# Energy Conservation Program for Certain Consumer Appliances: Test Procedures for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2011-12595 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** June 1, 2011 - **Citation:** 76 FR 31750 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0019] RIN 1904-AC03 Energy Conservation Program for Certain Consumer Appliances: Test Procedures for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its test procedures for battery chargers and external power supplies. In particular, DOE is inserting a new active mode energy consumption test procedure for battery chargers, which is necessary to develop energy conservation standards for battery chargers as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). DOE is also amending portions of its existing standby and off mode battery charger test procedure by decreasing the required testing time. Further, DOE is amending its active mode single-voltage external power supply test procedure to permit the testing of certain types of external power supplies. Finally, DOE is inserting a new procedure to address multiple-voltage external power supplies, which are not covered under the current single-voltage external power supply test procedure. DATES: This rule is effective July 1, 2011. After November 28, 2011, manufacturers may not make any representation regarding battery charger or external power supply energy consumption or efficiency unless such battery charger or external power supply has been tested in accordance with the final rule provisions in appendix Y (for battery chargers) and appendix Z (for external power supplies). ADDRESSES: You may review copies of all materials related to this rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above telephone number for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. E-mail: Victor.Petrolati@ee.doe.gov. For legal issues, contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. E-mail: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Authority and Background II. Summary of the Final Rule A. Battery Charger Active Mode Test Procedure B. Review of Battery Charger and External Power Supply Standby Mode and Off Mode Test Procedures C. Review of Single-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure D. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure III. Discussion A. Effective Date for the Amended Test Procedures B. Battery Charger Active Mode Test Procedure 1. Incorporation of the CEC Test Procedure 2. Scope a. Battery Chargers versus External Power Supplies b. Input Voltage and Frequency c. DC Input Battery Chargers d. High-Power Battery Chargers e. Consumer Motive Equipment 3. Definitions a. Deleting Existing Definitions b. Revising Existing Definitions c. Adding New Definitions 4. Test Apparatus and General Instructions a. Confidence Intervals b. Test Laboratory Temperature c. Charge Rate Selection d. Battery Selection e. Non-Battery Charging Functions f. Battery Chargers With Protective Circuitry g. Charge Capacity of Batteries With No Rating h. Battery Conditioning i. Rest Period 5. Test Measurement a. Removing Inactive Mode Energy Consumption Test Apparatus and Measurement b. Charge Test Duration c. Testing Order d. End-of-Discharge Voltages e. E 24 Measurement C. Review of Battery Charger and External Power Supply Standby and Off Mode Test Procedures 1. Battery Charger Test Procedure Off Mode Definition 2. Test Duration D. Review of the Single-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure 1. External Power Supplies That Communicate With Their Loads 2. External Power Supplies With Output Current Limiting 3. High-Power External Power Supplies 4. Active Power E. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure F. Test Procedure Amendments Not Incorporated in This Final Rule 1. Incorporating Usage Profiles 2. Measuring Charger Output Energy 3. Alternative Depth-of-Discharge Measurement IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under 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 V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq. (EPCA or the Act), sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,” which covers consumer products and certain commercial products (all of which are referred to below as “covered products”), including battery chargers and external power supplies. Under EPCA, the overall energy conservation program for consumer products and commercial equipment consists essentially of the following parts: testing, labeling, and Federal energy conservation standards. The testing requirements consist of procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use to certify to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that their products comply with the required energy conservation standards and to rate the efficiency of their products. These test procedures would also be used during enforcement-related testing when determining whether a given product complies with the relevant standards. Today's final rule provides, among other things, a new active mode energy consumption test procedure for battery chargers, which is necessary to develop energy conservation standards for battery chargers as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). Today's rule also modifies the existing procedure found in appendix Y to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B. In particular, the test procedure that DOE is adopting today provides a uniform method to test the energy efficiency of a battery charger, which is a necessary prerequisite to the setting of any energy conservation standard for these products. Consequently, DOE is promulgating today's rule in anticipation of the final rule that will set standards for battery chargers. Additionally, today's rule introduces other changes to the procedures found in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix Z, which covers the energy efficiency testing of an external power supply. In particular, the rule amends aspects of the current procedure when measuring the energy consumption of a Class A external power supply. A Class A external power supply is one that is: designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output; able to convert to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time; sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use product that constitutes the primary load; contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product; is connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring; and has nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 watts. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C). Today's rule also adds a procedure to facilitate testing of a multiple-voltage external power supply. The test procedure requires loading the multiple-voltage external power supply at five separate loading levels and requires that these five outputs be reported individually. EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of such test procedures. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6293. As part of these requirements, the procedures must be reasonably designed to measure the energy use, energy efficiency, or annual operating cost during a period that is representative of typical use and not be “unduly burdensome.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In addition, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2) and Executive Order 12899, 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993), if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them, with a comment period of not less than 75 days. Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine “to what extent the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency as determined under the existing test procedure.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) DOE discusses its consideration of the amendments to the test procedures for battery chargers and external power supplies in the section that follows. DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on April 2, 2010 (75 FR 16958) in which it discussed in more detail many of the testing issues brought forward in the framework document and an accompanying public meeting to discuss the approach that DOE planned to use in setting energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies. See 74 FR 26816 (June 4, 2009) (discussing the framework document for battery chargers and external power supplies). 1 (The public meeting discussing the framework document was held on July 16, 2009. That meeting also included discussions related to test procedure issues. A related meeting to discuss the preliminary analysis DOE performed in examining standards for these products also generated some discussion related to test procedure issues.) DOE held a public meeting to discuss its test procedure NOPR on May 7, 2010, where it also received comments on the proposals set forth in the NOPR (hereafter referred to as the NOPR public meeting). A 75-day comment period as prescribed by EPCA was afforded to interested parties. 1 U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies. May 2009. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/bceps_frameworkdocument.pdf. Battery chargers and external power supplies operate similarly in that they both take electricity from a power source, usually from a wall outlet, and convert it into a form that can be used either to power an application directly or to charge and maintain the energy in a battery. Specifically, they both take power at one voltage and current type, typically 120 volts alternating current (AC), and convert it to lower-voltage direct current (DC) power. Because these products operate in a similar manner, DOE is consolidating its evaluation of potential energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies together in a single rulemaking proceeding. Additional details related to the authority and background of this rulemaking can be found in section I of the NOPR. 75 FR 16958, 16959-16960. II. Summary of the Final Rule Today's final rule does two key things. First, it adopts new test procedures for the active mode of battery chargers and all modes of multiple-voltage external power supplies. Second, it modifies existing parts of the battery charger and external power supply test procedures (for example, the duration of the battery charger standby and off mode tests). In doing so, it amends both appendices Y and Z in multiple places. Furthermore, although DOE is retaining the current language of certain sections of appendices Y and Z, in selecting amendments for inclusion in today's final rule, DOE considered all aspects of the existing battery charger and external power supply test procedures. By examining these procedures in this comprehensive manner, this rulemaking satisfies the 7-year review requirement of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b). Subsequent amendments will, as needed, be made in a manner consistent with the schedule set out in that provision. As explained in greater detail in this notice, the final rule makes the following specific changes to the current regulations: (1) Inserts a new test procedure to measure the energy consumption of battery chargers in active mode to assist in the development of energy conservation standards; (2) Amends the battery charger test procedure to decrease the testing time of battery chargers in standby and off modes; (3) Amends the single-voltage external power supply test procedure to accommodate external power supplies with Universal Serial Bus (USB) outputs and other types of external power supplies that cannot be tested in accordance with the current test procedure; and (4) Inserts a new test procedure for multiple-voltage external power supplies, a type of non-Class A external power supply that DOE evaluated in its non-Class A determination analysis and that will be covered under the energy conservation standard. Table II.1 lists the sections of 10 CFR part 430 affected by the amendments in this rule. The left-hand column in the table cites the locations of the affected CFR provisions, while the right-hand column lists the changes. Table II.1—Summary of Proposed Changes and Affected Sections of 10 CFR Part 430 Existing Section in 10 CFR Part 430 Summary of modifications Section 430.23 of Subpart B—Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water consumption • Modify ‘(aa) battery charger’ to include energy consumption in active mode. Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers • Renumber the existing sections to ease referencing and use by testing technicians. 1. Scope • Limit scope to include only battery chargers intended for operation in the United States. 2. Definitions • Add definitions for: ○ Active power or real power (P). ○ Ambient temperature. ○ Apparent power (S). ○ Batch charger. ○ Battery rest period. ○ C-rate. ○ Equalization. ○ Instructions or manufacturer's instructions. ○ Measured charge capacity. ○ Rated battery voltage. ○ Rated charge capacity. ○ Rated energy capacity. ○ Total harmonic distortion (THD). ○ Unit under test (UUT). • Remove definitions for: ○ Accumulated nonactive energy. ○ Energy ratio or nonactive energy ratio. • Modify definitions for: ○ Active mode. ○ Multi-port charger. ○ Multi-voltage à la carte charger. ○ Standby mode. 3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions • Insert apparatus and instructions to measure energy consumption in active mode. 4. Test Measurement • Insert procedures to measure energy consumption in active mode. • Modify 4(c) to change standby mode measurement time. • Modify 4(d) to change off mode measurement time. Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies 1. Scope • No change. 2. Definitions • Modify definition of active power. 3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions • Modify 3(b) to accommodate multiple-voltage external power supplies. 4. Test Measurement • Modify 4(a) to accommodate external power supplies that communicate with the load, perform current limiting, or have output power greater than 250 watts. • Modify 4(b) to accommodate multiple-voltage external power supplies. In developing today's amendments, DOE considered comments received from interested parties in response to the standby and off mode test procedure, framework document, NOPR, and NOPR public meeting. Although a part of the standards rulemaking, DOE also considered comments to the framework document insofar as these comments had any bearing with respect to test procedure-related items. Numerous commenters sought to have DOE require testing in additional modes of operation in which products had not been tested under the current procedure, such as active or charge mode. DOE reviewed the existing test procedures for battery chargers and external power supplies and found that, with some modifications, they could be used as a basis for updating DOE's test procedures to address some of the limitations identified by commenters. These modifications are discussed in greater detail below. Interested parties who commented on the NOPR consisted of manufacturers (Associate of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), Power Tool Institute (PTI), Euro-Pro, Phillips, Sony Electronics, Inc., Delta-Q Technologies Corp. and Wahl Clipper); an energy efficiency advocate (Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP)); and utility companies (Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison). DOE also examined whether the amendments to its test procedures would significantly change the measured energy consumption or efficiency of battery chargers or external power supplies. This question is particularly important for Class A external power supplies, which are subject to the EISA minimum efficiency standard that took effect on July 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A)) The amendments to the single-voltage external power supply test procedure, which is used to test compliance with Class A external power supply standards, affect the measured efficiency of external power supplies with USB outputs and external power supplies that communicate with their loads—which together comprise the subset of Class A external power supplies to which these amendments would apply. The term “communicating” with a load refers to an external power supply's ability to identify or otherwise exchange information with its load ( i.e., the end-use product to which it is connected). This technique is used to tailor the operation of the external power supply to the needs of the load as well as to prevent the possibility of the supply being used with incompatible loads, which could damage the product. While most external power supplies provide power at a fixed output voltage regardless of what load is connected to their outputs, some external power supplies will only provide power once they have “communicated” with the load and identified it as the intended load. The remaining amendments included in today's final rule have the following impacts on measured energy consumption or efficiency: (1) The battery charger active mode test procedure amendment changes the measured energy consumption of battery chargers by eliminating the nonactive energy ratio metric and replacing it with a new metric that measures energy consumption in active mode; (2) The standby and off mode test procedure amendment changes the measured energy consumption of battery chargers or external power supplies when operating in these modes; and (3) The multiple-voltage external power supply amendment inserts a new test procedure for these products. The procedure being adopted today will be used to help DOE in establishing the energy conservation standards for these products through a separate rulemaking that is currently underway. A. Battery Charger Active Mode Test Procedure Prior to this final rule, the DOE battery charger test procedure, first created by the EPACT 2005 En Masse final rule (71 FR 71340 (December 8, 2006)) and amended by the standby and off mode test procedure final rule (74 FR 13318 (March 27, 2009)), did not measure battery charger energy consumption in all modes. Instead, it excluded the energy consumed by the battery charger while charging a battery ( i.e. active mode energy consumption). The procedure measured energy consumption only in standby (or no battery) and off modes ( i.e. inactive mode energy consumption). DOE had adopted this earlier approach because the timing of the rulemaking did not permit an addition of an active mode test procedure at that time. 71 FR 71340, 71360. The battery charger active mode test procedure in today's final rule removes the inactive mode calculation. This calculation, found in section 4(a) of appendix Y, is a composite of different operational modes that, under the changes introduced by today's final rule, are to be measured separately. The final rule also makes three additional key changes to the battery charger test procedure. First, it adds an active mode measurement to section 4(b) to account for the energy consumed by a battery charger while it is charging a battery. Second, it amends the scope, definitions, and test apparatus and general instructions (sections 1, 2, and 3) to address the changes brought about by the introduction of the new active mode test procedure. Third, it reorganizes the battery charger sections to enhance their readability and ease of use to help reduce the prospect of differing interpretations while conducting the test. The active mode amendment that DOE is adopting today is based in large part on the battery charger system test procedure already adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC). 2 DOE, however, has modified that procedure to help decrease the overall testing burden faced by manufacturers when testing these products and by increasing the procedure's clarity. Examples of how DOE has accomplished these goals include modifying the procedure to use terms consistent with other DOE rulemakings and dividing more complex procedures into simpler, discrete steps for testing technicians to follow. These changes are discussed further in section III.B. 2 Ecos Consulting, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Solutions, Southern California Edison (SCE). Energy Efficiency Battery Charger System Test Procedure. Version 2.2. November 12, 2008. http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2008rulemaking/2008-AAER-1B/2008-11-19_BATTERY_CHARGER_SYSTEM_TEST_PROCEDURE.PDF. B. Review of Battery Charger and External Power Supply Standby Mode and Off Mode Test Procedures DOE addressed the EPCA requirements to prescribe definitions and test procedures for measuring the energy consumption of external power supplies and battery chargers in standby and off modes (42 U.S.C. 6298(gg)(A) and (B)) in its March 27, 2009, test procedure final rule. That final rule incorporated standby and off mode measurements as well as updated definitions into appendices Y and Z. 74 FR 13318. In today's final rule, DOE amends the battery charger test procedure by requiring the use of a 30-minute warm-up period followed by a 10-minute measurement period. Previously, the DOE test procedure required a 1-hour measurement period. This amendment harmonizes DOE's standby and off mode measurement requirement for battery chargers with the requirement contained in section IV of part 1 of the CEC battery charger test procedure. DOE is harmonizing its procedure with the CEC battery charger test procedure to produce a less burdensome procedure while preserving testing accuracy. No changes are being made to the standby and off mode test procedures for external power supplies. Detailed discussion of the changes can be found in section III.C. C. Review of Single-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure DOE is amending the test procedure for single-voltage external power supplies to accommodate several classes of external power supplies that cannot be tested in a representative or repeatable manner under the current test procedure. These external power supplies include those devices that (1) communicate with their loads through USB and other protocols ( e.g. I2C and TCP/IP), 3 (2) limit their output current below the maximum current listed on their nameplates, and (3) have output power in excess of 250 watts. In its NOPR, DOE presented a general outline for a possible test method for these products, but stated that because these types of external power supplies did not exist in significant numbers in the market, DOE was unable to analyze them in depth and develop a testing approach using the single-voltage external power supply procedure. 75 FR 16958, 16962. DOE received generally supportive comments on its proposals for dealing with the three different external power supply types, especially those proposals regarding external power supplies that communicate with their loads. The test procedure revisions adopted in this final rule are described in greater detail in section III.D. 3 Devices of this type include cellular telephones and portable media players such as MP3 players. D. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I), DOE performed a determination analysis and concluded that those external power supplies equipped with multiple simultaneous output voltages were appropriate candidates for separate energy conservation standards. 75 FR 16958, 16974. Because DOE was unaware of any procedure that could be used to measure the energy consumption of these devices, DOE sought to develop such a procedure by modifying the procedures currently used by the CEC when measuring the energy consumption of single-voltage external power supplies 4 and internal power supplies. 5 73 FR 48054, 48058 (August 15, 2008). DOE looked to the CEC's test procedure as the starting point for creating a multiple voltage external power supply procedure because of the aforementioned positive determination. DOE also believed that the CEC test procedure was the most accurate and appropriate of all the test procedures it examined and that adopting the CEC test procedure would allow DOE to maintain consistency with DOE's single-voltage external power supply test procedure, which was also based on a CEC test procedure. DOE's 73 FR 48064. 4 Calwell, C., Foster, S., and Reeder, T. Test Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac Power Supplies, August 11, 2004, previously incorporated by reference into appendix Y. Ecos Consulting for the California Energy Commission; Sacramento, CA. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/downloads/power_supplies/EPSupplyEffic_TestMethod_0804.pdf. 5 Mansoor, A., et al. and May-Ostendorp, P., et al. Generalized Test Protocol for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power Supplies, Rev. 6.4.3. October 22, 2009. EPRI and Ecos Consulting for the California Energy Commission; Sacramento, CA. http://efficientpowersupplies.epri.com/pages/Latest_Protocol/Generalized_Internal_Power_Supply_Efficiency_Test_Protocol_R6.4.3.pdf. In today's final rule, DOE is adopting a test procedure generally consistent with both its earlier approach from its August 2008 proposal to address multiple-voltage external power supplies within the context of its standby mode test procedure and its more recent proposal. See 73 FR 48054, 48064 and 75 FR 16958, 16974. Although DOE had initially considered the adoption of a multiple-voltage external power supply procedure as part of its August 2008 NOPR, it declined to include such a procedure in the March 2009 final rule because of the substantial number of issues raised by commenters and the limited time provided by EISA 2007 to fully consider all of these concerns. 74 FR 13322. These concerns have since been resolved in light of additional comments, data, and information developed as part of today's final rule. Incorporating this amendment into the external power supply test procedure will enable DOE to evaluate power consumption for multiple-voltage external power supplies in all modes of operation: active, standby (or no-load), and off. A detailed discussion of DOE's test procedure for multiple-voltage external power supplies can be found in section III.E. III. Discussion Commenters raised a variety of issues related to DOE's proposal. These issues are addressed in greater detail in the sections that follow. A. Effective Date for the Amended Test Procedures The April 2010 proposal provided for an effective date of 30 days after publication of the final rule. That notice also indicated that the amendments to the battery charger and non-Class A external power supply test procedures would be required to be used once DOE sets standards for these particular products. 75 FR 16958, 16963. Commenters voiced concerns with the 30-day effective date set forth in the test procedure NOPR. AHAM and PTI specifically asked for clarification on the language regarding the effective date. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 220; PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 236) AHAM specifically voiced that clarification is important to prevent the need for relabeling products and avoiding possible conflicts with applicable State and ENERGY STAR specifications. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 223) In addition to clarity, commenters requested more time to comply. Euro-Pro commented that it is difficult to re-label products, update all associated paperwork and advertisements, and sell the product in the marketplace within 30 days. (Euro-Pro, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 224) Euro-Pro further commented that it is difficult to comply with the new test procedure, whether given 30 or 180 days, and that DOE should provide a calendar date by which the procedure would go into effect. (Euro-Pro, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 233) Finally, AHAM urged DOE to make the test procedure effective, including the ENERGY STAR test procedure, when the standard becomes effective, to avoid confusion and issues with non-conformance. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) Commenters indicated that providing a lead time of 30 days would be insufficient to transition to a new test procedure. DOE notes that, any representations of energy use or efficiency made by a manufacturer must be based on the test procedure established by DOE. Manufacturers have 180 days from the establishment of that procedure to ensure that any such representations are based on that DOE-established test procedure. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2) Currently, there are no energy conservation standards for battery chargers and non-Class A external power supplies. To clarify the timing of the test procedure requirements that DOE is adopting today, DOE is amending the regulatory text to address this issue. Because of the 180-day requirement, as a practical matter, manufacturers have a full six months to adjust to the new procedure before having to make representations based on that procedure. Manufacturers would need to use the new procedure for battery chargers and non-Class A external power supplies once the this date for making representations is reached. Any written representations, such as those prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6294, would need to be made consistent with the test procedure as amended by today's final rule. Accordingly, although today's rule becomes effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register , manufacturers have 180 days from the publication of today's final rule to use the test procedure for any written representation of energy efficiency or use. And since such requirements are not likely to be established until after DOE sets energy efficiency standards for these products in mid- to-late 2011, manufacturers will have considerable time to adjust to the new procedure before they are required to use this procedure to certify compliance with those new standards. (Given that today's rule does not prescribe any substantive changes that would affect the measured energy efficiency or use of Class A external power supplies, DOE does not anticipate any difficulties for manufacturers who are certifying these products.) Finally, interested parties asked DOE to clarify how products that cannot be tested can be sold in the United States. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 12; SCE, No. 13 at p. 12; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 12) They commented that DOE should disallow the sale of products that cannot be tested by the test procedure, but wanted to ensure that a product that must be tested under the procedure does not provide a path for manufacturers to avoid the energy conservation standard requirements. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 12; SCE, No. 13 at p. 12; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 12) DOE acknowledges the interested parties' concerns and clarifies that, in general, products that cannot be tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure will not be permitted to be sold in the United States. However, a process is available to permit manufacturer to seek a waiver from the test procedure in special circumstances. As part of this process, an alternative test procedure must be provided by the manufacturer seeking the waiver in order to provide a means to measure the energy use or efficiency of that product. See 10 CFR 431.27 (detailing requirements for obtaining a waiver from the required test procedure). B. Battery Charger Active Mode Test Procedure Prior to today's final rule, the battery charger test procedure consisted of four parts: (1) Scope, (2) definitions, (3) test apparatus and general instructions, and (4) test measurement. The test measurement section included four subparts to address the measurement of four separate energy consumption modes—inactive mode, 6 active mode, standby mode, and off-mode. Inactive mode energy consumption is measured for purposes of evaluating battery charger performance under the voluntary ENERGY STAR testing program. 7 6 The inactive mode energy consumption measurement consists of the energy measured over 36 hours while the battery charger is in maintenance mode, followed by 12 hours in standby (no-battery) mode, with the possibility of abbreviating the measurement to 6 hours and 1 hour, respectively under certain conditions. 7 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Test Methodology for Determining the Energy Performance of Battery Charging Systems. December 2005. Washington, DC. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/downloads/Battery_Chargers_Test_Method.pdf. During the standby and off mode test procedure rulemaking from 2008, numerous interested parties commented that the current DOE test procedure is insufficient for the development of energy conservation standards because it does not measure energy consumption during active ( i.e., charging) mode. Many of these interested parties also recommended that DOE adopt the optional battery charger test procedure then under consideration in draft form at the CEC. As mentioned in the standby and off mode test procedure final rule, 74 FR 13318, DOE was unable to act on these comments, as it had not contemplated the inclusion of any active mode changes in the standby and off mode test procedure NOPR and there was insufficient time to consider this option in light of the statutory deadline for that rulemaking. 73 FR 48054 (August 15, 2008). 1. Incorporation of the CEC Test Procedure On December 3, 2008, CEC adopted version 2.2 of the test procedure developed by Ecos Consulting, EPRI Solutions, and Southern California Edison (SCE), as an optional test procedure for the measurement of battery charger energy consumption during charging (active), maintenance, no-battery (standby), and off modes. The test procedure was incorporated by reference into section 1604(w) of title 20 of the California Code of Regulations, 8 alongside the DOE test procedure from appendix Y. Details of the CEC test procedure can be found in section III.1 of the NOPR. 75 FR 16964. See also 20 Cal. Code 1604(w) (referring to the 2008 DOE test procedure and the California test method for battery chargers). 8 California Energy Commission (CEC), “2009 Appliance Efficiency Regulations,” August 2009. In both the framework document and NOPR, DOE stated its intention to amend the battery charger test procedure in appendix Y to include an active mode measurement. See 74 FR 26818 and 75 FR 16958. Commenters supported the active mode measurement, and encouraged DOE to adopt the CEC test procedure in this regard. At the NOPR public meeting and in written comments, AHAM generally supported the proposed test procedure based on the CEC procedure and noted that its inclusion of an active mode energy measurement made it an improvement over the procedure already in place. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 25; No. 10 at p. 2) AHAM further commented that the CEC test procedure provides a good method for testing active mode. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 65-66) PTI agreed with DOE's decision to incorporate elements from the CEC test procedure into the NOPR. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 249-250) PG&E was supportive of DOE adopting an active mode that largely follows the CEC test procedure because that procedure, in PG&E's view, is a solid base for performing battery charger testing. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 14) PG&E, Delta-Q and AHAM also supported DOE's decision to drop the inactive mode procedure in favor of an active mode one. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 51-52; AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 47; Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) As described in section III.B of the NOPR, DOE examined three other procedures that are used world-wide to measure battery charger energy consumption—the EPA-developed procedure used for ENERGY STAR-qualification, Canadian Standards Association (CSA) C381.2, and the CEC test procedure on which DOE based its proposal. 75 FR 16964. After examining these procedures and conducting tests using them, DOE decided that the CEC test procedure provided all of the necessary outputs with reasonably good accuracy and minimal variability. The EPA-developed procedure and the CSA test procedure both lacked a method for measuring active mode energy consumption, a measurement that DOE and interested parties believe is necessary to establish meaningful energy conservation standards. Therefore, for these reasons, and in light of the general support that interested parties gave to the prospect of incorporating a CEC-based test procedure, DOE is basing its battery charger test procedure on the methodology of the CEC procedure but with some modifications to help increase its clarity and repeatability, and minimize the testing burden. (Battery Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) These modifications are outlined in the following sections. 2. Scope a. Battery Chargers Versus External Power Supplies As discussed in the NOPR, the battery charger test procedure applies to: “battery chargers operating at either DC or United States AC line voltage (120V at 60Hz).” 75 FR 16958, 16979. In written and verbal comments, interested parties noted that the proposed battery charger test procedure did not clearly explain how DOE would distinguish a battery charger from an external power supply for purposes of testing requirements. AHAM expressed numerous concerns regarding the proposal's scope. In its view, the procedure should have a scope that clearly outlines what the test procedure covers. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 42) AHAM also asserted that any differences between the scope of coverage of the DOE and CEC test procedures stemming from the treatment of the battery charger's wall adapter ( i.e., whether it is tested separately as an external power supply or as part of the battery charger) may cause problems once the DOE test procedure for battery chargers becomes effective. Manufacturers may not know which procedure to use with their particular product since the DOE and CEC definitions of battery chargers and external power supplies differ. As a result, in its view, manufacturers will be unsure how to test and label their products. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 228) As an example, AHAM argued that non-Class A, motor-operated or detachable battery external power supplies that use charge control circuitry should be viewed as part of a battery charging system and be tested as part of the overall battery charger. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 37) It also suggested that to avoid confusion and allow for greater accuracy, DOE should specify that the battery charger test procedure should be the only test procedure used to test battery chargers and all parts of battery chargers. DOE notes that the approach suggested by AHAM would eliminate the possibility of regulating external power supplies packaged with battery chargers under the external power supplies standard. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) This approach, however, also contains some inherent problems. Because an external power supply can provide power to one or more parts of an application simultaneously, limiting the procedure in the manner suggested by AHAM would similarly limit DOE's ability to capture certain aspects of the energy consumption characteristics of these products. For certain products, such as a power tool, the external power supply might only provide power to the battery charger. However, for products such as laptops, the external power supply might simultaneously provide power to the battery charger and other functions, such as the screen and processor. If DOE were to follow AHAM's suggestion, it would be unable to capture the potential energy savings from the external power supply to parts of an application other than the battery charger. AHAM also stated that it is difficult to comment on the test procedure without knowing how energy standards will apply to these products and believed it would be inappropriate to separate the testing of any portions of the battery recharging circuit as part of the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 2) Separately, AHAM asserted that, in its view, DOE has not clearly explained how the battery charger test procedure schedule integrates with the test procedure for Class A or non-Class A external power supply devices, or any combination thereof. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 27) AHAM also stated that manufacturers are currently “required to report their energy usage to California to indicate by a Roman numeral (‘IV’ or ‘V’) the level of external power supply that the wall adapter may utilize.” In its view, DOE has not yet clarified how a wall adapter would be treated— i.e., as a separate and distinct Non-Class-A external power supply or as part of a battery charger—manufacturers would not know which energy conservation standard would apply. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) Finally, AHAM commented that as a result of a recent memorandum of understanding (MOU) reached between DOE and EPA, ENERGY STAR may be obligated to use the DOE test procedure if it is available. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 236) 9 9 2009 EPA-DOE Memorandum of Understanding: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=partners.mou. Wahl recommended that DOE should have one test procedure and regulation for an individual product. Products should be classified as an external power supply or as a battery charger and regulated to one standard or the other but not both. (Wahl Clipper, No. 9, at p. 1) DOE acknowledges that interested parties have a number of concerns about the scope of the battery charger test procedure. DOE will address these issues and explain its approach in greater detail concerning how to delineate which products are battery chargers and which are external power supplies in the standards rulemaking. b. Input Voltage and Frequency As proposed in the NOPR, the scope of the DOE test procedure encompasses products that use DC or AC input voltages of 115 volts (V) at 60 hertz (Hz). 75 FR 16958, 16965. This scope differs from that of the CEC test procedure, which requires, when possible, the testing of units that accept AC line-voltage input at two voltage and frequency combinations: 115 V at 60 Hz and 230 V at 50 Hz. At the NOPR public meeting, commenters expressed different opinions concerning the rulemaking's scope. Delta-Q, AHAM, and Sony believed that the scope should be limited to cover only products that use DC or AC 115 V at 60 Hz. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1; Sony, No. 6 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 8) Delta-Q cautioned “against some overlap with any solar industry standards that may apply to battery chargers operating with DC input.” (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1) Sony further supported DOE's proposal by stating that limiting testing to a single input voltage would reduce test costs and time and would be consistent with the external power supply test procedure. (Sony, No. 6 at p. 2) Alternatively, ASAP, PG&E and SCE encouraged DOE to allow for input voltages higher than 115 V, such as 230 V at 60 Hz, because there are some high-power consumer battery chargers that operate at 230 to 240 V at 60 Hz. These chargers include charger/inverter units that connect between the electrical grid and the battery of many consumer photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy systems, as well as rapid chargers for lead acid batteries. (ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 1-2; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 1-2; SCE, No. 13 at pp. 1-2) These commenters indicated that power at 230 V is available in most U.S. households, and products that use this higher voltage may become more prevalent as the Federal government provides tax incentives for residential PV systems that employ these higher output voltage devices. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) To account for testing at either input voltage and frequency combination, ASAP, PG&E, and SCE urged DOE to adopt language indicating that if the unit under test (UUT) is intended ( i.e., designed) for operation on AC line voltage-input of 110 V to 125 V 60 Hz, it shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. Similarly, these commenters added that if the UUT is not intended for operation at 110 V to 125 V at 60 Hz, but is intended for operation at 220 to 240 V at 60 Hz, it should be tested at 230 V at 60 Hz. In the case of a UUT that is designed for operation on AC line-voltage input but cannot be operated at either of these voltages, this unit should not be tested under the procedure. See generally, ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2. Further, these commenters argued that when testing products of the same voltage at both 50 and 60 Hz, switch mode power supplies showed negligible difference in power consumption, and products with line-frequency transformers showed higher power consumption at 50 Hz. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) In their view, if DOE included higher voltage products in its scope, DOE could assume that if a product tested at 230 V at 50 Hz demonstrates compliance, it would also comply at 230 V at 60 Hz because at 50 Hz, it would be, presumably, consuming more power. Therefore, DOE could accept a test result at 230 V at 50 Hz as a substitute for 230 V at 60 Hz. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) However, these commenters provided no data in support of these claims. Although some interested parties were concerned with the scope of the battery charger test procedure, DOE is retaining the scope as it was presented in its NOPR. DOE acknowledges that consumer products operate at different voltage and frequency combinations. However, DOE has not encountered consumer products that operate only at input voltages other than 115 V throughout this rulemaking process. Commenters provided no evidence of such products being available. For this reason, DOE believes that, to the extent that any such products exist, these products comprise, at most, an extremely small portion of the battery charger market. Consequently, DOE has decided at this time not to require the use of a separate voltage in addition to 115 V. DOE does not anticipate that its decision to exclude them from this rulemaking will have a significant impact on the annual energy consumption of battery chargers as a whole. However, DOE may revisit this decision in subsequent rulemakings. c. DC Input Battery Chargers In this rulemaking, DOE covers both AC- (as discussed, above) and DC-input battery chargers. In its comments, AHAM questioned whether DOE has the authority to regulate DC-input battery chargers, particularly within the context of those devices that have automotive-related applications—and how the proposed regulation of such products relates to the need for reducing power demanded from utilities. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) AHAM added that if this approach relates to battery charging energy consumption from other electronics sources ( i.e. charging a cell phone from a laptop computer), it suggested that DOE explain how it will segregate the energy from the functions of the laptop to the battery charger. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) AHAM also stated that DOE should not focus on DC input battery chargers, but rather focus only on non-Class A power supplies and AC input battery chargers. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) Additionally, in response to the preliminary analysis for the corresponding battery charger and external power supply energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE received other comments regarding in-vehicle chargers. 10 CEA and Motorola both stated that DOE's test procedure should clarify its stance regarding in-vehicle chargers while also recommending that such chargers be dropped from the scope of coverage for both the test procedure and the energy conservation standards rulemakings. (CEA, No. 48 at p. 3 and Motorola, No. 50 at pp. 2-3) Motorola commented that the CEC test procedure does not have a clear stance for in-vehicle electronics because the stated scope of the test procedure excludes battery chargers that do not connect to the utility grid, yet there are stipulations for testing devices that connect to cigarette outlets in automotive equipment and USB ports. (Motorola, No. 50 at pp. 2-3). CEA commented that the “stated scope of the DOE test procedure clearly excludes in-vehicle ‘DC-in, DC-out’ battery charging systems which are not connected to the utility grid. However, there are instructions in the test method for testing these types of battery charging systems.” (CEA, No. 48 at p. 3) 10 The comments listed in this paragraph come from administrative record for the parallel rulemaking on energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies. The reference docket number is EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 (RIN: 1904-AB57). Under EPCA, DOE has the authority to cover a wide variety of consumer products, excluding those consumer products “designed solely for use in recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment”. 42 U.S.C. 6292(a). In DOE's view, this exclusion does not apply to any of the DC-input devices that would likely be affected by the procedure being promulgated today. While some of these products may be designed to work in conjunction with certain mobile equipment, such as for the purpose of recharging the battery of a golf car, DOE has found that none of the products that were considered within the context of this rulemaking—or of any related standards rulemaking activities—involved products that were designed solely for use in recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment. For example, cell phone chargers that work with DC current (as would be available in a recreational vehicle) also come equipped (or are designed to work) with wall adapters. As a result, such devices are not “designed solely” for use in a recreational vehicle and other mobile equipment. However, as a result of the aforementioned provision, DOE is modifying its procedure for determining how a product should be tested. If a manufacturer packages its product with a wall adapter or the manufacturer recommends or sells a wall adapter for use with its product, the battery charger shall be tested with that wall adapter. If this is not the case and the product, such as a GPS device, only works with a DC input through either a car charger or a USB port, that device will be tested with the 5 V DC input that corresponds to the USB port configuration. Consistent with this view, DOE plans to proceed with the scope proposed in the NOPR, which includes testing DC-input battery chargers. While EPCA specifies the input voltage that applies to an external power supply as part of that product's statutory definition, it does not place similar limitations with respect to the input voltage of battery chargers that DOE may regulate. Further, while many DC-input battery chargers may be designed to work with a recreational vehicle or other mobile equipment, these chargers are not “designed solely for use” in these applications since many, if not all, of these chargers are designed to work in conjunction with wall adapters, USB ports, or through other electrical connections to obtain AC mains power. In light of the absence of any specific language that would otherwise prevent DOE from regulating battery chargers that operate with a DC-input, and the fact that these devices are not designed exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment, DOE believes it has the authority to regulate such products. Whether DOE opts to regulate these products is a decision based on whether energy conservation standards for these products achieve the maximum energy savings, are technologically feasible, and are economically justified. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2). As part of the energy conservation standards setting process, DOE plans to separately evaluate those DC-input battery chargers and determine whether it is technically and economically feasible to set standards for them in a manner consistent with the applicable statutory requirements. d. High-Power Battery Chargers DOE sought comment on how it should address the treatment of high-power battery chargers. In comments, Delta-Q expressed concern with the approach contained in the current version of appendix Y, which tests all battery chargers in the same manner, irrespective of the amount of power they use. Delta-Q stated that they are very concerned about how the test procedure would measure the energy use of higher power (750-1500W) chargers on larger (>200Ah) batteries, because the potential variability in the batteries is greater than in smaller batteries. This greater variability can impact the entire system and the calculated energy efficiency. To address this issue, Delta-Q suggested the use of an electronic load to simulate a battery pack, a standard battery make/model with a certain age range or excluding batteries above a certain size from the test procedure (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1). As proposed in the NOPR, today's final rule specifies that both the battery charger and its battery shall be new products of the type and condition that would be sold to a customer ( i.e. end-user). 75 FR 16958, 16981. DOE is aware of the potential benefit that exists from using a battery simulator and testing with an electronic load, namely, decreased variability in test results for large lead-acid batteries. However, DOE is unaware of any existing test procedures that rely on this particular method, but is aware of test procedures for battery chargers that require testing with the physical batteries that are associated with the charger being tested. The fact that there are no currently recognized standard test procedures that rely on simulators suggests that testing with physical batteries rather than simulators is not only preferable but an appropriate and acceptable means to accurately test battery chargers, including those products that charge extremely large batteries ( i.e. those used in forklifts or golf cars). Additionally, because DOE is unaware of test procedures that use battery simulators, DOE would need to develop such procedures on its own, which would require considerably more testing and analysis and potentially involve additional uncertainty given the absence of any currently existing protocols. Potential concerns include determining how such a device would be used in a test procedure and how representative such a device would be of an actual battery, as well as other considerations, all of which would need to be vetted publicly. DOE is confident that today's final rule will result in repeatable test results for all battery chargers, including those that use large batteries, because of the requirements that are being added when selecting a battery to test and from DOE's experience testing various battery chargers. (Battery Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) As a result, the procedure will permit performance comparisons across all battery charger types with respect to energy usage. Upon the receipt of further information, DOE may consider using a battery simulator in a future revision to the test procedure. In the absence of this information, however, DOE is opting to incorporate its proposed method into the battery charger test procedure— i.e. specifying that high-powered battery chargers be tested using the same method as used to test all battery chargers; that is, by using the associated battery. e. Consumer Motive Equipment The CEC test procedure includes two parts: part 1 covers the energy consumption of consumer products with input power under 2 kilowatts, whereas part 2 covers the energy consumption of larger industrial chargers, which are generally larger in size and capacity. Briefly, part 1 measures the input energy to the battery charger when recharging a battery that had previously been conditioned (if necessary). Part 2 requires this same measurement but includes charger output energy measurements and tests the charger with the battery at three different depths-of-discharge. The NOPR provided a more detailed discussion of these parts. See 75 FR 16958, 16964-66 (section III.B.1 and section III.B.2). DOE proposed testing all battery chargers, including large battery chargers for golf cars and other consumer motive equipment, according to part 1 of the CEC test procedure. PG&E, ASAP, and SCE agreed with DOE's approach for testing the battery chargers used with golf cars and other consumer motive equipment. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) PG&E informed DOE that golf cars can be satisfactorily tested under either part 1 or part 2 of the CEC test procedure. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 76) ASAP, PG&E and SCE informed DOE that the main drawback of using part 1 to test golf cars is that only the worst energy performers are identified under this approach. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) They suggested that when DOE revisits the test procedure, DOE should carefully consider the data on the efficiency of current golf car battery chargers, and consider amending the test procedure to use part 2 at that time. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) Not all interested parties were supportive of using part 1 of the CEC test procedure to measure battery chargers for golf cars and other consumer motive equipment. In AHAM's view, DOE's proposal oversimplifies the issue because these products differ from other battery chargers in terms of battery chemistry, usage, and charging equipment. Because of these complexities, AHAM argued in favor of adopting a separate test procedure section for these products. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 74-75; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) Delta-Q reiterated this point but did not believe that there was any reason to exclude these 750-1000W size battery chargers from efficiency standards (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1). Contrary to the comments made by AHAM, there are similarities between battery chargers for golf cars and other consumer products, such as motorized wheelchairs, since they all require lead-acid batteries and use battery chargers with similar technologies. For more information on these products and their technical similarities, please refer to chapter 3 of DOE's preliminary technical support document for energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies. See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html. 11 11 Chapter 3 of the technical support document contains the Market and technology Assessment, which includes additional details on all products that may be affected by DOE's energy conservation standards rulemaking effort. The docket number for this parallel rulemaking is EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 (RIN: 1904-AB57). The technical similarities between these types of products allow them to be tested in a similar fashion. DOE has also considered PG&E's experience in developing the CEC test procedure on which DOE's proposal is largely based. In developing the CEC procedure, PG&E tested golf cars using the methods that are currently prescribed in both Part 1 and Part 2 of the CEC test procedure. DOE has given careful consideration to PG&E's statement that golf cars and other consumer motive equipment can be accurately tested under either part 1 or part 2 of the test procedure. While DOE agrees with PG&E's overall assessment regarding the potential limitations applicable to part 1 of the CEC test, the additional testing requirements and complexity of part 2, which was intended for industrial applications, suggest that the adoption of part 2 for consumer products would constitute an unnecessary testing burden that would not be likely to increase the accuracy of the test results that would otherwise be gleaned from part 1. The test procedure provisions in part 2 may be necessary to accurately measure the energy efficiency of large industrial battery chargers but for golf cars and other types of consumer motive equipment (collectively, consumer motive equipment) that fall at the low-power end of the lead-acid battery charger range, the need for a specialized test procedure is not as clear. For example, part 2 requires a series of tests under various conditions to detect any differences in energy consumption. The greater comprehensiveness to this approach is better suited to high-power industrial chargers, which are already very efficient when compared to the consumer products that could be tested under part 2. Moreover, since consumer products that could be tested under part 2 have greater variations in efficiency than industrial chargers, requiring manufacturers to test these products using the simpler test method outlined in part 1 should generate sufficiently accurate results without imposing the greater burden that would likely be posed by requiring part 2. Therefore, in consideration of this situation, today's final rule specifies that part 1 be used for these products. 3. Definitions DOE proposed to make a number of changes to the definitions in the battery charger test procedure contained in 10 CFR, subpart B, appendix Y. Specifically, DOE proposed to delete two definitions from the current battery charger test procedure, modify four definitions, and add 15 new definitions to appendix Y. 75 FR 16966. After reviewing the comments submitted in response to this proposal, DOE has decided to apply certain terms used in the CEC procedure as part of the revised set of battery charger-related definitions. To implement these changes, DOE is amending section 2 of appendix Y by amending, deleting, and incorporating new definitions to make appendix Y consistent with the CEC procedure. DOE is also removing definitions used only in section 4(a) of appendix Y (inactive mode energy consumption measurement), which DOE is removing with today's final rule (see section 5.a of this final rule). a. Deleting Existing Definitions The specific changes in today's final rule consist of a series of deletions, amendments, and additions. These changes include removing the definitions of “accumulated nonactive energy” and “energy ratio or nonactive energy ratio” from the regulations, as they are relevant only to the nonactive mode measurement of the procedure. That portion of the procedure is being removed as part of this final rule. Details of these deletions can be found in section III.B.3.a of the NOPR. 75 FR 16958, 16966. Commenters did not oppose the proposed deletions. DOE received comments suggesting the removal of two definitions from its current test procedure. ASAP, PG&E, and SCE recommended the removal of definitions of “detachable” and “integral” batteries, which are contained within the definition of “battery or battery pack” in the current DOE test procedure. These commenters argued that these particular definitions are not required when carrying out the test procedure and that their inclusion within the regulation could create confusion since some batteries are neither detachable nor integral. Commenters cited as an example products that use AA or AAA rechargeable batteries to power a device, but recharge those batteries in a device external to the product. They also added that some lead-acid batteries for automotive and marine applications may also not meet either definition. (ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 10-11; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 10-11; SCE, No. 13 at pp. 10-11) These commenters further stated that the terms are only used for the battery selection process, and “[t]he key element is not whether the batteries are integral or detachable, but rather whether or not they are packaged with the charger and therefore constitute ‘typical’ batteries.” (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 11; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 at p. 11) DOE's test procedure will continue to define detachable and integral batteries. Although commenters indicated that these terms are only used for the battery selection process, they are also used in the standby and off mode tests, which remain as part of the amended test procedure. Both of these tests require the disconnection of the battery from the end use product except in cases where an integral battery, which, by definition, cannot be disconnected from the end use product, is used. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y. The continued use of these terms and their definitions helps provide clarity to these procedures. b. Revising Existing Definitions DOE had also proposed to modify the definitions of “active mode,” “multi-port charger,” “multi-voltage à la carte charger,” and “standby mode” found in appendix Y. The proposed changes were minor and designed to clarify the wording of those definitions. DOE received no comments regarding these definitions in response to the NOPR. For “active mode” and “standby mode,” DOE is clarifying that these terms can be used interchangeably with the terms “charge mode” and “no-battery mode” respectively. Additionally, the terms “multi-port charger” and “multi-voltage à la carte charger” are being revised to be consistent with the corresponding CEC definitions and are expanded to encompass a batch charger. Details of these proposed revisions can be found in section III.B.3.b. of the NOPR. 75 FR 16958, 16966. c. Adding New Definitions Finally, because DOE proposed adding procedures to measure energy consumption in active mode for a battery charger, DOE also proposed the inclusion of a number of new corresponding definitions. In particular, DOE proposed to add definitions for “active power or real power (P),” “ambient temperature,” “apparent power (S),” “batch charger,” “battery rest period,” “rated energy capacity,” “C-rate,” “equalization,” “instructions or manufacturer's instructions,” “measured charge capacity,” “rated battery voltage,” “rated charge capacity,” “total harmonic distortion (THD),” and “unit under test (UUT).” See 75 FR 16958, 16967. Commenters provided feedback on DOE's proposed definitions for “instructions or manufacturer's instructions,” “power factor,” “rated charge capacity,” and “total harmonic distortion,” as discussed in the sections, below. No other comments were provided regarding the other proposed definitions. Instructions or Manufacturer's Instructions DOE proposed to define the term “manufacturer's instructions” as “the documentation packaged with the product in printed or electronic form and any information about the product listed on a Web site maintained by the manufacturer and accessible by the general public at the time of the test.” 75 FR 16958, 16967. Commenters expressed concern with the proposed definition for manufacturer's instructions. PG&E referred DOE to the CEC test procedure, which defines the term “manufacturing instructions” broadly to permit testing labs to use information that is unavailable to consumers. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 23) PG&E also supported DOE's decision to expand the definition of manufacturer instructions to include information provided on manufacturers' Web sites. However, it stated that service instructions should be included to enable manufacturers to provide information not generally available to consumers. Service instructions may include detailed information to technicians that explain how to disassemble the product to gain access to an integral battery or a battery that has protective circuitry. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 246-247) PTI indicated that such information would not ordinarily be provided to consumers in light of the potential safety hazard posed by the disassembly of the product by an untrained individual. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 247). PTI supported the inclusion of service instructions as part of the definition so long as the testing is carried out by professional technicians and those detailed instructions do not become public. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 248-249) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE encouraged DOE “to expand the definition of ‘manufacturer's instructions' to include both consumer instructions and service instructions.” (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 3; SCE, No. 13 at p. 3) They recommended that DOE should take one of the following approaches: (1) utilize the original CEC language or (2) adopt alternative language in which DOE would define “manufacturer's service instructions to consumers” separately from “manufacturer's service instructions.” By defining them separately, DOE can specify that only the consumer instructions should be used when setting up a product in preparation for the charge test, but either can be used to access the battery for the discharge test, since disassembly to reach the battery will never be needed for the charge test but may be necessary for the discharge test. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 3; SCE, No. 13 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 3) Finally, AHAM commented that the test procedure should not encourage a test technician to open a sealed battery pack or compartment. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7) PG&E and PTI both suggested that service instructions should be included in the definition of manufacturer instructions, and permit these documents to be used to perform testing, according to the CEC definition. The CEC defines that term to include “any service manuals or data sheets that the manufacturer offers for sale to independent service technicians, whether printed or in electronic form.” 12 12 Pacific Gas and Electric, California Energy Commision-Pulic Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program, and Southern California Edison Energy Efficiency Battery Charger System Test Procedure. Version 2.2, November 12, 2008, page 6. After considering these comments, DOE has decided to modify its initial proposal and to adopt the CEC definition for manufacturer's instructions, which includes service instructions in its definition. DOE is taking this step to ensure that testing technicians have adequate information on how to access the battery. DOE will also specify that if service instructions are used to perform testing, it should clearly be stated in the certification report to avoid potential confusion if the particular product is subjected to verification testing. A copy of the instructions should be provided to DOE for verification purposes. Power Factor and Crest Factor DOE proposed to include definitions for both power factor and crest factor as part of the battery charger test procedure. 75 FR 16958, 16967. The term “power factor” denotes the ratio of the power consumed by a device relative to the power drawn by a device from mains. The term “crest factor” refers to the ratio of the instantaneous peak voltage relative to the root-mean-square value, measured when charging a device. These definitions are not currently used as part of the test procedure. DOE received comments both in favor and against these proposed definitions. ASAP, PG&E and SCE supported DOE's inclusion of power factor and crest factor. In their view, the inclusion of these terms in the test procedure would broaden its scope and applicability. These commenters also believed that even though DOE may not be using these measurements and definitions within the context of the current rulemaking activities to set energy efficiency standards for battery chargers, their inclusion in this test procedure will allow other agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to reference this test procedure and develop future policies regarding energy efficiency related performance features. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 13; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 13 at p. 13) AHAM disagreed with these proposed definitions as well as the proposed method by which to measure them. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 85; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) It argued that measuring power factor for the purpose of regulation represents a significant departure from most other DOE appliance energy efficiency standards. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 85-86; AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 4) AHAM continued, stating that the test procedure provides no method for taking a power factor measurement and that part of the problem is that the procedure lacks a definition of source impedance. The source impedance is an important factor because its definition affects the accurateness of the real world losses that would stem from power factor in a consumer product. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 86-87; AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 4-5) For consumer products, like those that use battery chargers covered by this rulemaking, the source impedance is an electrical description of the wiring within a house that has a direct impact on apparent power and thus, constitutes the power factor measured for a device. AHAM also suggested that DOE should conduct studies to establish the range of impedance and the possible impacts of power factor. (AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 4-5) Additionally, PTI was concerned that DOE has not provided any details on how to measure power factor. PTI, like AHAM, argued that to obtain consistent and meaningful results, DOE must define the source impedance and provide a method for how the measurement is taken. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 3) PTI also stated that DOE should not include the power factor and crest factor test procedure measurements and definitions in its final rule. PTI also commented that including these definitions and measurement methods in the test procedure would imply that DOE has evaluated the merit of measuring power factor and crest factor, which it has not; therefore PTI believes that DOE should not define or require the measurement of power factor and crest factor. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 3) In today's final rule, DOE has decided to drop its proposal regarding power factor and crest factor. At this time, DOE has not conducted an analysis on the benefits that could be gained from regulating power factor or crest factor for consumer products that use battery chargers and commenters offered no data in support of such an approach. Although DOE acknowledges that other agencies, such as EPA, may have an interest in using these measurements, DOE currently has no plans to incorporate either of them for compliance purposes. Accordingly, although DOE may revisit this issue at a later date, DOE is declining to incorporate power factor and crest factor into today's final rule. Rated Charge Capacity DOE proposed to define “rated charge capacity” in its regulations. Specifically, DOE proposed to define this term as “the capacity the manufacturer declares the battery can store under specified test conditions, usually given in ampere-hours (Ah) or milliampere-hours (mAh) and typically printed on the label of the battery itself * * * ” 75 FR 16958, 16968. The proposed definition was consistent with the CEC test procedure's definition. 13 13 Pacific Gas and Electric, California Energy Commission-Pulic Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program, and Southern California Edison Energy Efficiency Battery Charger System Test Procedure. Version 2.2, November 12, 2008, page 8. DOE received a single response to this proposal. Sony recommended that DOE adopt the current CEC definition for rated charge capacity, which allows the option of using a rated charge capacity unit of either milliampere-hours (mAh) or ampere-hours (Ah). Sony opposed what it believed was a proposal by DOE to use only Ah. (Sony, No. 6 at p. 2) DOE notes that its proposed definition includes the use of both Ah and mAh. 75 FR 16958, 16980. In light of the absence of any objections to its proposed approach, DOE will adopt its proposed definition for rated charge capacity. Total Harmonic Distortion In its NOPR, DOE defined “total harmonic distortion” as: “the root-mean-square (RMS) value of an AC signal after the fundamental component is removed and inter-harmonic components are ignored, divided by the RMS value of the fundamental component.” 75 FR 16980. Responding to this proposal, AHAM suggested that DOE consider the language of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, section 1.1.1 “Supply voltage waveform” with respect to total harmonic distortion, but did not provide reasoning for this recommendation. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7) DOE is adopting the proposed definition. DOE notes that this language is based on those definitions that are already in use by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) through standard 1515-2000—as well as DOE's own regulations for external power supplies. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z. As a result, the industry already follows this definition. Adopting a different definition would conflict with DOE's intent to harmonize the approaches contained in the battery charger and external power supply test procedures, as well as with the industry standard currently in place. Therefore, DOE is adopting its proposed definition for this term. 4. Test Apparatus and General Instructions a. Confidence Intervals DOE proposed incorporating confidence qualifiers to the confidence intervals in its test procedure. The proposed confidence intervals were different from the CEC intervals in that they added a 95% confidence qualifier to the CEC intervals. As a result DOE's proposal provided for a margin of ≤ 2% at the 95% confidence level for active power measurements of 0.5 W or greater and a margin of ≤ 0.01 W at the 95% confidence level for active power measurements of 0.5 W or less. AHAM supported adding the 95% confidence qualifier to the confidence intervals, stating that it is “an important addition to the standard.” (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 91) PTI left the use of a confidence level for error analysis to DOE by stating that “[s]ince the Department alone is aware of their intention with respect to future use of the data provided by the test procedure, they should evaluate, through an error analysis, the impact of the error in the test data, particularly in the case of battery capacity.” (PTI, No. 8 at p. 3) AHAM recommended that DOE consider the IEC 62301 Second Edition FDIS document for methods of dealing with uncertainty, specifically for measurements under 1 watt. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 91-92; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 6) AHAM also suggested that the Department consider the language in section 4.2 “Measuring equipment” of the Canadian Standards Association's (CSA) test method for battery chargers for confidence limits. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 6) Additionally, AHAM recommended that DOE add a requirement that laboratories publish the error analysis for their automated equipment because manufacturers may obtain different results than verification laboratories as a result of different sampling rates and instrument accuracy. (AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 5-6) PTI also supported DOE's proposal, noting that DOE was correct to address the uncertainty of the measurements rather than the equipment, as the test equipment may not be able to deliver the same uncertainty with different UUTs. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 4) PTI recommended that DOE include requirements that test laboratories, particularly in the case of verification testing, provide a suitable error analysis that demonstrates that they have met the uncertainty requirements of the test procedure. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 4) PTI also stated that DOE should establish overall error requirements rather than only equipment requirements because elements other than equipment introduce error. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 95-96) PTI added that DOE should consider the sampling rate and sampling interval during the measurement of the energy use of a charger that performs pulse charging—which is when a unit that sends periodic bursts of current to the battery rather than a continual stream of current—because these factors will affect the overall uncertainty of the measurement (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 94). After taking into account these comments, which generally expressed support for DOE's proposed inclusion of the specified confidence intervals into the test procedure, DOE decided to adopt its proposed approach. Regarding these specific intervals and the various recommendations offered by AHAM, DOE notes that its proposal matches the requirements set out in IEC 62301 and, although the language is not identical to what appears in the CSA test method, its requirements are similar. As for PTI's concerns with respect to pulse charging, DOE is not persuaded that any extra consideration or change is needed. By specifying a 95% confidence level for the measurement, the technician must ensure that the sampling rate is fast enough to capture any pulses in order to maintain the specified statistical accuracy of his measurement. Thus, the requirements that DOE is incorporating are aligned with the commenters' recommendations. They also will result in a more robust and repeatable test procedure because all results must be expressed with a high level of confidence, which will permit less variance in the measurements recorded for a tested device. b. Test Laboratory Temperature DOE proposed raising the ambient temperature during testing from 20 degrees to 25 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees Celsius in its NOPR. DOE proposed this change because it believed 25 degrees Celsius was more easily achievable across diverse climates and more typical of testing environments. 75 FR 16968-69. Several commenters responded to this aspect of the proposal. PG&E recommended leaving the temperature range as it was. The basis for the CEC temperature range, which has already gained industry acceptance, stems from the applicable IEC standards for batteries. If DOE were to alter the temperature range, it would need to conduct additional testing to verify that the end-of-discharge voltages are still appropriate at the high end of the range of temperatures because the higher temperatures will have unknown effects on the chemistries of batteries. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 97). AHAM agreed with PG&E and, in its view, raising the ambient temperature during testing would be acceptable only if DOE had first considered the end-of-discharge voltages when making the change. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 98) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE urged DOE to adopt the industry standard room temperature of 15 to 25 degrees Celsius. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 3; SCE, No. 13 at p. 3). These commenters noted that the 15 to 25 degrees Celsius temperature range is the industry standard and because the chemical reactions taking place in batteries are temperature sensitive and the end-of-discharge voltages are based on this range, DOE should not change the temperature range. Altering the temperature range could have unintended and unknown consequences on the end-of-discharge voltage. It is possible that changing the temperature range could increase or decrease the end-of-discharge voltage, so doing so would require testing to determine if the end-of-discharge voltages for various battery chemistries are still appropriate at the higher temperature range. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 3; SCE, No. 13 at p. 3) AHAM alternatively recommended in its written comments that DOE consider incorporating the IEC 62301 requirement that “[t]he ambient temperature shall be maintained at (23±5)° C through the test.” (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7) Although this was a departure from its statements at the NOPR public meeting, AHAM stated that it believed this value had support in the International Standards community and would be very attainable. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7) After evaluating the comments received on this issue, DOE has decided not to increase the temperature range and to continue requiring an ambient temperature of 20 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees Celsius. This approach is consistent with the CEC test procedure. The lower temperature range is widely accepted and currently used by the industry. Adopting this approach, based on information presented to DOE, should not impose a new burden on manufacturers to alter their testing laboratories since the appropriate operating temperature range remains the same. Additionally, this temperature range, which served as the basis for the development of the end-of-discharge voltages specified, ensures that consistency and the validity of those voltages is maintained. For these reasons, DOE is incorporating this range into the final rule. DOE notes that while AHAM suggested DOE consider the IEC 62301 range of 23 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees Celsius, all other commenters—including AHAM—indicated that a departure from the original temperature range, 20 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees Celsius has the potential to invalidate the end-of-discharge voltages that have been established for the various battery chemistries used in battery chargers. Accordingly, DOE is opting not to make such a change and will harmonize its test procedure with other industry standards to the extent feasible to help ensure the validity of all measured end-of-discharge voltages. c. Charge Rate Selection DOE proposed to require that when testing a battery charger equipped with user controls that enable the user to select from two or more charge rates that the test be conducted using the fastest charge rate that is recommended by the manufacturer for everyday use. 75 FR 16958, 16969. Commenters had varying opinions on this approach. Delta-Q “mildly disagreed” with DOE's proposal for selecting the charge rate for testing, as a charger could be significantly less efficient at lower power levels, but they did not provide data or other support for their reasoning. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1) Alternatively, ASAP, PG&E, and SCE supported DOE's proposed approach. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 10; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 10; SCE, No. 13 at p. 10) No other pertinent comments were submitted on this issue. In light of these comments, and the absence of any supporting data or information that would support Delta Q's assertion that a charger would operate less efficiently at lower power levels, DOE is adopting its proposed approach. DOE believes that, given a choice, users are more likely to opt for the fastest charge that does not impact the battery's long-term health, as evidenced by the popularity of successively faster chargers in the market. (Battery Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) DOE presented this view during the NOPR public meeting and received no comments disputing this view. Consequently, DOE is requiring that testing occur at the fastest charge rate that is recommended by the manufacturer for everyday use. Doing so will reduce the test procedure burden on manufacturers while producing representative measurements of energy use. d. Battery Selection DOE proposed to require testing with a battery or combination of batteries, depending on the charger type— i.e. multi-voltage, multi-port, or multi-capacity. This approach is consistent with the CEC test procedure. 75 FR 16958, 16969. For those battery chargers that come either with no batteries or multiple batteries, DOE also sought comment on an alternative approach that would require the testing of only the configuration of batteries most commonly used with the device, but no comments or data were received on this approach. 75 FR 16969, 16979. AHAM commented that if the manufacturer recommends a battery for use with the product, the Department should consider using only that battery, and not any others, for measuring energy consumption during testing. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 112-113) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE supported DOE's proposal to test the battery charger with only the typical battery configuration but suggested a change to improve the repeatability of the battery selection process. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 10; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 10; SCE, No. 13 at p. 10) Specifically, these commenters suggested changing section 4.3 (3) of appendix Y to be more restrictive than the proposed “any [battery] suitable for use with the charger”-approach set forth in the NOPR. These commenters suggested that DOE's test procedure recommend searching within brand name batteries that are readily available in the region where the product is sold or being tested. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 10; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 10; SCE, No. 13 at p. 10) DOE is incorporating its proposed approach because it received no comments suggesting alternative approaches that would allow a battery charger to be tested with a single battery that would generate a result that is “a representative average use cycle.” See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). Under this approach, if the battery is packaged with the charger, then the charger is tested with only this battery. Alternatively, if the charger is not packaged with a battery, and is multi-port, multi-capacity, or multi-voltage in configuration, testing with a single battery, as recommended by interested parties, may not be a representative average use cycle and more than one test is needed to accurately assess the average use of that product. Although DOE's proposed approach can require up to three tests, which is potentially burdensome, it ensures that the test procedure fulfills this statutory requirement. See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). This approach should also enable DOE to account for all possible battery combinations that can be used in the charger rather than just the most typical configurations. In response to the preliminary analysis for energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies, DOE received related comments. Motorola commented that the CEC test procedure, upon which DOE based its test procedure, is not completely clear in defining how to select batteries for testing and that DOE should clearly define how to select batteries for testing. They added that DOE should define the terms “lowest voltage” and “highest voltage.” (Motorola, No. 50 at p. 2) 14 14 The comments listed in this paragraph come from administrative record for the parallel rulemaking on energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies. The reference docket number is EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 (RIN: 1904-AB57). As mentioned, DOE is incorporating its proposed approach for selecting batteries with which a technician should test a unit under test. Although the procedure does not define the terms “highest voltage” and “lowest voltage,” DOE believes that these terms clearly refer to the rated battery voltage because that is the pertinent information that manufacturers will provide when they package or recommend batteries to use with their devices. The other voltages that Motorola references in its comment ( e.g. desired end-of-discharge battery voltage) are voltages that must be monitored after the testing has commenced and are not pertinent for selecting batteries to test. Accordingly, DOE is declining to define these particular terms at this time. e. Non-Battery Charging Functions DOE proposed to implement a procedure for testing battery chargers with non-battery charging functions that would be consistent with the CEC approach. The CEC method requires the tester to turn off any user-controlled functions and disconnect all auxiliary electrical connections to the battery charger. 75 FR 16958, 16969. Commenters had mixed views regarding non-battery charging functions. PG&E, Delta-Q, ASAP and SCE agreed with DOE's approach. PG&E stated that it agreed that the test procedure should not provide any energy allowances for battery chargers with extra functionality and agreed that any such functionality should be turned off during testing. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 15) Delta-Q agreed with DOE's approach for non-battery charging functions. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE stated that testing conducted for the development of the CEC test procedure found that turning off or disconnecting additional functions is the only approach that results in accurate measurements of standby power while providing a means to compare the energy consumption of products with and without additional functionality against each other. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 3-4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) Sony asked for clarification on how the additional functionality section in the proposal would pertain to video products (Sony, No. 6 at p. 2). In contrast, PTI commented that since battery charging is often secondary to the main function of the product, requiring the non-battery charging functionality to be turned off during testing would be inconsistent with the general approach of trying to satisfy the user's requirements. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 119) In response, PG&E offered a solution to manufacturers and stated that manufacturers could design additional functionality into their products to ensure that the additional functionality will not consume enough power to prevent a battery charger from meeting any energy conservation standards that DOE might set. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 120) PTI suggested an alternative method to account for non-battery charging functions. It suggested conducting the battery charger test with and without the battery; the difference between the two measurements would be the energy used to charge the battery. Although this method excludes the standby component, PTI believed that the error associated with its exclusion is less significant than the error that would result from treating all of the products as if they were augmented battery chargers. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 123-124) When developing its test procedure, DOE considered how to isolate the energy consumption of the battery charging circuitry in cases where the charger is embedded inside another product that provides additional functionality, such as video products and notebook computers. The test procedure must ensure that measurement of energy use for these types of products accounts for the energy used by this additional functionality. DOE believes that its proposed method is best suited to capture these measurements compared with the other methods suggested by commenters because it does not discount power consumption in other modes of operation, as the suggested approach by PTI would do. The method in this final rule is consistent with that of the generally accepted CEC test procedure, which applies equally to all products, including video products. By requiring that any switches controlling the additional functionality be turned off, and any auxiliary cables or connections be disconnected, this method provides manufacturers with a cue to shut down the additional functionality. As a result, only the battery charging portion of the battery charger is measured during testing. DOE notes that if a manufacturer does not equip its product with a switch to shut off non-battery charger functions, it may continue to do so. During testing, the energy consumption of these functions would still be calculated as part of a given product's total energy consumption. For this reason, DOE believes that it is likely that manufacturers of these types of products, in order to continue to maintain the added functionality, would be encouraged to minimize the energy consumed by these non-battery charger functions when designing their products. f. Battery Chargers With Protective Circuitry DOE proposed to incorporate text from the CEC test procedure related to protective circuitry. 75 FR 16958, 16982. Incorporating this change would allow technicians to accurately measure the discharge energy of a battery without including energy from the protective circuitry. This measurement is important for the test procedure because it is equivalent to the useful, or non-lost, energy consumed during a charge cycle. The text was proposed for incorporation as part of DOE's overall adoption of the CEC test procedure. DOE did not propose to change the language of the CEC test procedure pertaining to protective circuitry in its NOPR. However, commenters provided feedback on the language in the CEC test procedure, stating that it contained an error. Commenters asserted that the language that DOE proposed to incorporate from the CEC-based test procedure contained an error that the CEC has not yet corrected. These commenters recommended that DOE adopt the language that the CEC had apparently intended to use in its procedure when testing battery chargers equipped with protective circuitry, rather than the language that CEC ultimately adopted. 15 In the view of these commenters, the procedure should have stated that when protective circuitry is present, the technician should take the measurement at the leads of the battery cells after the protective circuitry rather than at the terminals of the test battery to ensure that the energy consumption of the protective circuitry is accurately measured. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 23, 181-184) ASAP, PG&E and SCE also recommended incorporating language that matched the language that CEC had intended to incorporate into its test procedure. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 11; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 at p. 11) PTI also agreed with the suggested revision. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 184) ASAP, PG&E and SCE indicated that their collective belief is that CEC will adopt the corrected language in their next test procedure revision, although this revision has yet to occur. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 11; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 at p. 11) PG&E and SCE are two of the primary consulting firms that helped develop the CEC test procedure. DOE received no comments opposing the revision recommended by ASAP, PG&E, and SCE. Additionally, commenters mentioned how the new methodology will increase safety in the test labs because technicians will not be required to dismantle battery packs and create connections between the battery and its protective circuitry. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 11; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 at p. 11) 15 The language adopted in the CEC test procedure states: “Some products may include protective circuitry between the battery cells and the remainder of the device. In some cases, it is possible that the test battery cannot be discharged without activating protective control circuitry. If the manufacturer provides a description for accessing connections at the output of the protective circuitry, the energy measurements shall be made at the terminals of the test battery, so as not to include energy used by the protective control circuitry.” See part 1, section II.F of CEC test procedure. In light of the new information presented by PG&E regarding the CEC test procedure and the noted safety benefits, DOE is altering its proposal to incorporate language that will require testing to occur at the output of the protective circuitry, rather than at the test battery terminals. As noted, the primary benefit of this approach is increased safety within the testing laboratory. The protective circuitry that is used in battery chargers is usually found in cases where a battery charger works with a lithium-ion chemistry battery. Due to their chemistry, these batteries can be unstable, which is why the protective circuitry is used. Consequently, DOE believes it is prudent that such circuitry should be used, and not dismantled, when measurements are taken for this test procedure. g. Charge Capacity of Batteries With No Rating The battery charger test procedure currently requires the use of a battery capacity rating in order to determine the rate at which the discharge test is performed. This section describes how DOE decided to address batteries that have no rating. DOE proposed a method for determining the capacity of batteries with no ratings. That method was an iterative process requiring the use of an initial 0.5 amp (A) trial current (hereafter referred to as the 0.5 A test method). 75 FR 16970. The proposed process would require that the user iteratively adjust the initial 0.5 A, until he or she reaches a discharge current that could discharge that battery at a 0.2 C rate (“C rate” refers to the amount of time in hours it would take to discharge the battery relative to its capacity), which corresponds to an approximately 5-hour discharge. DOE proposed that so long as the battery was discharged within 4.5 to 5.5 hours, or an hour-long window of time, the result of the discharge test could be accepted as valid. 75 FR 16983. Commenters had mixed opinions on both the time frame acceptance window and the 0.5 A test method. These comments are addressed below. Acceptance Window An acceptance window is the time frame in which a measurement of battery energy can be taken and considered appropriate for the UUT. It is critical for testing purposes because it ensures consistency and repeatability. Commenters generally urged DOE to decrease its acceptance window to a range of 4.5 to 5 hours, which would decrease the proposed acceptance window of 1-hour down to 30 minutes. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) PG&E claimed that the proposed 1 hour window causes unacceptable errors and recommended a half-hour maximum window to decrease the likelihood of measurement errors. (PG&E, No. 2 at p. 20) It explained that a half-hour time window for the discharge time of unrated batteries introduces a 2-percent error in the energy use measurement, while a 1-hour time window introduces an error of about 4 to 5 percent. However, a 15-minute time window would, in its view, be preferable. (PG&E, No. 2 at p. 106; ASAP, No. 11 at p. 6; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 6; SCE, No. 13 at p. 6) Manufacturers provided no comments regarding the proposed time window. Commenters agreed that a shorter acceptance window of 4.5 to 5 hours is more appropriate than the 4- to 5-hour time window that DOE proposed. DOE believes that a 15-minute window would be unduly burdensome since it reduces the originally proposed time period by one-fourth and will require more iterations to accomplish. DOE recognizes, however, the merit of using a shorter acceptance window and is adjusting this element in its procedure to cover a 30-minute window as suggested by the commenters. The tighter acceptance window will produce more precise results than what the proposed 1-hour window would have yielded and will not be unduly burdensome to perform. Method for Determining the Capacity of Batteries With No Rating As mentioned above, DOE proposed using the 0.5 A test method to determine the capacity of batteries with no ratings as a method to achieve a current that would discharge the battery within the time acceptance window. Properly discharging a battery is necessary to ensure that the useful energy that was transferred from the battery charger to the battery is accurately measured and not misconstrued as lost energy. However, commenters were generally critical of DOE's proposal. ASAP, PG&E, and SCE strongly encouraged DOE to remove its proposed instructions for determining the discharge current for batteries without capacity labels. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) They commented that for batteries with no rated capacity, the 0.5 A initial trial current is not always appropriate. Specifically, in their view, a current of 0.5 A works well primarily for batteries with capacities from about 0.5 Ah to 4 Ah. However, for products that cannot accept currents of 0.5 A ( i.e. smaller batteries with lower capacities, such as those used with Bluetooth headset batteries) or that have large capacities ( i.e. batteries with capacities in the range of 35 to 50 Ah, such as those used with electric scooters), a 0.5 A current would either not be possible or require an amount of time well in excess of the 5 hour maximum proposed by DOE—potentially, multiple days in duration. (PG&E, No. 2 at p. 20; ASAP, No. 11 at p. 7; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 7; SCE, No. 13 at p. 7) PTI also stated that it believed the 0.5 A starting current may be inappropriate and they believed that better results may come from trial and error as is suggested in the CEC test procedure. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 102) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE added that DOE's proposed method does not always produce repeatable results, particularly when the results of the protocol for determining discharge time push the discharge time near the boundaries of the acceptance discharge time window. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE proposed an alternative to the 0.5 A test method. Their method bases the initial discharge current on battery weight. (ASAP, No. 11 at pp.18-19; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 18-19; SCE, No. 13 at pp. 18-19) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE suggested that if DOE considers it necessary to include instructions regarding the determination of the capacity of unrated batteries, DOE should consider adding the following steps: 1. Pick an initial trial current which is deliberately too low. A reasonable step is to weigh or measure the battery and divide the number of cells to obtain grams per cell or cm 3 per cell. 2. Be sure the battery is fully charged and discharged at the current selected in step 1 for up to 2 hours. If the end-of-discharge voltage is reached before 2 hours, stop the discharge and go to step 5. If not, after 2 hours of discharge go to step 3. 3. Double the current. 4. Discharge the battery at the new current for up to 1 hour. If the end of discharge voltage is reached before 1 hour, stop the discharge and go to step 5. If not, after 1 hour of discharge, repeat steps 3 and 4. 5. For the first discharge, compute the total charge capacity as the sum of the capacities of each step to discharge. For each step, the partial capacity is the product of the current and the time for which that current was drawn. (The total charge is defined as the integral of the current over time.) Call this [value the] total charge capacity Q 0. 6. The last discharge current is called I 0 and let T m be the center of the acceptable time window, (perhaps 4.75 hours). Calculate the next trial current as: I 1 =(Q 0 /T m ) * (1.0 + 0.2 * 1n (I 0 * T m /Q 0 )) where ln() is the natural logarithm function. 7. Discharge at this current I 1 until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached. Call the time required for this discharge T 1 . If T 1 is within the acceptable window, use I 1 as the discharge current. If not, continue with step 8. 8. Compute the next trial current I 2 : a. I 2 =(I 1 *T 1 /T m ) * (1.0 + 0.2 * 1n (T m /T 1 )) b. Repeat step 7. (ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 18-19; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 18-19;; SCE, No. 13 at pp. 18-19;) Adopting such a method would address the concern raised by Delta-Q, who requested that a provision be included for batteries with no rated capacity that allows (1) a larger starting current and (2) current steps to be estimated based on the battery size and weight. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE added that the instructions in DOE's proposal, or any instructions generally, would not improve the repeatability or accuracy of the CEC method to select a discharge current, but would instead complicate the details of the test method and limit the flexibility of test labs and manufacturers to determine their own discharge rate by requiring that they obtain that rate using the specific DOE instructions. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE urged DOE to not require steps to determine discharge current and instead to require only that the discharge current satisfy the time acceptance window. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 5; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 5; SCE, No. 13 at p. 5) After carefully considering all of the comments, DOE is modifying the approach it proposed. In particular, DOE will incorporate a specific time acceptance window but not specify at this time the method for manufacturers to follow when discharging an unrated battery. By adopting this new approach, the measured efficiency of the battery charger will not be affected because technicians will have the freedom to rely on their expertise and will not be required to use a method that may be inappropriate for very large or very small batteries contained within a battery charger. DOE is declining to incorporate the suggested battery weight method offered by ASAP, PG&E, and SCE. In evaluating this method, which included conducting actual tests using this suggested approach, DOE found that it took many iterations—as many as eight in some cases—to obtain the proper discharge current. (Battery Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) DOE believes that sufficiently accurate testing can occur because the test procedure requires that the discharge test be completed within a half an hour acceptance window. This requirement will ensure that technicians discharge their battery at a rate close to the 0.5 C-rate that is required when the charge capacity of the battery is known. Battery Capacity Listings The final comment pertaining to unrated batteries related to the manner in which manufacturers communicate to end users and technicians the charge capacity specifications of a battery. DOE had proposed that the technician refer to a manufacturer's instructions to obtain a rated charge capacity. 75 FR 16982. Subsequently, AHAM commented that Web pages are an effective way to allow the manufacturer to communicate this information. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 126) DOE notes that its proposal already permits manufacturers to communicate the specifications in this manner because its definition of “instructions or manufacturer's instructions” includes Web page information. 75 FR 16958, 16980. Accordingly, in the absence of any objections to its proposal, DOE is adopting its proposed approach to refer technicians to manufacturer's instructions for information regarding battery capacity. h. Battery Conditioning DOE proposed to require conditioning of the battery by performing two charges and two discharges, resulting in two conditioning cycles. Battery conditioning is the process by which the battery is cycled several times prior to testing in order to permit the battery to reach its specified capacity. DOE proposed these conditioning cycles to prepare the battery for testing while ending on a discharge of the battery. This step was necessary within the context of the proposed testing order. The proposal reversed the testing order from the one currently prescribed under the CEC testing provisions. 75 FR 16958, 16971. Responding to this proposal, ASAP, PG&E, and SCE collectively recommended that DOE require three cycles of battery conditioning to maintain repeatability. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, No. 13 at p. 8) Although nickel-based batteries ( e.g. NiCd or NiMH) can take between 5 and 100 cycles to “develop their full capacity,” these commenters pointed out that interested parties reached a consensus during the CEC rulemaking that 3 cycles is an acceptable compromise between accuracy and repeatability. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 22; ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, No. 13 at p. 8) In golf cars and similarly-sized applications with large battery packs, Delta-Q noted that testing for several cycles could take several weeks if different manufacturers and models are considered. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) The CEC test procedure requires that the batteries requiring conditioning be prepared by performing three charges and two discharges. DOE proposed to remove the final preparatory charge and replace it with a measured charge as would have been required by the proposed reversed testing order. However, because of the concerns raised by commenters in response to DOE's proposal, and the potential risk identified by the commenters that such an approach may decrease the accuracy of the test, DOE is dropping its proposed testing order and is adding a final preparatory charge as suggested by interested parties. Although PG&E, ASAP, and SCE commented that some nickel-based batteries need 5 to 100 cycles to develop their full capacity, they also stated that the three cycles specified in the CEC method was an acceptable compromise between accuracy and repeatability. Other commenters did not dispute the sufficiency of using three cycles. A battery must be stable during testing to ensure the repeatability of measurements related to capacity. Because the battery becomes more stable as additional charge-discharge cycles are performed, more than one cycle must be used. Adopting a requirement that provides for three cycles should be sufficient to ensure the stability of the battery because most battery chemistries will reach a relatively steady state at this point and three tests will not impose an excessive testing burden. Accordingly, DOE is adopting a three cycle approach to ensure battery stability is achieved during testing. Additionally, DOE is incorporating a conditioning section into the test procedure, as requested by ASAP, PG&E, SCE, and Sony. Commenters had noted that the proposed regulatory text did not include a section regarding battery conditioning. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 13 at p. 8; SCE, No. 12 at p. 8; Sony, No. 6 at p. 2). To address this issue, DOE is incorporating a conditioning section that is consistent with the approach followed by the CEC. This new requirement will be inserted into 5.3 of amended appendix Y of subpart B of part 430 and will help ensure the completeness of the test procedure. i. Rest Period DOE proposed to permit a rest period for both charged and discharged batteries from 1 to 24 hours. 75 FR 16958, 16984. A rest period is the period between the preparation of a battery and the battery discharge test. It also includes the period between the battery discharge test and the charge and maintenance mode tests. 75 FR 16958, 16967. A rest period is required to enable the battery to return to the ambient temperature, which is a necessary prerequisite to ensure consistent testing conditions. This proposal differed from the rest period in the CEC test procedure, which prescribes a period of 1 to 4 hours for charged batteries and 1 to 24 hours for discharged batteries. See III.C and III.E of part 1 of the CEC test procedure. ASAP, PG&E, and SCE asserted that the proposed rest period “is inconsistent with the CEC-adopted test procedure as well as industry standards.” (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 14; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 14; SCE, No. 13 at p. 14) The interested parties further commented that “regardless of the test order, the rest periods should be 1 to 4 hours for charged batteries and 1 to 24 hours for discharged batteries.” The shorter rest period for charged batteries would minimize the self-discharge effect that occurs in NiCd and NiMH batteries. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 14; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 14; SCE, No. 13 at p. 14) In this final rule, DOE is adopting the language from the CEC test procedure, in part to maintain consistency with industry testing protocols. Providing a shorter rest period for charged batteries also ensures that certain types of batteries (such as the NiCd and NiMH batteries discussed above) do not self-discharge, making the test results more consistent. Incorporating a 1 to 4 hour rest period for charged batteries will help harmonize the DOE test procedure with these widely accepted industry standards, as well as minimize the possibility of self-discharging of batteries with NiCd or NiMH chemistries. Additionally, in its NOPR, DOE also proposed that “for batteries with flooded cells, the electrolyte temperature shall be less than 33 degrees Celsius before charging.” 75 FR 16958, 16984. DOE had intended to adopt the language from the CEC test procedure, which specifies an under 30 degree Celsius requirement. No comments were received regarding this issue. In this final rule, DOE is incorporating the corrected temperature requirement, which is consistent with that retained in the CEC test procedure. See part 1, sections II.C and II.E of the CEC test procedure. 5. Test Measurement a. Removing Inactive Mode Energy Consumption Test Apparatus and Measurement DOE proposed removing its inactive mode energy consumption test. 75 FR 16958, 16970. The inactive mode energy consumption measurement in section 4(a) of appendix Y prior to today's final rule prescribed a method for calculating a nonactive energy ratio. Both industry and non-industry commenters responded to this proposed change. PG&E, Delta-Q and AHAM supported DOE's proposal to drop its inactive mode procedure and to replace it with one that measures active mode energy consumption. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 51; AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 47; Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) However, PTI did not agree with removing the nonactive mode metric because, in its view, the removal of this metric would remove an aggregate measure of the energy use of the product in a variety of modes. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 1) Commenters also raised concerns related to usage profiles, noting in particular that they are necessary to determine how a product is truly used and what energy savings potential actually exists. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 48, PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 49) (Usage profiles are assumptions, based on a variety of sources, including manufacturers, surveys, and other publicly available data, about the amount of time products spend in each mode of operation. These assumptions represent the manner and frequency with which a product is used. Usage profiles are valuable in that they help show how a product is used, which can be helpful in determining its energy consumption during typical consumer usage in all modes of operation.) Performing the inactive mode test procedure requires integrating the input power of the battery charger in maintenance mode and no battery mode. That value is divided by the battery energy measured during discharge, resulting in a nonactive energy ratio. However, today's final rule incorporates an active mode test, which will, collectively, with the other portions of the amended test procedure, result in a battery charger test procedure that measures battery charger energy in all four modes ( i.e., active, maintenance, standby, and off). Consequently, there is no need for the continued [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2011-12595. Public record. Not legal advice.