is not connected to the battery; and
(c) All manual on-off switches are turned off.
2.21. Nameplate battery voltage is specified by the battery
manufacturer and typically printed on the label of the battery
itself. If there are multiple batteries that are connected in
series, the nameplate battery voltage of the batteries is the total
voltage of the series configuration--that is, the nameplate voltage
of each battery multiplied by the number of batteries connected in
series. Connecting multiple batteries in parallel does not affect
the nameplate battery voltage.
2.22. Nameplate battery charge capacity is the capacity, claimed
by the battery manufacturer on a label or in instructions, that the
battery can store, usually given in
[[Page 55126]]
ampere-hours (Ah) or milliampere-hours (mAh) and typically printed
on the label of the battery itself. If there are multiple batteries
that are connected in parallel, the nameplate battery charge
capacity of the batteries is the total charge capacity of the
parallel configuration, that is, the nameplate charge capacity of
each battery multiplied by the number of batteries connected in
parallel. Connecting multiple batteries in series does not affect
the nameplate charge capacity.
2.23. Nameplate battery energy capacity means the product (in
watts-hours (Wh)) of the nameplate battery voltage and the nameplate
battery charge capacity.
2.24. No-battery mode is a subset of standby mode and means the
condition in which:
(a) The battery charger is connected to the main electricity
supply;
(b) The battery is not connected to the charger; and
(c) For battery chargers with manual on-off switches, all such
switches are turned on.
2.25. Reference test load is a load or a condition with a power
factor of greater than 0.99 in which the AC output socket of the UPS
delivers the active power (W) for which the UPS is rated.
2.26. Standby mode means the condition in which the battery
charge is either in maintenance mode or no battery mode as defined
in this appendix.
2.27. Total harmonic distortion (THD), expressed as a percent,
is the root mean square (RMS) value of an AC signal after the
fundamental component is removed and interharmonic components are
ignored, divided by the RMS value of the fundamental component.
2.28. Uninterruptible power supply or UPS means a battery
charger consisting of a combination of convertors, switches and
energy storage devices (such as batteries), constituting a power
system for maintaining continuity of load power in case of input
power failure.
2.28.1. Voltage and frequency dependent UPS or VFD UPS means a
UPS that produces an AC output where the output voltage and
frequency are dependent on the input voltage and frequency. This UPS
architecture does not provide corrective functions like those in
voltage independent and voltage and frequency independent systems.
Note to 2.28.1: VFD input dependency may be verified by
performing the AC input failure test in Section 6.2.2.7 of IEC
62040-3 Ed. 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.3) and
observing that, at a minimum, the UPS switches from normal mode of
operation to battery power while the input is interrupted.
2.28.2. Voltage and frequency independent UPS, or VFI UPS, means
a UPS where the device remains in normal mode producing an AC output
voltage and frequency that is independent of input voltage and
frequency variations and protects the load against adverse effects
from such variations without depleting the stored energy source.
Note to 2.28.2: VFI input dependency may be verified by
performing the steady state input voltage tolerance test and the
input frequency tolerance test in Sections 6.4.1.1 and 6.4.1.2 of
IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 respectively, and observing that, at a minimum,
the UPS produces an output voltage and frequency within the
specified output range when the input voltage is varied by 10 percent of the rated input voltage and the input frequency
is varied by 2 percent of the rated input frequency.
2.28.3. Voltage independent UPS or VI UPS means a UPS that
produces an AC output within a specific tolerance band that is
independent of under-voltage or over-voltage variations in the input
voltage without depleting the stored energy source. The output
frequency of a VI UPS is dependent on the input frequency, similar
to a voltage and frequency dependent system.
Note to 2.28.3: VI input dependency may be verified by
performing the steady state input voltage tolerance test in Section
6.4.1.1 of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 and ensuring that the UPS remains in
normal mode with the output voltage within the specified output
range when the input voltage is varied by 10% of the
rated input voltage.
2.29. Unit under test (UUT) in this appendix refers to the
combination of the battery charger and battery being tested.
2.30. Wireless charger is a battery charger that can charge
batteries inductively.
2.30.1. Fixed-location wireless charger is an inductive wireless
battery charger that incorporates a physical receiver locating
feature (e.g., by physical peg, cradle, locking mechanism, magnet,
etc.) to repeatably align or orient the position of the receiver
with respect to the transmitter.
2.30.2. Open-placement wireless charger is an inductive wireless
charger that does not incorporate a physical receiver locating
feature (e.g., by a physical peg, cradle, locking mechanism, magnet
etc.) to repeatably align or orient the position of the receiver
with respect to the transmitter.
3. Testing Requirements for all Battery Chargers Other Than
Uninterruptible Power Supplies and Open-Placement Wireless Chargers
3.1. Standard Test Conditions
3.1.1. General
The values that may be measured or calculated during the conduct
of this test procedure have been summarized for easy reference in
Table 3.1.1 of this appendix.
Table 3.1.1--List of Measured or Calculated Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of measured or calculated value Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Duration of the Charge and Section 3.3.2.
Maintenance Modes test.
2. Battery Discharge Energy (Ebatt).... Section 3.3.8.
3. Initial time and power (W) of the Section 3.3.6.
input current of connected battery.
4. Active and Maintenance Modes Energy Section 3.3.6.
Consumption.
5. Maintenance Mode Power (Pm)......... Section 3.3.9.
6. Active mode Energy Consumption (Ea). Section 3.3.10.
7. No-Battery Mode Power (Pnb)......... Section 3.3.11.
8. Off Mode Power (Poff)............... Section 3.3.12.
9. Standby Mode Power (Psb)............ Section 3.3.13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1.2. Verifying Accuracy and Precision of Measuring Equipment
Any power measurement equipment utilized for testing must
conform to the uncertainty and resolution requirements outlined in
Section 4, ``General conditions for measurement'', as well as
Annexes B, ``Notes on the measurement of low-power modes'', and D,
``Determination of uncertainty of measurement'', of IEC 62301
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.3).
3.1.3. Setting Up the Test Room
All tests, battery conditioning, and battery rest periods shall
be carried out in a room with an air speed immediately surrounding
the UUT of <=0.5 m/s. The ambient temperature shall be maintained at
20 [deg]C 5 [deg]C throughout the test. There shall be
no intentional cooling of the UUT such as by use of separately
powered fans, air conditioners, or heat sinks. The UUT shall be
conditioned, rested, and tested on a thermally non-conductive
surface. When not undergoing active testing, batteries shall be
stored at 20 [deg]C 5 [deg]C.
3.1.4. Verifying the UUT's Input Voltage and Input Frequency
(a) If the UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage
input in the United States, it shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. If
the UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage input but
cannot be operated at 115 V at 60 Hz, it shall not be tested.
(b) If a battery charger is powered by a low-voltage DC or AC
input and the manufacturer packages the battery charger with an
external power supply (``EPS''), test the battery charger using the
packaged EPS; if the battery charger does not include a pre-packaged
EPS, then test the battery charger with an EPS sold
[[Page 55127]]
and recommended by the manufacturer; if the manufacturer does not
recommend an EPS that it sells, test the battery charger with an EPS
that the manufacturer recommends for use in the manufacturer
materials. The input reference source shall be 115 V at 60 Hz. If
the EPS cannot be operated with AC input voltage at 115 V at 60 Hz,
the charger shall not be tested.
(c) If a battery charger is designed for operation only on DC
input voltage and if the provisions of section 3.1.4.(b) of this
appendix do not apply, test the battery charger with an external
power supply that minimally complies with the applicable energy
conservation standard and meets the external power supply parameters
specified by the battery charger manufacturer. The input voltage
shall be within 1 percent of the battery charger
manufacturer specified voltage.
(d) If the input voltage is AC, the input frequency shall be
within 1 percent of the specified frequency. The THD of
the input voltage shall be <=2 percent, up to and including the 13th
harmonic. The crest factor of the input voltage shall be between
1.34 and 1.49.
(e) If the input voltage is DC, the AC ripple voltage (RMS)
shall be:
(1) <=0.2 V for DC voltages up to 10 V; or
(2) <=2 percent of the DC voltage for DC voltages over 10 V.
3.2. Unit Under Test Setup Requirements
3.2.1. General Setup
(a) The battery charger system shall be prepared and set up in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, except where those
instructions conflict with the requirements of this test procedure.
If no instructions are given, then factory or ``default'' settings
shall be used, or where there are no indications of such settings,
the UUT shall be tested in the condition as it would be supplied to
an end user.
(b) If the battery charger has user controls to select from two
or more charge rates (such as regular or fast charge) or different
charge currents, the test shall be conducted at the fastest charge
rate that is recommended by the manufacturer for everyday use, or,
failing any explicit recommendation, the factory-default charge
rate. If the charger has user controls for selecting special charge
cycles that are recommended only for occasional use to preserve
battery health, such as equalization charge, removing memory, or
battery conditioning, these modes are not required to be tested. The
settings of the controls shall be listed in the report for each
test.
3.2.2. Selection and Treatment of the Battery Charger
The UUT, including the battery charger and its associated
battery, shall be new products of the type and condition that would
be sold to a customer. If the battery is lead-acid chemistry and the
battery is to be stored for more than 24 hours between its initial
acquisition and testing, the battery shall be charged before such
storage.
3.2.3. Selection of Batteries To Use for Testing
(a) For chargers with integral batteries, the battery packaged
with the charger shall be used for testing. For chargers with
detachable batteries, the battery or batteries to be used for
testing will vary depending on whether there are any batteries
packaged with the battery charger.
(1) If batteries are packaged with the charger, batteries for
testing shall be selected from the batteries packaged with the
battery charger, according to the procedure in section 3.2.3(b) of
this appendix.
(2) If no batteries are packaged with the charger, but the
instructions specify or recommend batteries for use with the
charger, batteries for testing shall be selected from those
recommended or specified in the instructions, according to the
procedure in section 3.2.3(b) of this appendix.
(3) If no batteries are packaged with the charger and the
instructions do not specify or recommend batteries for use with the
charger, batteries for testing shall be selected from any that are
suitable for use with the charger, according to the procedure in
section 3.2.3(b) of this appendix.
(b)(1) From the detachable batteries specified in section
3.2.3.(a) of this appendix, use Table 3.2.1 of this appendix to
select the batteries to be used for testing, depending on the type
of battery charger being tested. The battery charger types
represented by the rows in the table are mutually exclusive. Find
the single applicable row for the UUT, and test according to those
requirements. Select only the single battery configuration specified
for the battery charger type in Table 3.2.1 of this section.
(2) If the battery selection criteria specified in Table 3.2.1
of this appendix results in two or more batteries or configurations
of batteries of different chemistries, but with equal voltage and
capacity ratings, determine the maintenance mode power, as specified
in section 3.3.9 of this appendix, for each of the batteries or
configurations of batteries, and select for testing the battery or
configuration of batteries with the highest maintenance mode power.
(c) A charger is considered as:
(1) Single-capacity if all associated batteries have the same
nameplate battery charge capacity (see definition) and, if it is a
batch charger, all configurations of the batteries have the same
nameplate battery charge capacity.
(2) Multi-capacity if there are associated batteries or
configurations of batteries that have different nameplate battery
charge capacities.
(d) The selected battery or batteries will be referred to as the
``test battery'' and will be used through the remainder of this test
procedure.
Table 3.2.1--Battery Selection for Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of charger Tests to perform
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battery selection (from all
Multi-voltage Multi-port Multi-capacity configurations of all
associated batteries)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No................................. No.................... No.................... Any associated battery.
No................................. No.................... Yes................... Highest charge capacity
battery.
No................................. Yes................... Yes or No............. Use all ports. Use the
maximum number of
identical batteries with
the highest nameplate
battery charge capacity
that the charger can
accommodate.
Yes................................ No.................... No.................... Highest voltage battery.
------------------------------------------------
Yes................................ Yes to either or both Use all ports. Use the
battery or configuration
of batteries with the
highest individual
voltage. If multiple
batteries meet this
criteria, then use the
battery or configuration
of batteries with the
highest total nameplate
battery charge capacity at
the highest individual
voltage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2.4. Limiting Other Non-Battery-Charger Functions
(a) If the battery charger or product containing the battery
charger does not have any additional functions unrelated to battery
charging, this section may be skipped.
(b) Any optional functions controlled by the user and not
associated with the battery charging process (e.g., the answering
machine in a cordless telephone charging base) shall be switched
off. If it is not possible to switch such functions off, they shall
be set to their lowest power-consuming mode during the test.
(c) If the battery charger takes any physically separate
connectors or cables not required for battery charging but
associated with its other functionality (such as phone lines, serial
or USB connections, Ethernet, cable TV lines, etc.), these
connectors or cables shall be left disconnected during the testing.
(d) Any manual on-off switches specifically associated with the
battery
[[Page 55128]]
charging process shall be switched on for the duration of the
charge, maintenance, and no-battery mode tests, and switched off for
the off mode test.
3.2.5. Accessing the Battery for the Test
(a) The technician may need to disassemble the end-use product
or battery charger to gain access to the battery terminals for the
Battery Discharge Energy Test in section 3.3.8 of this appendix. If
the battery terminals are not clearly labeled, the technician shall
use a voltmeter to identify the positive and negative terminals.
These terminals will be the ones that give the largest voltage
difference and are able to deliver significant current (0.2 C or 1/
hr) into a load.
(b) All conductors used for contacting the battery must be
cleaned and burnished prior to connecting in order to decrease
voltage drops and achieve consistent results.
(c) Manufacturer's instructions for disassembly shall be
followed, except those instructions that:
(1) Lead to any permanent alteration of the battery charger
circuitry or function;
(2) Could alter the energy consumption of the battery charger
compared to that experienced by a user during typical use, e.g., due
to changes in the airflow through the enclosure of the UUT; or
(3) Conflict requirements of this test procedure.
(d) Care shall be taken by the technician during disassembly to
follow appropriate safety precautions. If the functionality of the
device or its safety features is compromised, the product shall be
discarded after testing.
(e) Some products may include protective circuitry between the
battery cells and the remainder of the device. If the manufacturer
provides a description for accessing the connections at the output
of the protective circuitry, these connections shall be used to
discharge the battery and measure the discharge energy. The energy
consumed by the protective circuitry during discharge shall not be
measured or credited as battery energy.
(f) If any of the following conditions specified in sections
3.2.5.(f)(1) to 3.2.5.(f)(3) of this appendix are applicable,
preventing the measurement of the Battery Discharge Energy and the
Charging and Maintenance Mode Energy, a manufacturer must submit a
petition for a test procedure waiver in accordance with Sec.
430.27:
(1) Inability to access the battery terminals;
(2) Access to the battery terminals destroys charger
functionality; or
(3) Inability to draw current from the test battery.
3.2.6. Determining Charge Capacity for Batteries With No Rating
(a) If there is no rating for the battery charge capacity on the
battery or in the instructions, then the technician shall determine
a discharge current that meets the following requirements. The
battery shall be fully charged and then discharged at this constant-
current rate until it reaches the end-of-discharge voltage specified
in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix. The discharge time must be not less
than 4.5 hours nor more than 5 hours. In addition, the discharge
test (section 3.3.8 of this appendix) (which may not be starting
with a fully-charged battery) shall reach the end-of-discharge
voltage within 5 hours. The same discharge current shall be used for
both the preparations step (section 3.3.4 of this appendix) and the
discharge test (section 3.3.8 of this appendix). The test report
shall include the discharge current used and the resulting discharge
times for both a fully-charged battery and for the discharge test.
(b) For this section, the battery is considered as ``fully
charged'' when either: it has been charged by the UUT until an
indicator on the UUT shows that the charge is complete; or it has
been charged by a battery analyzer at a current not greater than the
discharge current until the battery analyzer indicates that the
battery is fully charged.
(c) When there is no capacity rating, a suitable discharge
current must generally be determined by trial and error. Since the
conditioning step does not require constant-current discharges, the
trials themselves may also be counted as part of battery
conditioning.
3.3. Test Measurement
The test sequence to measure the battery charger energy
consumption is summarized in Table 3.3.1 of this appendix, and
explained in detail in this appendix. Measurements shall be made
under test conditions and with the equipment specified in sections
3.1 and 3.2 of this appendix.
Table 3.3.1--Test Sequence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermometer
Step/description Battery (for flooded
Data taken? Test battery Charger analyzer or AC power meter lead-acid
constant- battery
current load chargers only)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Record general data on UUT; Section Yes....................... X X ............... ............... ...............
3.3.1.
2. Determine Active and Maintenance No........................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Modes Test duration; Section 3.3.2.
3. Battery conditioning; Section 3.3.3. No........................ X X X ............... ...............
4. Prepare battery for Active Mode No........................ X X ............... ............... ...............
test; Section 3.3.4.
5. Battery rest period; Section 3.3.5.. No........................ X ............... ............... ............... X
6. Conduct Active and Maintenance Modes Yes....................... X X ............... X ...............
Test; Section 3.3.6.
7. Battery Rest Period; Section 3.3.7.. No........................ X ............... ............... ............... X
8. Battery Discharge Energy Test; Yes....................... X ............... X ............... ...............
Section 3.3.8.
9. Determine the Maintenance Mode Yes....................... X X ............... X ...............
Power; Section 3.3.9.
10. Determine Active Charge Energy; Yes....................... X X ............... X ...............
Section 3.3.10.
11. Conduct No-Battery Mode Test; Yes....................... ............... X ............... X ...............
Section 3.3.11.
12. Conduct Off Mode Test; Section Yes....................... ............... X ............... X ...............
3.3.12.
13. Calculating Standby Mode Power; Yes....................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Section 3.3.13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55129]]
3.3.1. Recording General Data on the UUT
The technician shall record:
(a) The manufacturer and model of the battery charger;
(b) The presence and status of any additional functions
unrelated to battery charging;
(c) The manufacturer, model, and number of batteries in the test
battery;
(d) The nameplate battery voltage of the test battery;
(e) The nameplate battery charge capacity of the test battery;
and
(f) The nameplate battery charge energy of the test battery.
(g) The settings of the controls, if battery charger has user
controls to select from two or more charge rates.
3.3.2. Determining the Duration of the Charge and Maintenance Modes
Test
(a) The charge and maintenance modes test, described in detail
in section 3.3.6 of this appendix, shall be 24 hours in length or
longer, as determined by the items in sections 3.3.2.(a)(1) to
3.3.2.(a)(3) of this appendix. Proceed in order until a test
duration is determined. In case when the battery charger does not
enter its true battery maintenance mode, the test shall continue
until 5 hours after the true battery maintenance mode has been
captured.
(1) If the battery charger has an indicator to show that the
battery is fully charged, that indicator shall be used as follows:
if the indicator shows that the battery is charged after 19 hours of
charging, the test shall be terminated at 24 hours. Conversely, if
the full-charge indication is not yet present after 19 hours of
charging, the test shall continue until 5 hours after the indication
is present.
(2) If there is no indicator, but the manufacturer's
instructions indicate that charging this battery or this capacity of
battery should be complete within 19 hours, the test shall be for 24
hours. If the instructions indicate that charging may take longer
than 19 hours, the test shall be run for the longest estimated
charge time plus 5 hours.
(3) If there is no indicator and no time estimate in the
instructions, but the charging current is stated on the charger or
in the instructions, calculate the test duration as the longer of 24
hours or:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.004
(b) If none of section 3.3.2.(a) applies, the duration of the
test shall be 24 hours.
3.3.3. Battery Conditioning
(a) No conditioning is to be done on lithium-ion batteries. The
test technician shall proceed directly to battery preparation,
section 3.3.4 of this appendix, when testing chargers for these
batteries.
(b) Products with integral batteries will have to be
disassembled per the instructions in section 3.2.5 of this appendix,
and the battery disconnected from the charger for discharging.
(c) Batteries of other chemistries that have not been previously
cycled are to be conditioned by performing two charges and two
discharges, followed by a charge, as sections 3.3.3.(c)(1) to
3.3.3.(c)(5) of this appendix. No data need be recorded during
battery conditioning.
(1) The test battery shall be fully charged for the duration
specified in section 3.3.2 of this appendix or longer using the UUT.
(2) The test battery shall then be fully discharged using
either:
(i) A battery analyzer at a rate not to exceed 1 C, until its
average cell voltage under load reaches the end-of-discharge voltage
specified in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the relevant battery
chemistry; or
(ii) The UUT, until the UUT ceases operation due to low battery
voltage.
(3) The test battery shall again be fully charged per step in
section 3.3.3(c)(1) of this appendix.
(4) The test battery shall again be fully discharged per step in
section 3.3.3(c)(2) of this appendix.
(5) The test battery shall be again fully charged per step in
section 3.3.3(c)(1) of this appendix.
(d) Batteries of chemistries, other than lithium-ion, that are
known to have been through at least two previous full charge/
discharge cycles shall only be charged once per step in section
3.3.3(c)(5) of this appendix.
3.3.4. Preparing the Battery for Charge Testing
Following any conditioning prior to beginning the battery charge
test (section 3.3.6 of this appendix), the test battery shall be
fully discharged to the end of discharge voltage prescribed in Table
3.3.2 of this appendix, or until the UUT circuitry terminates the
discharge.
3.3.5. Resting the Battery
The test battery shall be rested between preparation and the
battery charge test. The rest period shall be at least one hour and
not exceed 24 hours. For batteries with flooded cells, the
electrolyte temperature shall be less than 30 [deg]C before
charging, even if the rest period must be extended longer than 24
hours.
3.3.6. Testing Active Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode
(a) The Active Charge and Battery Maintenance Modes test
measures energy consumed during charge mode and some time spent in
the maintenance mode of the UUT. Functions required for battery
conditioning that happen only with some user-selected switch or
other control shall not be included in this measurement. (The
technician shall manually turn off any battery conditioning cycle or
setting.) Regularly occurring battery conditioning or maintenance
functions that are not controlled by the user will, by default, be
incorporated into this measurement.
(b) During the measurement period, input power values to the UUT
shall be recorded at least once every minute.
(1) If possible, the technician shall set the data logging
system to record the average power during the sample interval. The
total energy is computed as the sum of power samples (in watts)
multiplied by the sample interval (in hours).
(2) If this setting is not possible, then the power analyzer
shall be set to integrate or accumulate the input power over the
measurement period and this result shall be used as the total
energy.
(c) The technician shall follow these steps:
(1) Ensure that the user-controllable device functionality not
associated with battery charging and any battery conditioning cycle
or setting are turned off, as instructed in section 3.2.4 of this
appendix;
(2) Ensure that the test battery used in this test has been
conditioned, prepared, discharged, and rested as described in
sections 3.3.3. through 3.3.5. of this appendix;
(3) Connect the data logging equipment to the battery charger;
(4) Record the start time of the measurement period, and begin
logging the input power;
(5) Connect the test battery to the battery charger within 3
minutes of beginning logging. For integral battery products, connect
the product to a cradle or EPS within 3 minutes of beginning
logging;
(6) After the test battery is connected, record the initial time
and power (W) of the input current to the UUT. These measurements
shall be taken within the first 10 minutes of active charging;
(7) Record the input power for the duration of the ``Maintenance
Mode Test'' period, as determined by section 3.3.2. of this
appendix. The actual time that power is connected to the UUT shall
be within 5 minutes of the specified period; and
(8) Disconnect power to the UUT, terminate data logging, and
record the final time.
3.3.7. Resting the Battery
The test battery shall be rested between charging and
discharging. The rest period shall be at least 1 hour and not more
than 4 hours, with an exception for flooded cells. For batteries
with flooded cells, the electrolyte temperature shall be less than
30 [deg]C before charging, even if the rest period must be extended
beyond 4 hours.
3.3.8. Battery Discharge Energy Test
(a) If multiple batteries were charged simultaneously, the
discharge energy (Ebatt) is the sum of the discharge
energies of all the batteries.
[[Page 55130]]
(1) For a multi-port charger, batteries that were charged in
separate ports shall be discharged independently.
(2) For a batch charger, batteries that were charged as a group
may be discharged individually, as a group, or in sub-groups
connected in series and/or parallel. The position of each battery
with respect to the other batteries need not be maintained.
(b) During discharge, the battery voltage and discharge current
shall be sampled and recorded at least once per minute. The values
recorded may be average or instantaneous values.
(c) For this test, the technician shall follow these steps:
(1) Ensure that the test battery has been charged by the UUT and
rested according to the procedures prescribed in sections 3.3.6 and
3.3.7 of this appendix.
(2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant discharge rate and
the end-of-discharge voltage in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the
relevant battery chemistry.
(3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer and begin recording
the voltage, current, and wattage, if available from the battery
analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage is reached or the UUT
circuitry terminates the discharge, the test battery shall be
returned to an open-circuit condition. If current continues to be
drawn from the test battery after the end-of-discharge condition is
first reached, this additional energy is not to be counted in the
battery discharge energy.
(d) If not available from the battery analyzer, the battery
discharge energy (in watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the
voltage (in volts), current (in amperes), and sample period (in
hours) for each sample, and then summing over all sample periods
until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached.
Table 3.3.2--Required Battery Discharge Rates and End-of-Discharge
Battery Voltages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-of-
discharge
Battery chemistry Discharge rate voltage*
(C) (volts per
cell)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA)........ 0.2 1.75
Flooded Lead Acid....................... 0.2 1.70
Nickel Cadmium (NiCd)................... 0.2 1.0
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH)............. 0.2 1.0
Lithium-ion (Li-Ion).................... 0.2 2.5
Lithium-ion Polymer..................... 0.2 2.5
Lithium Iron Phosphate.................. 0.2 2.0
Rechargeable Alkaline................... 0.2 0.9
Silver Zinc............................. 0.2 1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*If the presence of protective circuitry prevents the battery
cells from being discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage
specified, then discharge battery cells to the lowest possible
voltage permitted by the protective circuitry.
3.3.9. Determining the Maintenance Mode Power
After the measurement period is complete, the technician shall
determine the average maintenance mode power consumption
(Pm) by examining the power-versus-time data from the
charge and maintenance mode test and:
(a) If the maintenance mode power is cyclic or shows periodic
pulses, compute the average power over a time period that spans a
whole number of cycles and includes at least the last 4 hours.
(b) Otherwise, calculate the average power value over the last 4
hours.
3.3.10. Determining the Active Charge Energy
After the measurement period is complete, the technician shall
determine the total active charge energy (Ea) by
examining the power-versus-time data from the charge and maintenance
mode test and:
(a) First determine when the battery charger enters maintenance
mode by examining the power-versus-time data to identify when the
input power enters either a steady state or a cyclic state with
average power for that period being the same as the maintenance mode
power determined in section 3.3.9. of this appendix.
(b) The accumulated energy or the average input power,
integrated over the test period from the initial recorded input time
up until when the battery charger enters maintenance mode would be
the active charge energy, Ea.
3.3.11. No-Battery Mode Energy Consumption Measurement
The no-battery mode measurement depends on the configuration of
the battery charger, as follows:
(a) Conduct a measurement of no-battery power consumption while
the battery charger is connected to the power source. Disconnect the
battery from the charger, allow the charger to operate for at least
30 minutes, and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time
series integral of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period,
divided by the period of measurement. If the battery charger has
manual on-off switches, all must be turned on for the duration of
the no-battery mode test.
(b) No-battery mode may also apply to products with integral
batteries, as follows:
(1) If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and no-
battery mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or
adapter alone.
(2) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry,
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and no-battery
mode power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e.,
zero watts).
(3) If the product contains integrated power conversion and
charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power
cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain
connected to mains, and no-battery mode measurement is not
applicable.
3.3.12. Off Mode Energy Consumption Measurement
The off mode measurement depends on the configuration of the
battery charger, as follows:
(a) If the battery charger has manual on-off switches, record a
measurement of off mode energy consumption while the battery charger
is connected to the power source. Remove the battery from the
charger, allow the charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, and
record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time series integral
of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period, divided by the
period of measurement, with all manual on-off switches turned off.
If the battery charger does not have manual on-off switches, record
that the off mode measurement is not applicable to this product.
(b) Off mode may also apply to products with integral batteries,
as follows:
(1) If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and off
mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or adapter
alone.
(2) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry,
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and off mode
power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero
watts).
(3) If the product contains integrated power conversion and
charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power
cord or plug blades, then no part of the
[[Page 55131]]
system will remain connected to mains, and off mode measurement is
not applicable.
3.3.13. Standby Mode Power
The standby mode power (Psb) is the summation power
of battery maintenance mode power (Pm) and no-battery
mode power (Pnb).
4. Testing Requirements for Uninterruptible Power Supplies
4.1. Standard Test Conditions
4.1.1. Measuring Equipment
(a) The power or energy meter must provide true root mean square
(r.m.s) measurements of the active input and output measurements,
with an uncertainty at full rated load of less than or equal to 0.5
percent at the 95 percent confidence level notwithstanding that
voltage and current waveforms can include harmonic components. The
meter must measure input and output values simultaneously.
(b) All measurement equipment used to conduct the tests must be
calibrated within the measurement equipment manufacturer specified
calibration period by a standard traceable to International System
of Units such that measurements meet the uncertainty requirements
specified in section 4.1.1(a) of this appendix.
4.1.2. Test Room Requirements
All portions of the test must be carried out in a room with an
air speed immediately surrounding the UUT of <=0.5 m/s in all
directions. Maintain the ambient temperature in the range of 20.0
[deg]C to 30.0 [deg]C, including all inaccuracies and uncertainties
introduced by the temperature measurement equipment, throughout the
test. No intentional cooling of the UUT, such as by use of
separately powered fans, air conditioners, or heat sinks, is
permitted. Test the UUT on a thermally non-conductive surface.
4.1.3. Input Voltage and Input Frequency
The AC input voltage and frequency to the UPS during testing
must be within 3 percent of the highest rated voltage and within 1
percent of the highest rated frequency of the device.
4.2. Unit Under Test Setup Requirements
4.2.1. General Setup
Configure the UPS according to Section J.2 of Annex J of IEC
62040-3 Ed. 2.0 with the following additional requirements:
(a) UPS Operating Mode Conditions. If the UPS can operate in two
or more distinct normal modes as more than one UPS architecture,
conduct the test in its lowest input dependency as well as in its
highest input dependency mode where VFD represents the lowest
possible input dependency, followed by VI and then VFI.
(b) Energy Storage System. The UPS must not be modified or
adjusted to disable energy storage charging features. Minimize the
transfer of energy to and from the energy storage system by ensuring
the energy storage system is fully charged (at the start of testing)
as follows:
(1) If the UUT has a battery charge indicator, charge the
battery for 5 hours after the UUT has indicated that it is fully
charged.
(2) If the UUT does not have a battery charge indicator but the
user manual shipped with the UUT specifies a time to reach full
charge, charge the battery for 5 hours longer than the time
specified.
(3) If the UUT does not have a battery charge indicator or user
manual instructions, charge the battery for 24 hours.
(c) DC output port(s). All DC output port(s) of the UUT must
remain unloaded during testing.
4.2.2. Additional Features
(a) Any feature unrelated to maintaining the energy storage
system at full charge or delivery of load power (e.g., LCD display)
shall be switched off. If it is not possible to switch such features
off, they shall be set to their lowest power-consuming mode during
the test.
(b) If the UPS takes any physically separate connectors or
cables not required for maintaining the energy storage system at
full charge or delivery of load power but associated with other
features (such as serial or USB connections, Ethernet, etc.), these
connectors or cables shall be left disconnected during the test.
(c) Any manual on-off switches specifically associated with
maintaining the energy storage system at full charge or delivery of
load power shall be switched on for the duration of the test.
4.3. Test Measurement and Calculation
Efficiency can be calculated from either average power or
accumulated energy.
4.3.1. Average Power Calculations
If efficiency calculation are to be made using average power,
calculate the average power consumption (Pavg) by
sampling the power at a rate of at least 1 sample per second and
computing the arithmetic mean of all samples over the time period
specified for each test as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.005
Where:
Pavg = average power
Pi = power measured during individual measurement (i)
n = total number of measurements
4.3.2. Steady State
Operate the UUT and the load for a sufficient length of time to
reach steady state conditions. To determine if steady state
conditions have been attained, perform the following steady state
check, in which the difference between the two efficiency
calculations must be less than 1 percent:
(a)(1) Simultaneously measure the UUT's input and output power
for at least 5 minutes, as specified in section 4.3.1 of this
appendix, and record the average of each over the duration as
Pavg\in and Pavg\out, respectively; or,
(2) Simultaneously measure the UUT's input and output energy for
at least 5 minutes and record the accumulation of each over the
duration as Ein and Eout, respectively.
(b) Calculate the UUT's efficiency, Eff1, using one of the
following two equations:
(1)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.006
Where:
Eff is the UUT efficiency
Pavg\out is the average output power in watts
Pavg\in is the average input power in watts
(2)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.007
Where:
Eff is the UUT efficiency
Eout is the accumulated output energy in watt-hours
Ein in the accumulated input energy in watt-hours
(c) Wait a minimum of 10 minutes.
(d) Repeat the steps listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section
4.3.2 of this appendix to calculate another efficiency value, Eff2.
(e) Determine if the product is at steady state using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.008
If the percentage difference of Eff1 and Eff2 as described in
the equation, is less than 1 percent, the product is at steady
state.
(f) If the percentage difference is greater than or equal to 1
percent, the product is not at steady state. Repeat the steps listed
in paragraphs (c) to (e) of section 4.3.2 of this appendix until the
product is at steady state.
4.3.3. Power Measurements and Efficiency Calculations
Measure input and output power of the UUT according to Section
J.3 of Annex J of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0, or measure the input and
output energy of the UUT for efficiency calculations with the
following exceptions:
(a) Test the UUT at the following reference test load
conditions, in the following order: 100 percent, 75 percent, 50
percent, and 25 percent of the rated output power.
[[Page 55132]]
(b) Perform the test at each of the reference test loads by
simultaneously measuring the UUT's input and output power in Watts
(W), or input and output energy in Watt-Hours (Wh) over a 15 minute
test period at a rate of at least 1 Hz. Calculate the efficiency for
that reference load using one of the following two equations:
(1)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.009
Where:
Effn = the efficiency at reference test load n%
Pavg\out n = the average output power at reference load n%
Pavg\in n = the average input power at reference load n%
(2)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.010
Where:
Effn = the efficiency at reference test load n%
Eout n = the accumulated output energy at reference load n%
Ein n = the accumulated input energy at reference load n%
4.3.4. UUT Classification
Optional Test for determination of UPS architecture. Determine
the UPS architecture by performing the tests specified in the
definitions of VI, VFD, and VFI (sections 2.28.1 through 2.28.3 of
this appendix).
4.3.5. Output Efficiency Calculation
(a) Use the load weightings from Table 4.3.1 to determine the
average load adjusted efficiency as follows:
Effavg = (t25 x Eff
[verbarlm]25) + (t50 x Eff
[verbarlm]50) + (t75 x Eff
[verbarlm]75) + (t100 x Eff
[verbarlm]100)
Where:
Effavg = the average load adjusted efficiency
tn = the portion of time spent at reference test load n% as
specified in Table 4.3.1
Eff [verbarlm]n = the measured efficiency at reference test
load n%
Table 4.3.1--Load Weightings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portion of time spent at reference load
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated output power (W) UPS architecture 25% 50% 75% 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P <= 1500 W................... VFD............. 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
VI or VFI....... 0 * 0.3 0.4 0.3
P > 1500 W.................... VFD, VI, or VFI. 0 * 0.3 0.4 0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Measuring efficiency at loading points with 0 time weighting is not required.
(b) Round the calculated efficiency value to one tenth of a
percentage point.
5. Testing Requirements for Open-Placement Wireless Chargers
5.1. Standard Test Conditions and UUT Setup Requirements
The technician will set up the testing environment according to
the test conditions as specified in sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.1.4
of this appendix. The unit under test will be configurated according
to section 3.2.1 and all other non-battery charger related functions
will be turned off according to section 3.2.4.
5.2. Active Mode Test
[Reserved]
5.3. No-Battery Mode Test
(a) Connect the UUT to mains power and place it in no-battery
mode by ensuring there are no foreign objects on the charging
surface (i.e., without any load).
(b) Monitor the AC input power for a period of 5 minutes to
assess the stability of the UUT. If the power level does not drift
by more than 1percent from the maximum value observed, the UUT is
considered stable.
(c) If the AC input power is not stable, follow the
specifications in Section 5.3.3. of IEC 62301 for measuring average
power or accumulated energy over time for the input. If the UUT is
stable, record the measurements of the AC input power over a 5-
minute period.
(d) Power consumption calculation. The power consumption of the
no-battery mode is equal to the active AC input power (W).
[FR Doc. 2022-18717 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
