[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18478-18649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6042]



[[Page 18477]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 59

March 27, 2012

Part III





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 430





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery 
Chargers and External Power Supplies; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 18478]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AB57


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes 
energy conservation standards for various consumer products and 
commercial and industrial equipment, including battery chargers and 
external power supplies (EPSs). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department 
of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more stringent, amended standards 
for these products are technologically feasible, economically 
justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this 
notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for Class A 
EPSs and new energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs and 
battery chargers. The notice also announces a public meeting to receive 
comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and 
results.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 from 9 
a.m. to 5 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast 
as a webinar. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public 
meeting, but no later than May 29, 2012. See section VI, ``Public 
Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE 
Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. Any 
foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should advise 
DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the 
necessary procedures. Please also note that those wishing to bring 
laptops into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a 
property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an 
extra 45 minutes.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy 
Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power 
Supplies, and provide docket number EE-2008-BT-STD-0005 and/or 
regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AB57. Comments may be 
submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number and/or 
RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC, 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to 
[email protected].
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, 
including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting 
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index 
may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from 
public disclosure.
    A link to the docket web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html. This web page will contain a link to the docket 
for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov web 
page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, 
including public comments, in the docket. See section VII for 
information on how to submit comments through regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit or review public comments 
or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945 or email: [email protected].

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. Email: 
[email protected].
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers and 
External Power Supplies
III. General Discussion
    A. Test Procedures
    1. External Power Supply Test Procedures
    2. Battery Charger Test Procedures
    B. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    a. External Power Supply Max-Tech Levels
    b. Battery Charger Max-Tech Levels
    C. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    D. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Life-Cycle Costs
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Products Included in This Rulemaking
    a. External Power Supplies
    b. Battery Chargers
    c. Wireless Power
    d. Unique Products

[[Page 18479]]

    2. Market Assessment
    a. Market Survey
    b. Non-Class A External Power Supplies
    c. Application Shipments
    d. Efficiency Distributions
    3. Product Classes
    a. External Power Supply Product Classes
    b. Battery Charger Product Classes
    4. Technology Assessment
    a. EPS Efficiency Metrics
    b. EPS Technology Options
    c. High-Power EPSs
    d. Power Factor
    e. Battery Charger Modes of Operation and Performance Parameters
    f. Battery Charger Technology Options
    B. Screening Analysis
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Engineering Analysis for External Power Supplies
    a. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units
    b. EPS Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs)
    c. EPS Engineering Analysis Methodology
    d. EPS Engineering Results
    e. EPS Equation Scaling
    2. Engineering Analysis for Battery Chargers
    a. Representative Units
    b. Battery Charger Efficiency Metrics
    c. Calculation of Unit Energy Consumption
    d. Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs)
    e. Test and Teardowns
    f. Manufacturer Interviews
    g. Design Options
    h. Cost Model
    i. Battery Charger Engineering Results
    j. Scaling of Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels
    D. Markups to Determine Product Price
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    1. Manufacturer Selling Price
    2. Markups
    3. Sales Tax
    4. Installation Cost
    5. Maintenance Cost
    6. Product Price Forecast
    7. Unit Energy Consumption
    8. Electricity Prices
    9. Electricity Price Trends
    10. Lifetime
    11. Discount Rate
    12. Sectors Analyzed
    13. Base Case Market Efficiency Distribution
    14. Compliance Date
    15. Payback Period Inputs
    G. National Impact Analysis
    1. Shipments
    2. Shipment Growth Rate
    3. Product Class Lifetime
    4. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases
    5. Product Price Forecast
    6. Unit Energy Consumption and Savings
    7. Unit Costs
    8. Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit
    9. Energy Prices
    10. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion
    11. Discount Rates
    12. Benefits From Effects of Standards on Energy Prices
    H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. EPS MIA
    a. EPS GRIM Key Inputs
    b. Comments From Interested Parties Related to EPSs
    c. High-Power EPS Manufacturer Interviews
    3. Battery Charger MIA
    a. Battery Charger GRIM Key Inputs
    b. Battery Charger Comments From Interested Parties
    4. Comments From Interested Parties Related to EPSs and Battery 
Chargers
    a. Cumulative Burden
    b. Competition
    5. Manufacturer Interviews
    a. Product Groupings
    b. Competition From Substitutes
    c. Test Procedure Concerns
    d. Multiple Regulation of EPSs and Battery Chargers
    e. Profitability Impacts
    f. Potential Changes to Product Utility
    J. Employment Impact Analysis
    K. Utility Impact Analysis
    L. Emissions Analysis
    M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
    c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    d. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
    N. Discussion of Other Comments
    O. Marking Requirements
    P. Reporting Requirements
V. Analytical Results
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    1. External Power Supply TSLs
    2. Battery Charger TSLs
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    b. Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    C. Proposed Standards
    1. External Power Supplies
    a. Product Class B--Direct Operation External Power Supplies
    b. Product Class X--Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies
    c. Product Class H--High-Power External Power Supplies
    d. Product Class N--Indirect-Operation External Power Supplies
    2. Battery Chargers
    a. Low-Energy, Inductive Charging Battery Chargers, Product 
Class 1
    b. Low-Energy, Non-Inductive Charging Battery Chargers, Product 
Classes 2, 3, and 4
    c. Medium-Energy Battery Chargers, Product Classes 5 and 6
    d. High-Energy Battery Chargers, Product Class 7
    e. Battery Chargers With a DC Input of Less Than 9 V, Product 
Class 8
    f. Battery Chargers With a DC Input Greater Than 9 V, Product 
Class 9
    g. AC Output Battery Chargers, Product Class 10
    3. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Proposed 
Standards for External Power Supplies
    4. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Proposed 
Standards for Battery Chargers
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    b. Manufacturer Participation
    c. Battery Charger Industry Structure
    d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
    2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    c. Summary of Compliance Impacts
    3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999 458
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001 459
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

List of Tables

Table I-1. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Direct 
Operation External Power Supplies
Table I-2. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Battery 
Chargers
Table I-3. Impacts of Proposed Standards on Consumers of External 
Power Supplies

[[Page 18480]]

Table I-4. Impacts of Proposed Standards on Consumers of Battery 
Chargers
Table I-5. External Power Supply Product Classes
Table I-6. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for 
External Power Supplies Shipped in 2013-2042
Table I-7. Battery Charger Product Classes
Table I-8. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for 
Battery Chargers Shipped in 2013-2042
Table II-1. Federal Active Mode Energy Efficiency Standards for 
Class A External Power Supplies
Table II-2. Stakeholders Providing Comments on the Preliminary 
Analysis
Table III-1 Reduction in Energy Consumption at Max-Tech for Battery 
Chargers
Table IV-1 Preliminary Analysis Product Classes
Table IV-2 External Power Supply Product Classes Used in the NOPR
Table IV-3 Battery Charger Product Classes
Table IV-4 Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Classes B, C, D, and E
Table IV-5 Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Class X
Table IV-6 Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Class H
Table IV-7 2.5W EPS Engineering Analysis Results
Table IV-8 18W EPS Engineering Analysis Results
Table IV-9 60W EPS Engineering Analysis Results
Table IV-10 120W EPS Engineering Analysis Results
Table IV-11 203W EPS Engineering Analysis Results
Table IV-12 345W EPS Engineering Analysis Results
Table IV-13 The Battery Charger Representative Units for each 
Product Class
Table IV-14 CSLs Equivalent to California Proposed Standards
Table IV-15 Supplemental Values for Product Classes 10a and 10b
Table IV-16 Product Class 1 (Inductive Chargers) Engineering 
Analysis Results
Table IV-17 Product Class 2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage) Engineering 
Analysis Results
Table IV-18 Product Class 3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage) Engineering 
Analysis Results
Table IV-19 Product Class 4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage) Engineering 
Analysis Results
Table IV-20 Product Class 5 (Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage) Engineering 
Analysis Results
Table IV-21 Product Class 6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage) 
Engineering Analysis Results
Table IV-22 Product Class 7 (High-Energy) Engineering Analysis 
Results
Table IV-23 Product Class 8 (Low-Voltage DC Input) Engineering 
Analysis Results
Table IV-24 Product Class 9 (High-Voltage DC Input) Engineering 
Analysis Results
Table IV-25 Product Class 10 (AC Input, AC Output) Engineering 
Analysis Results
Table IV-26 Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions Used in the 
Preliminary Analysis and NOPR LCC Analyses
Table IV-27 EPS Life-Cycle Cost Savings With 4-Year Lifteime 
Assumptions
Table IV-28 EPS Life-Cycle Cost Savings With Alternative (2-Year) 
Lifetime Assumptions
Table IV-29 Summary of Inputs, Sources and Key Assumptions for the 
National Impact Analysis
Table IV-30 Changes to Base Case Efficiency Distributions to Account 
for CEC Standards
Table IV-31 Social Cost of CO2, 2010-2050 (in 2007 
Dollars per Metric Ton)
Table IV-32 Proposed Efficiency Marking Protocol for Battery 
Chargers
Table IV-33 Proposed Location for Battery Charger Marking
Table V-1 Trial Standard Levels for External Power Supplies
Table V-2 Trial Standard Levels for Battery Chargers
Table V-3 LCC Savings and Payback Period for DC Output, Basic-
Voltage External Power Supplies
Table V-4 LCC Savings and Payback Period for Non-Class A External 
Power Supplies
Table V-5 LCC Savings and Payback Period for Battery Chargers
Table V-6 DC Output, Basic-Voltage External Power Supplies: Low-
Income Consumer Subgroup
Table V-7 Non-Class A External Power Supplies: Low-Income Consumer 
Subgroup
Table V-8 Battery Chargers: Low-Income Consumer Subgroup
Table V-9 DC Output, Basic-Voltage External Power Supplies: Small 
Business Consumer Subgroup
Table V-10 Battery Chargers: Small Business Consumer Subgroup
Table V-11 DC Output, Basic-Voltage External Power Supplies: Top 
Tier Marginal Electricity Price Consumer Subgroup
Table V-12 Non-Class A External Power Supplies: Top Tier Marginal 
Electricity Price Consumer Subgroup
Table V-13 Battery Chargers: Top Tier Marginal Electricity Price 
Consumer Subgroup
Table V-14 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Classes B, C, D, 
and E--Flat Markup Scenario
Table V-15 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Classes B, C, D, 
and E--Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario
Table V-16 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class X EPS--
Flat Markup Scenario
Table V-17 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class X EPS--
Preservation of Operating Scenario
Table V-18 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class H EPS--
Flat Markup Scenario
Table V-19 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class H EPS--
Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario
Table V-20 Applications in Product Class 1
Table V-21 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 1--Flat Markup Scenario
Table V-22 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 1--Pass Through Markup 
Scenario
Table V-23 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 1--Constant Price Markup 
Scenario
Table V-24 Applications in Product Classes 2, 3, and 4
Table V-25 Cash Flow Results--Product Classes 2, 3, and 4--Flat 
Markup Scenario
Table V-26 Cash Flow Results--Product Classes 2, 3, and 4--Pass 
Through Markup Scenario
Table V-27 Cash Flow Results--Product Classes 2, 3, and 4--Constant 
Price Markup Scenario
Table V-28 Cash Flow Results--Product Classes 2, 3, and 4--Pass 
Through Markup Scenario--Consumer Electronics
Table V-29 Cash Flow Results--Product Classes 2, 3, and 4--Pass 
Through Markup Scenario--Power Tools
Table V-30 Cash Flow Results--Product Classes 2, 3, and 4--Pass 
Through Markup Scenario--Small Appliances
Table V-31 Applications in Product Classes 5 and 6
Table V-32 Cash Flow Results--Product Classes 5 and 6--Flat Markup 
Scenario
Table V-33 Cash Flow Results--Product Classes 5 and 6--Pass Through 
Markup Scenario
Table V-34 Cash Flow Results--Product Classes 5 and 6--Constant 
Price Markup Scenario
Table V-35 Applications in Product Class 7
Table V-36 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 7--Flat Markup Scenario
Table V-37 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 7--Pass Through Markup 
Scenario
Table V-38 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 7--Constant Price Markup 
Scenario
Table V-39 Applications in Product Class 8
Table V-40 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 8--Flat Markup Scenario
Table V-41 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 8--Pass Through Markup 
Scenario
Table V-42 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 8--Constant Price Markup 
Scenario
Table V-43 Applications in Product Class 9
Table V-44 Applications in Product Class 10
Table V-45 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 10--Flat Markup Scenario
Table V-46 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 10--Pass Through Markup 
Scenario
Table V-47 Cash Flow Results--Product Class 10--Constant Price 
Markup Scenario
Table V-48 Base Case Manufacturer Impact Analysis for All Battery 
Charger Product Classes Due to the CEC Standard
Table V-49 External Power Supplies: Cumulative National Energy 
Savings in Quads
Table V-50 Battery Chargers: Cumulative National Energy Savings in 
Quads
Table V-51 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for 
External Power Supplies, 3-Percent Discount Rate (2010$ millions)
Table V-52 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for 
External Power Supplies, 7-Percent Discount Rate (2010$ millions)

[[Page 18481]]

Table V-53 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for 
Battery Chargers, 3-Percent Discount Rate (2010$ millions)
Table V-54 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for 
Battery Chargers, 7-Percent Discount Rate (2010$ millions)
Table V-55 Cumulative Emissions Reduction for 2013-2042 Under 
External Power Supply TSLs
Table V-56 Cumulative Emissions Reduction for 2013-2042 Under 
Battery Charger TSLs
Table V-57 External Power Supply Product Class B: Estimates of 
Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under 
TSLs
Table V-58 External Power Supply Product Classes B, C, D, and E: 
Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions 
Reduction Under TSLs
Table V-59 External Power Supply Product Class X: Estimates of 
Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under 
TSLs
Table V-60 External Power Supply Product Class H: Estimates of 
Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under 
TSLs
Table V-61 Battery Charger Product Class 1: Estimates of Global 
Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under TSLs
Table V-62 Battery Chargers Product Classes 2, 3, 4: Estimates of 
Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under 
TSLs
Table V-63 Battery Chargers Product Classes 5, 6: Estimates of 
Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under 
TSLs
Table V-64 Battery Chargers Product Class 7: Estimates of Global 
Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under TSLs
Table V-65 Battery Chargers Product Class 8: Estimates of Global 
Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under TSLs
Table V-66 Battery Chargers Product Class 10: Estimates of Global 
Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under TSLs
Table V-67 External Power Supply Product Class B: Estimates of 
Domestic Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under 
TSLs
Table V-68 External Power Supply Product Classes B, C, D, E: 
Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO2 Emissions 
Reduction Under TSLs
Table V-69 External Power Supply Product Class X: Estimates of 
Domestic Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under 
TSLs
Table V-70 External Power Supply Product Class H: Estimates of 
Domestic Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under 
TSLs
Table V-71 Battery Charger Product Class 1: Estimates of Domestic 
Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under TSLs
Table V-72 Battery Charger Product Classes 2, 3, 4: Estimates of 
Domestic Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under 
TSLs
Table V-73 Battery Charger Product Classes 5, 6: Estimates of 
Domestic Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under 
TSLs
Table V-74 Battery Charger Product Class 7: Estimates of Domestic 
Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under TSLs
Table V-75 Battery Charger Product Class 8: Estimates of Domestic 
Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under TSLs
Table V-76 Battery Charger Product Class 10: Estimates of Domestic 
Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under TSLs
Table V-77 Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions 
Reduction Under External Power Supply TSLs
Table V-78 Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions 
Reduction Under Battery Charger TSLs
Table V-79 Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings to Present 
Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX 
Emissions Reductions Under TSL 1 for Battery Chargers Product 
Classes 2, 3, 4
Table V-80 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings 
(at 7% Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits 
from CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions Under 
External Power Supply TSLs
Table V-81 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings 
(at 3% Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits 
from CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions External 
Power Supply TSLs
Table V-82 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings 
(at 7% Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits 
from CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions Under 
Battery Charger TSLs
Table V-83 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings 
(at 3% Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits 
from CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions Under 
Battery Charger TSLs
Table V-84 Selected National Impacts of Aligning Federal Standards 
with California Standards
Table V-85 Summary of Results for Product Class B External Power 
Supplies
Table V-86 Proposed Standards for EPSs in Product Classes B, C, D, 
and E
Table V-87 Proposed Standards for Product Class X External Power 
Supplies
Table V-88 Proposed Standards for Multiple-Voltage External Power 
Supplies
Table V-89 Proposed Standards for High-Power External Power Supplies
Table V-90 Proposed Standards for High-Power External Power Supplies
Table V-91 Applications of Indirect Operation External Power 
Supplies
Table V-92 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Class 1
Table V-93 Proposed Standard for Product Class 1
Table V-94 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Classes 2, 
3, and 4
Table V-95 Proposed Standard for Product Classes 2, 3, and 4
Table V-96 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Classes 5 
and 6
Table V-97 Proposed Standard for Product Classes 5 and 6
Table V-98 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Class 7
Table V-99 Proposed Standard for Product Class 7
Table V-100 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Class 8
Table V-101 Proposed Standard for Product Class 8
Table V-102 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Class 10
Table V-103 Proposed Standard for Product Class 10
Table V-104 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for 
EPSs
Table V-105 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for 
Battery Chargers
Table VI-1 Estimated Capital Conservation Costs for a Typical Small 
Business (2010$ million)
Table VI-2 Estimated Product Conversion Costs for a Typical Small 
Business (2010$ million)
Table VI-3 Estimated Total Conversion Costs for a Typical Small 
Business (2010$ million)

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as 
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended 
energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for certain products, 
such as battery chargers and external power supplies (EPSs), shall be 
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that 
is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A)). Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in 
a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). In 
accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this 
notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for Class A 
EPSs and new energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs and 
battery chargers. The proposed standards for direct operation EPSs, 
which are the minimum average efficiency in active mode and the maximum 
power consumption in no-load mode expressed as a function of the 
nameplate output power, are shown in Table I.1. The proposed standards 
for battery chargers, which consist of a set of maximum annual energy 
consumption levels expressed as a function of battery energy, are shown 
in Table I-2. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all 
products listed in Table I.1 and Table I-2 and manufactured in, or 
imported into, the United States on or after July 1, 2013. In addition 
to being technologically

[[Page 18482]]

feasible and economically justified, DOE's proposed standards were also 
designed to maximize the net monetized benefits, as explained further 
below in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.000


[[Page 18483]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.002

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 18484]]

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I-3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
proposed standards on consumers of EPSs, as measured by the average 
life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the median payback period. The 
projected economic impacts of the proposed standards on individual 
consumers are generally positive. For example, the estimated average 
life-cycle cost (LCC) savings are from -$0.45 to $0.69 for product 
class B, depending on the representative unit, $2.07 for product class 
X, and $129.08 for product class H.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a 
product, consisting of purchase and installation costs plus 
operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance and repair). 
To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs 
to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the 
product.
    \3\ As explained in V.B.1.a, DOE uses the median payback period 
rather than the mean payback period to dampen the effect of outliers 
on the data.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.003

    Table I-4 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
proposed standards on consumers of battery chargers, as measured by the 
average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the median payback period. 
The projected economic impacts of the proposed standards on individual 
consumers are generally positive. For example, the estimated average 
life-cycle cost (LCC) savings are $1.52 for product class 1, $0.16 for 
product class 2, $0.35 for product class 3, $0.43 for product class 4, 
$33.79 for product class 5, $40.78 for product class 6, $38.26 for 
product class 7, $3.04 for product class 8, and $8.30 for product class 
10.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a 
product, consisting of purchase and installation costs plus 
operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance and repair). 
To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs 
to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the 
product.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.004

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted 
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the 
analysis period (2011 to 2042). Using a real discount rate of 7.1 
percent, DOE estimates that

[[Page 18485]]

the INPV for manufacturers of EPSs is $0.276 billion in 2010$. Under 
the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 
34.1 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $0.094 billion in 
2010$. Based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of EPSs and 
because DOE did not identify any domestic EPS production, DOE does not 
expect any domestic plant closings or any significant change in 
employment, since the vast majority, if not all EPS production occurs 
abroad.
    For battery chargers, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers 
of applications that include battery chargers is between $53.918 and 
$53.205 billion in 2010$ using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent. 
Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose 
up to 10.2 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $5.428 billion 
in 2010$. Based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of battery 
chargers, DOE does not expect any domestic plant closings or 
significant change in employment, since DOE only identified one 
domestic battery charger manufacturer.

C. National Benefits

External Power Supplies
    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a 
significant amount of energy over 30 years (2013-2042)--an estimated 
0.99 quads of cumulative energy for EPSs.
    The product classes at issue are comprised of the following 
groupings of EPS products listed below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.005

    The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer 
costs and savings of the proposed standards in 2010$ ranges from $0.79 
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $1.87 (at a 3-percent 
discount rate) for EPSs. This NPV expresses the estimated total value 
of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product 
costs for products purchased in 2013-2042, discounted to 2011.
    In addition, the proposed standards would have significant 
environmental benefits. The energy saved is in the form of electricity, 
would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of 46.5 
million metric tons (Mt) \5\ of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 
2013-2042. During this period, the proposed standards would result in 
emissions reductions of 38 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and 0.25 tons (t) of mercury (Hg).\6\ DOE estimates 
the net

[[Page 18486]]

present monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction is 
between $0.20 and $2.95 billion, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 
2011. DOE also estimates the net present monetary value of the 
NOX emissions reduction, expressed in 2010$ and discounted 
to 2011, is between $6.11 and $62.79 million at a 7-percent discount 
rate, and between $10.97 and $112.73 million at a 3-percent discount 
rate.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
NOX and Hg are given in short tons.
    \6\ DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the most 
recent version of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Reference case 
forecast. This forecast accounts for regulatory emissions reductions 
from in-place regulations, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but not the Clean Air Mercury 
Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, 
including the finalized CAIR replacement rule, the Cross-State Air 
Pollution rule issued on July 6, 2011, do not appear in the 
forecast. On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR while 
ordering EPA to continue administering the also remanded 2005 Clean 
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, which has a similar structure, but with 
less stringent budgets and less restrictive trading provisions) and 
tentatively set a briefing schedule to allow the case to be heard by 
April 2012.
    \7\ DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the 
appropriate range of values used in evaluating the potential 
economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 
further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg 
emissions before it once again monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards, for products 
sold in 2013-2042, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. 
The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized 
national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of 
products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of 
operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in 
equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of 
the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 emission 
reductions.\8\ The value of the CO2 reductions, otherwise 
known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a range 
of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent 
interagency process. The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in 
section IV.M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The process that DOE used to convert the time-series of 
costs and benefits into annualized values is explained in section 
V.C.3 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues 
should be considered. First, the national operating savings are 
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods 
that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national 
operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of EPSs shipped in 
2013-2042. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value 
of all future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 
one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well 
beyond 2100.
    Table I-6 shows the annualized values for today's proposed 
standards for EPSs. (All monetary values below are expressed in 2010$.) 
The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-
percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO2 
reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the 
SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of 
the standards proposed in today's rule is $251.9 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are $325.2 
million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $52.3 million in 
CO2 reductions, and $3.2 million in reduced NOX 
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $128.7 million per 
year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and 
the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost 
of the standards proposed in today's rule is $247.3 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $348.2 million per 
year in reduced operating costs, $52.3 million in CO2 
reductions, and $3.3 million in reduced NOX emissions. In 
this case, the net benefit amounts to $156.6 million per year.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18487]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.006

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 18488]]

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that products 
achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for 
all product classes covered by today's proposal for EPSs, other than 
product class H (high-power EPSs). Based on the analyses described 
above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed 
standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh 
the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some 
consumers).
    DOE also considered more-stringent and less stringent energy use 
levels as trial standard levels, and is still considering them in this 
rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential 
burdens of the more-stringent energy use levels would outweigh the 
projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE 
receives in response to this notice and related information collected 
and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 
energy use levels presented in this notice that are either higher or 
lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that 
incorporate the proposed standards in part.
Battery Chargers
    DOE's analyses for battery chargers indicate that the proposed 
standards would save a significant amount of energy over 30 years 
(2013-2042)--an estimated 1.36 quads of cumulative energy for battery 
chargers.
    The product classes at issue are comprised of the groupings of 
battery chargers listed in Table I-7. Each product class grouping was 
established based on the battery charger's input/output type, and 
further divided into product classes according to battery energy and 
voltage.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.007

    The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer 
costs and savings of the proposed standards in 2010$ ranges from $6.04 
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $10.96 billion (at a 3-
percent discount rate) for battery chargers. This NPV expresses the 
estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the 
estimated increased product costs for products purchased in 2013-2042, 
discounted to 2011.
    In addition, the proposed standards would have significant 
environmental benefits. The savings would result in cumulative 
greenhouse gas emission reductions of 62.9 Mt of CO2 in 
2013-2042. During this period, the proposed

[[Page 18489]]

standards would result in emissions reductions of 52 thousand tons of 
NOX and 0.35 tons of mercury. DOE estimates the net present 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction is between 
$0.27 and $4.04 billion, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 2011. DOE 
also estimates the net present monetary value of the NOX 
emissions reduction, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 2011, is 
between $8.19 and $84.14 million at a 7-percent discount rate, and 
between $14.88 and $153.05 million at a 3-percent discount rate.
    The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards, for products 
sold in 2013-2042, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. 
The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized 
national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of 
products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of 
operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in 
equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of 
the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 emission 
reductions. The value of the CO2 reductions is calculated 
using a range of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a 
recent interagency process. The derivation of the SCC values is 
discussed in section IV.M.
    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues 
should be considered. First, the national operating savings are 
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods 
that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national 
operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of battery chargers 
shipped in 2013-2042. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the 
present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from the 
emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts 
continue well beyond 2100.
    Table I-8 shows the annualized values for today's proposed 
standards for battery chargers. (All monetary values below are 
expressed in 2010$.) The results under the primary estimate are as 
follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other 
than CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount 
rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 
2010, the standards proposed in today's rule result in $110.0 million 
per year in equipment costs savings, and the annualized benefits are 
$447.2 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $71.6 
million in CO2 reductions, and $4.3 million in reduced 
NOX emissions. In this case, the benefit amounts to $633.0 
million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and 
costs and the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, 
the standards proposed in today's rule result in $107.9 million per 
year in equipment costs savings, and the benefits are $485.2 million 
per year in reduced operating costs, $71.6 million in CO2 
reductions, and $4.5 million in reduced NOX emissions. In 
this case, the net benefit amounts to $669.3 million per year.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18490]]

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

    \9\ The incremental product costs for battery chargers are 
negative because of a shift in technology from linear power supplies 
to switch mode power for the larger battery chargers in product 
classes 5, 6, and 7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.008

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 18491]]

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that products 
achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for 
all product classes covered by today's proposal for battery chargers, 
other than product class 10 (AC output). Based on the analyses 
described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the 
proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of 
consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would 
outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases 
for some consumers).
    DOE also considered more-stringent and less-stringent energy use 
levels as trial standard levels, and is still considering them in this 
rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential 
burdens of the more-stringent energy use levels would outweigh the 
projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE 
receives in response to this notice and related information collected 
and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 
energy use levels presented in this notice that are either higher or 
lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that 
incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying today's proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical 
background related to the establishment of standards for battery 
chargers and EPSs.

A. Authority

    Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other 
Than Automobiles,\10\ a program covering most major household 
appliances (collectively referred to as ``covered products''), which 
includes battery chargers and EPSs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) (DOE notes that 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must periodically review its 
already established energy conservation standards for a covered 
product. Under this requirement, the next review that DOE would need to 
conduct must occur no later than six years from the issuance of a final 
rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered 
products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; 
(3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) 
certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the 
remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, 
DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy 
efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each 
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Similarly, DOE must use these test 
procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards 
adopted pursuant to EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(s). As stated below in 
Section II.B.2 the DOE test procedures for battery chargers and EPSs 
currently appear at title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 
430, subpart B, appendices Y and Z, respectively.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria when prescribing 
amended standards for covered products. As indicated above, any amended 
standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, EPCA 
precludes DOE from adopting any standard that would not result in the 
significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, 
DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain products, including 
battery chargers and EPSs, if no test procedure has been established 
for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed 
standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven factors:
    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the 
standard;
    3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, 
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
    5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe 
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).

[[Page 18492]]

    Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when 
promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has 
two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level 
than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for 
any group of covered products that have the same function or intended 
use if DOE determines that covered products within such group (A) 
consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered 
products within such type (or class) or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard . (42 U.S.C. 6294(q)(1)). In determining whether a 
performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group 
of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the 
feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. 
Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the 
basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(2))
    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d).
    Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in section 310(3) of 
EISA 2007, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation 
standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address 
standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) 
Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after 
that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of 
standards in under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode 
and off mode energy use into the standard, or, if that is not feasible, 
adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for battery 
chargers and EPSs already address standby-mode and off-mode energy use. 
The standards for EPSs also address this energy use; currently there 
are no standards for battery chargers. In this rulemaking, DOE intends 
to incorporate such energy use into any new or amended energy 
conservation standards it adopts in the final rule.
    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). EO 
13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are 
required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 
only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs 
(recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); 
(2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, 
among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of 
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 
``to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present 
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' In its 
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
emphasized that such techniques may include ``identifying changing 
future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation 
or anticipated behavioral changes.'' For the reasons stated in the 
preamble, DOE believes that today's NOPR is consistent with these 
principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by 
law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.
    Consistent with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this 
rulemaking, the energy efficiency standards proposed herein by DOE 
achieves maximum net benefits.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    Section 301 of EISA 2007 established minimum energy conservation 
standards for Class A EPSs, which became effective on July 1, 2008. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A)) These standards provided an active mode 
efficiency level and a no-load power consumption rate. The current 
standards are set forth in Table II.1 and Table II.2, respectively.

[[Page 18493]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.010

    Currently, no Federal energy conservation standards apply to non-
Class A EPSs or battery chargers.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers and External 
Power Supplies
    Section 135 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Public 
Law 109-58 (Aug. 8, 2005), amended sections 321 and 325 of EPCA by 
defining the terms ``battery charger'' and ``external power supply.'' 
That provision also directed DOE to prescribe definitions and test 
procedures related to the energy consumption of battery chargers and 
external power supplies and to issue a final rule that determines 
whether energy conservation standards shall be issued for battery 
chargers and external power supplies or classes of battery chargers and 
external power supplies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(A) and (E))
    On December 8, 2006, DOE complied with the first of these 
requirements by publishing a final rule that prescribed test procedures 
for a variety of products. 71 FR 71340, 71365-71375. That rule, which 
was codified in multiple sections of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR), included definitions and test procedures for battery chargers 
and EPSs. As stated above, the test procedures for these products are 
found in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix Y (``Uniform Test Method 
for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers'') and 10 CFR 
Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix Z (``Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies'').
    On December 19, 2007, Congress enacted EISA 2007, which, among 
other things, amended sections 321, 323, and 325 of EPCA. As part of 
these amendments, EISA 2007 altered the EPS definition. Under the 
definition previously set by EPACT 2005, the statute defined an EPS as 
an external power supply circuit ``used to convert household electric 
current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a 
consumer product.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) Section 301 of EISA 2007 
amended that definition by creating a subset of EPSs called ``Class A 
External Power Supplies.'' This new subset of products consisted of 
those EPSs that can convert to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time 
and have a nameplate output power of no more than 250 watts (W). The 
definition excludes any device requiring Federal Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) listing and approval as a medical device in 
accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(21 U.S.C. 360c) or one that powers the charger of a detachable battery 
pack or charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily 
motor operated. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)) Section 301 of EISA 2007 also 
established energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs that became 
effective on July 1, 2008, and directed DOE to conduct an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking to review those standards.
    Additionally, section 309 of EISA 2007 amended section 325(u)(1)(E) 
of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)) by directing DOE to issue a final 
rule that prescribes energy conservation standards for battery chargers 
or classes of battery chargers or to determine that no energy 
conservation standard is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. DOE is bundling this battery charger rulemaking proceeding 
with the requirement to review and consider amending the energy 
conservation standards for Class A EPSs. The new rulemaking 
requirements contained in sections 301 and 309 of EISA 2007 effectively 
superseded the prior determination analysis that EPACT 2005 required 
DOE to conduct.
    Section 309 of EISA 2007 also instructed DOE to issue a final rule 
to determine whether DOE should issue energy conservation standards for 
external power supplies or classes of external power supplies no later 
than two years after EISA 2007's enactment. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I)) Because Congress already set standards for Class A 
devices, DOE interpreted this determination requirement as applying 
solely to assessing whether energy conservation standards are warranted 
for EPSs that fall outside of the Class A definition (i.e. non-Class A 
EPSs). Non-Class A EPSs include those devices that have a nameplate 
output power greater than 250 watts, are able to convert to more than 
one AC or DC output voltage simultaneously, and are specifically 
excluded from coverage under the Class A EPS definition in EISA 2007 by 
virtue of their application--e.g., EPSs used with medical devices.\11\ 
DOE determined that standards are warranted for non-Class A EPSs. See 
75 FR 27170 (May 14, 2010). Given the similarities between battery 
chargers and non-Class A and Class A EPSs, DOE is handling all three 
product groups in a single standards rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To help ensure that the standards Congress set were not 
applied in an overly broad fashion, DOE applied the statutory 
exclusion not only to those EPSs that require FDA listing and 
approval but also to any EPS that provides power to a medical 
device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, section 310 of EISA 2007 established definitions for 
active, standby, and off modes, and directed DOE to amend its existing 
test procedures for battery chargers and EPSs to measure the energy 
consumed in standby mode and off mode. (42

[[Page 18494]]

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B)(i)) Consequently, DOE published a final rule 
incorporating standby- and off-mode measurements into the DOE test 
procedure. 74 FR 13318, 13334-13336 (March 27, 2009) Additionally, DOE 
amended the test procedure for battery chargers to include an active 
mode measurement for battery chargers and made certain amendments to 
the test procedure for EPSs. 76 FR 31750 (June 1, 2011).
    DOE initiated its current rulemaking effort for these products by 
issuing the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document 
for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies (the framework 
document). See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/bceps_frameworkdocument.pdf. The framework 
document explained the issues, analyses, and process DOE anticipated 
using to develop energy efficiency standards for those products. DOE 
also published a notice announcing the availability of the framework 
document, announcing a public meeting to discuss the proposed 
analytical framework, and inviting written comments concerning the 
development of standards for battery chargers and EPSs. 74 FR 26816 
(June 4, 2009)
    DOE held a public meeting on July 16, 2009, to discuss the analyses 
and issues identified in the framework document. At the meeting, DOE 
described the different analyses it would conduct, the methods proposed 
for conducting them, and the relationships among the various analyses. 
Manufacturers, trade associations, environmental advocates, regulators, 
and other interested parties attended the meeting. The comments 
received at the public meeting and during the subsequent comment period 
helped DOE identify and resolve issues involved in this rulemaking.
    Following the framework document public meeting, DOE published on 
November 3, 2009, a Notice of Proposed Determination to examine the 
feasibility and related economic costs and benefits of setting energy 
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs. 74 FR 56928. This notice 
was followed by a final determination published on May 14, 2010, 75 FR 
27170, which concluded that energy conservation standards for non-Class 
A EPSs appear to be technologically feasible and economically 
justified, and would be likely to result in significant energy savings. 
Consequently, DOE decided to include non-Class A EPSs in the present 
energy conservation standards rulemaking for battery chargers and EPSs.
    DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary 
analyses for the purpose of developing potential amended energy 
conservation standards for Class A EPSs and new energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers and non-Class A EPSs. This process 
culminated in DOE's announcement in the Federal Register on September 
15, 2010, of the preliminary analysis public meeting, at which DOE 
discussed and received comments on the following matters: the product 
classes DOE analyzed; the analytical framework, models, and tools that 
DOE was using to evaluate potential standards; the results of the 
preliminary analyses performed by DOE; and potential standard levels 
under consideration. 75 FR 56021 (the September 2010 notice). DOE also 
invited written comments on these subjects and announced the 
availability on its Web site of a preliminary technical support 
document (preliminary TSD) it had prepared to inform interested parties 
and enable them to provide comments.\12\ Id. Finally, DOE stated its 
interest in receiving views concerning other relevant issues that 
participants believed would affect energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers and EPSs, or that DOE should address in this NOPR. Id. 
at 56024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The preliminary TSD is available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_preliminaryanalysis_tsd.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary TSD provides an overview of the activities DOE 
undertook in developing standards for battery chargers and EPSs, and 
discusses the comments DOE received in response to the framework 
document. It also describes the analytical framework that DOE used (and 
continues to use) in this rulemaking, including a description of the 
methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships among the 
various analyses that are part of the rulemaking. The preliminary TSD 
presents and describes in detail each analysis DOE had performed up to 
that point, including descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, 
and results. These analyses were as follows:
     A market and technology assessment addressed the scope of 
this rulemaking, identified the potential classes for battery chargers 
and EPSs, characterized the markets for these products, and reviewed 
techniques and approaches for improving their efficiency;
     A screening analysis reviewed technology options to 
improve the efficiency of battery chargers and EPSs, and weighed these 
options against DOE's four prescribed screening criteria: (1) 
Technological feasibility, (2) practicability to manufacture, install, 
and service, (3) impacts on equipment utility or equipment 
availability, (4) adverse impacts on health or safety;
     An engineering analysis estimated the increases in 
manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) associated with more energy-
efficient battery chargers and EPSs;
     An energy use analysis estimated the annual energy use in 
the field of battery chargers and EPSs as a function of efficiency 
levels;
     A markups analysis converted estimated manufacturer 
selling price (MSP) increases derived from the engineering analysis to 
consumer prices;
     A life-cycle cost analysis calculated, at the consumer 
level, the discounted savings in operating costs throughout the 
estimated average life of the product, compared to any increase in 
installed costs likely to result directly from the imposition of a 
given standard;
     A payback period (PBP) analysis estimated the amount of 
time it would take consumers to recover the higher expense of 
purchasing more energy efficient products through lower operating 
costs;
     A shipments analysis estimated shipments of battery 
chargers and EPSs over the 30-year analysis period (2013-2042), which 
were used in performing the national impact analysis (NIA);
     A national impact analysis assessed the national energy 
savings (NES), and the national net present value of total consumer 
costs and savings, expected to result from specific, potential energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers and EPSs; and
     A preliminary manufacturer impact analysis took the 
initial steps in evaluating the effects new or amended efficiency 
standards may have on manufacturers.
    In the September 2010 notice, DOE summarized the nature and 
function of the following analyses: (1) Engineering, (2) energy use 
analysis, (3) markups to determine installed prices, (4) LCC and PBP 
analyses, and (5) national impact analysis. Id. at 56023-56024.
    DOE held a public meeting on October 13, 2010, to discuss its 
preliminary analysis. At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies 
and results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD. Major 
topics discussed at the meeting included, among others, the regulation 
of EPSs for motorized applications and applications

[[Page 18495]]

with detachable batteries (MADB EPSs), criteria for establishing 
separate product classes, and assumptions made by DOE on the usage of 
certain products. The comments received since publication of the 
September 2010 notice, including those received at the preliminary 
analysis public meeting, have contributed to DOE's proposed resolution 
of the issues noted by interested parties. This NOPR quotes and 
summarizes many of these comments, and responds to the issues they 
raised.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received written comments on the preliminary analysis from four 
industry groups (the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM, 
No. 42); the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA, No. 46), the Power 
Tool Institute, Inc. (PTI, No. 45); and the Wireless Power Consortium 
(WPC, No. 40)), six manufacturers (Cobra Electronics Corp. (Cobra, No. 
51); Lester Electrical of Nebraska, Inc. (Lester) (Lester, No. 50); 
Motorola, Inc. (Motorola, No. 48); Philips Electronics North America 
Corp. (Philips, No. 41); Stanley Black & Decker (SBD, No. 44); and Wahl 
Clipper Corporation (Wahl, No. 53)), and several energy efficiency 
advocates, including a number of utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas 
Company, and Southern California Edison, collectively organized as the 
California Investor Owned Utilities (California IOUs, No. 43); 
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP, No. 49); and a joint 
comment from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas 
Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, Southern California 
Edison, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Northeast Energy 
Efficiency Partnerships, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, American 
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Natural Resources Defense 
Council (PG&E, et al., No. 47)). These commenters, along with those 
that provided oral comments at the preliminary analysis public meeting, 
are summarized in Table II-2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.011

    Following the close of the formal public comment period, DOE also 
received a clarification statement regarding an earlier submission to 
which ASAP joined with other commenters (ASAP, No. 55) and a proposal 
for DOE to adopt an efficiency marking protocol for battery chargers 
from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC, No. 56).

III. General Discussion

    The following section discusses various technical aspects related 
to this proposed rulemaking. In particular, it addresses aspects 
involving the test procedures for battery chargers and EPSs, the 
technological feasibility of potential standards to assign to these 
products, and the potential energy savings and economic justification 
for prescribing the proposed amended standards for battery chargers and 
EPSs.

A. Test Procedures

    To help analyze the proposal for the products covered under today's 
rulemaking, DOE applied the recently amended test procedures for EPSs 
and battery chargers. The following sections explain how DOE applied 
these

[[Page 18496]]

procedures in evaluating the standards that are being proposed.
1. External Power Supply Test Procedures
    DOE used its recently modified EPS test procedure as the basis for 
evaluating EPS efficiency in the NOPR. This procedure, which was 
recently codified in appendix Z to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 
(``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of EPSs''), 
includes a means to account for the energy consumption from multiple-
voltage EPSs and clarifies the manner in which to test those devices 
that communicate with their loads. See 76 FR 31750, 31782-31783 (June 
1, 2011). The term ``load communication'' refers to the ability of an 
EPS to identify whether a given load is compatible with the product 
that is being powered. See id. at 31752-31753.
    The amended test procedure produces two key outputs relevant to 
today's proposal. In particular, the procedure provides measurements 
for active mode efficiency and no-load mode power consumption. For 
single output voltage EPSs, active-mode conversion efficiency is the 
ratio of output power to input power. DOE averages the efficiency at 
four loading conditions--25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of maximum rated 
output current. For multiple-voltage EPSs, the test procedure produces 
these same four efficiency measurements, but does not average them. For 
both single-voltage and multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE measures the power 
consumption of the EPS when disconnected from the consumer product, 
which is termed no-load power consumption. If the EPS has an on-off 
switch, the switch is placed in the ``on'' position when making this 
measurement.
2. Battery Charger Test Procedures
    The initial battery charger test procedure, 71 FR 71340, 71368 
(Dec. 8, 2006), included a means to measure battery charger energy 
consumption in ``maintenance'' and ``no-battery'' modes. These are non-
active modes of operation for a battery charger and neither mode is the 
primary (i.e. active) mode of operation for a battery charger. A 
battery charger is in maintenance mode when the battery it is designed 
to charge is fully charged, but is still plugged into the charger--i.e. 
the charger is maintaining the charge in the battery. Standby mode, 
also known as no-battery mode, occurs when a battery charger is plugged 
into the wall (or power source), but the battery has been removed. The 
test procedure was amended to include measurements (or metrics) to 
account for the energy consumption that takes place in a battery 
charger during all modes of operation--active (i.e. the energy consumed 
by a battery charger while charging a battery), maintenance (i.e. the 
energy consumed to maintain the charge of a battery that has already 
been fully charged), standby (the energy consumed when a battery 
charger is plugged in, but the battery is removed from the device), and 
off (i.e. the energy consumed while a charger is plugged in but is 
switched off) modes. 76 FR 31750.
    In analyzing the various products in preparation of the preliminary 
analysis, DOE relied on a test procedure that was largely based on a 
procedure that had been developed by the California Energy Commission 
(CEC). That procedure also served as the basis for DOE's 2010 proposal 
to amend the procedure to account for active mode energy consumption 
during testing. 75 FR 16958 (April 2, 2010).
    The proposed procedure DOE employed had two key differences from 
the CEC procedure. First, it employed a shortened test procedure for 
battery chargers whose output power to the battery stabilizes within 24 
hours. Second, the procedure employed a reversed charge/discharge 
testing order from that specified in the CEC procedure. DOE proposed 
switching the order such that the proposal used a preparatory charge, 
followed by a measured discharge, followed by a measured charge. The 
final rule dropped this approach in favor of the order prescribed in 
the CEC procedure--i.e. preparatory discharge, a measured charge, and a 
measured discharge. DOE applied this amended test procedure when 
analyzing the potential energy efficiency levels for battery chargers.

B. Technological Feasibility

    The following sections address the manner in which DOE assessed the 
technological feasibility of potential standard levels. Energy 
conservation standards promulgated by DOE must be technologically 
feasible. Separate analyses were conducted for EPSs and battery 
chargers.
1. General
    In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis 
based on information gathered on all current technology options and 
prototype designs that have the potential to improve product or 
equipment efficiency. To conduct the analysis, DOE develops a list of 
design options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, 
design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines 
which of these means for improving efficiency are technologically 
feasible. DOE considers a design option to be technologically feasible 
if it is currently in use by the relevant industry, or if a working 
prototype exists. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 
4(a)(4)(i), which provides that ``[t]echnologies incorporated in 
commercially available products or in working prototypes will be 
considered technologically feasible.''
    Once DOE has determined that particular design options are 
technologically feasible, it evaluates each of these design options 
using the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability 
to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts on product 
utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. 
(10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)). Section IV.B 
of this notice discusses the results of the screening analysis for 
battery chargers and EPSs, particularly the designs DOE considered, 
those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the trial 
standard levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking.
    For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, 
see chapter 4 of the TSD.
    Additionally, DOE notes that it has received no interested party 
comments regarding patented technologies and proprietary designs that 
would prohibit all manufacturers from achieving the energy conservation 
standards proposed in today's rule. At this time, DOE believes that the 
proposed standards for the products covered as part of this rulemaking 
will not mandate the use of any such technologies, but requests 
additional information regarding proprietary designs and patented 
technologies.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When proposing an amended standard for a type or class of covered 
product, DOE must ``determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible'' for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)). DOE determined the 
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level, as 
required by section 325(o) of EPCA, by interviewing manufacturers, 
vetting their data with subject matter experts, and presenting the 
results for public comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)).
a. External Power Supply Max-Tech Levels
    DOE conducted several rounds of interviews with manufacturers of 
EPSs, integrated circuits for EPSs, and

[[Page 18497]]

applications using EPSs. All of the manufacturers interviewed 
identified ways that EPSs could be modified to achieve efficiencies 
higher than those available with current products. These manufacturers 
also described the costs of achieving those efficiency improvements, 
which DOE examines in detail in chapter 5 of the TSD. DOE independently 
verified the accuracy of the information described by 
manufacturers.\14\ Verifying this information required examining and 
testing products at the best-in-market efficiency level and determining 
what design options could still be added to improve their efficiency. 
By comparing the improved best-in-market designs (using predicted 
performance and cost) to the estimates provided by manufacturers, DOE 
was able to assess the reasonableness of the max-tech levels developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In confirming this information, DOE obtained technical 
assistance from two subject matter experts--Robert Gourlay of RDG 
Engineering in Northridge, CA and Jon Wexler, an independent and 
solo consultant in Los Angeles, CA. These two experts were selected 
after having been found through the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Together, they have over 30 years of 
combined experience with power supply design. The experts relied on 
their years of experience to evaluate the validity of both the 
design and the general cost of the max-tech efficiency levels 
provided by manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE solicited comment on its review of the max-tech CSLs prepared 
for the preliminary analysis--particularly with respect to its initial 
view that 2.5W EPSs may be able to achieve a max-tech efficiency of 80% 
rather than the lower efficiency suggested by manufacturers (See 
Chapter 5 of the TSD for details on how DOE aggregated manufacturer 
data). During interviews conducted in preparation for the NOPR, 
manufacturers confirmed that an 80% efficiency level is achievable for 
2.5W EPSs, but not without a decrease in utility. Manufacturers stated 
that reaching that efficiency level would require an increase in the 
form factor (i.e. the geometry of the design), which would make these 
devices larger. The increased size of the EPS would, in the 
manufacturers' views, constitute a decreased utility that would be 
undesirable to consumers because of demands for smaller and lighter 
products. In light of this possibility, DOE used a max-tech efficiency 
value of 74.8%, which represents the average max-tech efficiency level 
predicted by manufacturers, to characterize CSL 4. The aggregated 
responses from manufacturers are discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD.
    DOE created the max-tech (CSL 4) equations for average efficiency 
and no-load power using curve-fits (i.e. creating a continuous 
mathematical expression to represent the trend of the data as 
accurately as possible) of the aggregated manufacturer data (see 
chapter 5 of the TSD for details on curve fits). DOE created the 
equations for no-load power based on a curve fit of the no-load power 
among the four representative units. For both the average efficiency 
and no-load power CSL equations, DOE used equations similar to those 
for CSL 1, involving linear and logarithmic terms in the nameplate 
output power. DOE chose the divisions at 1 watt and 49 watts in the CSL 
4 equations to ensure consistency with the nameplate output power 
divisions between the equations for CSL 1.
    In the determination for non-Class A EPSs, DOE created CSLs based 
on test and teardown data as well as manufacturer interview data 
consistent with the Class A EPS methodology. See 75 FR 27170, 27174-
27175. DOE also stated in Chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis TSD 
that it might further evaluate additional CSLs should that become 
necessary pending later analysis, including revising the max-tech CSLs 
for all the representative units.
    For the NOPR, DOE has chosen to add a new max-tech CSL for high-
power EPSs while the max-tech for multiple-voltage EPSs remains 
unchanged from the preliminary analysis. Based on its analysis, DOE 
ascertained that 345W EPSs are able to achieve comparable efficiencies 
to 120W EPSs because efficiency tends to improve with higher nameplate 
output power before leveling off regardless of output power. Because of 
the diminishing returns of this trend, there would be no appreciable 
difference in the achievable efficiency of a 120W EPS and a 345W EPS. 
Therefore, DOE scaled its 120W EPS cost-efficiency curve using its 
voltage scaling method, outlined in Chapter 5 of the TSD, to generate 
the max-tech CSL for 345W EPSs. The max-tech no-load metric was chosen 
by assuming that three 120W EPSs could theoretically be connected to 
deliver 345 watts to a load (i.e. three 120W EPSs yield a 360W load). 
Consequently, in analyzing the potential cost-efficiency curves for 
these products, the no-load metric DOE created for CSL 4 is three times 
greater than the no load used for the 120W equivalent CSL.
b. Battery Charger Max-Tech Levels
    The preliminary analysis did not include max-tech efficiency levels 
for five of the ten product classes that are being addressed today. DOE 
omitted levels for these product classes because manufacturers did not 
provide information on levels of performance that would be 
technologically feasible and more efficient than the current best-in-
market devices. DOE's preliminary analyses typically rely heavily on 
manufacturer input in framing potential max-tech levels for discussion 
and comment.
    In preparing today's NOPR, which includes max-tech levels for the 
ten classes initially addressed in DOE's preliminary analysis, DOE 
developed a means to create max-tech levels for those classes that were 
previously not assigned max-tech levels. For the product classes that 
DOE was previously unable to generate max-tech efficiency levels, DOE 
used multiple approaches to develop levels for these classes. DOE once 
again solicited manufacturers for information and extrapolated 
performance parameters from its best-in-market efficiency levels. 
Extrapolating from the best-in-market performance efficiency levels 
required an examination of the devices. From this examination, DOE 
determined which design options could be applied and what affects they 
would likely have on the various battery charger performance 
parameters. The table below shows the reduction in energy consumption 
when increasing efficiency from the baseline to the max-tech efficiency 
level.

[[Page 18498]]



  Table III-1--Reduction in Energy Consumption at Max-Tech for Battery
                                Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Reduction of
                                           Max-Tech unit      energy
                                              energy        consumption
              Product class                 consumption     relative to
                                             (kWh/yr)      the baseline
                                                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (Low-Energy, Inductive)...............            1.29              85
2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage).............            0.81              91
3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage)..........            0.75              94
4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage)............            3.01              92
5 (Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage)..........           15.35              82
6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage).........           16.79              86
7 (High-Energy).........................          131.44              46
8 (DC to DC, <9V Input).................            0.19              79
9 (DC to DC, >=9V Input)................            0.13              83
10a (AC Output, No AVR).................            4.95              92
10b (AC Output, AVR)....................            8.58              92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional discussion of DOE's max-tech efficiency levels and 
comments received in response to the preliminary analysis can be found 
in the discussion of candidate standard levels in section IV.C.2.d. 
Specific details regarding which design options were considered for the 
max-tech efficiency levels (and all other CSLs) can be found in Chapter 
5 of the accompanying TSD.

C. Energy Savings

    The following discussion addresses the various steps DOE used to 
assess the potential energy savings that DOE projects will likely 
accrue from the various standard levels that were examined.
1. Determination of Savings
    DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from 
amended standards for the battery chargers and EPS products that are 
the subject of this rulemaking.\15\ For each TSL, DOE forecasted energy 
savings beginning in 2013, the year that manufacturers would be 
required to comply with amended standards, and ending in the last year 
products shipped in 2042 would be retired. DOE quantified the energy 
savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy 
consumption between the standards case and the base case. The base case 
represents the forecast of energy consumption in the absence of amended 
mandatory efficiency standards and considers market demand for more-
efficient products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The NIA spreadsheet model is described in section IV.G of 
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NIA spreadsheet model calculates the electricity savings in 
``site energy'' expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site energy is the 
energy directly consumed by battery chargers and EPSs at the locations 
where they are used. DOE reports national energy savings on an annual 
basis in terms of the aggregated source (primary) energy savings, which 
is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the 
site energy. (See chapter 10 of the TSD.) To convert site energy to 
source energy, DOE derived annual conversion factors from the model 
used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual 
Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO2010).
2. Significance of Savings
    As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) any standard that DOE sets 
must result in ``significant'' energy savings. While the term 
``significant'' is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 
in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 
(D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended ``significant'' 
energy savings in this context to be savings that were not ``genuinely 
trivial.'' The energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this 
rulemaking are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them 
``significant'' within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

D. Economic Justification

    This section summarizes the manner in which DOE estimated the 
economic impacts for the various potential standards that it evaluated. 
Among the aspects considered by DOE were the economic impacts on both 
manufacturers and consumers, life cycle costs, the amount of projected 
energy savings, product utility and performance, impacts on 
competition, and the general need to conserve energy.
1. Specific Criteria
    As noted in section II.B, EPCA provides seven factors to be 
evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation 
standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The 
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven 
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of new and amended standards on 
manufacturers, DOE first determines the quantitative impacts using an 
annual cash-flow approach. This step includes both a short-term 
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the 
period between the issuance of a regulation and when entities must 
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year 
analysis period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include INPV (which 
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows), cash 
flows by year, changes in revenue and income, and other measures of 
impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on 
different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small 
manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic 
manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the 
potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital 
investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of 
different DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 
manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. 
The LCC, specified separately in EPCA as one of the seven factors to be 
considered in determining the economic justification for a new or 
amended standard, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed in the 
following section. For consumers

[[Page 18499]]

in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of 
the economic impacts on consumers over the forecast period used in a 
particular rulemaking.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy and 
maintenance expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. 
For each battery charger product class and EPS representative unit, DOE 
calculated both LCC and LCC savings for various efficiency levels. The 
LCC analysis required a variety of inputs, such as product prices, 
electricity prices, product lifetimes, base case efficiency 
distributions, annual unit energy consumption, and discount rates.
    To characterize variability in electricity pricing, DOE established 
regional differences in electricity prices. To account for uncertainty 
and variability in other inputs, such as discount rates, DOE used a 
distribution of values with probabilities assigned to each value. DOE 
then sampled the values of these inputs from the probability 
distributions for each consumer. The analysis produced a range of LCCs. 
A distinct advantage of this approach is that DOE can identify the 
percentage of consumers achieving LCC savings due to an increased 
energy conservation standard, in addition to the average LCC savings. 
DOE presents only average LCC savings in this NOPR; however, additional 
details showing the distribution of results can be found in chapter 8 
and appendix 8B of the TSD.
    In the LCC analysis, DOE determined the input values for a wide 
array of end-use applications that are powered by battery chargers or 
EPSs. There are typically multiple applications within every 
representative unit and product class that DOE analyzed. As such, DOE 
considered a wide array of input values for each unit analyzed. The 
lifetime, markups, base case market efficiency distribution, and unit 
energy consumption all vary based on the application. In the analysis, 
DOE sampled an application based on its shipment-weighting within the 
representative unit or product class. When an application was sampled, 
its unique inputs were selected for calculating the LCC and PBP. For 
further detail regarding application sampling, see appendix 8C of the 
TSD.
    In its written comments, AHAM stated that the MIA and LCC 
calculations should be the most important considerations when 
determining where to set the standard level. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 15) 
DOE considered many criteria when selecting the proposed standard 
level, including impacts on manufacturers, consumers, the Nation, and 
environmental impacts. DOE weighed the impacts from each of these 
analyses in determining the proposed standard level.
c. Energy Savings
    While significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) DOE uses 
the NIA spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected 
energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design 
options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE sought to 
develop standards for EPSs and battery chargers that would not lessen 
the utility or performance of these products. None of the TSLs 
presented in today's NOPR would substantially reduce the utility or 
performance of the products under consideration in the rulemaking. DOE 
received no comments that standards for battery chargers and EPSs would 
increase their size and reduce their convenience, increase the length 
of time to charge a product, shorten the intervals between chargers, or 
any other significant adverse impacts on consumer utility. However, 
based on DOE's preliminary examination of the information before it, 
including interviews with manufacturers, manufacturers may reduce the 
availability of features that increase energy use, such as LED 
indicator lights, in an effort to meet any standard levels promulgated 
as a result of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 
Manufacturers indicated that these changes would only be made if their 
customers would not be averse to the change in utility. DOE requests 
interested party feedback, including any substantive data, regarding 
today's proposed standard levels and the potential for lessening of 
utility or performance related features.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is 
likely to result from standards. It also directs the Attorney General 
of the United States (Attorney General) to determine the impact, if 
any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed 
standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 
days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis 
of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) 
and (B)(ii)) DOE has transmitted a copy of today's proposed rule to the 
Attorney General and has requested that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
provide its determination on this issue. DOE will address the Attorney 
General's determination, if any, in the final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    Certain benefits of the proposed standards are likely to be 
reflected in improvements to the security and reliability of the 
Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity may 
also result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the 
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to 
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation 
capacity.
    Energy savings from the proposed standards are also likely to 
result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of 
air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. 
DOE reports the environmental effects from the proposed standards for 
battery chargers and EPSs, and from each TSL it considered, in the 
environmental assessment contained in chapter 15 of the TSD. DOE also 
reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions 
resulting from the considered TSLs in chapter 16 of the TSD.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a 
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year of energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the payback period of 
potential standards for consumers. These analyses include, but are not 
limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable 
presumption test. However, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis 
that considers the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer,

[[Page 18500]]

Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). 
The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively 
evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level, 
thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary 
determination of economic justification. The rebuttable presumption 
payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this NOPR and 
chapter 8 of the TSD.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

    DOE used three spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's 
proposed standards. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and payback 
periods of potential standards. The second provides shipments 
forecasts, and then calculates national energy savings and net present 
value impacts of potential standards. Finally, DOE assessed 
manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory 
Impact Model (GRIM). All three spreadsheet tools will be made available 
online at the rulemaking Web site: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
    Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts on utilities and the 
environment that would be likely to result from the setting of 
standards for battery chargers and EPSs. DOE used a version of EIA's 
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and 
environmental analyses. The NEMS model simulates the energy sector of 
the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook, a 
widely known energy forecast for the United States. The version of NEMS 
used for appliance standards analysis is called NEMS-BT,\16\ and is 
based on the AEO version with minor modifications.\17\ NEMS-BT offers a 
sophisticated picture of the effect of standards because it accounts 
for the interactions between the various energy supply and demand 
sectors and the economy as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ BT stands for DOE's Building Technologies Program.
    \17\ The EIA allows the use of the name ``NEMS'' to describe 
only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or 
data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code 
modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that 
deviate from AEO assumptions, the name ``NEMS-BT'' refers to the 
model as used here. For more information on NEMS, refer to The 
National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA-0581 (98) 
(Feb.1998), available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE 
develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for 
the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the 
industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes 
both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on 
publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market 
and technology assessment for this rulemaking include a determination 
of the scope of this rulemaking; product classes and manufacturers; 
quantities and types of products sold and offered for sale; retail 
market trends; regulatory and non-regulatory programs; and technologies 
or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of the 
product(s) under examination. See chapter 3 of the TSD for further 
detail.
1. Products Included in This Rulemaking
    This section addresses the scope of coverage for today's proposal, 
stating which products would be subject to new or amended standards. 
The numerous comments DOE received on the scope of today's proposal are 
also summarized and addressed in this section.
a. External Power Supplies
    The term ``external power supply'' refers to an external power 
supply circuit that is used to convert household electric current into 
DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumer product. 
(42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, also prescribes 
the criteria for a subcategory of EPSs--those classified as Class A 
EPSs (or in context, ``Class A''). A Class A EPS is a device that:
    1. Is designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower voltage 
AC or DC output;
    2. is able to convert to only one AC or DC output voltage at a 
time;
    3. is sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use 
product that constitutes the primary load;
    4. is contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use 
product;
    5. is connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-
wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring; 
and
    6. has nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 
watts.
See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i).
    The Class A definition excludes any device that either (a) requires 
Federal Food and Drug Administration listing and approval as a medical 
device in accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) or (b) powers the charger of a detachable 
battery pack or charges the battery of a product that is fully or 
primarily motor operated. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii).
    Based on DOE's examination of product information, all EPSs appear 
to share four of the six criteria under the Class A definition in that 
all are:
     Designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower 
voltage AC or DC output;
     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; and
     Connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-
wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring.
    DOE refers to an EPS that falls outside of Class A as a non-Class A 
EPS (or, in context, ``non-Class A''). Examples of such devices include 
EPSs that can convert power to more than one output voltage at a time 
(multiple voltage), EPSs that have nameplate output power exceeding 250 
watts (high-power), EPSs used to power medical devices, and EPSs that 
provide power to the battery chargers of motorized applications and 
detachable battery packs (MADB). After examining the potential for 
energy savings that could result from standards for non-Class A 
devices, DOE concluded that standards for these devices would be likely 
to result in significant energy savings and be technologically feasible 
and economically justified. 75 FR 27170 (May 14, 2010). Thus, DOE is 
examining the possibility of setting standards for all types of EPSs 
within the scope of today's notice.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE treated only those wall adapters 
that lacked charge control as EPSs; those with charge control were not 
considered to be EPSs. (Charge control relates to regulating the amount 
of current being delivered to a battery.) Under that approach, a given 
wall adapter without charge control capability could be considered both 
as an EPS and as a part of a battery charger. If that approach were 
adopted, such a wall adapter would be subject to whatever EPS standard 
that DOE may set and would also, indirectly, help the battery charger 
of which it is a part to meet whatever battery charger standard that 
DOE may set. In essence, the EPS would need to satisfy a prescribed 
level of efficiency, which could create certain design restrictions on 
manufacturers seeking to optimize the overall efficiency of the battery 
charger.
    In the following paragraphs, DOE summarizes and addresses the 
comments it received on (1) whether to

[[Page 18501]]

set EPS standards for wall adapters that are part of battery chargers, 
(2) whether the absence of charge control circuitry should be the basis 
for regulating such wall adapters, and (3) if so, appropriate methods 
for determining whether a given wall adapter contains charge control. 
DOE received a few comments urging DOE to regulate these types of 
EPSs--which are part of a battery charger system--as part of the 
overall battery charger and also as an EPS to help ensure that whatever 
EPS is used in such a charger system meets a minimum level of 
efficiency. Several other parties, however, objected to requiring that 
these EPSs also meet separate EPS standards. Comments focused mainly on 
MADB EPSs, but some pertained to EPSs generally. In response to these 
comments, DOE is proposing a new approach, namely, to evaluate whether 
an EPS can directly operate an end-use consumer product and to create a 
new product class for those EPSs that cannot directly operate an end-
use consumer product. DOE is considering this approach in light of the 
substantial resistance by the industry to the initial approach 
presented during the preliminary analysis phase.
    Energy efficiency advocates favored requiring certain EPSs that are 
part of battery chargers to also meet separate EPS standards--in 
particular, for those EPSs that do not perform charge control 
functions. PG&E, et al. expressed their strong support for this 
approach and cited research showing that improving the efficiency of a 
power supply helps improve the efficiency of a battery charger. In 
addition, PG&E commented that a single EPS definition (rather than one 
for Class A and another for non-Class A) would reduce the complexity of 
compliance and enforcement as well as the potential for loopholes. 
(PG&E, et al., No. 47 at p. 3-4) NEEP also expressed its support for 
this approach and added that DOE's initial research shows that there 
are a limited number of cases where EPSs would be regulated under both 
standards. (NEEP, No. 49 at pp. 1-2) The California IOUs and PG&E, et 
al. expressed their support for using the ENERGY STAR EPS definition to 
determine whether a wall adapter is an EPS. (California IOUs, No. 43 at 
p. 9; PG&E, et al., No. 47 at p. 4)
    AHAM, PTI, and Wahl Clipper agreed with DOE and the efficiency 
advocates that MADB wall adapters should be regulated, but not under 
multiple efficiency requirements. Instead, they urged DOE to regulate 
these items as battery charger components but not as EPSs. (AHAM, No. 
42 at pp. 2, 3, 13; PTI, No. 45 at p. 4; Wahl, No. 53 at p. 1) PTI 
argued that a MADB wall adapter cannot be an EPS because it is not used 
``to operate a consumer product.'' According to PTI, a MADB wall 
adapter operates a battery charger, but a battery charger is not a 
consumer product because battery chargers are not themselves 
``distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by 
individuals.'' Thus, in its view, MADB wall adapters are not EPSs. 
(PTI, No. 45 at pp. 3-4; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 74) AHAM argued 
that subjecting a product to multiple energy efficiency requirements 
(1) ``makes no sense,'' (2) could cause manufacturers to be in 
``constant redesign mode'' if EPS and battery charger standards change 
at different times, and (3) would be an undue burden. (AHAM, No. 42 at 
pp. 4-5) AHAM contended further that the EPS active mode test is 
inappropriate and inaccurate for MADB wall adapters, as they are never 
used in the manner tested under that procedure. Consequently, in AHAM's 
view, requiring that these types of wall adapters be tested under the 
EPS test procedure would not enable DOE to meet its obligation to test 
products in a manner representative of their actual use. (AHAM, No. 42 
at p. 6) Wahl Clipper echoed AHAM's concerns that the EPS test 
procedure is inappropriate for MADB wall adapters and noted that 
unsynchronized battery charger and EPS standards would force 
manufacturers to constantly redesign their products. Wahl Clipper added 
that manufacturers ``do not know if future standards levels will make 
it impossible to meet both regulations at the same time since there is 
no correlation between the two regulations.'' (Wahl, No. 53 at p. 1)
    Others had similar concerns about setting standards for Class A 
devices that are part of battery chargers. CEA, Cobra Electronics, and 
Motorola objected to regulating any wall adapter as both an EPS and a 
component of a battery charger. These parties drew attention to the 
burden that multiple energy efficiency requirements would impose on 
manufacturers--small businesses in particular. CEA commented that its 
``foremost concern is DOE's contemplation of a `double jeopardy' 
regulatory situation whereby a single charging device would be subject 
to two different test procedures and two different sets of regulatory 
requirements,'' and added that such a situation would be ``unreasonable 
and unnecessary--and would be particularly onerous for small 
businesses.'' (CEA, No. 46 at pp. 1-2) Cobra Electronics, which markets 
and sells two-way radios and mobile navigation devices, commented that 
``having to be regulated under two standards for a product which is 
infrequently used is an unreasonable burden for small companies when 
added to the burden of other recent regulations.'' (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 
1) Motorola also agreed with CEA that the energy efficiency of EPSs 
should not be regulated in two different product categories (battery 
chargers and EPSs) and added that ``given the likely high performance 
standards that will be set for battery chargers, it would be nearly 
impossible for an external power supply to comprise part of a 
[standards-compliant] battery charger if it were not itself highly 
efficient.'' (Motorola, No. 48 at pp. 1-2)
    AHAM also asserted that DOE risks overestimating energy savings if 
it does not determine how to remove the overlap between battery charger 
and EPS energy savings. AHAM emphasized the importance of accurately 
quantifying the extent to which energy savings from battery charger and 
EPS standards might overlap so that DOE can accurately project the 
potential energy savings from potential standards. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 
Tr., No. 57 at p. 112)
    After carefully considering all of these comments, DOE has 
tentatively decided to adopt a broad scope and to propose an approach 
in which EPS standards could apply to all devices that meet the EPS 
definition prescribed by EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A). Those 
standards prescribed by Congress, namely, those for Class A devices, 
will remain in effect, and DOE, despite the objections raised by CEA 
and others, has no authority to remove these standards, although these 
standards could be amended to increase their stringency. With regard to 
non-Class A EPSs that are components of battery chargers, DOE has the 
option to propose new efficiency standards for these devices, including 
those devices that perform charge control functions.
    To help it ascertain whether a given wall adapter performs charge 
control functions, DOE sought comment during the preliminary analysis 
phase on seven methods it presented to determine whether charge control 
is present in a wall adapter. See Preliminary TSD, appendix 3-C 
(detailing the methods DOE considered for determining whether a wall 
adapter contains charge control). In the preliminary analysis, DOE used 
a method it called ``Energy Star Inspection,'' which is based on parts 
(f) and (g) of the ENERGY STAR program's definition of an EPS. 
(``ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Single Voltage External Ac-Dc 
and Ac-Ac Power Supplies, Eligibility Criteria (Version

[[Page 18502]]

2.0)'' \18\) This method considers certain easily observable physical 
characteristics of the wall adapter. Under this approach, a wall 
adapter that meets either of the following two criteria would be exempt 
from having to satisfy separate EPS standards and would instead be 
treated simply as a battery charger component: (1) The wall adapter has 
batteries or battery packs that physically attach directly (including 
those that are removable) to the power supply unit; or (2) the wall 
adapter has a battery chemistry or type selector switch AND an 
indicator light or state of charge meter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/eps_prog_req.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, DOE received comments from the California IOUs and 
PG&E that supported using this method. PTI contended that DOE neglected 
to include MADB wall adapters in its preliminary assessment of the 
seven methods and requested that DOE include these products in any 
future analysis of possible charge control criteria. (PTI, No. 45 at p. 
4) AHAM viewed the presence of charge control in a wall adapter as 
irrelevant. In its view, DOE should ask whether a given wall adapter is 
a MADB device, as all MADB wall adapters should be excluded from any 
EPS standards. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 12) DOE received no other comments 
on the appropriateness of the Energy Star Inspection method or any of 
the six other methods it considered for identifying charge control in 
wall adapters.
    At this time, DOE does not believe that such an exclusion from the 
EPS scope of coverage is warranted. It is DOE's understanding that 
most, if not all, of the MADB wall adapters that DOE proposes to add to 
the EPS scope of coverage are already subject to, and satisfy, the EPS 
standards currently in place in California. The California standard 
applies the same efficiency level that already applies to Class A EPSs 
nationwide. See California Energy Commission, ``2009 Appliance 
Efficiency Regulations,'' August 2009, CEC-400-2009-013, Table U-1 on 
p. 134. This efficiency level is referred to as Level IV in the 
International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power 
Supplies.\19\ Comments from manufacturers and the California IOUs also 
support this finding. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 9) DOE is not 
aware of any products powered by battery chargers and EPSs that are not 
designed, manufactured, and packaged for distribution throughout the 
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ U.S. EPA, ``International Efficiency Marking Protocol for 
External Power Supplies,'' October 2008, available at Docket No. 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is DOE's understanding that products that use EPSs are designed, 
manufactured and packaged for distribution throughout the United 
States. Assuming that this understanding is correct, that fact 
indicates it is highly unlikely that manufacturers are producing one 
set of products for California and another set for the remaining 
states.
    Notably, California's EPS standards apply only to devices that meet 
the ENERGY STAR definition of an EPS,\20\ but do not meet the Class A 
definition established by EISA 2007. (California Energy Commission, 
``2009 Appliance Efficiency Regulations,'' August 2009, CEC-400-2009-
013) This situation stems in large part from California's adoption of 
the ENERGY STAR definition of an EPS when it first established energy 
conservation standards for these devices. Once Congress subsequently 
established standards for Class A EPSs, these Class A devices were 
removed from the scope of the California standards, leaving behind a 
set of devices California now refers to as ``state-regulated EPSs.'' As 
a result, these state-regulated EPSs are those devices that meet the 
ENERGY STAR definition of an EPS but do not fall under the Class A 
definition--specifically medical and MADB EPSs. (Multiple-voltage and 
high-power EPSs do not meet the ENERGY STAR definition but satisfy the 
Federal definition of an EPS.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For the purposes of EPA's ENERGY STAR specification, an 
external power supply: (a) Is designed to convert line voltage ac 
input into lower voltage ac or dc output; (b) is able to convert to 
only one output voltage at a time; (c) is sold with, or intended to 
be used with, a separate end-use product that constitutes the 
primary load; (d) is contained in a separate physical enclosure1 
from the end-use product; (e) is connected to the end-use product 
via a removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, 
cable, cord or other wiring; (f) does not have batteries or battery 
packs that physically attach directly (including those that are 
removable) to the power supply unit; (g) does not have a battery 
chemistry or type selector switch AND an indicator light or state of 
charge meter (e.g., a product with a type selector switch AND a 
state of charge meter is excluded from this specification; a product 
with only an indicator light is still covered by this 
specification); and (h) has nameplate output power less than or 
equal to 250 watts. (See http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/eps_prog_req.pdf.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to differences between the ENERGY STAR and Federal statutory 
definitions of an EPS, there could be MADB devices that meet the 
Federal statutory definition that are not state-regulated. For example, 
a MADB EPS that has a battery type selector switch and an indicator 
light, and thus does not meet the ENERGY STAR definition of an EPS, 
would not be covered either by the current Federal or California 
standards. However, as a practical matter, DOE has not identified any 
MADB products that meet the Federal statutory definition of an EPS but 
do not also meet the ENERGY STAR definition. Thus, DOE is unaware of 
any MADB products that are not already subject to California energy 
efficiency standards that are within the EPS scope of coverage being 
contemplated today. DOE seeks comment on the accuracy of this belief 
and specific examples of such products, if they exist.
    As noted above, some parties commented that requiring wall adapters 
that are part of battery chargers to be tested according to the EPS 
test procedure would impose an undue burden on manufacturers and would 
be inappropriate and result in inaccurate projections of estimated 
energy savings. In response to these comments, DOE notes that Congress 
prescribed the definitions of what constitutes an EPS. It did not 
provide for any exceptions that would exclude those EPSs that are 
components of another product. Given this situation, DOE must assume 
that Congress was aware of the fact that some battery chargers use EPSs 
and that it structured these statutory provisions to allow for the 
possibility that all EPSs would be required to meet some minimum level 
of efficiency that would also improve the efficiency of those products 
that used these more efficient devices.
    As to how to measure the energy performance of these devices, DOE 
believes that these wall adapters can be evaluated using the existing 
EPS test procedure. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z 
(detailing the procedure to follow when measuring the energy 
consumption of an EPS). In fact, this test procedure already is used to 
demonstrate compliance with existing Federal standards, in the case of 
Class A EPSs, and California standards, in the case of most MADB 
EPSs.\21\ The test procedure is designed to assess the energy 
performance of an EPS while in active mode by measuring its active-mode 
efficiency at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of nameplate output current 
and then computing the simple arithmetic average of these four values. 
DOE believes that this test procedure yields a meaningful and 
representative measure of an EPS's active-mode efficiency because, 
along with the no-load mode power measurement, it

[[Page 18503]]

covers the full range of outputs the device may be called on to provide 
in the field. This is true of EPSs that are not part of battery 
chargers as well as those that are. Thus, the EPS test procedure is 
appropriately applied to all EPSs, including those that are part of 
battery chargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ California has adopted the Federal EPS test procedure as 
part of its regulatory requirements. (California Code of 
Regulations, Title 20, Section 1604).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding PTI's argument that MADB wall adapters cannot, by 
definition, be EPSs because they operate battery chargers (which, in 
its view, are not consumer products), DOE disagrees. First, a battery 
charger is a consumer product by virtue of its inclusion by Congress 
under Part A of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291(32), which addresses the 
regulation of consumer products. A consumer product is any article of a 
type that consumes or is designed to consume energy and which, to any 
significant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or 
consumption by individuals. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). The fact that a 
battery charger is a device that charges batteries for consumer 
products does not imply that chargers are not themselves consumer 
products, particularly since the definition contemplates the inclusion 
of those devices ``in other consumer products, '' which indicates that 
Congress viewed battery chargers as a separate, and individual, 
consumer product.
    Second, EPSs are also consumer products for similar reasons.
    Third, a MADB wall adapter satisfies the EPS definition since it 
``convert[s] household electric current * * * to operate a consumer 
product.'' See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A) (emphasis added). Whether the MADB 
wall adapter is considered to operate a battery charger, which is a 
consumer product, or is considered to enable the end-use consumer 
product to operate (by supplying energy to the battery, which in turn 
operates the end-use product), a MADB wall adapter falls squarely 
within the EPS definition because it is taking household electric 
current to operate a consumer product. Accordingly, in DOE's view, MADB 
wall adapters are EPSs.
    However, in view of the concerns raised by industry commenters, DOE 
believes there may be merit in distinguishing between a direct 
operation EPS and an indirect operation EPS. In particular, some EPSs 
are able to directly power an end-use consumer product (e.g., a 
wireless Internet router), while others cannot. This distinction may be 
necessary because DOE believes that less stringent EPS standards may be 
appropriate for indirect operation EPSs, which cannot directly operate 
an end-use consumer product. As explained later, DOE is proposing a 
means to differentiate between these two types of EPSs and to set 
different efficiency standards for them. DOE's proposed approach to 
regulating these products is described in more detail in sections 
IV.A.3 and V.C below.
    DOE notes that while Congress amended EPCA to exempt certain EPSs 
used in security and life safety alarms and surveillance systems from 
the no-load mode power requirements that apply generally to Class A 
EPSs manufactured prior to July 1, 2017, see Public Law 111-360 (Jan. 
4, 2011), such systems would be subject to the proposed active mode 
standards under consideration in this NOPR. See 42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(3)(E)(ii) (exempting security and life safety alarms and 
surveillance systems solely from no-load requirements).
    DOE further notes that it has recently identified an important 
emerging EPS application: solid-state lighting (SSL). SSL technology is 
used in both the residential and commercial sectors for desk lamps, 
under-cabinet lighting, accent lighting, and many other purposes. Most 
of the SSL luminaires (fixtures) DOE has identified have integral power 
supplies, but some use power supplies that appear to meet the EPS 
definition. Some of these EPSs plug into an outlet, while others are 
hard wired into the electrical system. DOE has not yet identified any 
relevant technical differences between these EPSs and those for 
laptops, cell phones, and other electronic equipment that it has 
analyzed in detail as part of today's notice. DOE did not include SSL 
technology in its NOPR analysis because so few SSL products with EPSs 
were sold in 2009, the base year for shipments. However, because of the 
rapid proliferation of these products, DOE may consider revising its 
analysis to include SSL products in determining the final standards for 
EPSs. DOE invites comment on SSL EPSs, specifically on whether there 
are any differences between SSL EPSs and other EPSs that might warrant 
treating them as a separate product class.
b. Battery Chargers
    A battery charger is a device that charges batteries for consumer 
products, including battery chargers embedded in other consumer 
products. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) All devices that meet this definition 
are within the scope of this rulemaking.
    Like EPSs, battery chargers are used in conjunction with other end-
use consumer products, such as cell phones and digital cameras. 
However, unlike EPSs, the battery charger definition prescribed by 
Congress is not limited solely to products powered from AC mains, i.e., 
those products that are plugged into a wall outlet. Further, battery 
chargers may be wholly embedded in another consumer product, wholly 
separate from another consumer product, or partially inside and 
partially outside another consumer product.
    The California IOUs commented that they ``agree with DOE's wide-
reaching consumer battery charger scope proposed in the preliminary 
[TSD],'' as they believe ``it will ultimately enable DOE to identify 
more cost-effective savings opportunities.'' (California IOUs, No. 43 
at p. 2) Several other parties requested that DOE exclude golf car 
chargers and in-vehicle chargers from potential battery charger 
regulations.
    Lester argued that ``golf cars do not meet the definition of a 
consumer product'' because they are primarily purchased by businesses 
rather than individuals, adding that the leading golf car manufacturer 
in the United States sells the vast majority of its golf cars to 
businesses rather than individuals--specifically 96 percent in 2009 and 
97.5 percent in 2010. (Lester, No. 50 at p. 1)
    As indicated above, the statutory definition of ``consumer 
product'' is a broad one. The extent of that breadth indicates that 
Congress had contemplated that this definition would encompass a wide 
variety of products. DOE's research indicates that approximately 10.6 
percent of all new battery-powered golf cars sold each year in the 
United States are sold to individuals.\22\ While DOE has no reason to 
question Lester's claim that the leading golf car manufacturer sells 
almost all of its golf cars to businesses, there are clearly 
manufacturers that sell a significant number of golf cars to 
individuals. Further, there is no identifiable difference between 
battery chargers for golf cars sold to individuals and those for golf 
cars sold to golf courses and other businesses. Thus, DOE continues to 
believe that golf cars are a type of consumer product. The distinction 
between consumer products and industrial equipment has been previously 
addressed by DOE. See  http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/cce_faq.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ International Market Solutions, Golf Car-Type Vehicles and 
the Emerging Market for Small, Task-Oriented Vehicles in the United 
States; Trends 2000-2006, Forecasts to 2012, December 2007. For more 
information about this report or to purchase a copy, email 
[email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lester also commented that in certain industrial applications the 
benefits of less energy-efficient, transformer-based

[[Page 18504]]

battery chargers outweigh those of more energy-efficient, switch mode 
battery chargers and that business managers are skilled in making the 
proper choice of battery charger based on a consideration of all the 
relevant factors. (Lester, No. 50 at pp. 2-3) In this context, Lester 
argued that businesses that purchase golf cars should be allowed to 
make their own decisions regarding the energy performance of the 
battery chargers they purchase, implying that there is no need for 
energy conservation standards for this product.
    DOE notes that, in general, the energy conservation standards that 
it sets must satisfy a series of criteria. See generally 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o). Among these criteria is the need to ensure the continued 
utility of the regulated product. Consistent with this requirement, DOE 
will take this factor into account when setting standards for battery 
chargers.
    CEA commented that because in-vehicle chargers do not consume 
energy from the utility grid, they should not be covered by DOE. (CEA, 
No. 46 at p. 3) Motorola made similar statements and concluded that 
electronics that do not connect to the utility grid should be excluded 
from coverage. Motorola added that since DOE could not demonstrate cost 
savings associated with the potential efficiency standards that were 
under consideration for these products, these devices should not be 
regulated. (Motorola, No. 48 at pp. 2, 3) Cobra also expressed concerns 
over this product class and stated that quantifying the effect of 
battery chargers that obtain energy from 12V car batteries seems 
inaccurate and urged DOE to drop this product class from consideration. 
Cobra added that it was too difficult to accurately assess the economic 
impact of standards on 12V in-vehicle chargers because of difficulties 
inherent in accurately estimating gasoline savings. (Cobra, No. 51 at 
p. 3)
    DOE is aware that consumer products ``designed solely for use in 
recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment'' are, by law, 
specifically excluded from coverage as consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 
6292) Thus, a battery charger designed solely for use in recreational 
vehicles (RVs) and other mobile equipment would not be subject to 
battery charger standards. DOE has identified several consumer 
products--most prominently portable GPS navigators--that are commonly 
sold with 12V power adapters. However, DOE is not aware of any battery-
operated consumer products that operate within a vehicle that cannot 
also be charged by alternate means, specifically from a 5V USB power 
source or from mains through a wall adapter. (For example, a GPS device 
may be plugged into a home computer via a USB port to receive power and 
to download data updates to the device's memory.) In other words, these 
products are not designed solely for use in recreational vehicles and 
other mobile equipment. DOE seeks comment on whether any products exist 
that can only be operated on 12V. DOE also seeks comment on whether a 
device that can be powered only from a 12V power outlet can be assumed 
to be designed solely for use in recreational vehicles (RVs) and other 
mobile equipment, or whether other 12V power sources exist that could 
power battery chargers. Lastly, DOE seeks comment on whether there are 
battery chargers with DC inputs other than 5V and 12V.
    DOE also considered whether the above exclusion also applies to 
battery chargers that charge mobile equipment such as golf cars, 
wheelchairs, and electric scooters. DOE has preliminarily determined 
that this exclusion does not apply to those types of battery chargers, 
for two reasons. First, the statute, by specifying that a device be 
``designed solely for use in'' a recreational vehicle or mobile 
equipment, appears to exclude only those devices that obtain power from 
recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment, not those that 
provide power to recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment. For 
example, a refrigerator designed solely for use in an RV obtains its 
power from the RV and, thus, is not a covered product, whereas a 
battery charger that is designed solely to charge the batteries of an 
electric bicycle obtains its power from another power source external 
to the bicycle (e.g., AC mains) and, thus, is a covered product. 
Second, EPCA excludes from coverage those consumer products ``designed 
solely for use in recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment.'' 
DOE has found that many battery chargers that charge mobile equipment 
are not contained entirely within that equipment, but rather operate 
only partly within, or entirely outside of, that equipment. (Examples 
of such chargers include those for many wheelchairs and lawn mowers.) 
In DOE's view, such a device is not operated solely in the mobile 
equipment and, thus, is not excluded from coverage. DOE welcomes 
comment on whether its understanding of how these devices operate is 
accurate.
    As to the general concern regarding the calculation of potential 
benefits and savings from standards for in-vehicle chargers, DOE notes 
that it is no longer considering these savings in order to avoid any 
potential conflict with the exclusions set out in EPCA.
c. Wireless Power
    The Wireless Power Consortium (WPC), which represents companies 
engaged in the emerging technology of wireless transfer of energy to 
both power and charge consumer products, commented that it does not 
believe that a ``wireless power transducer is either an EPS or a 
battery charger'' and recommended that a new category of inductive 
power supply be introduced for power supplies having inductive output. 
WPC explained that it is possible for the various components needed for 
these products, such as the transmitter transducers and receiver 
transducers, to be manufactured by different companies and sold 
separately. WPC further noted that it has not yet been determined how 
to address the independence of transmitter and receiver transducers in 
regards to overall system efficiency. As a result, ``requirements for 
efficiency should be deferred until the technology is better understood 
and methods for accurately measuring the efficiency are developed.'' 
(WPC, No. 42 at p. 2) Similarly, CEA requested that DOE categorize 
wireless power systems independently of battery chargers or EPSs to 
avoid regulatory mandates that could harm innovation in the emerging 
area of wireless power. CEA cited the technology's ability to charge or 
interact with multiple devices for multiple purposes simultaneously and 
to provide real-time power to appliances without batteries at a variety 
of power levels and transmitting efficiencies. (CEA, No. 46 at pp. 2-3) 
Philips, in reference to wireless power, expressed concern that DOE 
``might inadvertently take regulatory action that could have the 
unintended effect of stifling this new technology.'' (Philips, No. 41 
at p. 3).
    DOE has observed that a number of new products have entered the 
marketplace in recent years that use wireless power technology in order 
to charge small consumer electronics products such as digital music 
players and mobile phones. Some of these products transfer power using 
induction while others use conduction or a galvanic (i.e., current-
carrying) connection. Products are also sold in a variety of different 
configurations, as noted in WPC's comment, with some transmitters and 
receivers sold separately, while others are sold together as a system.
    There are a number of different types of products under the broad 
umbrella of ``wireless power,'' including both battery chargers and 
EPSs. DOE

[[Page 18505]]

analyzed one type, namely inductive battery chargers for wet 
environments (product class 1), and is proposing standards for these 
products today. In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not differentiate 
any other wireless power battery chargers from their conventional wired 
counterparts. DOE continues to believe that wireless power products 
that meet the definition of a battery charger, whether inductive or 
galvanic, are covered products.
    However, DOE also agrees with CEA that the ability to charge 
multiple devices simultaneously and wirelessly offers a unique utility 
to consumers that could adversely and inadvertently be affected by 
standards. Because of this fact, and the immaturity of the technology, 
which collectively explain the absence of energy efficiency performance 
data on these products, DOE is not proposing standards for these types 
of products. Instead, DOE is proposing to create a separate product 
class for these products and to defer analysis of these products to a 
later standards rulemaking. Therefore, in today's rulemaking, DOE has 
reserved a section in the CFR for an 11th battery charger product class 
for products that use wireless power, in a dry environment, to charge 
consumer products.
    With regard to the applicability of EPS standards to wireless power 
products, DOE reiterates that, by definition, an EPS ``is used to 
convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC 
current to operate a consumer product.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) Some 
wireless power transmitter pads are sold by themselves and, thus, are 
consumer products in their own right. Other wireless power transmitter 
pads are sold along with a power receiver. Such a product constitutes a 
battery charger or a large portion of a battery charger, which also is 
a consumer product. Hence, in both cases, a wall adapter that provides 
power to the wireless power transmitter pad is an EPS.
d. Unique Products
    Through additional market study of battery chargers and external 
power supplies since the preliminary analysis, DOE has found certain 
``unique'' products that exhibit characteristics spanning several of 
the proposed BCEPS product classes, which make them difficult to 
classify within the scope of this rulemaking. These products possess 
traits inherent to both battery chargers and external power supplies 
and/or were designed for multiple simultaneous end-use consumer 
applications. In one example, a product DOE examined supplied power to 
an answering machine equipped with two charging stations for a wireless 
headset and a cordless handset. The power converter itself provided two 
separate outputs at the same nameplate output voltage, but with 
different current limits on each. One output was dedicated to charging 
the wireless headset and one output was used to power the answering 
machine and charge the cordless handset. Under the definitions DOE has 
used to classify battery chargers and EPSs to this point, this product 
could be considered a multiple-voltage EPS, a multi-port battery 
charger, or even a distinct single-voltage EPS and a battery charger 
depending on how the terms are applied.
    DOE has invested considerable effort in properly analyzing the 
design tendencies of battery chargers and EPSs and believes that the 
vast majority of these products can be classified under the definitions 
of this proposed rule. DOE also believes that manufacturers, who are 
most familiar with how their products function and their intended use, 
should be able to appropriately determine what type of product they are 
selling and therefore which standard is appropriate based on DOE's 
proposed definitions. DOE requests any interested party information 
regarding products that may seem to fall into multiple product classes.
2. Market Assessment
a. Market Survey
    To characterize the market for battery chargers and EPSs, DOE 
gathered information on the products that use them. DOE refers to these 
products as end-use consumer products or battery charger and EPS 
``applications.'' This method was chosen for two reasons. First, 
battery chargers and EPSs are nearly always integrated into, bundled 
with, or otherwise intended to be used with a given application; 
therefore, the demand for applications drives the demand for battery 
chargers and EPSs. Second, because most battery chargers and EPSs are 
not stand-alone products, their usage profiles, energy consumption, and 
power requirements are all determined by the associated application.
    DOE began the development of the preliminary analysis by analyzing 
online and brick-and-mortar retail outlets to determine which 
applications use battery chargers and EPSs and which battery charger 
and EPS technologies are most prevalent. Because the market for battery 
charger and EPS applications continues evolving, DOE updated the market 
survey to identify new applications and determine whether any relevant 
attributes of existing applications had changed significantly between 
the preliminary analysis and NOPR phases of the rulemaking.
    In order to more accurately characterize the market for battery 
chargers and EPSs, DOE analyzed the following new applications: Media 
tablets, mobile Internet hotspots, smartphones, and wireless charging 
stations. To simplify the analysis, DOE removed external media drives, 
radio-controlled cars (hobby grade), and electronic pest repellents, 
all of which had low or unsupported shipments estimates. Battery 
chargers and EPSs for such applications and any other applications not 
explicitly analyzed in the market assessment would still be subject to 
the standards proposed in today's notice as long as they meet the 
definition of a covered product outlined in sections A.1.a and A.1.b, 
above. DOE also combined Wi-Fi access points with LAN equipment and 
merged weed trimmers and hedge trimmers into a single application 
(rechargeable garden care products). Finally, DOE identified EPS 
applications that now also commonly contain rechargeable batteries and 
use battery chargers, including LAN equipment and video game consoles. 
Chapter 3 of the TSD discusses all of these market assessment updates 
in further detail.
    As noted in section IV.A.1.a above, DOE is considering including 
EPSs for SSL luminaires when it updates its analysis prior to issuing a 
final rule. DOE welcomes comment on the size of the market for these 
products, what proportion of SSL luminaires use EPSs, the efficiency of 
those EPSs, and usage patterns.
    The California IOUs suggested that DOE consider two additional 
products for inclusion in battery charger product class 10 (AC output): 
emergency uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs) for cordless phones and 
emergency backup for security systems. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 
7) Battery charger product class 10 is reserved for products that 
output AC power from the battery. UPSs were the only applications that 
met this criterion. Due to the small number of UPSs for cordless phones 
shipped annually, DOE did not include this application in its 
quantitative analysis for product class 10, despite its inclusion in 
this class. DOE recognizes that many home security systems contain 
rechargeable emergency backup batteries; however, because those backup 
batteries output DC power in order to operate the electronics in the 
security system, DOE placed these

[[Page 18506]]

chargers in product class 2. Although DOE recognizes that there are 
battery charger and EPS applications that it did not analyze, it 
tentatively believes that it has included within its analysis all major 
applications and, thus, has accurately characterized battery charger 
and EPS energy consumption and savings potential for each product 
class.
b. Non-Class A External Power Supplies
    In addition, DOE expanded its analysis of applications that use 
non-Class A EPSs, including multiple-voltage and high-power EPSs, those 
EPSs that are used with medical devices, and EPSs used with (1) motor-
operated battery charger applications and (2) the chargers of 
detachable batteries (i.e. collectively, MADB devices). In the 
preliminary analysis, DOE relied upon market information it had 
collected prior to publishing the notice of proposed determination for 
non-Class A EPSs in November 2009. Because updated information was 
available following the preliminary analysis, DOE revisited non-Class A 
EPSs while conducting its NOPR-phase market survey.
    DOE found that multiple-voltage EPSs are used in fewer applications 
today than they were at the time of the first survey. Specifically, DOE 
removed inkjet imaging equipment from the multiple-voltage EPS product 
class, leaving the Xbox 360 (a video game console) as the only 
application for these devices.
    DOE also reclassified medical EPSs based on the power requirements 
stated on retailer Web sites and updated lifetime and shipments 
estimates for medical devices. Philips commented that medical devices 
are expected to last longer than other consumer products and suggested 
using expected lifetimes of six to ten years for these products. 
(Philips, No. 41 at pp. 2-3) In the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated 
the product lifetimes for all medical devices analyzed to be greater 
than six years based on input from medical EPS manufacturers. Philips' 
comment, combined with independent market research, helped DOE to 
confirm its preliminary estimates for the NOPR. All of DOE's shipment 
and lifetime assumptions are documented in the market workbook that 
accompanies chapter 3 of the TSD.
c. Application Shipments
    DOE relied on published market research to estimate base-year 
shipments for all applications. The base-year was changed from 2008 to 
2009 for the NOPR, and application shipments were updated wherever 
supporting data were available. DOE estimated that in 2009 a total of 
345 million EPSs and 437 million battery chargers shipped for final 
sale in the United States. Philips commented that DOE understated the 
shipments estimate for products in battery charger product class 1--
inductive chargers for use in wet environments. In the preliminary 
analysis DOE assumed annual shipments of 5.35 million units, but 
Philips recommended using an estimate that is ``closer to 15 million'' 
units. (Philips, No. 41 at p. 2) Philips later explained how it derived 
this estimate from proprietary market data and its knowledge of the 
toothbrush market. In the NOPR-stage analysis, DOE used the shipments 
estimate recommended by Philips.
    One significant update to the market assessment methodology was to 
estimate the proportion of battery chargers and EPSs used exclusively 
in the commercial sector. Commercial users pay commercial electricity 
rates, which are lower than residential electricity rates, and, 
therefore, the cost savings they would enjoy from an energy 
conservation standard would be lower. DOE identified applications that 
were likely to be used in office buildings, restaurants, or commercial 
construction sites, for example, in order to more accurately estimate 
energy cost savings in the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis and national 
impact analysis. Data on commercial shipments were not readily 
available for most applications; therefore, DOE assumed similar 
commercial market shares among similar office and telecommunications 
applications. In the case of power tools, DOE assumed that commercial 
and residential spaces have similar repair and maintenance needs and, 
thus, used the ratio of commercial to residential floor space in the 
United States as a proxy for each sector's share of total power tool 
shipments. DOE seeks comment on which battery charger and EPS 
applications are used in the commercial sector, what fraction of 
shipments are to the commercial sector, and how product lifetimes and 
usage may differ between residential and commercial settings. (See 
Issue 2 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section VII.E of 
this notice.) See chapter 3 of the TSD for more information on DOE's 
commercial sector market share estimates.
d. Efficiency Distributions
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated separate base-case 
market efficiency distributions for each battery charger product class 
and a single efficiency distribution for all Class A EPSs analyzed in 
the LCC and national impact analyses. AHAM commented that there are 
currently more EPSs in the market with efficiencies at levels higher 
than the EISA standard than what DOE estimated in the preliminary 
analysis; however, AHAM did not provide any specific data to support 
its claim. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 121) On the other hand, 
Cobra Electronics commented that most manufacturers of lower cost 
products use linear EPSs that just meet the current Federal standard 
rather than more efficient switch mode power supplies because of the 
higher costs involved with using that more efficient technology. 
(Cobra, No. 51 at p. 3) DOE incorporated these stakeholder comments 
into its updated efficiency distribution estimates but largely relied 
upon product testing and other market research to estimate base-case 
efficiency distributions. Further detail is contained in TSD chapter 3 
and the accompanying analytical spreadsheet models.
    In preparing today's NOPR, DOE revised its methodology for 
calculating efficiency distributions from test data. Instead of 
weighting results for each individual tested unit based on the 
shipments of the associated application, DOE gave equal weight to the 
results for each unit. For battery chargers and EPSs, DOE compared each 
test result to the proposed compliance curves for each candidate 
standard level (CSL). DOE then divided the number of units at a given 
CSL by the total number of tested units to estimate the percentage of 
units in the market. For select applications, DOE adjusted these 
distributions to reflect additional data or other market research about 
these applications. For EPSs, DOE also calculated the distribution of 
tested units within the ranges of nameplate output power corresponding 
to the representative units of analysis. Finally, DOE continued to 
calculate the distribution of tested units within each battery charger 
product class. DOE assigned an efficiency distribution profile to each 
EPS and battery charger application based on application-specific data 
where possible. For applications that DOE did not test, DOE relied on 
product class (for battery chargers) or representative unit (for EPSs) 
distributions for use in the energy use analysis and LCC analysis. DOE 
calculated a shipment-weighted average efficiency distribution for each 
product class for use in the national impact analysis. For more detail, 
see sections IV.E, IV.F, and IV.G below, which discuss the energy use, 
life-cycle cost, and national impact analyses, respectively.

[[Page 18507]]

3. Product Classes
    When necessary, DOE divides covered products into classes by the 
type of energy used, the capacity of the product, and any other 
performance-related feature that justifies different standard levels, 
such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE 
then conducts its analysis and considers establishing or amending 
standards to provide separate standard levels for each product class.
    At the preliminary analysis public meeting, DOE presented its 
rationale for creating 15 product classes for EPSs and 10 product 
classes for battery chargers. The product classes established for EPSs 
and battery chargers were based on various electrical characteristics 
shared by particular groups of products. As these electrical 
characteristics change, so does the utility and efficiency of the 
devices.
a. External Power Supply Product Classes
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE raised the possibility of creating 
product classes based on nameplate output power and nameplate output 
voltage. This approach was based on the framework set by EISA 2007 and 
ENERGY STAR 2.0, which, collectively, grouped EPSs in this manner. DOE 
also divided EPS product classes based on whether a device met the 
Class A definition, its application type (motorized or medical), its 
output power, its output current type, its output voltages, and the 
battery type (detachable) of the associated application.
    For Class A EPSs, the preliminary analysis divided these products 
into product classes A1, A2, A3, and A4 based on ENERGY STAR 2.0 
criteria, which classify EPSs based on the type of power conversion 
(i.e., AC to DC or AC to AC) used and nameplate output voltage (i.e., 
low-voltage or basic-voltage). Each of these four product classes (A1-
A4) from the preliminary analysis was created using these same 
criteria. The Class A EPS product classes were defined using the 
identical power conversion type and nameplate output voltage parameters 
as the ENERGY STAR program for EPSs.
    Consistent with this initial approach, DOE is proposing to adopt 
the ENERGY STAR definition for low-voltage EPSs. DOE received no 
comments on these class structures when it first raised them during the 
preliminary analysis phase. As a result, DOE is proposing to adopt 
these class structures as part of today's proposal. Particularly, if a 
device has a nameplate output voltage of less than 6 volts and its 
nameplate output current is greater than or equal to 550 milliamps, DOE 
is proposing to classify that device as a low-voltage EPS. 
Additionally, a product that does not meet the criteria for being a 
low-voltage EPS would be classified as a basic-voltage EPS. DOE is also 
proposing definitions for AC to DC and AC to AC EPSs. If an EPS 
converts household electrical current to a lower voltage DC, DOE is 
proposing to classify that product as an AC to DC EPS. Similarly, DOE 
is proposing to classify a device that converts household electrical 
current to a lower voltage AC output as an AC to AC EPS.
    DOE's preliminary analysis also explained how DOE was planning to 
organize non-Class A EPSs, which include medical, MADB, multiple-
voltage, and high-power (nameplate output power >250 Watts) EPSs, into 
product classes. In the preliminary analysis, DOE created product 
classes M1, M2, M3, and M4 for medical EPSs and B1, B2, B3, and B4 for 
MADB EPSs. As with Class A EPSs, DOE considered four product classes 
for these two groups of devices based on combinations of power 
conversion type and voltage level. Additionally, for MADB products, DOE 
determined whether a wall adapter for a MADB application lacked charge 
control, as defined in appendix 3C of the preliminary TSD, and 
therefore was a MADB EPS. For multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE considered the 
creation of two product classes--X1 and X2--and for high-power EPSs, it 
considered only one, H1. In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE 
received comments on the product class definitions presented for MADB 
and multiple-voltage EPSs. The issues raised are discussed below.
Indirect Versus Direct Operation External Power Supplies
    As noted in section IV.A.1, interested parties raised concerns with 
DOE's proposed approach in the preliminary analysis regarding MADB 
EPSs. Based on these comments, DOE revised its approach and is no 
longer using the charge control method it had considered using during 
the preliminary analysis. Instead, DOE is proposing a simpler approach, 
which would require a manufacturer to determine whether an EPS can only 
``indirectly operate'' an application.
    DOE is proposing to define an indirect operation EPS as an EPS that 
cannot power a consumer product (other than a battery charger) without 
the assistance of a battery. In other words, if an end-use product only 
functions when drawing power from a battery, the EPS associated with 
that product is classified as an indirect operation EPS. Because the 
EPS must first deliver power and charge the battery before the end-use 
product can function as intended, DOE considers this device an indirect 
operation EPS and has defined a separate product class, N, for all such 
devices. Conversely, if the battery's charge status does not impact the 
end-use product's ability to operate as intended and the end-use 
product can function using only power from the EPS, DOE is proposing to 
treat that wall adapter as a direct operation EPS.
    DOE's initial approach for determining whether a given EPS has 
direct operation capability involved removing the battery from the 
application and attempting to operate the application using only power 
from the EPS. While this approach gave the most definitive EPS 
classifications, this procedure had the potential of creating 
complications during testing since it can frequently necessitate the 
removal of integral batteries prior to testing. The removal of such 
batteries can often require access to internal circuitry via sealed 
moldings capable of shattering and damaging the application.
    DOE then developed a new method of testing to help minimize both 
the risk of damage to the application and the accompanying complexity 
associated with the removal of the internal batteries while ensuring 
testing accuracy. This approach would require product testers to 
determine whether an EPS can operate an end-use product once the 
associated battery has been fully discharged. Based on product testing 
results, DOE believes that direct operation EPSs will be able to power 
the application regardless of the state of the battery while indirect-
operation EPSs will need to charge the battery before the application 
can be used as intended. Comparing the time required for an application 
to operate once power is applied during fully discharged and fully 
charged battery conditions would provide a reliable indication of 
whether a given EPS is an indirect or direct operation device. 
Recording the time for the application to reach its intended 
functionality is necessary because certain applications, such as 
smartphones, contain firmware that can delay the EPS from operating the 
end-use product as expected. If the application takes significantly 
longer to operate once the battery has been fully discharged, DOE would 
view this EPS as one that indirectly operates the end-use consumer 
product and classify it as part of product class N. Using this 
methodology, DOE was also able to evaluate a given product's EPS as it 
was

[[Page 18508]]

intended to be used while limiting the burden of the test. The full 
procedure is detailed in Appendix 3C of the TSD and in the rule 
language section of today's notice.
    Product class N that DOE is proposing in today's notice contains 
both Class A and non-Class A EPSs. DOE believes that these two groups 
of devices are technically equivalent, i.e., there is no difference in 
performance-related features between the two groups that would justify 
different standard levels for the two groups. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 
Because of this technical equivalency, DOE grouped these EPSs into one 
product class for analysis. DOE seeks comment on whether there are any 
performance-related features characteristic of either Class A or non-
Class A devices (but not both) in product class N that would help 
justify analyzing the two groups separately.
    If a product is capable of directly operating its end-use consumer 
product, other characteristics must be examined to determine the 
appropriate product class. In its preliminary analysis, DOE separated 
product classes based on combinations of their power conversion type 
and voltage level. DOE is proposing to use these class definitions 
based on those combinations but with one change. As shown in Table IV-
1, DOE used four product classes for each combination of power 
conversion type and voltage level in the preliminary analysis for Class 
A EPSs, MADB EPSs, and medical EPSs. DOE also considered applying the 
results of the Class A engineering analysis directly to medical and 
MADB EPSs, meaning there would be no difference in the cost-efficiency 
curves or the product class divisions for Class A, medical, or MADB 
EPSs. DOE believed this was a valid approach because the costs 
associated with improving the efficiency of a medical or MADB EPS were 
identical to those associated with the same improvements in a 
comparable Class A EPS as all three types are technically equivalent. 
Due to these similarities, DOE believed that Class A, medical, and MADB 
EPSs should be evaluated identically. Interested parties did not 
comment on this simplified approach after it was presented during the 
preliminary analysis public meeting.
    Today's NOPR proposes eliminating the disaggregation of Class A, 
medical, and MADB EPSs in its product class definitions. This 
consolidation would reduce the number of product classes covering these 
products from 12 in the preliminary analysis to five (B, C, D, E, and 
N) in the NOPR. Under this consolidated approach, product class B 
includes direct operation EPSs that are AC/DC and basic-voltage (i.e. 
do not qualify as low-voltage); product class C includes direct 
operation EPSs that are AC/DC and low-voltage (i.e. nameplate output 
voltage less than 6 volts and nameplate output current greater than or 
equal to 550 milliamps.); product class D includes direct operation 
EPSs that are AC/AC and basic-voltage; product class E includes direct 
operation EPSs that are AC/AC and low-voltage; and product class N 
includes all indirect operation EPSs.

                                Table IV--1 Preliminary Analysis Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Voltage level
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Basic  (not low-        Low  (<6V, >=550mA
                                                                        voltage)                 outputs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Conversion Type................  AC input, DC output....  A1, B1, M1 (now B).....  A2, B2, M2 (now C).
                                       AC input, AC output....  A3, B3, M3 (now D).....  A4, B4, M4 (now E).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered combining product 
classes X1 (<100 Watts) and X2 (>=100 Watts) into one product class for 
all multiple-voltage EPSs. DOE is proposing to define multiple-voltage 
EPS as devices that convert household electric current into multiple 
simultaneous output currents. The California IOUs were in favor of 
creating a single product class for multiple-voltage EPSs because ``the 
types of products that may occupy this category in the future are 
unknown.'' (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 9). DOE's initial approach 
was based on the view that these product classes corresponded to the 
two main products already in the market in 2008: multi-function devices 
in X1 and video game consoles in X2. As of 2010, multi-function devices 
no longer use multiple-voltage EPSs, leaving only one main product 
category and the need for only one product class. Therefore, DOE has 
consolidated product classes X1 and X2 into product class X for all 
multiple-voltage EPSs, which are EPSs that can directly operate a 
consumer product and simultaneously produce multiple output voltages.
High-Power External Power Supplies
    DOE examined only one product class for high-power EPSs during the 
preliminary analysis because only one relevant consumer application 
existed at the time the analysis was prepared. DOE received no comments 
on this proposal from interested parties and, therefore, maintained one 
product class for high-power EPSs in the NOPR. This product class 
includes EPSs that can directly operate a consumer product and have a 
nameplate output power greater than 250 watts. To maintain consistency 
in the naming convention for the NOPR, product class H1 is now product 
class H. All product classes developed for the NOPR are shown in Table 
IV-2.

   Table IV--2 External Power Supply Product Classes Used in the NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Preliminary
                                   analysis
  Product class description     external power     NOPR external power
                                supply product   supply product classes
                                   classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC/DC Basic-Voltage..........  A1, M1, B1                             B
                                (some).
AC/DC Low-Voltage............  A2, M2, B2                              C
                                (some).
AC/AC Basic-Voltage..........  A3, M3, B3                             D
                                (some).
AC/AC Low-Voltage............  A4, M4, B4                             E
                                (some).
Multiple Voltage.............  X1, X2.........                        X
High-Power...................  H1.............                        H

[[Page 18509]]

 
Indirect Operation...........  B1, B2, B3, B4                         N
                                (most).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Battery Charger Product Classes
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE used five electrical 
characteristics to disaggregate product classes--battery voltage, 
battery energy, input and output characteristics (e.g. inductive 
charging capabilities),\23\ input voltage type (line AC or low-voltage 
DC), and AC output. DOE explained its reasoning for using this approach 
in the preliminary analysis. This reasoning is also detailed in chapter 
3 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Inductive charging is a utility-related characteristic 
designed to promote cleanliness and guarantee uninterrupted 
operation of the battery charger in a wet environment. In wet 
environments, such as a bathroom where an electric toothbrush is 
used, these chargers ensure that the user is isolated from mains 
current by transferring power to the battery through magnetic 
induction rather than using a galvanic (i.e. current carrying) 
connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, DOE explained that battery voltage greatly affects consumer 
utility because the electronics of a portable consumer product are 
designed to require a particular battery voltage. If a change occurs in 
battery voltage, it is possible that the end-use application will be 
rendered inoperable. Furthermore, battery chargers that charge lower-
voltage (voltage equals the product of current (I) and resistance (R)) 
batteries tend to be less efficient because they use higher currents, 
which increase I\2\R losses for the same given output power. (I\2\R, 
the product of current and voltage, equates to power and refers to 
losses directly related to current flow.) These devices could be 
disproportionately affected by an equally stringent standard level 
across all voltages. Consequently, DOE opted to use battery voltage as 
a characteristic for setting product classes. See preliminary analysis 
TSD Chapter 3.
    Second, while battery voltage specifies which consumer product 
applications can be used with a particular battery (and its 
corresponding battery charger), battery energy describes the total 
amount of work that the battery can perform, regardless of the 
application, and is also a measure of utility. Furthermore, because a 
battery charger must provide enough output power to replenish the 
energy discharged during use, the capacity and physical size of the 
battery charger depend on the amount of battery energy.\24\ By using 
battery energy as a proxy for output power, only a single criterion, 
rather than two, is required for classifying battery chargers. This 
approach has the benefit of simplifying any energy conservation 
standards that DOE may set while sufficiently accounting for any 
differences in battery charger capacity or utility in the standards 
analysis. Additional details on this approach can be found in TSD 
chapter 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The minimum output power is a product of battery energy and 
charge rate. However, while charge rates rarely fall outside the 
range of 1 [deg]C to 10 [deg]C, the battery energy of consumer 
battery chargers can span over 5 orders of magnitude from 1 watt-
hour to over 10,000 watt-hours. Therefore, the output power is more 
dependent on battery energy than charge rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, input and output characteristics are important because input 
voltage can have an impact on efficiency and dictate where a battery 
charger may be used, this impact may affect end user utility. With 
respect to inductive chargers, the utility offered by this 
characteristic is providing reliable and safe electrical power to a 
device during operation. In wet environments, such as a bathroom where 
an electric toothbrush is used, these chargers ensure that the user is 
isolated from mains current by transferring power to the battery 
through magnetic induction rather than using a galvanic (i.e. current 
carrying) connection. DOE also identified numerous battery chargers 
that do not include a wall adapter, connecting instead to a personal 
computer's USB port or a car's cigarette lighter receptacle. Because 
input voltage can impact battery charger performance and determine 
where the battery charger can be used, which affects the utility of the 
product, DOE defined product classes using this criterion in the 
preliminary TSD. In response to the preliminary analysis and during 
manufacturer interviews, DOE received numerous comments regarding these 
product classes, discussed below, and the results of which are 
summarized in Table IV-3.

[[Page 18510]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.012

    During the preliminary analysis public meeting, Philips questioned 
whether DOE could consider product classes based on usage, topology 
(i.e., the general circuit layout), or price. (Philips, Pub. Mtg. Tr., 
No. 37 at pp. 126-130) Philips and AHAM stated that they believed DOE 
could disaggregate infrequently used products into a separate product 
class and urged DOE to do so. (Philips, No. 43 at p. 3; AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 
Tr., No. 37 at pp 154-156) AHAM added that, in its view, DOE has always 
established new product classes based on characteristics, designs, or 
functions that affect energy use. (AHAM, No. 44 at p. 6) CEA expressed 
similar concerns as Philips and AHAM, suggesting that DOE did not 
adequately deal with infrequently charged battery chargers. (CEA, No. 
48 at p. 2) Earthjustice disagreed with AHAM's suggestion and stated 
that usage is not a feature of a battery charger, but rather a 
characteristic of the end user of the application that the battery 
charger accompanies. (Earthjustice, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No., No. 37 at p. 
131) Fulton Innovation inquired whether topology is considered as part 
of the utility of a product and, hence, a factor for setting product 
classes. (Fulton Innovation, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No., 37 at pp. 134-135) 
Finally, Stanley Black and Decker asked whether pricing could be 
considered a utility-related feature to use in defining product 
classes. (SBD, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No., 37 at pp. 133-134)
    DOE does not consider usage, topology, and pricing as utility-
related features for determining separate product classes. These 
factors were considered separately, however, in setting potential 
energy efficiency levels for these products. Usage defines how a 
battery charger is used, which is inherently tied to the end-use 
product with which the battery charger is packaged. While changes in 
usage will affect the energy use of a battery charger, they do not 
affect the actual performance of the battery charger, which is the 
relevant factor DOE must consider when establishing a separate class 
for these products. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). Product usage is fundamental 
to the analyses that DOE performs for battery chargers, particularly 
for the LCC and NIA. For each application, DOE estimates the time spent 
in each mode of operation in order to estimate unit energy consumption. 
Further details on usage and DOE's assumptions are presented in the 
energy usage section, IV.E, of today's notice.
    Although DOE does not explicitly define product classes for battery 
chargers based on topology, it considered topologies when it presented 
its initial product classes. Primarily, DOE uses battery energy as a 
defining characteristic for battery charger product classes. Because of 
the extremely wide range of different battery energies, DOE needed to 
establish meaningful ranges of battery energies for each product class. 
As outlined in the preliminary analysis TSD (Chapter 3), when battery 
energy changes, the topologies, or general circuit designs that are 
most appropriate also change. Therefore, as part of today's NOPR, DOE 
examined the potential impacts on topologies when it defined the ranges 
of battery energies that were considered.
    Finally, price was also not included in the definitions of DOE's 
battery charger product class because it is not a utility-related 
feature for the purposes of EPCA. DOE understands commenters concerns 
that some products are marketed at various price points and that energy 
efficiency standards have the potential to raise those price points or 
eliminate some all together. However, price does not directly affect 
device performance. DOE acknowledges that price is an important 
consideration for consumers and although price is not considered when 
setting product classes, DOE does account for such consumer impacts in 
the LCC and PBP analyses conducted in support of this rulemaking.
Medical and Single-Cell Battery Chargers
    Interested parties also advocated separating out particular 
products into

[[Page 18511]]

their own classes. Philips suggested that DOE consider creating a 
separate product class for medical battery chargers, as is done for 
EPSs. (Philips, No. 43 at p. 2) They mentioned that medical battery 
chargers cannot use off the shelf consumer grade battery chargers and 
must undergo a special regulatory process that adds testing 
requirements and costs. (Philips, No. 43 at p. 3) At the public 
meeting, Wahl Clipper suggested that DOE should have an additional 
product class for applications that use single-cell batteries. (Wahl 
Clipper, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 37 at p. 158) Neither commenter provided 
any data supporting their views.
    While DOE appreciates the suggestions from Philips and Wahl about 
segregating out additional product classes from DOE's current 
definitions, DOE is not inclined to adopt them at this time based on 
the current information before it. As with EPSs, DOE believes that even 
though medical battery chargers must adhere to more stringent 
requirements than other battery chargers, the cost-efficiency 
relationship will not be appreciably different to merit separate 
standards and product classes. In the preliminary analysis, DOE found 
that there was virtually no difference in the cost effectiveness of 
improving medical EPS efficiency versus improving Class A EPS 
efficiency. Moreover, DOE is unaware of any capacity or performance-
related feature present in medical battery chargers that would permit 
the creation of a special class for these devices for purposes of 
setting separate energy conservation standards. As a result, despite 
the additional safety testing that medical EPSs may have to go through 
for certification, DOE has tentatively consolidated the two groups and 
no longer distinguishes between them in its product class definitions 
for today's proposal. Based on the information that DOE receives during 
the course of the comment period, it may reconsider this approach for 
the final rule.
    As for the single-cell batteries that Wahl Clipper referenced, DOE 
believes that its proposed scaling methodology sufficiently addresses 
Wahl Clipper's concerns and allows chargers that use single-cell 
batteries to remain in product class 2 (low-energy, low-voltage). As 
discussed in section IV.C.2.j, when battery energy approaches zero, DOE 
levels off unit energy consumption (UEC) requirements to prevent the 
adoption of overly stringent requirements that could eliminate such 
products. (UEC is a relevant factor because it is the metric which DOE 
is proposing to regulate for these devices.)
Motorized Application Detachable Battery (MADB) Battery Chargers
    PTI also submitted comments in which it recommended that DOE revise 
its 10 battery charger product classes presented in the preliminary 
analysis. PTI stated that because the statute provides language for DOE 
to separate MADB's when referring to EPS's, DOE should extend this 
distinction to battery chargers and separate MADB battery chargers from 
consumer electronics battery chargers. PTI claimed that even though 
MADB and consumer electronics battery chargers share a common range of 
battery voltages and energies, the two are vastly different in other 
ways and urged DOE to create different classes for MADB and non-MADB 
products across the same battery voltages and energies. PTI added that 
part of the problem with grouping the two product types together is 
that consumer electronics promote features such as smaller size and 
weight and longer run-time--all of which are added benefits related to 
improving a product's energy efficiency. (PTI, No. 47 at p. 13) In 
other words, in their view, consumer electronics have already begun to 
move towards more efficient battery chargers and manufacturers have 
been able to pass along the additional costs to consumers because the 
use of more efficient chargers has led to the addition of desirable 
features, such as reduced notebook computer weight. (PTI, No. 47 at pp. 
13)
    PTI also disagreed with DOE's initial plan to group power tools 
with consumer electronics because shipments of consumer electronics, 
such as laptops, greatly outnumber MADB product shipments. Because a 
shipment-weighted average is employed by DOE in its analysis, the 
calculated effects would be dominated by the effects of the products 
that have the greatest number of shipments. (PTI, No. 47 at p. 6) Since 
the shipment quantities of consumer electronic products far outnumber 
those for MADB products, PTI asserted that the calculations derived by 
DOE would be dominated by the inclusion of consumer electronics 
products and skew the overall effects projected to occur with a given 
standard for these products. (PTI, No. 47 at pp. 6 and 13)
    In addition, in PTI's view, the incremental cost estimates to 
achieve higher efficiencies which have been included in the life cycle 
cost analysis, are a much smaller percentage of the higher-priced 
products than they would be for many do-it-yourself power tools. (PTI, 
No. 47 at p. 13) As a result, PTI asserted that do-it-yourself power 
tool users are likely to be more sensitive to price changes even though 
the incremental change may be similar to higher priced products, such 
as consumer electronics. PTI added that manufacturers, and ultimately 
consumers, would be better served by a class that included only 
appliances or, alternatively, have appliances more fairly represented 
in the averages. In its view, making this change would generate CSLs 
that more appropriately address the realizable efficiency improvements 
and strike a better balance between the realities of power tool 
manufacturers and the energy savings gained by the consumer. (PTI, No. 
47 at p. 13) Therefore, PTI recommended that DOE should calculate CSL 
and LCC information based on sub-classifications of product classes 3 
(AC in/DC out, <100 Wh, 4-10 V battery chargers) and 4 (AC in/DC out, 
<100Wh, >10V battery chargers) for MADB and non-MADB devices. (PTI, No. 
47 at p. 7)
    Conversely, the California IOUs supported DOE's decision to group 
both power tools (i.e. MADB battery chargers) and laptops (i.e. 
consumer electronics battery chargers) in the same product classes for 
the purposes of this analysis (California IOUs, No. 45 at p. 6) They 
also expressed support for DOE's proposal in the preliminary analysis 
that usage profiles should not be used when creating product classes. 
(California IOUs, No. 45 at p. 8) In separate comments, Pacific Gas and 
Electric and others urged DOE to reduce the number of product classes 
from 10 to 4, and reorganize product classes 2 through 7 (AC in/DC out 
battery chargers) into one new product class. (PG&E, et al., No. 49 at 
pp. 2-3)
    After considering these comments, DOE re-examined the UEC data from 
its engineering analysis for product classes 3 and 4. DOE found that 
when MADB applications were removed from product classes 3 and 4, the 
UECs generated for the removed group of MADB applications were not 
significantly different (<10 percent) than those DOE had presented for 
the product class as a whole. Relative to the reductions in UEC when 
incrementing CSLs, DOE considered these differences much less 
significant than it initially suspected. Furthermore, for the NOPR 
analysis, DOE altered some of its assumptions for the LCC analysis. In 
the preliminary analysis, DOE assumed the same efficiency distribution 
for all applications within a product class. For example, in product 
class 4, laptops were assumed to have the same percentage of their 
shipments at CSL 0, 1, and 2 as power tools and all other applications 
in that product class. As

[[Page 18512]]

mentioned by manufacturers and determined by DOE's testing program for 
battery chargers, some products, mainly consumer electronics, have 
already begun increasing the efficiency of their products because doing 
so is desirable to the end user. As a result, DOE has altered its 
assumption that all applications within a product class have the same 
distribution of efficiency. Instead, DOE now makes more tailored 
assumptions about efficiency distributions for different applications 
based on information provided by manufacturers, publicly available 
data, and DOE's own test results.
    This new assumption will alter the economics of DOE's standards 
analysis and more accurately illustrate the effects on consumers for 
the varying consumer types in each product class. Additionally, the 
individual LCC results for each application are available in appendix 
8B of the TSD. Similarly, just as DOE is not persuaded to disaggregate 
certain product classes, DOE is also not persuaded to aggregate any 
additional product classes, as suggested by PG&E. DOE initially 
considered using separate product classes in the preliminary analysis 
because the different battery voltage and energy ratings that define 
these classes imply a certain utility and deviation from those ratings 
will likely lead to different cost-efficiency relationships and 
efficiency levels. These differences will also lead to different 
effects on consumers, which will likely support different energy 
conservation standard levels.
Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) Battery Chargers
    Uninterruptible power supplies are used only for emergency 
situations when power is lost and users need time to safely shut down 
their electronic devices. Consequently, these devices generally do not 
fully charge a completely depleted battery. Additionally, these devices 
typically use integral batteries and generally remain on continuously. 
Because of its role in providing power in emergency situations, the 
battery chargers within these devices primarily remain in maintenance 
mode, which constitutes the most relevant portion of its energy 
consumption.
    During manufacturer interviews with UPS producers, DOE discussed 
additional functionality as it pertains to these devices. Manufacturers 
suggested that DOE classify UPSs into three different categories: Basic 
UPSs, UPSs that have automatic voltage regulation (AVR), and UPSs that 
are extended-run capable (i.e., the ability to attach a second battery 
to increase battery capacity within the UPS). After further 
investigation, DOE decided that two of these categories were 
appropriate and warranted separate standards, but the third category 
(extended-run UPSs), as it was simply representative of a change in 
battery capacity, could be accounted for through its scaling 
methodology.
    AVR UPSs use circuitry that monitors input voltage from the wall 
and ensures that all products plugged into the UPS see a steady flow of 
voltage despite any fluctuations at the wall. This circuitry provides 
added utility to the consumer by preventing any spikes or dips in 
voltage, but it comes at the expense of additional power consumption by 
the UPS. This additional power consumption of the UPS is always on when 
the device is plugged in and it is indistinguishable from the power 
consumption due to the battery charger within the UPS.
    To account for these characteristics, DOE is proposing to divide 
preliminary analysis product class 10 into two product classes, one for 
basic UPSs and one for UPSs that contain AVR circuitry. Even though DOE 
is proposing two product classes for these categories of UPSs, DOE 
believes that the underlying engineering analysis and other downstream 
analyses for both product classes is the same. DOE believes that this 
is an appropriate assumption because the addition of AVR is irrelevant 
to UPS battery charger power consumption, yet it cannot be 
disaggregated from UPS battery charger power consumption due to the 
integrated nature of the circuitry components within a UPS. In other 
words, there is no technical reason why the battery charger within a 
basic UPS should be different from the battery charger within a UPS 
with AVR functionality. However, when the latter is tested via DOE's 
battery charger test procedure, it will demonstrate a higher 
maintenance mode power consumption and will not be able to meet as 
stringent an energy efficiency standard as a basic UPS. Consequently, 
for all of DOE's analyses in today's NOPR, battery chargers for UPSs 
are examined as an aggregated product class, product class 10, rather 
than separately, however the proposed standard for each product class 
is different. DOE seeks comment on its analytical approach and whether 
separate classes are appropriate in this context.
4. Technology Assessment
    In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options 
that appear to be feasible to improve product efficiency. This 
assessment provides the technical background and structure on which DOE 
bases its screening and engineering analyses. The following discussion 
provides an overview of the technology assessment for EPSs and battery 
chargers. Chapter 3 of the TSD provides additional detail and 
descriptions of the basic construction and operation of EPSs and 
battery chargers, followed by a discussion of technology options to 
improve their efficiency and power consumption in various modes.
a. EPS Efficiency Metrics
    On December 8, 2006, DOE codified a test procedure final rule for 
single output-voltage EPSs in Appendix Z to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 
430 (``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of 
External Power Supplies.'') See 71 FR 71340. On June 1, 2011, DOE added 
a test procedure to cover multiple output-voltage EPSs in Appendix Z to 
Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430 (``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 
Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies.'') 76 FR 31750. DOE's 
test procedure, based on the CEC EPS test procedure, yields two 
measurements: Active mode efficiency and no-load mode (standby mode) 
power consumption.
    Active-mode efficiency is the ratio of output power to input power. 
For single-voltage EPSs, the DOE test procedure averages the efficiency 
at four loading conditions--25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of maximum 
rated output current--to assess the performance of an EPS when powering 
diverse loads. For multiple-voltage EPSs, the test procedure provides 
those four metrics individually, which DOE is considering averaging 
when setting the efficiency level measurements for these types of 
devices. The test procedure also specifies how to measure the power 
consumption of the EPS when disconnected from the consumer product, 
which is termed ``no-load'' power consumption because the EPS outputs 
zero percent of the maximum rated output current to the application.
    To develop the analysis and to help establish a framework for 
setting EPS standards, DOE considered both combining average active-
mode efficiency and no-load power into a single metric, such as unit 
energy consumption (i.e. UEC), and maintaining separate metrics for 
each. For the preliminary analysis, DOE chose to evaluate EPSs using 
the two metrics separately. Today's NOPR proposes continuing to use 
this method when setting standards for these products. Using a single 
metric that combines active-mode efficiency and no-load power 
consumption to determine the

[[Page 18513]]

standard may inadvertently permit the ``backsliding'' of the standards 
established by EISA 2007. Specifically, because a combined metric would 
regulate the overall energy consumption of the EPS as the aggregation 
of active-mode efficiency and no-load power, that approach could permit 
the performance of one metric to drop below the EISA 2007 level if it 
is sufficiently offset by an improvement in the other metric. Such a 
result would, in DOE's view, constitute a backsliding of the standards 
and would violate EPCA's prohibition from setting such a level. DOE's 
proposed approach seeks to avoid this result.
    The DOE test procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs yields five 
values: no-load power consumption as well as efficiency at 25, 50, 75, 
and 100 percent of maximum load. See 76 FR 31750 (June 1, 2011)(noting 
DOE's recently added procedures for multiple voltage EPSs codified at 
section 4.2 of appendix Z of subpart B to part 430 of the CFR). In the 
preliminary analysis, DOE examined the possibility of averaging the 
four efficiency values to create an average efficiency metric for 
multiple-voltage EPSs, similar to the approach followed for single-
voltage EPSs. Alternatively, DOE introduced the idea of averaging the 
efficiency measurements at 50 percent and 75 percent of maximum load 
because the only known application that currently uses a multiple 
voltage EPS, a video game console, operates most often between those 
loading conditions. DOE sought comment from interested parties on these 
two approaches.
    The California IOUs commented that the test metric should be an 
``average of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of rated output power, similar to 
the approach taken for single voltage EPSs.'' The California IOUs 
viewed this approach as best rather than basing the multiple-voltage 
test procedure on the loading profile of a single application which 
could decrease the applicability of any standard since ``the types of 
products that may occupy this category in the future are unknown''. 
(California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 9)
    Though it is aware of only one consumer product using multiple-
voltage EPSs, DOE believes that evaluating multiple-voltage EPSs using 
an average-efficiency metric (based on the efficiencies at 25%, 50%, 
75%, and 100% of each output's normalized maximum nameplate output 
power) would allow a future standard to be applicable to a diverse 
range of products as it would not be based solely on the loading 
profile of a single EPS application. Therefore, DOE evaluated multiple-
voltage EPSs using no-load mode power consumption and an average 
active-mode efficiency metric based on the measured efficiencies at 
25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of rated output power in developing the 
proposed energy conservation standards for these products. DOE requests 
feedback on this proposed approach to determining the average 
efficiency for multiple-voltage EPSs.
b. EPS Technology Options
    DOE considered seven technology options, fully detailed in Chapter 
3 of the TSD, which may improve the efficiency of EPSs: (1) Improved 
Transformers, (2) Switched-Mode Power Supplies, (3) Low-Power 
Integrated Circuits, (4) Schottky Diodes and Synchronous Rectification, 
(5) Low-Loss Transistors, (6) Resonant Switching, and (7) Resonant 
(``Lossless'') Snubbers.
    AHAM and PTI commented during the preliminary analysis that ``[DOE] 
has not justified the value of decreasing the no-load levels at each 
[initially considered] CSL'' (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 7; PTI, No. 45 at p. 
5). NEEP suggested that DOE should consider whether technology options 
are applicable across product classes (NEEP, No. 49 at 2).
    During its analysis, DOE found that some technology options affect 
both efficiency and no-load performance and that the individual 
contributions from these options cannot be separated from each other in 
a cost analysis. Given this trend, DOE generated a ``matched pairs'' 
approach for creating the EPS CSLs where select test units were used in 
characterizing the relationship of average active-mode efficiency and 
no-load power dissipation. In the matched pairs approach, EPS energy 
consumption improves either through higher active mode efficiency, 
lower no-load mode power consumption, or both. If DOE allowed one 
metric to decrease in stringency between CSLs, then the cost-efficiency 
results might have shown cost reductions at higher CSLs and skew the 
true costs associated with increasing the efficiency of EPSs. To avoid 
this result, DOE is using an approach that increases the stringency of 
both metrics for each CSL considered in today's NOPR.
    Regarding NEEP's suggestion, DOE notes that in developing the 
engineering analysis, DOE considered all technology options when 
developing CSLs for all four EPS representative units. DOE considered 
the same efficiency improvements during its analysis for non-Class A 
EPSs as it did for Class A EPSs. Where representative units were not 
explicitly analyzed (i.e. product classes C, D, and E), DOE extended 
its analysis from a directly analyzed class. As a result, all design 
options that could apply to these products were implicitly considered 
because the proposed efficiency levels of the analyzed product class 
will be scaled to other product classes, an approach supported by 
interested parties. The equations were structured based on the 
relationship of the other Class A product classes to the representative 
product class such that the technology options not implemented by the 
other classes were accounted for in the proposed efficiency equations. 
For example, AC-AC EPSs (product classes A2 and A4 in the preliminary 
analysis) tend to have higher no load power dissipation because they do 
not use switched-mode methods (see Chapter 3 of the TSD for a full 
technical description). Therefore, DOE used higher no load power 
metrics when generating CSLs for these product classes than the CSLs 
from the representative product class A1. DOE will continue to examine 
all technology options and apply them wherever possible across all 
product classes as part of the NOPR analysis.
c. High-Power EPSs
    In the non-Class A determination analysis TSD, DOE examined the 
specific design options of high-power EPSs as they relate to ham 
radios, the sole consumer application for these EPSs. DOE found that 
high-power EPSs are unique because both linear and switched-mode 
versions are available as cost-effective options, but the linear EPSs 
are more expensive and inherently limited in their achievable 
efficiency despite sharing some of the same possible efficiency 
improvements as EPSs in other product classes. Interested parties have 
expressed concern that setting an efficiency standard higher than a 
linear EPS can achieve would reduce the utility of these devices 
because ham radios are sensitive to the electromagnetic interference 
(EMI) generated by switched-mode EPSs.
    However, DOE believes there is no reduction in utility because EPSs 
used in telecommunication applications are required to meet the EMI 
regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (47 CFR 15, 
subpart B) regardless of the underlying technology. DOE used this 
assumption when constructing its engineering analysis for the NOPR but 
seeks comment on possible issues with EMI and/or radio frequency 
interference associated with switch-mode power supplies (SMPS) used 
with amateur radios, including design options for reducing or 
eliminating interference.

[[Page 18514]]

d. Power Factor
    Power factor is a relative measure of transmission losses between 
the power plant and a consumer product. DOE examined the issue of power 
factor in section 3.6 of the framework document for the BCEPS 
rulemaking and noted that certain ENERGY STAR specifications limit 
power factor. DOE also noted in that same section the role of power 
factor in higher-power EPSs--namely, that at higher powers, problems 
associated with power factor (e.g. power dissipation in the wiring) 
become more pronounced.
    PTI commented that DOE should preempt other jurisdictions from 
regulating power factor by addressing power factor as a metric, but not 
to specify a limit in the energy-efficiency standard. (PTI, No. 45 at 
p. 12) PTI stated that regulating power factor will add cost to the 
product because of the need for additional power factor correction 
circuitry. It also explained that losses due to power factor are a 
consequence of the power cables used by the local utility, which are 
beyond the control of the manufacturer. (PTI, No. 45 at pp. 10-11)
    DOE notes that regulating power factor includes substantial 
challenges, such as quantifying transmission losses that depend on the 
length of the transmission wires, which differ for each residential 
consumer. Further, DOE has not yet conclusively analyzed the benefits 
and burdens from regulating power factor. While DOE plans to continue 
analyzing power factor and the merits of its inclusion as part of a 
future rulemaking, it is DOE's view that the above factors weigh in 
favor of not setting a power factor-based standard at this time.
e. Battery Charger Modes of Operation and Performance Parameters
    For the preliminary analysis, DOE found that there are five modes 
of operation in which a battery charger can operate at any given time. 
These modes of operation are: Active (or charge) mode, maintenance 
mode, no-battery (or standby) mode, off mode, and unplugged mode. These 
five modes are briefly described below: \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Active mode, maintenance mode, standby mode, and off mode 
are all explicitly defined by DOE in Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 
430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of 
Battery Chargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Active (or charge) mode: During active mode, a battery charger is 
charging a depleted battery, equalizing its cells, or performing 
functions necessary for bringing the battery to the fully charged 
state.
    Maintenance mode: In maintenance mode, the battery is plugged into 
the charger, has reached full charge, and the charger is performing 
functions intended to keep the battery fully charged while protecting 
it from overcharge.
    No-Battery (or standby) mode: In no-battery mode, the battery is 
not connected to the charger but the battery charger itself is still 
plugged into mains.
    Off mode: In off mode, the charger remains connected to mains power 
but the battery is removed and all manual on-off switches are turned 
off.
    Unplugged mode: In unplugged mode, the battery charger is 
disconnected from mains and not consuming any electrical power.
    For each battery charger mode of operation, DOE's battery charger 
test procedure has a corresponding test that is performed that outputs 
a metric for energy consumption in that mode. The tests to obtain these 
metrics are described in greater detail in DOE's battery charger test 
procedure. (76 FR 31750) The following items are pertinent performance 
parameters from those tests.
    24-Hour Energy: This quantity is defined as the power consumption 
integrated with respect to time of a full metered charge test that 
starts with a fully depleted battery. In other words, this is the 
energy consumed to fully charge and maintain at full charge a depleted 
battery over a period that lasts 24 hours or the length of time needed 
to charge the tested battery plus 5 hours, whichever is longer.
    Maintenance Mode Power: This is a measurement of the average power 
consumed while a battery charger is known to be in maintenance mode.
    No-Battery (or standby) Mode Power: This is a measurement of the 
average power consumed while a battery charger is in no-battery or 
standby mode (only if applicable).
    Off-Mode Power: This is a measurement of the average power consumed 
while an on-off switch-equipped battery charger is in off mode (i.e. 
with the on-off switch set to the ``off'' position).
    Unplugged Mode Power: This quantity is always 0.
    Additional discussion on how these parameters are derived and 
subsequently combined with assumptions about usage in each mode of 
operation to obtain a value for the UEC is discussed below in section 
IV.C.2.b.
f. Battery Charger Technology Options
    Since most consumer battery chargers contain an AC to DC power 
conversion stage, similar to that found in an EPS, all of the 
technology options discussed in section IV.A.4.b also apply to battery 
chargers. The technology options used to decrease EPS no-load power 
will impact battery charger energy consumption in no-battery and 
maintenance modes (and off mode, if applicable), while those options 
used to increase EPS conversion efficiency will impact energy 
consumption in active and maintenance modes.
    Technology options that DOE considered for battery chargers in the 
preliminary analysis and again for the NOPR include: Improved 
transformer cores, termination, elimination/limitation of maintenance 
mode current, elimination of no-battery mode current, switched-mode 
power supplies, low-power integrated circuits, Schottky diodes and 
synchronous rectification, phase control to limit input power. An in-
depth discussion of these technology options can be found in TSD 
chapter 3.

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which 
design options are suitable for further consideration in a standards 
rulemaking:
    1. Technological feasibility. DOE considers technologies 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible.
    2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If mass 
production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in 
commercial products could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve 
the relevant market at the time the standard comes into effect, then 
DOE considers that technology practicable to manufacture, install, and 
service.
    3. Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability. If 
DOE determines a technology would have significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not 
consider this technology further.
    4. Adverse impacts on health or safety. If DOE determines that a 
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not consider this technology further.

See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b).


[[Page 18515]]


    For EPSs, DOE did not screen out any technology options after 
considering the four criteria. For battery chargers, DOE screened out:
    1. Non-inductive chargers for use in wet environments because of 
adverse impacts on safety;
    2. Capacitive reactance because of adverse impacts on safety; and
    3. Lowering charging current or increasing battery voltage because 
of adverse impacts on product utility to consumers.
    DOE received no comments in response to its preliminary screening 
analysis. Therefore, DOE is using the same screening analysis for the 
NOPR.
    For additional details, please see chapter 4 of the TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

    In the engineering analysis (detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD), DOE 
presents a relationship between the manufacturer selling price (MSP) 
and increases in battery charger and EPS efficiency. The efficiency 
values range from that of an inefficient battery charger or EPS sold 
today (i.e., the baseline) to the maximum technologically feasible 
efficiency level. For each efficiency level examined, DOE determines 
the MSP; this relationship is referred to as a cost-efficiency curve.
    DOE structured its engineering analysis around two methodologies: 
(1) Test and teardowns, which involves testing products for efficiency 
and determining cost from a detailed bill of materials derived from 
tear-downs and (2) the efficiency-level approach, where the cost of 
achieving increases in energy efficiency at discrete levels of 
efficiency are estimated using information gathered in manufacturer 
interviews that was supplemented and verified through technology 
reviews and subject matter experts (SMEs). When analyzing the cost of 
each CSL--whether based on existing or theoretical designs--DOE 
differentiates the cost of the battery charger or EPS from the cost of 
the associated end-use product.
1. Engineering Analysis for External Power Supplies
a. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units
    DOE is applying the same methodology in the NOPR as it used in the 
preliminary analysis to identify representative product classes and 
representative units. In the preliminary analysis, DOE selected product 
class A1 (AC to DC conversion, basic- voltage EPSs) for further 
analysis as the representative product class because it constituted the 
majority of EPS shipments and national energy consumption related to 
EPSs. Within product class A1, DOE focused on four representative units 
with output power levels at 2.5 watts, 18 watts, 60 watts, and 120 
watts because most consumer applications use EPSs with these, or 
similar, nameplate output power ratings. In the NOPR, DOE is choosing 
to focus on representative product class B (AC to DC conversion, basic-
voltage EPSs), which contains certain product classes from the 
preliminary analysis--most Class A EPSs from product class A1, most 
medical EPSs from product class M1, and some MADB EPSs from product 
class B1 (which are EPSs that can directly power an application). The 
NOPR analysis also focuses on the same four representative units as the 
preliminary analysis with output powers at 2.5 watts, 18 watts, 60 
watts, and 120 watts in product class B and scales those results to 
product classes C, D, and E as suggested by interested parties.
    Interested parties supported DOE's approach in creating and 
analyzing representative product classes and representative units in 
the preliminary analysis. The California IOUs agreed with using product 
class A1 as the representative product class and scaling to other 
product classes because of the inherent similarities of the A1 devices 
to those in the other product classes (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 
8). Although no specific data were provided, the California IOUs also 
commented in support of the four representative units within the 
product class noting that their own research \26\ into the power supply 
market corroborates DOE's selections (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 8). 
DOE did not receive comments disputing its selections for the four 
representative units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/archive/2004rulemaking/documents/case_studies/CASE_Power_Supplies.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is proposing to continue using the same representative product 
class and representative unit methodology, and will scale results for 
the other EPS product classes. As noted previously, DOE has 
incorporated EPSs from product class A1 into product class B. Within 
product class B (preliminary analysis product class A1) DOE will focus 
on the four representative units with output powers at 2.5 watts, 18 
watts, 60 watts, and 120 watts because products with these ratings 
constitute a significant portion of shipments and energy consumption. 
Interested parties also supported this approach.
b. EPS Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs)
    DOE is applying the same methodology to establish CSLs in the NOPR 
as it used in the preliminary analysis. DOE created CSLs as pairs of 
EPS efficiency metrics for each representative unit with increasingly 
stringent standards having higher-numbered CSLs. The CSLs were 
generally based on (1) voluntary (e.g. ENERGY STAR) specifications or 
mandatory (i.e. those established by EISA 2007) standards that either 
require or encourage manufacturers to develop products at particular 
efficiency levels; (2) the most efficient products available in the 
market; and (3) the maximum technologically feasible (``max tech'') 
level. These CSLs are summarized for each representative unit in Table 
IV-4. In section IV.C.1.e, DOE discusses how it developed equations to 
apply the CSLs from the representative units to all EPSs.

   Table IV-4--Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Classes B, C, D, and E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            CSL                   Reference               Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..........................  EISA 2007.........  EISA 2007 equations for
                                                  efficiency and no-load
                                                  power.
1..........................  ENERGY STAR 2.0...  ENERGY STAR 2.0
                                                  equations for
                                                  efficiency and no-load
                                                  power.
2..........................  Intermediate......  Interpolation between
                                                  test data points.
3..........................  Best in Market....  Most efficient test
                                                  data points.
4..........................  Max Tech..........  Maximum technologically
                                                  feasible efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 18516]]

    DOE evaluated EPSs using the two EPS efficiency metrics, no-load 
power consumption and active-mode average efficiency, which it grouped 
into ``matched pairs.'' Under the matched pairs approach, each CSL 
would increase in stringency in at least one of the metrics and no 
metric would ever be lowered in moving to a higher CSL. DOE's goal in 
using this approach was to ensure that when it associated costs with 
the CSLs, that the costs would reflect the complete costs of increased 
efficiency. If DOE followed an approach that permitted a decrease in 
stringency for a given metric, the result might be a projected 
reduction in EPS cost, which would mask the full cost of increasing EPS 
efficiency.
    DOE received considerable support from interested parties on its 
matched pairs approach for EPS CSLs. However, interested parties, 
including the California IOUs, also cautioned DOE to avoid setting 
levels for no-load power that were too stringent when compared to 
active-mode efficiency improvements. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 8). 
The California IOUs added that ``PG&E research suggests that 
improvements in active mode yield much higher energy savings than 
small, incremental improvements in no-load mode.'' Id. PG&E added that 
DOE should verify that the no-load levels for the EPS CSLs are not too 
stringent, which could lead to higher costs since the majority of the 
projected savings for EPSs would likely come from improving active-mode 
efficiency (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at pp. 198-199).
    DOE received two additional comments regarding its CSLs. The 
California IOUs supported DOE's CSL selections, particularly those that 
were developed based on test data. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 8). 
Additionally, AHAM stated that DOE should ``consider whether the CSLs 
also apply to units that are less than 2.5W,'' in particular 2.4W and 
1.2W EPSs because they believe that ``the CSL for this class does not 
apply to these smaller wattage products'' (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 13).
    DOE considered interested party comments when revising the CSLs for 
the NOPR. DOE's approach maintains the same efficiency levels for all 
CSLs but alters the max-tech efficiency level based on new data gleaned 
from manufacturer interviews, which indicated that manufacturers could 
achieve higher max-tech levels than were previously considered during 
the preliminary analysis. No load requirements were carefully 
considered consistent with commenter suggestions to not aggressively 
increase these levels.
    Further, DOE has tentatively decided to maintain its best-in-market 
CSL based on test data and also considered whether the CSLs for the 
2.5W EPS should apply to lower-power EPSs. DOE continues to believe 
that the CSLs apply to these lower power devices because the scaling 
equations developed by DOE incorporate the test results and data of 
EPSs with nameplate output power ratings less than 2.5W. For both 
metrics and at each CSL, DOE has developed standards equations that are 
functions of nameplate output power. To accommodate the design trend of 
decreasing efficiency with decreasing output power, the 2.5W CSLs are 
used as lower power reference points for the standard equations. All of 
the direct operation CSLs were created using a combination of existing 
standards and were corroborated with test data. In cases where DOE 
tested EPSs with nameplate output powers less than 2.5 watts, it scaled 
the results to the representative unit (2.5 W) and adjusted the 
efficiency accordingly. Hence, the 2.5W CSLs are supported by data from 
EPSs with output powers equal to 2.5 watts and scaled EPSs with output 
power ranges below 2.5 watts. DOE used this methodology in generating 
the CSLs for all of the other direct operation representative units 
where the CSLs were not only based on units tested at the nominal 
output power rating but also on scaled results of EPSs with nameplate 
output powers slightly above and slightly below the representative unit 
value. For additional detail regarding DOE's scaling methodology see 
chapter 5 of the TSD.
    DOE maintained the same CSLs for multiple-voltage EPSs in product 
class X as it proposed in the preliminary analysis because it received 
no comments and has no new information that would otherwise merit a 
change in the CSLs for this product class. The CSLs are shown in Table 
IV-5.

           Table IV-5--Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Class X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            CSL                   Reference               Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..........................  Market Bottom.....  Test data of the least
                                                  efficient unit in the
                                                  market.
1..........................  Mid Market........  Test data of the
                                                  typical unit in the
                                                  market.
2..........................  Best-in-Market....  Manufacturer's data.
3..........................  Max Tech..........  Maximum technologically
                                                  feasible efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE structured the CSLs for high-power EPSs based on products 
available in the market and by scaling CSLs for 120-watt EPSs. The two 
least efficient CSLs are based on units DOE tested for the non-Class A 
EPS determination analysis. CSL 0 corresponds to test results from a 
linear EPS for amateur radio equipment while CSL 1 corresponds to test 
results from a switched-mode EPS for the same application. During 
interviews for the determination analysis, high-power EPS manufacturers 
indicated that CSL 2 was what they believed to be the max-tech 
efficiency for high-power EPSs. As outlined in section III.B.2.a, DOE 
believes that the efficiencies of the 120W EPSs indicate a potential 
for 345W EPSs to achieve higher efficiencies than CSL 2 since 
achievable efficiency tends to remain the same for EPSs with a 
nameplate output power above 49 watts. DOE characterized these higher 
efficiencies by modeling a 360W EPS composed of three 120W EPSs 
connected in parallel. This theoretical EPS would have the same average 
efficiency as a 120W EPS, scaled for nameplate output voltage, and 
three times the no-load power consumption. DOE developed CSL 3 and CSL 
4 for the 345W representative EPSs based on the efficiency of the 
theoretical 360W EPS. DOE received no comments concerning the CSLs for 
high-power EPSs during the preliminary analysis (CSL 0, CSL 1 and CSL 
2). DOE seeks comment on its proposed methodology for establishing 
higher-efficiency CSLs (CSL 3 and CSL 4). The CSLs for product class H 
are listed in Table IV-6.

[[Page 18517]]



           Table IV-6--Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Class H
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            CSL                   Reference               Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..........................  Line Frequency....  Test data of a low-
                                                  efficiency unit in the
                                                  market.
1..........................  Switched-Mode Low   Test data of a high-
                              Level.              efficiency unit in the
                                                  market.
2..........................  Switched-Mode High  Manufacturers'
                              Level.              theoretical maximum
                                                  efficiency.
3..........................  Scaled Best-in-     Scaled from 120W EPS
                              Market.             CSL 3.
4..........................  Scaled Max Tech...  Scaled from 120W EPS
                                                  CSL 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. EPS Engineering Analysis Methodology
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE presented two sets of cost-
efficiency curves: One based on manufacturer data that showed an 
increasing trend between cost and efficiency and a second set based on 
test and teardown data that, while inconclusive, generally showed a 
decreasing relationship between cost and efficiency. DOE sought 
interested party comment on this discrepancy.
    Commenters had mixed opinions on which results DOE should use as 
the basis for its analysis. AHAM commented that ``based on what was 
presented that the Department should use the manufacturer's data'' 
rather than the test and teardown data that DOE developed stating that 
``there is no incentive for manufacturers to not give out all necessary 
information to the Department''. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 13) However, IOUs 
encouraged DOE to continue to pursue teardowns because the test and 
teardown results in the preliminary analysis, in their view, may be as 
accurate as manufacturer data since ``costs are rapidly declining for 
highly efficient power supplies.'' (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 9). 
NEEP stated that DOE should ``corroborate the cost-efficiency curve 
data provided to them by manufacturers.'' In other words, DOE should 
re-evaluate the manufacturer's results and consider consulting 
independent sources to establish a more direct relationship between 
efficiency and cost. (NEEP, No. 49 at p. 4). DOE considered these 
opinions and sought additional information.
    In preparing the NOPR analysis, DOE conducted an additional round 
of manufacturer interviews to address the differences between the two 
cost-efficiency curves in the preliminary analysis. Based on the 
interviews, DOE believes that the discrepancy between the preliminary 
analysis curves was due to an ongoing shift in the market that was not 
reflected in the data. Specifically, the manufacturers stated during 
these interviews that the EPS market has a trend of increasing 
efficiency and decreasing cost with each design cycle and the DOE-
tested units may have been from different design cycles.\27\ By 
contrast, the manufacturers' data on which DOE had initially relied 
reflected the cost-efficiency relationship during a single design 
cycle. In general, manufacturers agreed that, in their current design 
cycle, EPSs are designed to be more efficient than the ENERGY STAR 
level. Thus, DOE's revised cost-efficiency curves reflect this improved 
understanding across all the representative units using updated data 
obtained from interviews with EPS manufacturers and component 
suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Original design dates are difficult to determine because 
the date of release is not often publicized with EPS product data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary analysis, DOE evaluated switched-mode power 
supplies (i.e. power supplies that use controlled switching of a power 
source to regulate the flow of current to a load), but not linear power 
supplies. Linear power supplies are power supplies that use a 
transformer and a linear regulator to provide power to a load. These 
devices are typically less cost effective as a method to improve energy 
efficiency and inherently limited in their achievable efficiencies--
these limitations stem from the conversion stage delivering current at 
a higher voltage than needed by the consumer product and dropping the 
excess voltage across the regulator to achieve the lower regulated 
output voltage. The power lost in the regulator is the product of the 
voltage drop and the load current and is dissipated as heat. Switched-
mode power supplies do not have the same limitations with respect to 
the level of efficiency they can achieve because the design relies on 
transferring power through the controlled modulation of energy stored 
in the magnetic and electric fields of passive components. As a result, 
there are fewer resistive losses in the conversion stage and the 
voltage is regulated using controlled switching instead of 
intentionally dissipating excess voltage in the form of heat, Cobra 
Electronics noted this omission. (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 3) DOE has since 
re-evaluated the analysis and found that linear power supplies are a 
cost-effective option for 2.5 W EPSs at the lower stringency CSLs, but 
not in meeting other CSLs or in satisfying CSLs for other 
representative units. As a result, the NOPR cost-efficiency curves for 
the 2.5W representative unit include linear supplies as part of the 
analysis.
    Today's proposed rule is based on a slightly revised version of the 
initial methodology DOE considered when aggregating manufacturer 
results for the 2.5W and 18W representative units. In the preliminary 
analysis, DOE used a 3D-aggregation method \28\ based on cost, 
efficiency, and no-load power to generate cost-efficiency curves for 
all representative units. The same 3D-aggregation methodology was 
applied to the NOPR analysis with the exception of the 2.5W and 18W 
representative units, for which DOE used a 2D aggregation approach.\29\ 
DOE used a 2D aggregation method because that method more accurately 
captures the cost-efficiency relationship for these EPSs. Generally, 
DOE believes that 3D aggregation typically yields the best curve fit 
for the dataset, so long as there are sufficient data. However, for the 
2.5W and 18W EPSs, DOE had less data for which it could generate curve 
fits. DOE initially ran a 3D regression for the 2.5W and 18W 
representative units, but found that variations in the data for no-load 
power caused the correlation of the resulting curve to be low. Upon 
further inspection, DOE believes that the 2D curve fit more accurately 
reflects the less-robust underlying dataset for these two EPSs because 
the costs represent incremental improvements to meet specific CSLs and, 
thus, the large variations in the no-load power data provided by 
manufacturers do not degrade the correlation of the curve fit. 
Therefore, DOE switched to a 2D aggregation that described efficiency 
and cost, which generated a curve with higher correlation and more 
appropriate

[[Page 18518]]

results for these representative units. For the remaining EPSs, DOE 
continued to apply the 3D-aggregation method because it generated a 
satisfactory curve fit. For additional details, please see chapter 5 of 
the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ DOE's 3D-aggregation method is an approach to developing an 
equation that describes how MSP for an EPS changes with respect to 
both average efficiency and no-load power. That is, MSP is a 
function of both metrics simultaneously.
    \29\ DOE's 2D-aggregation method is an approach to developing an 
equation that describes how MSP for an EPS changes with respect to 
average efficiency only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. EPS Engineering Results
    DOE characterized the cost-efficiency relationship of the four 
representative units in product class B as shown in Table IV-7, Table 
IV-8, Table IV-9, and Table IV-10. During interviews, manufacturers 
indicated that their switched-mode EPSs currently meet CSL1, the ENERGY 
STAR 2.0 specification. This factor is reflected in the analysis by 
setting the incremental MSP for the 18W, 60W, and 120W EPSs at $0 at 
CSL 1, which means that there is no incremental cost above the baseline 
to achieve CSL 1. Costs for the 2.5W EPS, however, are estimated at 
$0.15 for CSL 1. This result occurs because of DOE's assumption (based 
on available information) that the lowest cost solution for improving 
the efficiency of the 2.5W EPS is through the use of linear EPSs, which 
are manufactured both at the EISA 2007 level as well as at ENERGY STAR 
2.0. Specifically, as commenters suggested, DOE examined linear EPSs 
and found that they might be a cost-effective solution at CSL 0 and CSL 
1 for 2.5W EPSs. Thus, $0.15 indicates the incremental cost for a 2.5W 
EPS to achieve higher efficiency. For all four representative units, 
the more stringent CSLs, CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4, correspond to 
switched-mode EPSs designed during the same design cycle, which would 
cause their costs to increase with increased efficiency.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.013

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    Unlike product class B, DOE analyzed a single 203W representative 
unit for multiple-voltage EPSs. These devices are exclusively used with 
home video-game consoles, which use one output to power the device and 
another for standby controls. In Chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis 
TSD, DOE indicated that, for the NOPR, it was considering using the 
cost-efficiency relationship for 203W multiple-voltage

[[Page 18519]]

EPSs that it developed as part of the non-Class A EPS determination 
analysis. In the determination analysis, DOE derived costs for CSL 0 
and CSL 1 from test and teardown data but costs for CSL 2 and CSL 3 
came from manufacturer and component supplier interviews. DOE received 
no comments on this approach, which was detailed in the preliminary 
analysis TSD. Hence, DOE is continuing to rely on its determination 
analysis results to help characterize the cost-efficiency relationship 
for 203W multiple voltage EPSs, shown in Table IV-11.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.014

    Similar to the analysis of multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE analyzed one 
345W representative unit for high-power EPSs. In Chapter 5 of the 
preliminary analysis TSD, DOE indicated that it was considering 
applying the cost-efficiency relationship for 345W high-power single-
voltage EPSs that it developed as part of the non-Class A EPS 
determination analysis to high-power EPSs. In the determination 
analysis, DOE derived costs for CSL 0 and CSL 1 from test and teardown 
data, whereas costs for CSL 2 and CSL 3 came from manufacturer and 
component supplier interviews. DOE did not receive comments on this 
aspect of its approach in the preliminary analysis TSD. Hence, DOE used 
the results from the determination analysis to characterize the costs 
of the less-efficient CSLs for 345W high-power EPSs in today's NOPR 
(CSL 0 and CSL 1).
    However, as noted previously in section IV.C.1.b, DOE also believes 
that a 345W EPS could achieve higher efficiencies based on its 
theoretical model of a 360W EPS that exhibits the properties of three 
120W EPSs connected in parallel. These higher output devices are 
typically used with amateur radio equipment, which often transmit at 
power levels between 100 and 200 watts while simultaneously providing 
power to other components. DOE developed its costs for the higher-
efficiency CSLs (CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4) based on 120W EPS analysis. 
The complete cost-efficiency relationship for the 345W EPS is shown in 
Table IV-12.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.015

e. EPS Equation Scaling
    During the preliminary analysis phase, DOE presented an approach to 
derive the average efficiency and no-load efficiency requirements for 
each CSL over the full range of output power for Class B EPSs. 
Mathematical equations define each CSL as a pair of relationships--(1) 
average active-mode efficiency to nameplate output power and (2) no-
load mode power consumption to nameplate output power. These equations 
allow DOE to describe a CSL for any nameplate output power and are the 
basis of its proposed standards. A complete description of the 
equations can be found in chapter 5 of the TSD.
    For the baseline CSL and CSL1, DOE relied on equations from EISA 
2007 and ENERGY STAR 2.0, respectively, rather than developing new 
equations. Both equations are defined over ranges of output power, 
although the divisions between ranges are slightly different. EISA 2007 
created divisions by establishing separate efficiency equations at the 
1 watt and 51 watt levels--ENERGY STAR 2.0 creates a similar dividing 
line at 1 watt and 49 watts. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A) (denoting 
nameplate output divisions at under 1 watt, 1 watt to not more than 51 
watts, and over 51 watts) and ``ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for 
Single Voltage External Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac Power Supplies'' (denoting 
nameplate output divisions at less than or equal to 1 watt, 1 watt to 
not more than 49 watts, and over 49 watts). DOE developed equations for 
all other CSLs and for consistency and simplicity used the ENERGY STAR 
2.0 divisions at 1 watt and 49 watts for all CSLs. These divisions were 
created in conjunction with the EPS product classes discussed in 
section IV.A.3.a as part of a complete analysis by the EPA. Given that 
it is considering adopting those product classes for direct operation 
EPSs, DOE believes that utilizing the ENERGY STAR output power 
divisions for its proposed standards is the most appropriate course of 
action. Consequently, the proposed standards are structured around 
these divisions rather than those created by the EISA 2007 standard or 
the CEC standards for EPSs.

[[Page 18520]]

    DOE derived CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 by fitting equations to the 
efficiency values of their respective data points for each 
representative unit. DOE used an equation of the form Y = 
a*ln(Pout) + b * Pout + c, for each of the 
nameplate output power ranges, where Y indicates the efficiency 
requirement; Pout indicates the nameplate output power; and 
a, b, and c indicate the specific parameters defined in the respective 
CSLs. DOE ensured that the equations met three conditions:
    (1) The distance to each point was minimized.
    (2) The equation did not exceed the tested efficiencies.
    (3) DOE further restricted the parameter choice in order to ensure 
that the CSL curves adhered to a matched pairs approach fully detailed 
in chapter 5 of the TSD.
    Among the CSLs for product class B, DOE only revised the 
efficiencies of the max-tech data points at CSL 4. Thus, the remaining 
CSL equations, other than max-tech, remain unchanged from the equations 
DOE developed for the preliminary analysis. For the NOPR, DOE derived a 
revised max-tech scaling equation using the new max-tech data points it 
developed after obtaining additional data during manufacturer 
interviews following the preliminary analysis.
    As in the preliminary analysis, DOE scaled the CSL equations from 
product class B to product classes with low-voltage and AC-AC EPSs, 
which comprise product classes C, D, and E. The scaling for these 
equations was based on ENERGY STAR 2.0, which separates AC-DC 
conversion and AC-AC conversion into ``basic-voltage'' and ``low-
voltage'' categories. ENERGY STAR 2.0 sets less stringent efficiency 
levels for low-voltage EPSs because they cannot typically achieve the 
same efficiencies as basic-voltage EPSs due to inherent design 
limitations. Similarly, ENERGY STAR 2.0 sets less stringent no-load 
standards for AC-AC EPSs because they do not use the overhead circuitry 
found in AC-DC EPSs to limit no-load power dissipation. The power 
consumed by the additional AC-AC EPS circuitry would actually increase 
their no-load power metric. DOE used this approach to develop CSLs 
other than the baseline CSL 0 for product classes C, D, and E. Because 
the baseline is the EISA 2007 standard that applies to all Class A 
EPSs, which comprise most of product classes B, C, D, and E, CSL 0 is 
the same for all product classes.
    As described in the preliminary analysis and continued in today's 
proposal, DOE created less stringent CSLs for product classes C, D, and 
E. For CSL 1, the equations come directly from the ENERGY STAR 2.0 low-
voltage equation. The low-voltage curves for CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 
were created by using their respective CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 basic-
voltage efficiency curves, and altering all equation parameters by the 
difference in the coefficients between the CSL 1 basic-voltage and low-
voltage equations. This approach had the effect of shifting the CSL 2, 
CSL 3, and CSL 4 low-voltage curves downward from their corresponding 
basic-voltage CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 curves, by a similar amount as 
the shift between the CSL basic-voltage and low-voltage curves.
    In the executive summary of the preliminary analysis TSD, DOE asked 
for comment regarding the various scaling relationships it developed to 
analyze EPS representative units and generate CSLs for the scaled 
product classes. The California IOUs commented that they agreed ``with 
[scaling EPS] CSLs on the basis of nameplate output power'' but added 
that the standard equation should be based on power alone, not on 
voltage or cord length because this approach would allow DOE to create 
a potential standard more transparently than one based on voltage or 
cord length. In their view, an approach based on either or both of 
these factors would unnecessarily complicate the analysis without 
yielding an appreciable benefit with respect to determining an EPS's 
achievable efficiency. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 8).
    DOE is proposing to apply the output power scaling method detailed 
in chapter 5 of the TSD to set the standards for the scaled product 
classes.
    During the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed the impacts of 
setting a discrete standard for product class X (multiple-voltage EPSs) 
as there was only one existing product on the market at that time. 
Since then, DOE has re-evaluated its data and now believes that the 
ENERGY STAR 2.0 low-voltage standard equation for AC-DC conversion is a 
preferable approach to setting standards for multiple-voltage EPSs 
because lower power EPSs tend to be less efficient. Under this 
approach, DOE would take into account that trend and any low-power 
multiple-voltage EPSs that appear on the market would not be relegated 
to a single efficiency level that was established based on the 
performance of a 203W unit. As detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD, the 
ENERGY STAR 2.0 low-voltage equation matches the CSL DOE is proposing 
for the standard at the representative unit's output power of 203 
watts, but also sets less stringent efficiency standards for lower 
power EPSs. Therefore, the proposed equation accounts for future 
products requiring multiple-voltage EPSs by setting a continuous 
standard versus output power while also supporting DOE's analysis of 
the 203W representative unit in product class X. DOE applied the same 
constraints when fitting the equation to the test data as it did for 
product classes B, C, D, and E. DOE seeks comment on this proposed 
approach in setting a standard for multiple-voltage EPSs.
    For product class H (high-power EPSs), DOE proposes to set a 
discrete standard for all EPSs greater than 250 watts. DOE believes 
this is appropriate for two main reasons: (1) DOE is aware of only one 
application for high-power EPSs (i.e., amateur radios) and (2) this 
approach is consistent with the standard for product class B, which is 
a discrete level for all EPSs with nameplate output powers greater than 
49 watts. In light of these facts, setting a single efficiency level as 
the standard for all EPSs with output powers greater than 250 watts 
(i.e., high-power EPSs) appears to be a reasonable approach to ensure a 
minimal level of energy efficiency while minimizing the overall level 
of burden on manufacturers. DOE seeks comment on this approach.
2. Engineering Analysis for Battery Chargers
    When developing the engineering analysis for battery chargers, DOE 
selected representative units for each product class. For each 
representative unit, DOE tested a number of different products. After 
examining the test results, DOE selected CSLs that set discrete levels 
of improved battery charger performance in terms of energy consumption. 
Subsequently, for each CSL, DOE used either teardown data or 
information gained from manufacturer interviews to generate costs 
corresponding to each CSL for each representative unit. Finally, for 
each product class, DOE developed scaling relationships using 
additional test results and generated UEC equations based on battery 
energy.
a. Representative Units
    For each product class, DOE selected a representative unit upon 
which it conducted its engineering analysis and developed a cost-
efficiency curve. The representative unit is meant to be an idealized 
battery charger typical of those used with high-volume applications in 
its product class. Because results from the analysis of these 
representative units would later be extended to additional battery 
chargers, DOE selected high-volume and/or high-energy-

[[Page 18521]]

consumption applications that use batteries that are typically found 
across battery chargers in the given product class. The analysis of 
these battery chargers is pertinent to all the applications in the 
product class under the assumption that all battery chargers with the 
same battery voltage and energy provide similar utility to the user, 
regardless of the actual end-use product with which they work. The 
table below shows the representative units for each product class that 
DOE analyzed.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.016

    Additional details on the battery charger representative units can 
be found in chapter 5 of the TSD.
b. Battery Charger Efficiency Metrics
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered using a single metric 
(i.e., UEC) to illustrate the improved performance of battery chargers. 
DOE designed the calculation of UEC to represent an annualized amount 
of the non-useful energy consumed by a battery charger in all modes of 
operation. Non-useful energy is the total amount of energy consumed by 
a battery charger that is not transferred and stored in a battery as a 
result of charging (i.e., losses). In order to calculate UEC, DOE must 
have the performance data, which comes directly from its battery 
charger test procedure (see section IV.A.4.e.). DOE must also make 
assumptions about the amount of time spent in each mode of operation. 
The collective assumption about the amount of time spent in each mode 
of operation is referred to as a usage profile and is addressed in 
section IV.E and further detail in TSD chapter 7.
    The possible use of a UEC metric generated numerous comments. NEEP 
and PG&E stated that they believed UEC to be an inappropriate metric 
because of the uncertainties around the usage profiles. (NEEP, No. 51 
at p. 3; PG&E, et al., No. 49 at p. 1). NEEP suggested that DOE should 
regulate 24-hour energy and standby mode power individually rather than 
use UEC. (NEEP, No. 51 at p. 4). For product classes 1 through 9, PG&E 
proposed that DOE should have separate standards for 24-hour charge and 
maintenance energy and no-battery mode power, while for product class 
10, DOE should regulate only maintenance mode power. (PG&E, et al., No. 
49 at p. 2). PG&E also suggested another alternative in which DOE could 
use UEC, but that alternative involved giving equal weight to each mode 
of operation. (PG&E, et al., No. 49 at p. 2). While the ENERGY STAR 
specification for battery chargers (i.e., a nonactive energy ratio) 
does not consider active (or charge) mode, the California IOUs agreed 
with DOE's approach to consider active mode as a component of UEC. 
(California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 1). Details on UEC are included in the 
next section of today's notice (IV.C.2.c).
    DOE recognizes that a wide range of consumers may use the same 
product in different ways, which may cause some uncertainty about usage 
profiles. Notwithstanding that possibility, DOE believes that its 
assumptions are accurate and appropriate gauges of product use because 
calculated weighted averages of usage profiles based on a distribution 
of user types were used to represent each product class. These 
assumptions also rely on a variety of sources including information 
from manufacturers and utilities. Details on DOE's new usage profile 
assumptions and how they have changed since the preliminary analysis 
can be found in section IV.E of today's notice and TSD chapter 7.
    DOE also appreciates suggestions to regulate only product class 10 
(AC in/AC out) on the basis of maintenance mode power. DOE's proposal 
follows that suggestion. DOE assumes that UPSs, which comprise all of 
product class 10 units, are always in maintenance mode and undergo zero 
charges per year. By following this

[[Page 18522]]

approach, the calculated energy per year for these devices is simply an 
allowance of maintenance mode power over a 365-day year. However, by 
converting maintenance mode power to a UEC, DOE can ensure consistency 
across all battery charger classes and avoid any potential 
confusion.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ If DOE were to establish an energy conservation standard 
for UPSs in terms of maintenance mode power, manufacturers of other 
products could be confused and believe that their product is also 
subject to a maintenance mode power standard, when in fact, it is a 
combination of all of their product's performance characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, DOE believes that by aggregating the performance 
parameters of battery chargers into one metric and applying a usage 
profile, it will allow manufacturers more flexibility to improve 
performance in the modes of operation that will be the most beneficial 
to their consumers rather than being required to improve the 
performance in each mode of operation, some of which may not provide 
any appreciable benefit. For example, a battery charger used with a 
mobile phone is likely to spend more time per day in no-battery mode 
than a battery charger used for a house phone, which is likely to spend 
a significant portion of every day in maintenance mode. Consequently, 
it would be more beneficial to consumers of mobile phones if 
manufacturers improved no-battery mode and house phone battery charger 
manufacturers improved maintenance mode. Therefore, DOE plans to 
continue to use UEC as the metric for battery chargers.
c. Calculation of Unit Energy Consumption
    As discussed in IV.C.2.b, UEC is based on a calculation designed to 
give the total annual amount of energy lost by a battery charger from 
the time spent in each mode of operation. For the preliminary analysis, 
the various performance parameters were combined with the usage profile 
parameters and used to calculate UEC with the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.017

Where:

E24 = 24 hour energy
Ebatt = Measured battery energy
Pm = Maintenance mode power
Psb = Standby mode power
Poff = Off mode power
tc = Time to completely charge a fully discharged battery
n = Number of charges per day
ta&m = Time per day spent in active and maintenance mode
tsb = Time per day spent in standby mode
toff = Time per day spent in off mode \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Those values shown in italics are parameters assumed in the 
usage profile and change for each product class. Further discussion 
of them and their derivation is found in IV.E. The other values 
should be determined according to section 5 of appendix Y to subpart 
B of part 430.

    When separated and examined in segments, it becomes evident how 
this equation gives a value for energy consumed in each mode of 
operation per day and ultimately, energy consumption per year. These 
segments are discussed individually below. DOE seeks comment on all of 
these equations and its proposed approach.
Active (or Charge) Mode Energy per Day
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.018

    In the first portion of the equation, shown above, DOE combines the 
assumed number of charges per day, 24-hour energy, maintenance mode 
power, charge time, and measured battery energy to calculate the active 
mode energy losses per day. To calculate this value, 24-hour energy 
(E24) is reduced by the measured battery energy (the useful 
energy inherently included in a 24-hour energy measurement) and the 
product of the value of the maintenance mode power multiplied by the 
quantity of 24 minus charge time. This latter value (24 minus charge 
time) corresponds to the amount of time spent in maintenance mode, 
which, when multiplied by maintenance mode power, yields the amount of 
maintenance mode energy consumed by the tested product. Thus, 
maintenance mode energy and the value of the energy transferred to the 
battery during charging are both subtracted from 24-hour energy, 
leaving a quantity theoretically equivalent to the amount of energy 
required to fully charge a depleted battery. This number is then 
multiplied by the assumed number of charges per day (n) resulting in a 
value for active mode energy per day. Details on DOE's usage profile 
assumptions can be found in section IV.E of today's notice and TSD 
chapter 7.
Maintenance Mode Energy per Day
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.019

    In the second segment of DOE's equation, shown above, maintenance 
mode power, time spent in active and maintenance mode per day, charge 
time, and the assumed number of charges per day are combined to obtain 
maintenance mode energy per day. Time spent in active and maintenance 
mode is subtracted by the product of the charge time multiplied by the 
number of charges per day. The resulting quantity is an estimate of 
time spent in maintenance mode per day, which, when multiplied by the 
measured value of maintenance mode power, yields the energy consumed 
per day in maintenance mode.
Standby (or No-Battery) Mode Energy per Day
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.020

    In the third part of DOE's UEC equation, shown above, the measured 
value of standby mode power is multiplied by the estimated time in

[[Page 18523]]

standby mode per day, which results in a value of energy consumed per 
day in standby mode.
Off-Mode Energy per Day
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.021

    In the final part of DOE's UEC equation, shown above, the measured 
value of off-mode power is multiplied by the estimated time in off-mode 
per day, which results in a value of energy consumed per day in off-
mode.
    Finally, to obtain UEC, the values found through the above 
calculations are added together. The resulting sum is equivalent to an 
estimate of the average amount of energy consumed by a battery charger 
per day. That value is then multiplied by 365, the number of days in a 
year, and the end result is a value of energy consumed per year.
Modifications to Equation for Unit Energy Consumption
    On April 2, 2010, DOE published its NOPR on active mode test 
procedures for battery chargers and EPSs. 75 FR 16958. In that notice, 
DOE proposed shortening the active mode test procedure in scenarios 
where a technician could determine that a battery charger had entered 
maintenance mode. 75 FR 16970. However, during its testing of battery 
chargers, DOE observed complications arising when attempting to 
determine the charge time for some devices, which, in turn, could 
affect the accuracy of the UEC calculation. DOE also received comments 
opposed to the proposed shortened test procedure. DOE ultimately 
decided that the duration of the charge test must not be shortened and 
be a minimum of 24 hours. See 76 FR 31750 (final rule establishing 
amended test procedure for battery chargers and EPSs). The test that 
DOE adopted is longer if it is known (e.g., because of an indicator 
light on the battery charger) or it can be determined from manufacturer 
information that fully charging the associated battery will take longer 
than 19 hours.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The charge mode test must include at least a five-hour 
period where the unit being tested is known to be in maintenance 
mode. Thus, if a device takes longer than 19 hours to charge, or is 
expected to take longer than 19 hours to charge, the entire duration 
of the charge mode test will exceed 24 hours in total time after the 
five-hour period of maintenance mode time is added. 76 FR 31750, 
31766-67, and 31780.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This revision to the test procedure is important because it 
underscores the potential issues with trying to determine exactly when 
a battery charger has entered maintenance mode, which creates 
difficulty in determining charge time. To address this situation, DOE 
modified its initial UEC equation. The new equation, which was 
presented to manufacturers during interviews, is mathematically 
equivalent to the equation presented in the preliminary analysis. When 
the terms in the preliminary analysis UEC equation are multiplied, 
those terms containing a factor of charge time cancel each other out 
and drop out of the equation. What is left can be factored and 
rewritten as done below. This means that even though the new equation 
looks different from the equation presented for the preliminary 
analysis, the value that is obtained is exactly the same and represents 
the exact same value of unit energy consumption.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.022

    In addition to initially considering a shortened battery charger 
active mode test procedure, DOE considered capping the measurement of 
24-hour energy at the 24-hour mark of the test. However, following this 
approach could result in inaccuracies because that measurement would 
exclude the full amount of energy used to charge a battery if the 
charge time is longer than 24 hours in duration. To account for this 
possibility, DOE altered this initial approach in the test procedure 
final rule by requiring the measurement of energy for the entire 
duration of the charge and maintenance mode test, which includes a 
minimum of 5 hours in maintenance mode. 76 FR 31750, 31780.
    The modifications to the UEC calculation do not alter the value 
obtained when the charge and maintenance mode test is completed within 
24 hours. However, if the test exceeds 24 hours, the energy lost during 
charging is scaled back to a 24-hour, or per day, cycle by multiplying 
that energy by the ratio of 24 to the duration of the charge and 
maintenance mode test. In the equation below, tcd, 
represents the duration of the charge and maintenance mode test and is 
a value that the test procedure requires technicians to determine. DOE 
also modified the equation for the NOPR by inserting a provision to 
subtract 5 hours of maintenance mode energy from the 24-hour energy 
measurement. This change was made because the charge and maintenance 
mode test includes a minimum of 5 hours of maintenance mode time. 
Consequently, in the second portion of the equation below, DOE would 
reduce the amount of time subtracted from the assumed time in active 
and maintenance mode time per day.
    In other words, the second portion of the equation, which is an 
approximation of maintenance mode energy, is reduced by 5 hours. This 
alteration is needed in those instances when the charge and maintenance 
mode test exceeds 24 hours, because the duration of the test minus 5 
hours is an approximation of charge time. This information, 
tcd, can then be used to approximate the portion of time 
that a device is assumed to spend in active and maintenance mode per 
day (ta&m) is solely dedicated to maintenance mode.\33\ The 
primary equation that manufacturers will use to determine their 
product's unit energy consumption and whether or not their device 
complies with DOE's standards is below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ For a test exceeding 24 hours, the duration of the test 
less 5 hours is equal to the time it took the battery being tested 
to become fully charged (tcd-5). That value, multiplied 
by the assumed number of charges per day, gives an estimate of 
charge (or active) time per day, which can then be subtracted from 
DOE's other assumption for ta&m. That difference is an 
approximation for maintenance mode time per day.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.023


[[Page 18524]]


Secondary Calculation of UEC
    For some battery chargers, the equation described above is not 
appropriate and an alternative calculation is necessary. Specifically, 
in those cases where the charge test duration (as determined according 
to section 5.2 of appendix Y to subpart B of part 430) minus 5 hours is 
multiplied by the number of charges per day (n) is greater than the 
time assumed in active and maintenance mode (ta&m), an 
alternative equation must be used. A different equation must be used 
because if the number of charges per day multiplied by the time it 
takes to charge (charge test duration minus 5 hours--or the charge time 
per day) is longer than the assumption for the amount of time spent in 
charge mode and maintenance mode per day, that difference creates an 
inconsistency between the measurements for the test product and DOE's 
assumptions. This problem can be corrected by using an alternative 
equation, which is shown below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.024

    This alternative equation resolves this inconsistency by prorating 
the energy used for charging the battery.
d. Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs)
    After selecting its representative units for battery chargers, DOE 
examined the impacts on the cost of improving the efficiency of each of 
the representative units to evaluate the impact and assess the 
viability of potential energy efficiency standards. As described in the 
technology assessment and screening analysis, there are numerous design 
options available for improving efficiency and each incremental 
technology improvement increases the battery charger efficiency along a 
continuum. The engineering analysis develops cost estimates for several 
CSLs along that continuum.
    CSLs are often based on (1) efficiencies available in the market; 
(2) voluntary specifications or mandatory standards that cause 
manufacturers to develop products at particular efficiency levels; and 
(3) the maximum technologically feasible level.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The ``max-tech'' level represents the most efficient design 
that is commercialized or has been demonstrated in a prototype with 
materials or technologies available today. ``Max-tech'' is not 
constrained by economic justification, and typically is the most 
expensive design option considered in the engineering analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, there are no energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers. DOE does not believe the ENERGY STAR efficiency level to be 
widely applicable, primarily because these levels are limited to 
chargers used for motor-operated applications and contain no provisions 
to cover active mode energy consumption. Because of this situation, DOE 
based the CSLs for its battery charger engineering analysis on the 
efficiencies obtainable through the design options presented previously 
(see IV.A.4.f). These options are readily seen in various commercially 
available units. DOE selected commercially available battery chargers 
at the representative-unit battery voltage and energy levels from the 
high-volume applications identified in the market survey. DOE then 
tested these units in accordance with the DOE battery charger test 
procedure. For each representative unit, DOE then selected CSLs to 
correspond to the efficiency of battery charger models that were 
comparable to each other in most respects, but differed significantly 
in UEC (i.e., efficiency).
    In general, for each representative unit, DOE chose the baseline 
(CSL 0) unit to be the one with the highest calculated unit energy 
consumption, and the best-in-market (CSL 2) to be the one with the 
lowest. Where possible, the energy consumption of an intermediate model 
was selected as the basis for CSL 1 to provide additional resolution to 
the analysis.
    Unlike the previous three CSLs, CSL 3 was not based on an 
evaluation of the efficiency of battery charger units in the market, 
since battery chargers with maximum technologically feasible efficiency 
levels are not commercially available due to their high cost. Where 
possible, DOE analyzed manufacturer estimates of max-tech costs and 
efficiencies. In some cases, manufacturers were unable to offer any 
insight into efficiencies beyond the best currently available in the 
market. Therefore, DOE projected the efficiency of a max-tech unit by 
estimating through extrapolation from its analysis of the analyzed CSL 
2 unit the impacts of adding any remaining energy efficiency design 
options.
    DOE received a number of comments from interested parties regarding 
the CSLs developed for the preliminary analysis. The California IOUs 
suggested that DOE consider CSLs between the best-in-market and max-
tech levels. (California IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 3, 5) NEEP made a similar 
suggestion, stating that DOE should have an additional CSL between the 
intermediate and max-tech CSLs. (NEEP, No. 51 at p. 4) The California 
IOUs added that DOE should consider the efficiency levels proposed at a 
standards-related workshop held in California on October 11, 2010.\35\ 
(California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ PG&E, Analysis of Standards Options for Battery Charger 
Systems, October 1, 2010 (http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/battery_chargers/documents/2010-10-11_workshop/2010-10-11_Battery_Charger_Title_20_CASE_Report_v2-2-2.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these suggestions on the preliminary analysis, DOE 
considered the levels proposed at the California workshop. At that 
workshop, California proposed using separate metrics for 24-hour 
energy, maintenance mode power, and standby mode power. Subsequently, 
California modified its approach to battery charger standards and 
combined the requirements for maintenance mode power and standby mode 
power into one metric. Using its usage profiles to translate these 
standards into a value of UEC, DOE compared its CSLs with the levels 
adopted by California. DOE found that, in most cases, when California's 
proposed standard was calculated into a value of UEC (using DOE's usage 
profile assumptions), it generally corresponded closely with one of 
DOE's CSLs for each product class. Therefore, in most instances, little 
valuable resolution could be added to DOE's cost-efficiency curves.
    Although this was the case for most product classes, it was not the 
case for all of them. For product class 2, DOE adopted the suggestion 
from the California IOUs and added a level between CSL 1 and CSL 2 
because the magnitude of the gap between UEC values was large enough to 
permit an additional CSL that could provide more cost effective 
savings. Please see TSD chapter 5 for product class 2 test results that 
illustrate this gap.
    Table IV-14 below shows which CSL aligns most closely with the 
California proposal for each product class.

[[Page 18525]]



      Table IV-14--CSLs Equivalent to California Proposed Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Product class                CSL equivalent to CEC standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (Low-Energy, Inductive)..........                                    CSL 0
2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage)........                                    CSL 2
3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage).....                                    CSL 2
4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage).......                                    CSL 2
5 (Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage).....                                    CSL 3
6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage)....                                    CSL 3
7 (High-Energy)....................                                    CSL 1
8 (DC Input <9 V)..................                                    CSL 0
10 (AC Output).....................                                    CSL 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, DOE received comments on specific CSLs for specific 
product classes. For product class 1 (low-energy, inductive) in 
particular, the California IOUs encouraged DOE to consider a CSL higher 
than CSL 3 because, in their view, CSL 3 was shown to be cost 
effective, leaving a possibility of additional cost-effective savings 
at higher efficiencies. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 5) For product 
class 2 (low-energy, low-voltage), the California IOUs asserted that 
DOE's baseline CSL should be lower because the test results presented 
in the preliminary analysis TSD showed products with UEC levels higher 
than the baseline value selected by DOE. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 
6) PTI expressed concern over the max-tech level for product class 4, 
stating that it would be achievable only by using a lithium-based (i.e. 
Lithium-ion or ``Li-ion'') battery technology, which is currently used 
in laptop computer applications. (PTI, No. 47 at p. 8) Finally, when 
developing a max-tech level for product classes 2, 3 (low-energy, 
medium voltage), 4 (low-energy, high-voltage), 8 (low-energy, low DC 
input), and 9 (low-energy, high DC input), the California IOUs 
suggested that DOE speak to integrated circuit component suppliers. 
(California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 5)
    Based on all of these comments, DOE conducted further analysis and 
review. For product class 1, DOE conducted additional interviews with 
manufacturers of these products and has revised its engineering 
analysis accordingly. DOE believes that the new MSPs, which are shown 
in section IV.C.2.i, more accurately depict the relationship between 
cost and efficiency for electric toothbrushes, which is the predominant 
application in that class.
    For product class 2, DOE understands the concerns about creating an 
accurate baseline UEC for these devices. However, the baseline level 
that DOE has developed for today's NOPR is representative of the worst 
performing products tested by DOE. All of the units that showed higher 
values of energy consumption were products that Ecos, an independent 
consulting firm and test lab that assisted the CEC when developing a 
battery charger test procedure, tested and provided to DOE. DOE 
believes that this factor may be partially explained by timing. Since 
many of the units tested by Ecos that performed poorly were older test 
units, it is likely that these devices did not incorporate EPSs that 
meet the EISA 2007 regulations that went into effect in 2008. 
Therefore, DOE believes that its current CSL 0 for product class 2 is 
appropriate and provides a reasonable picture of the current battery 
charger market.
    In response to PTI's comment, DOE clarifies that its preliminary 
analysis did not include an analysis for CSL 3 in product class 4. DOE 
obtained results only up to CSL 2 for product class 4. DOE notes that 
one of the units tested and torn down for that CSL was a power tool. 
For the NOPR, DOE has developed an analysis for CSL 3 in product class 
4, which corresponds to that class's maximum technology level.
    Finally, in developing the max-tech levels in the NOPR engineering 
analysis, DOE relied on input from manufacturers of battery chargers 
and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of products that use 
battery chargers. Manufacturers were able to provide DOE with 
sufficient information to enable the agency to ascertain what level of 
technology is feasible and is capable of surpassing the efficiency 
levels of incumbent technology currently available at the high end of 
the market today. Based on this information, DOE tentatively concluded 
that based on these discussions with manufacturers and OEMs there was 
sufficient information to define max-tech levels without interviewing 
integrated circuit suppliers.
e. Test and Teardowns
    As mentioned above, the CSLs used in the battery charger 
engineering analysis were based on the efficiencies of battery chargers 
available in the market. Following testing, the units corresponding to 
each commercially available CSL were disassembled to (1) evaluate the 
presence of energy efficiency design options and (2) estimate the 
materials cost. The disassemblies included an examination of the 
general design of the battery charger and helped confirm the presence 
of any of the technology options discussed in section IV.A.4.f.
    After the battery charger units corresponding to the CSLs were 
evaluated, they were torn down by iSuppli, a DOE contractor and 
industry expert. An in-depth teardown and cost analysis was performed 
for each of these units. For some products, like camcorders and 
notebook computers, the battery charger constitutes a small portion of 
the circuitry. In evaluating the related costs, iSuppli identified the 
subset of components in each product enclosure responsible for battery 
charging. The results of these teardowns were then used as the primary 
source for the MSPs.
    Interested parties offered some feedback regarding DOE's test and 
teardowns after the preliminary analysis. Stanley Black and Decker 
suggested that DOE should validate iSuppli's results by having them 
teardown products whose true costs are known--i.e. those instances 
where a manufacturer may have supplied data under a non-disclosure 
agreement. (B&D, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 37 at p. 234) AHAM recommended that 
DOE look at low cost products in product class 4 (e.g. notebook 
computers and large power tools). Wahl Clipper recommended that DOE 
estimate costs at lower volume levels than those used in the 
preliminary analysis--it offered 20,000 units per year as one 
alternative--because the effects on cost might be greater when 
components are purchased in lower volumes. (Wahl Clipper, Pub. Mtg. 
Tr., No. 37 at p. 206) The California IOUs made a number of 
recommendations to DOE. First, they suggested that DOE use PG&E's 
battery charger test data and that DOE gather

[[Page 18526]]

more teardown data. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 2) Second, they 
supported DOE's decision to leave out packaging costs from the teardown 
results. In particular, for product class 2 (e.g. mobile and cordless 
phones), they recommended that DOE conduct teardown analyses of units 
with slightly higher and lower battery energies. Third, the California 
IOUs urged DOE to test and tear down a wider array of battery chargers 
from product classes 5 (e.g. marine chargers) and 7 (e.g. golf cars). 
They suggested this approach because they claimed that their own test 
data showed a wider range of efficiencies among battery chargers 
belonging to these classes. (California IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 4, 6)
    For the NOPR, DOE has adopted most of the recommendations raised by 
commenters and has expanded its test program. DOE has performed 
additional tests using a variety of products from a number of product 
classes, including product classes 2, 4, 5, and 7. Further, DOE has 
performed additional teardown analyses on products from all ten 
proposed product classes. In total, over 100 new test results have been 
incorporated into the NOPR analysis. Packaging costs have continued to 
be excluded because they do not represent costs associated with 
improving the efficiency of a product. Regarding Wahl Clipper's 
suggestion to modify the volume assumption to 20,000 in order to 
determine how costs may change for a lower volume manufacturer, DOE 
believes that the large number of applications in each product class 
make it too difficult to select an appropriate low volume level. 
Additionally, DOE believes that the change in volume that results in 
higher costs for a manufacturer is likely to have little effect on 
consumers because the incremental costs from CSL to CSL are likely to 
be the same regardless of volume.
    Finally, DOE verified the accuracy of the iSuppli results by 
confirming those results with individual manufacturers during 
interviews. As will be discussed in the following section, DOE 
performed additional manufacturer interviews for the NOPR and during 
these interviews, the initial iSuppli results were vetted with 
manufacturers. DOE believes that it has sufficiently verified the 
accuracy of its teardown results and believes that all of the 
engineering costs gleaned from iSuppli are appropriate.
f. Manufacturer Interviews
    The preliminary analysis had, in part, relied on information 
obtained through interviews with several battery charger manufacturers. 
These manufacturers consisted of companies that manufacture battery 
chargers and OEMs of battery-operated products who package battery 
chargers with their end-use products. DOE followed this approach to 
obtain data on the possible efficiencies and resultant costs of 
consumer battery chargers.
    DOE received two comments regarding manufacturer interviews. First, 
PTI recommended that DOE speak with power tool manufacturers 
individually to obtain detailed information that would otherwise be 
unavailable through PTI as a trade association. (PTI, No. 47 at p. 12) 
Second, AHAM requested that the manufacturer interviews also involve 
discussions about testing costs and non-recurring capital expenditures. 
(AHAM, No. 44 at p. 13)
    In preparing the NOPR, additional interviews were conducted, 
including those with manufacturers who were previously interviewed and 
new ones who were not. These interviews served two purposes. First, it 
gave manufacturers the opportunity to provide feedback on the 
preliminary analysis engineering analysis results. Aggregated 
information from these results is provided in TSD chapter 5. Second, 
these interviews also provided manufacturer inputs and comments in 
preparing the manufacturer impact analysis, which is discussed in 
detail in section IV.I.
    DOE attempted to obtain teardown results for all of its product 
classes but encountered difficulties in obtaining useful and accurate 
teardown results for two of its products classes--namely, product class 
1 (e.g. electric toothbrushes) and product class 10 (e.g. 
uninterruptible power supplies). For these two classes, DOE relied 
heavily on information obtained from manufacturer interviews. DOE found 
that when it attempted to teardown product class 1 devices, most 
contained potting (i.e. material used to waterproof internal 
electronics). Removal of the potting also removed the identifying 
markings that iSuppli needed to estimate a cost for the components. As 
a result, manufacturer interview data helped furnish the necessary 
information to assist DOE in estimating these costs.
    In the case of UPSs, DOE found that it was difficult to accurately 
compare product costs because of the varying functionality of these 
devices. For example, DOE examined multiple UPSs, some of which 
provided additional utility to end users, such as AVR. As discussed 
earlier, AVR involves circuitry that monitors input voltage from the 
wall and ensures that all products plugged into the UPS see a steady 
flow of voltage despite any fluctuations. This added circuitry was 
impossible to distinguish from the standard UPS battery charging 
circuitry, which made it difficult to compare the costs of products 
that did not provide the same level of utility to the end-user. 
Furthermore, because the cost versus efficiency data provided by 
manufacturers showed economically justifiable levels through the max-
tech level developed in the preliminary analysis, DOE believed that 
these data were sufficient to set out the proposed levels without 
resorting to a more time-consuming tear-down analysis. However, after a 
second round of interviews with UPS manufacturers for the NOPR and 
conducting additional analysis (including testing), DOE found that it 
needed to make a modification to its approach for dealing with battery 
chargers within UPSs.
    When DOE tested UPSs according to the battery charger test 
procedure, it was unable to obtain maintenance mode power measurements 
as low (i.e. as good in terms of energy consumption) as those that 
manufacturers indicated were possible. DOE believes that the 
discrepancies between its test measurements and the data provided by 
manufacturers stems from the manner in which the test procedure 
measures energy consumption. TP measures consumption of unit as a 
whole--the entire UPS. BC only is using from mfr data. In particular, 
the DOE test procedure measures the energy consumption of the unit--in 
this case, the UPS--as a whole. Measuring the energy consumption of the 
battery charger alone in this instance would involve destructive 
testing. As a result, the data that DOE derived following its current 
test procedure for battery chargers includes the energy consumption 
from other UPS components other than the battery charger itself. For 
this reason, in this instance, DOE believes that the manufacturer-
supplied data is more likely to accurately reflect the actual energy 
consumption of the battery charger alone. Because manufacturers would 
be unlikely to over-estimate the potential energy consumption of their 
products, DOE believes that their estimates of power consumption from 
the UPS's battery charger are still appropriate estimates. However, DOE 
still needs to account for the discrepancies between the manufacturer 
data and the measurements from its test procedure.
    For the NOPR, DOE conducted additional testing of UPSs in which it 
attempted to describe the differences between its test procedure 
measurement

[[Page 18527]]

and the values provided by manufacturers. During this round of testing, 
DOE performed the DOE test procedure, but added another measurement. As 
mentioned previously, while it is extremely difficult to isolate the 
power consumption due to battery charging from any other UPS 
functionality, the input power to the battery itself can be measured. 
With this measurement, DOE obtained two useful pieces of information. 
First, it allowed DOE to isolate a portion of battery charging power 
consumption from all other functions within a UPS and develop a trend 
line that describes how maintenance mode power will vary as battery 
energy changes. Second, this measurement, combined with the data from 
the tested units that corresponded to DOE's best-in-market test results 
(in terms of maintenance mode power as measured in the DOE test 
procedure), allowed DOE to develop supplemental values that it could 
use to increment the data provided by manufacturer such that it 
correlated to DOE test results. These values essentially operate as a 
means to account for the additional energy consumption used by a device 
when providing additional functionality. DOE developed two values, 
shown in Table IV-15 below, one for basic UPSs and one for UPSs that 
incorporate AVR. See TSD Chapter 5 for additional details. DOE is 
proposing to use these two values to develop an appropriate standard 
for basic UPSs and UPSs with AVR, after DOE proposes selecting an 
appropriate TSL for product 10.

    Table IV-15--Supplemental Values for Product Classes 10a and 10b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Maintenance mode  UEC supplemental
                                        supplemental        value for
            Product class                 value for         proposed
                                          proposed       standard (kWh/
                                        standard (W)           yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10a (UPSs without AVR)..............               0.4              3.45
10b (UPSs with AVR).................               0.8              7.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Design Options
    Design options are technology options that remain viable for use in 
the engineering analysis after applying the screening analysis as 
discussed above in section IV.B.
    In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE received comments 
regarding design options and their application to the overall analysis. 
The California IOUs indicated that, with respect to the larger battery 
charger product classes where lead-acid batteries are most common, DOE 
should apply technologies more common in smaller units, such as switch-
mode power supplies, to these devices in the analysis. (California 
IOUs, No. 43 at p. 5) NEEP made similar suggestions and stated that DOE 
should examine whether technologies can be applied across multiple 
product classes. (NEEP, No. 51 at p. 2) However, CEA urged DOE to 
account for the differences in battery chemistries and determine the 
appropriateness of given technologies for certain applications. CEA 
added that DOE must consider how battery technologies could be impacted 
by new efficiency requirements. (CEA, No. 48 at p. 2) Motorola 
expressed similar concerns and noted that although certain battery 
chemistries are less efficient, those chemistries may have other 
inherently important features like wider temperature range operations 
and improved cycle-life. Motorola insisted that these things should be 
considered when DOE conducts its technical and economic analyses. 
(Motorola, No. 50 at p. 2) Stanley Black and Decker added that DOE 
should not assume that additional utility is desirable as it will 
likely cause an increase in cost to the consumer. (SBD, Pub. Mtg. Tr., 
No. 37 at pp. 147-148) Finally, Lester commented that transformer-based 
chargers are more reliable, durable and provide batteries with a much 
longer life expectancy. Lester added that these chargers are often 
preferable to more efficient switch-mode chargers in industrial 
applications. (Lester, No. 52 at p. 2) Lester did not include any 
additional data to corroborate their statements regarding increased 
durability for battery chargers that are transformer-based and the life 
expectancy for batteries that use such chargers.
    DOE clarifies that all technology options that are not eliminated 
in the screening analysis (section IV.B) become design options that are 
considered in the engineering analysis. As most CSLs are based on 
actual teardowns of units manufactured and sold in today's battery 
charger market, DOE did not control which design options were used at 
each CSL. No technology options were preemptively eliminated from use 
with a particular product class. Similarly, if products are being 
manufactured and sold, DOE believes that fact indicates the absence of 
any significant loss in utility, such as an extremely limited operating 
temperature range or shortened cycle-life. Therefore, DOE believes that 
all CSLs can be met with technologies that are feasible and that fit 
the intended application.
    For the max-tech designs, which are not commercially available, DOE 
developed these levels in part with a focus on maintaining product 
utility as projected energy efficiency improved. Although some 
features, such as decreased charge time, were considered as added 
utilities, DOE did not assign any monetary value to such features. 
Additionally, DOE did not assume that such features were undesirable, 
particularly if the incremental improvement in performance causes a 
significant savings in energy costs. Finally, DOE appreciates the need 
to consider durability, reliability, and other performance and utility 
related features that affect consumer behavior. On these issues, DOE 
seeks information, including substantive data, to help it assess these 
factors in consumer products.
h. Cost Model
    Today's NOPR continues to apply the same approach used in the 
preliminary analysis to generate the manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) 
for the engineering analysis. For those product classes other than 
product classes 1 and 10, DOE's MSPs rely on the teardown results 
obtained from iSuppli. The bills of materials provided by iSuppli were 
multiplied by a markup that depended on product class. For those 
product classes for which DOE could not estimate MSPs using the iSuppli 
teardowns--product classes 1 and 10--DOE relied on aggregate 
manufacturer interview data, which projected that economic savings 
would accrue through the max-tech level in the preliminary analysis.

[[Page 18528]]

    Additional details regarding the cost model and the markups assumed 
for each product class are presented in TSD chapter 5.
i. Battery Charger Engineering Results
    The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-
efficiency data (or ``curves'') in the form of MSP (in dollars) versus 
unit energy consumption (in kWh/yr). These data form the basis for the 
NOPR analyses. This section illustrates the results that DOE obtained 
for all 10 product classes in its NOPR engineering analysis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.025

    In response to the engineering results that DOE provided in the 
preliminary analysis for product class 1, DOE received one comment from 
Philips. Philips publicly submitted estimates of ``what the consumer 
pays,'' for CSLs 0, 1, 2, and 3 for product class 1. Philips suggested 
that those values would be $8, $10, $15, and $24, respectively. 
(Philips, No. 43 at p. 2) In its preliminary analysis, DOE proposed 
MSPs for product class 1 to be: $2.05, $2.22, $2.45, $2.60, for CSLs 0 
through 3 respectively. Although DOE appreciates the feedback provided 
by Philips, it is vastly different from the information gathered on 
manufacturer interviews. DOE believes this discrepancy is partially due 
to a misinterpretation of the term MSP. The values that Philips 
provided, as it has described them, would correspond to what DOE 
considers a retail price and not an MSP. DOE has revised its MSPs for 
product class 1 according to the data obtained from manufacturers on 
interviews for the NOPR.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.026

    DOE did not receive any specific comments on its product class 2 
engineering results in the preliminary analysis, but its revised 
results are presented in Table IV-17.

[[Page 18529]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.027

    DOE did not receive any specific comments on its product class 3 
engineering results in the preliminary analysis, but its revised 
results are presented in Table IV-18.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.028

    DOE did not receive any specific comments on its product class 4 
engineering results in the preliminary analysis, but its revised 
results are presented in Table IV-19.

[[Page 18530]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.029

    DOE did not receive any specific comments on its product class 5 
engineering results in the preliminary analysis, but its revised 
results are presented in Table IV-20.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.030

    For product class 6, DOE performed additional product testing for 
the NOPR, but did not obtain a complete data set upon which to base its 
engineering analysis. This situation was due in large part to DOE's 
inability to locate products with sufficiently similar battery energies 
and the fact that the products tested did not span a significant range 
of performance. DOE's test data for this product class are available in 
chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD. In order to develop an engineering 
analysis for this product class, DOE relied on, among other things, the 
results gleaned from product class 5, interviews with manufacturers, 
and its limited test data from product class 6.
    The difference between product class 5 and product class 6 is the 
range of voltages that are covered. Product class 5 covers low-voltage 
(less than 20 V) and medium energy (100 Wh to 3,000 Wh) products, while 
product class 6 covers high-voltage (greater than or equal to 20 V) and 
medium energy (100 Wh to 3,000 Wh) products. The representative unit 
examined for product class 5 is a 12 V, 800 Wh battery charger, while 
the representative unit analyzed for product class 6 is a 24 V, 400 Wh 
battery charger. Despite the change in voltage, DOE believes that 
similar technology options and battery charging strategies are 
available in both classes. Both chargers are used with relatively large 
sealed-lead acid batteries in products like wheelchairs, electric 
scooters, and electric lawn mowers. However, since the battery chargers 
in product class 6 work with higher voltages, current can be reduced 
for the same output power, which creates the potential for making these 
devices

[[Page 18531]]

slightly more efficient because I\2\R losses \36\ will be reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In electrical circuits, I\2\R losses manifests themselves 
as heat and are the result of high levels of current flow through a 
device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the NOPR, DOE examined its product class 5 results and analyzed 
how the performance may be impacted if similar technologies are used. 
The resulting performance parameters are shown in Table IV-21. To 
account for the projected variation in energy consumption, DOE used 
information on charge time and maintenance mode power to adjust the 
corresponding values for 24-hour energy. Additionally, DOE discussed 
with manufacturers about how costs may differ in manufacturing a 12 V 
(product class 5) charger versus a 24 V (product class 6) charger. 
Manufacturers indicated that, holding constant all other factors, there 
would likely be minimal change, if any, in the cost. Therefore, because 
DOE scaled performance assuming that the designs for corresponding CSLs 
in each product class used the same design options and only differed in 
voltage, DOE did not scale costs from product class 5. Rather than 
scaling the product class 5 costs, DOE used the same MSP's for product 
class 6 that were developed from iSuppli tear down data for product 
class 5. DOE believes these costs are an accurate representation of the 
MSPs and seeks comment on its methodology in scaling the results of 
product class 5 to product class 6, including the decision to hold MSPs 
constant.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.031

    DOE did not receive any specific comments on its product class 7 
results in the preliminary analysis, but its revised results are 
presented in Table IV-22.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.032

    Product class 8 (e.g. MP3 players and smartphones) consists of 
devices that charge with a DC input of less than 9 V, which is mostly 
those products that charge via USB connections. When DOE analyzed this 
product class it tested and tore down 3 devices, one for CSL 0, 1, and 
2; and all of which were MP3 players.

[[Page 18532]]

    DOE's analysis projects a significant drop in MSP from CSL 0 to CSL 
1. See Table IV-23. Because of this drop, DOE tentatively believes that 
at least one of its trial standard levels for this product class meets 
DOE's criteria for being economically justified and technologically 
feasible. However, the baseline unit MSP for this analysis may be 
inflated due to the cost of the particular integrated circuit used in 
that unit. The integrated circuit used in this device performs 
additional functions besides battery charging and constitutes a 
significant portion of the bill of materials generated by iSuppli. DOE 
was unable to determine what portion of the integrated circuit was 
dedicated to battery charging and therefore, kept the entire cost of 
the component in its bill of materials. Because of this factor and the 
minimal differences in energy consumption between each CSL for product 
class 8, DOE is considering an alternative approach in addition to its 
proposed standard. Both the proposed standard and the alternative 
approach are outlined in 0 and, as with all other product class data, 
DOE seeks comment on its MSP projections for product class data.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.033

    For the preliminary analysis, DOE scaled the results of other 
product classes to obtain results for product class 9. The results of 
DOE's revised analysis, based on test and teardown results, are shown 
in Table IV-24.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.034

    As discussed previously, DOE believes that the engineering analysis 
results it developed in the preliminary analysis using manufacturer-
supplied data provide an appropriate estimate of the cost-versus-UEC 
(or maintenance mode power) relationship for the battery charger 
embedded within a UPS. Also as discussed previously, DOE believes that 
this relationship is appropriate for UPSs, regardless of whether they 
have AVR. Consequently, DOE has used one set of engineering data, 
presented in Table IV-25 above, in all of the subsequent analyses (e.g. 
the LCC and NIA). DOE contends that this is an accurate approach 
because the technologies available in designing a battery charger used 
within a UPS are the same whether or not that UPS has AVR. The 
corresponding costs for these technologies would also result in the 
same MSP for the battery charger as a component of the UPS.
    Finally, in the preliminary analysis, DOE developed cost-efficiency 
curves based on both manufacturer interviews

[[Page 18533]]

and when possible, test and teardown results. As a result of some 
differences in these curves, NEEP suggested that DOE should reconcile 
differences in the results obtained from manufacturer data and from 
teardowns. (NEEP, No. 51 at p. 4)
    The data obtained from teardowns that was available at the time of 
manufacturer interviews was included in the interview guide and 
discussed at those meetings. DOE continued to conduct teardowns after 
those meetings and has added data that will be available for public 
comment. Through that process, DOE seeks to continue to refine its 
analysis and to mitigate any differences between the teardown and 
manufacturer data.
j. Scaling of Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels
    To establish its proposed energy conservation standards for 
products with all battery energies and battery voltages within a 
product class, DOE developed a UEC scaling approach. After developing 
the engineering analysis results for the representative units, DOE had 
to determine a methodology for extending the UEC at each CSL to all 
other ratings not directly analyzed for a given product class. DOE had 
initially raised the possibility of using UEC as a function of battery 
energy. DOE also indicated that it might base this UEC function on the 
test data that had been obtained up through the preliminary 
analysis.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ At the preliminary analysis public meeting, DOE handed out 
a supplemental slide deck, which outlined preliminary ideas to 
scaling UEC based on test data and with respect to battery energy. 
See these slides available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_preliminaryanalysis_public_mtg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous interested parties submitted comments regarding the 
potential scaling methodology. AHAM generally supported DOE's proposed 
approach in which the UEC was scaled with regards to battery energy but 
suggested that DOE hold UEC constant below a certain value of battery 
energy because the fixed losses in these low-energy, lower power units 
begin to dominate and more stringent standards risk becoming overly 
restrictive on the ability of manufacturers to design useful products 
for consumers. AHAM also suggested that DOE consider UEC as a function 
of battery voltage. (AHAM, No. 44 at p. 9) PTI made similar suggestions 
and commented that it may be appropriate for UEC to remain constant for 
battery energies below the representative unit value. (PTI, No. 47 at 
p. 9)
    The California IOUs suggested applying a single scaling 
relationship for active mode energy for product classes 2 through 7. 
For battery chargers with very high battery energies, such as those 
used in golf cars, the California IOUs believed that a flat or constant 
standard might be appropriate. (California IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 3-4) The 
California IOUs also argued that a potential scaling approach based on 
the test results of multi-capacity battery chargers would be inaccurate 
and argued that it should be dropped. They indicated that a scaling 
relationship based on such products would be demonstrative of products 
that are capable of using multiple batteries rather than products 
representative of the bulk of battery chargers, which are designed for 
a single specific battery. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 6) Finally, 
these commenters asserted that maintenance mode power and no-battery 
mode power should be regulated independently of battery energy, as many 
of the same design options are applicable to small and large energy 
battery chargers. Because of these similarities, the California IOUs 
asserted that all battery chargers, regardless of battery size, should 
be capable of the same level of performance in those modes of operation 
and DOE should assume this value is constant irrespective of battery 
energy. (California IOUs, No. 43, at p. 7)
    DOE considered the comments it received and refined its scaling 
approach for the NOPR. In particular, DOE evaluated scaling approaches 
based on the battery voltage and the battery energy and found that the 
latter is a more appropriate way to model its scaling methodology. When 
DOE examined its test results, it noted a much weaker correlation 
between battery voltage and UEC than between battery energy and UEC. 
See TSD, appendix 5C. DOE also noticed from its test results that the 
individual performance parameters, such as maintenance mode power, no-
battery mode power, and 24-hour energy, could be formulated as 
functions of battery energy. See TSD, Chapter 5. For this reason, DOE 
did not follow the recommendation of the California IOUs to leave some 
performance parameters constant.
    Additionally, DOE is proposing to scale UEC as a function of 
battery energy for golf cars. The TSD shows that, as battery energy 
increases, so too does the UEC because more energy is needed to charge 
the larger battery. See TSD, chapter 5 (discussing test results related 
to product classes 5, 6, and 7 that demonstrate the linear relationship 
between increasing battery energy and UEC). DOE also found that this 
trend was true for product class 10 devices (UPSs), which incorporate 
lead-acid batteries. The details on the scaling methodology for these 
products are also available in TSD chapter 5.
    In contrast, for product classes 1 and 8 DOE is proposing that all 
devices within those product classes be required to meet one nominal 
standard. For these product classes, battery energy appeared to have 
little impact on the UEC's that were calculated. Accordingly, to 
account for these differences, DOE is tentatively proposing two 
separate approaches for scaling UEC based on these test results--i.e. 
one that scales with battery energy and another that remains at a 
single, nominal level.
    DOE's scaling approach for the NOPR relies heavily on the test data 
that it has gathered throughout the rulemaking process. DOE examined 
each performance parameter individually and, when possible, looked at 
groups of product class test results. For example, product classes 2, 
3, and 4 are similar products that use similar technologies and span 
the same battery energy ratings. In these cases, DOE examined all of 
these test results together. DOE also developed regression equations 
for each of the performance parameters needed to calculate UEC and 
ultimately, aggregated those equations with assumptions about usage 
profiles for each product class. That is, DOE examined test results for 
maintenance mode power, no-battery mode power, and 24-hour energy 
individually and relative to battery energy. From these data, DOE 
derived equations for each parameter as it relates to battery energy. 
Because each equation was a function of the same parameter, battery 
energy, each one could be combined with assumptions about product usage 
to develop a single UEC equation that was also a function of battery 
energy.
    For product classes other than product classes 1, 8, and 10, DOE 
developed equations that use different slopes for different CSLs. For 
higher CSL equations in a given product class, the slope of the UEC 
line becomes smaller, which means that the line describing UEC versus 
battery energy becomes flatter. DOE found that when it filtered its 
test results and examined products with similar technologies (e.g. 
lithium-ion chemistry batteries) spanning a range of battery energy 
levels, the slope of the line generated for 24-hour energy correlated 
to the inverse of 24-hour efficiency, which is the ratio of measured 
battery energy to 24-hour energy, expressed as a percentage. Thus, as 
products became more efficient, the

[[Page 18534]]

slope of the equation used to describe UEC versus battery energy became 
flatter.
    Finally, DOE adopted the suggestions offered by AHAM and PTI 
regarding the treatment of small battery energies. When DOE was 
developing its CSL equations for UEC, it found during testing that the 
correlation between points at low battery energies was much worse than 
for the rest of the range of battery energy, which indicated that the 
initial equations DOE had initially planned to use did not match the 
test results. To address this situation, DOE generated a boundary 
condition for its CSL equations, which essentially flattens the UEC 
below a certain threshold of battery energy to recognize that below 
certain values, fixed power components of UEC, such as maintenance mode 
power, dominate UEC. Making this change helped DOE to create a better-
fitting equation to account for these types of conditions to ensure 
that any standards that are set better reflect the particular 
characteristics of a given product.
    For additional details and the exact CSL equations developed for 
each product class, please see TSD chapter 5.

D. Markups To Determine Product Price

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the 
distribution chain to convert the MSP estimates derived in the 
engineering analysis to consumer prices. At each step in the 
distribution chain, companies mark up the price of the product to cover 
business costs and profit margin. Given the variety of products that 
use battery chargers and EPSs, distribution varies depending on the 
product class and application. As such, DOE assumed that the dominant 
path to market establishes the retail price and, thus, the composite 
markup for a given application. The markups applied to end-use products 
that use battery chargers and EPSs are approximations of the battery 
charger and EPS markups.
    In the case of battery chargers and EPSs, the dominant path to 
market typically involves an end-use product manufacturer (i.e. OEM) 
and retailer. DOE developed OEM and retailer markups by examining 
annual financial filings, such as Securities and Exchange Commission 
(SEC) 10-K reports, from more than 80 publicly traded OEMs, retailers, 
and distributors engaged in the manufacturing and/or sales of consumer 
applications that use battery chargers or EPSs.
    Retail prices for EPSs in product class H (e.g. EPSs for amateur 
radios) were readily available, as these devices are not typically 
bundled with a consumer application. Thus, using these retail prices 
and the component costs determined in its teardown analysis, DOE was 
able to derive markups for EPSs in product class H.
    DOE typically calculates two markups for each product in the 
markups analysis. These are: a markup applied to the baseline component 
of a product's cost (referred to as a baseline markup) and a markup 
applied to the incremental cost increase that results from standards 
(referred to as an incremental markup). The incremental markup relates 
the change in the MSP of higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost 
increase) to the change in the retailer's selling price.
    In the preliminary analysis public meeting, PTI commented that DOE 
neglected to take into account situations in which an EPS is purchased 
by a battery charger manufacturer to be integrated into a battery 
charger. In these cases, the completed battery charger (with integrated 
EPS) is sold to an OEM to be packaged with an end-use application. 
Philips explained that three markups would be applied to the MSP of 
these EPSs: One by the battery charger manufacturer, one by the OEM, 
and one by the retailer. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 316)
    DOE agrees that, for situations in which this additional step 
occurs, the battery charger manufacturer would need to cover its costs 
and profit margin with a markup. However, given DOE's assumption that 
the dominant path to market sets the final product price, it is only 
for those classes of EPS for which this is the most common path to 
market that the final product price would be affected. DOE believes 
that this situation would primarily apply to EPSs that exclusively 
provide power to a stand-alone battery charger, such as EPSs for power 
tools, garden-care equipment, and other applications with detachable 
batteries. As explained in section IV.A.1 above, DOE did not quantify 
savings for EPSs that cannot directly power an end-use consumer product 
(i.e., EPSs that only provide power to a battery charger), and, 
therefore, DOE did not quantify markups for these ``indirect 
operation'' EPSs. The remaining EPSs that power battery chargers can 
also power an application directly, meaning that the EPS is not 
exclusively a component of the battery charger. Instead, it is a 
component of the application itself, e.g., a notebook computer. In 
those cases, DOE assumes that it is more common that the OEM, rather 
than the battery charger manufacturer, sources the EPS, making a third 
markup unnecessary.
    AHAM commented that engineering costs to integrate a battery 
charger into an end-use consumer product are typically higher than 
those for an EPS, and it may be inappropriate to apply an incremental 
markup to battery chargers at the OEM stage that is lower than the 
baseline markup. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 325)
    To calculate incremental markups, DOE subtracted ``selling, 
general, and administrative expenses'' (SG&A) from net profit to yield 
operating profit. Dividing this amount by the revenue value yields an 
incremental markup. By subtracting SG&A from net profit, DOE assumes 
that indirect costs (such as indirect labor and overhead) remain 
constant when a product becomes more efficient and, therefore, do not 
need to be accounted for in the incremental markup. Given that SG&A 
does not include research and development (R&D) or engineering costs, 
any direct labor, R&D, engineering, and other direct expenses that OEMs 
incur when integrating a more efficient battery charger into an 
application are assumed to be recovered through the incremental markup.
    Chapter 6 of the TSD provides additional detail on the markups 
analysis.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    DOE estimated the annual energy use of products in the field as 
they are used by consumers. The energy use analysis provides the basis 
for other analyses, particularly assessments of the energy savings and 
the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from DOE's 
adoption of new or amended standards. While the DOE test procedure 
provides standardized results that can serve as the basis for comparing 
the performance of different products used under the same conditions, 
the energy use analysis seeks to capture the range of operating 
conditions for battery chargers and EPSs in the United States.
    Battery chargers and EPSs are power conversion devices that 
transform input voltage to a suitable voltage for the end-use 
application or battery they are powering. A portion of the energy that 
flows into a battery charger or EPS flows out to a battery or end-use 
product and, thus, cannot be considered to be consumed by the battery 
charger or EPS. However, to provide the necessary output power, other 
factors contribute to battery charger and EPS energy consumption--e.g. 
internal losses and overhead circuitry.\38\ Therefore, the

[[Page 18535]]

traditional method for calculating energy consumption--by measuring the 
energy a product draws from mains while performing its intended 
function(s)--is not appropriate for battery chargers and EPSs. Instead, 
DOE considered energy consumption to be the energy dissipated by the 
battery charger or EPS (losses) and not delivered to the end-use 
product or battery as a more accurate means to determine the energy 
consumption of these products. Once the energy and power requirements 
of those end-use products and batteries were determined, DOE considered 
them fixed, and DOE analyzed only how standards would affect the energy 
consumption of the battery chargers and EPSs themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Internal losses are energy losses that occur during the 
power conversion process. Overhead circuitry refers to circuits and 
other components of the EPS, such as monitoring circuits, logic 
circuits, and LED indicator lights, that consume power but do not 
directly contribute power to the end-use application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE applied a single usage profile for each application to 
calculate the unit energy consumption for battery chargers and EPSs. 
However, usage varies by application and among users. DOE examined the 
usage profiles of multiple user types for applications where usage 
varies widely (for example, a light user and a heavy user or an amateur 
user and professional user). AHAM suggested that DOE revisit, and 
possibly revise, its usage profile assumptions for the NOPR stage 
analyses. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 8) As new information became available 
and analytical methodologies were altered, DOE revisited its usage 
profile assumptions to ensure the accuracy of its NOPR analyses. As 
part of its NOPR analysis, DOE re-examined its initial usage profiles 
in the following ways:
     New applications were added or existing applications were 
combined;
     Existing applications were divided into applications used 
in a commercial setting and applications used in a residential setting;
     New sources (such as published studies or data from 
stakeholders) were made available or new data were provided to DOE; 
and/or
     Tested charge times indicated that DOE's usage profiles 
were in need of revision.
    DOE also explored high- and low-savings scenarios in an LCC 
sensitivity analysis. Values that varied in this sensitivity analysis 
included battery charger and EPS usage profiles and EPS loading points. 
Varying these values allowed DOE to account for uncertainty in the 
average usage profiles and explore the effect that usage variations 
might have on energy consumption, life-cycle cost, and payback. 
Additional information on this sensitivity analysis is contained in 
appendix 8B to the TSD.
    DOE does not assume the existence of a rebound effect, in which 
consumers would increase use in response to an increase in energy 
efficiency and resulting decrease in operating costs. For BCs and EPSs, 
DOE expects that, in light of the small amount of savings expected over 
the course of the year, the rebound effect is likely to be negligible 
because consumers are unlikely to notice the decrease in operating 
costs that would result from new standards for these products.
    At the preliminary analysis public meeting, PG&E, through its 
consultant Ecos, commented that DOE should adopt the simplified 
approach to battery charger usage profiles being pursued by California. 
It claimed that the wide variety of end-use applications and end users 
makes it infeasible to accurately characterize usage for battery 
chargers. It recommended instead that DOE assign all applications to 
one of two categories: those that are charged rarely (such as battery 
chargers for uninterruptible power supplies and other backup batteries) 
and those that are charged sometimes (all other battery chargers). 
(Ecos/PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 30) In a joint letter submitted 
to DOE, energy efficiency advocates echoed these sentiments and 
suggested that DOE group products into one of two possible general duty 
cycles: `charged some of the time' and `almost always in maintenance 
mode.''' (PG&E, et al., No. 47 at p. 2) In the preliminary analysis 
public meeting, PTI commented that taking into account usage profiles 
to analyze annual energy consumption is the correct approach because it 
is the only way to express meaningful savings to the public. PTI 
reiterated its support for DOE's proposed approach in its written 
comments, claiming that increased detail allows for a more accurate 
understanding of variations in use and a basis for estimating actual 
energy consumption. PTI also stated that it ``believe[s] that the 
subsequent UEC calculation based upon usage patterns provides a 
meaningful measure of energy use.'' (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 
378 and No. 45 at pp. 7-8) AHAM supported the continued use of usage 
profiles in estimating unit energy consumption and emphasized that, 
because of their critical nature, usage profiles should be more exact, 
not simplified. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 376 and No. 42 at p. 
8)
    In developing its usage profiles, DOE relied on empirical data for 
more than 40 applications. These data primarily consisted of user 
surveys, metering studies, and stakeholder input. Collectively, the 
analyzed applications for which DOE has empirical usage data accounted 
for more than 80 percent of annual aggregate battery charger energy 
use, because the available data focused mainly on the more common, 
high-powered, and high-use applications. Usage profiles for the 
remaining applications were derived from these known usage profiles. 
DOE recognizes that the calculation of usage profiles is not an exact 
science, but is confident that energy use and potential savings can be 
more accurately estimated if application-specific use is taken into 
account. Therefore, based on data and arguments presented to DOE to 
date, DOE is proposing to continue to use the same basic approach to 
battery charger usage profiles that it used in the preliminary 
analysis.
    Philips questioned DOE's initial assumption during the preliminary 
analysis phase that seldom-used applications, such as beard and 
mustache trimmers, are plugged in, on average, one hour per day. 
Instead, Philips stated that such products are rarely charged and the 
potential energy savings from regulating battery chargers and EPSs that 
power these products would be very small. (Philips, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 
57 at pp. 130-131) AHAM commented that many of the products that DOE 
assumes to be charged for one hour per week, such as personal care 
products and other portable appliances, are typically charged less 
frequently. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 6)
    DOE's usage profiles are intended to represent an average usage 
scenario across all users, rather than any particular type of user. DOE 
recognizes that while many users likely have these products plugged in 
for less than one hour per day, others (specifically those with cradle 
chargers) tend to leave these products plugged in for more than one 
hour per day. Some users may rarely, if ever, unplug their chargers. 
Given these possible variations in usage, DOE revisited its assumed 
usage profiles for personal care products and other infrequently 
charged products. DOE opted to leave its usage profiles for beard and 
mustache trimmers and hair clippers unchanged in the reference case, 
but also to explore high- and low-use scenarios in the LCC sensitivity 
analyses. Upon further analysis, DOE agrees with AHAM and Philips that 
some small, portable applications are charged, on average, less 
frequently than indicated in the preliminary analysis (1 hour per 
week). Thus, DOE reduced the amount of time in active and maintenance 
modes to 0.5 hours per week for air mattress pumps, mixers, blenders, 
handheld GPSs, and residential portable printers. DOE also explored the 
effects of lower use for

[[Page 18536]]

other applications in the LCC sensitivity analysis.
    Philips also suggested the following usage profile for battery 
chargers in product class 1 (inductive chargers for use in wet 
environments):

1. Active + Maintenance = 17.25 hr/day
2. Unplugged = 6.48 hr/day
3. No Battery = 0.11 hr/day
4. Off = 0 hr day
5. Charges per day = 0.048 (Philips, No. 41 at p. 2)

    DOE's usage profile from its preliminary analysis, which was 
provided by PG&E (Ecos Consulting, No. 30), assumed that all products 
in product class 1 are cradle-charged and, thus, are never unplugged. 
While DOE tentatively agrees with Philips that some users unplug their 
chargers once the product is charged, PG&E's research suggests that 
Philips overestimated the number of users who unplug between charges 
(and by extension, the amount of time the average unit spends 
unplugged). Thus, for the NOPR, DOE used an average of the usage 
profiles provided by PG&E and Philips for its reference case usage 
profile. This resulted in a usage profile that assumed those products 
spend some time in unplugged mode, but less than the time suggested by 
Philips. High- and low-use scenarios for the applications in product 
class 1 were explored in the LCC sensitivity analysis.
    Stanley Black & Decker commented that outdoor gardening appliances 
are typically used seasonally, and that the initial unit energy 
consumption values for these products that DOE had considered during 
the preliminary analysis phase should be reduced by half. It added, 
though, that DOE should maintain its lifetime assumptions from the 
preliminary analysis. (SBD, No. 44 at p. 1) DOE agrees that these 
products are typically used seasonally and notes that it had already 
accounted for seasonal use, as suggested by Stanley Black & Decker, 
when it created the usage profiles in the preliminary analysis. The 
usage profile that DOE used in the NOPR-stage analysis continues to 
apply a seasonal use assumption for these products.
    Cobra Electronics claimed that the typical residential two-way 
radio is charged less than once per week, since residential consumers 
tend to use these products a few times per year. (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 
2) DOE agrees that residential use of two-way radios is likely to be 
infrequent, but also recognizes that many of the two-way radios used by 
residential users are also available to commercial users, who charge 
these products far more frequently. In preparation of the NOPR 
analysis, DOE analyzed the energy use of the two-way radio application 
separately for those products charged in a residential setting and 
those products charged in a commercial setting. DOE assumed that two-
way radios charged in a residential setting are charged infrequently, 
as was suggested by Cobra, while those charged in a commercial setting 
are charged more frequently.
    Lester commented that ``the reduction in energy loss as estimated 
is overstated for golf cars due to mistaken assumptions about the duty 
cycle and corresponding energy use.'' (Lester, No. 53 at p. 2) DOE 
remains confident in its assumptions for golf car use, which are 
derived from manufacturer input. As it did for two-way radios, DOE 
divided the golf car application into two distinct applications: golf 
cars charged in the residential sector, and golf cars charged in the 
commercial sector. DOE's residential usage profile assumes less time in 
active use and, therefore, fewer charges per day, while DOE's 
commercial usage profile assumes heavier use. Given this heavier use, 
DOE assumed that commercial golf cars spend less time in maintenance 
mode, as they are typically used more frequently, and for longer 
durations, than are residential golf cars.
    In response to comments from manufacturers that battery chargers in 
product class 2 that meet the baseline efficiency level may be slow 
chargers and designed for less frequent use or increased time in 
maintenance mode, the California IOUs commented that these products may 
not always be used infrequently, but rather can be used by some 
segments of the population on a daily basis. (California IOUs, No. 43 
at p. 6)
    DOE's usage profiles are designed to take into account the average 
use of all users, subject to the constraints of a given battery 
charger, such as a slow charge rate or quick discharge rate. DOE 
believes that it has accurately estimated the usage profiles of 
handheld vacuum cleaners (which are in no battery mode, on average, six 
minutes per day), cordless phones (which are in no battery mode, on 
average, more than two hours per day), and the usage profiles for the 
remaining applications in its analysis. These usage profiles reflect 
average use, and, therefore, account for infrequent and frequent users 
of these applications.
    DOE recognizes that there is considerable variation in how 
individual consumers use battery chargers and EPSs for specific 
applications. This leads to some uncertainty and disagreement over what 
an appropriate usage profile is for specific applications, such as 
power tools, personal care products, and other applications. In all 
cases, DOE used the best available data to derive reference case usage 
profiles for each application. For applications with highly variable 
use, DOE explored high- and low-use scenarios in an LCC sensitivity 
analysis. DOE continues to seek data and substantiated recommendations 
that will allow it to further refine its reference case usage profiles. 
(See Issue 12 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section 
VII.E of this notice.)
    Chapter 7 of the TSD provides additional detail on the energy use 
analysis.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    This section describes the LCC and payback period analyses and the 
spreadsheet model DOE used for analyzing the economic impacts of 
possible standards on individual consumers. Details of the spreadsheet 
model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained 
in chapter 8 and appendix 8A of the TSD. DOE conducted the LCC and PBP 
analyses using a spreadsheet model developed in Microsoft Excel. When 
combined with Crystal Ball (a commercially-available software program), 
the LCC and PBP model generates a Monte Carlo simulation \39\ to 
perform the analysis by incorporating uncertainty and variability 
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Monte Carlo simulations model uncertainty by utilizing 
probability distributions instead of single values for certain 
inputs and variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LCC analysis estimates the impact of a standard on consumers by 
calculating the net cost of a battery charger or EPS under a base-case 
scenario (in which no new energy conservation standard is in effect) 
and under a standards-case scenario (in which the proposed energy 
conservation standard is applied). The base-case scenario is determined 
by the efficiency level that a sampled consumer currently purchases, 
which may be above the baseline efficiency level. The life-cycle cost 
of a particular battery charger or EPS is composed of the total 
installed cost (which includes manufacturer selling price, distribution 
chain markups, sales taxes, and any installation cost), operating 
expenses (energy and any maintenance costs), product lifetime, and 
discount rate. As noted in the preliminary analysis, DOE considers 
installation costs to be zero for battery chargers and EPSs.

[[Page 18537]]

    The payback period is the change in purchase expense due to a more 
stringent energy conservation standard, divided by the change in annual 
operating cost that results from the standard. Stated more simply, the 
payback period is the time period it takes to recoup the increased 
purchase cost of a more-efficient product through energy savings. DOE 
expresses this period in years.
    Table IV-26 summarizes the approach and data that DOE used to 
derive the inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations for the preliminary 
analysis and the changes made for today's proposed rule. The following 
sections discuss these inputs and comments DOE received regarding its 
presentation of the LCC and PBP analyses in the preliminary analysis, 
as well as DOE's responses thereto.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.035


[[Page 18538]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.036

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
1. Manufacturer Selling Price
    As in the preliminary analysis, DOE used a combination of test and 
teardown results and manufacturer interview results to develop 
manufacturer selling prices. DOE conducted tests and teardowns on a 
large number of additional units and applications for the NOPR, and 
incorporated these findings into the MSP. Further detail on the MSPs 
can be found in chapter 5 of the TSD.
    Examination of historical price data for a number of appliances 
that have been subject to energy conservation standards indicates that 
an assumption of constant real prices and costs may overestimate long-
term trends in appliance prices. Economic literature and historical 
data suggest that the real costs of these products may in fact trend 
downward over time according to ``learning'' or ``experience'' curves. 
On February 22, 2011, DOE published a Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA, 76 FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider improving regulatory 
analysis by addressing equipment price trends. In the NODA, DOE 
proposed that when sufficiently long-term data are available on the 
cost or price trends for a given product, it would analyze the 
available data to forecast future trends.
    To forecast a price trend for the NOPR, DOE considered the 
experience curve approach, in which an experience rate parameter is 
derived using two historical data series on price and cumulative 
production, but in the absence of historical shipments of battery 
chargers and EPSs and of sufficient historical Producer Price Index 
(PPI) data for small electrical appliance manufacturing from the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics' (BLS),\40\ DOE could not use this approach. This 
situation is partially due to the nature of EPS and battery charger 
design. EPSs and battery chargers are made up of many electrical 
components whose size, cost, and performance rapidly change, which 
leads to relatively short design lifetimes. DOE also considered 
performing an exponential fit on the deflated AEO's Projected Price 
Indexes that most narrowly include battery chargers and EPSs. However, 
DOE believes that these indexes are sufficiently broad that they may 
not accurately capture the trend for battery chargers and EPSs. 
Furthermore, battery chargers and EPSs are not typical consumer 
products; they are more like a commodity that OEMs purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Series ID PCU33521-33521; http://www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the uncertainty, DOE is not incorporating product price 
changes into today's NOPR. For the NIA, DOE also analyzed the 
sensitivity of results to three alternative battery chargers and EPSs 
price forecasts. Appendix 10-B of the NOPR TSD describes the derivation 
of alternative price forecasts.
    DOE requests comments on the most appropriate trend to use for real 
battery charger and EPS prices, both in the short run (to 2013) and the 
long run (2013-2042).
2. Markups
    DOE applies a series of markups to the MSP to account for the 
various distribution chain markups applied to the analyzed product. 
These markups are evaluated for each application individually, 
depending on its path to market. Additionally, DOE splits its markups 
into ``baseline'' and ``incremental'' markups. The baseline markup is 
applied to the entire MSP of the baseline product. The incremental 
markups are then applied to the marginal increase in MSP over the 
baseline's MSP. Further detail on the

[[Page 18539]]

markups can be found in chapter 6 of the TSD.
3. Sales Tax
    As in the preliminary analysis, DOE obtained State and local sales 
tax data from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. The data represented 
weighted averages that include county and city rates. DOE used the data 
to compute population-weighted average tax values for each Census 
division and four large States (New York, California, Texas, and 
Florida). For the NOPR, DOE retained this methodology and used updated 
sales tax data from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\41\ The U.S. Census 
Bureau population estimates used in the preliminary analysis are the 
most current data available.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax Rates. https://thestc.com/STRates.stm.
    \42\ The U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Population 
for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 
2000 to July 1, 2009. http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2009-01.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Installation Cost
    As detailed in the preliminary analysis, DOE considered 
installation costs to be zero for battery chargers and EPSs because 
installation would typically entail a consumer simply unpacking the 
battery charger or EPS from the box in which it was sold and connecting 
the device to mains power and its associated product or battery. 
Because the cost of this ``installation'' (which may be considered 
temporary, as intermittently used devices might be unplugged for 
storage) is not quantifiable in dollar terms, DOE considered the 
installation cost to be zero.
5. Maintenance Cost
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not consider repair or 
maintenance costs for battery chargers or EPSs. In making this 
decision, DOE recognized that the service life of a battery charger or 
EPS typically exceeds that of the consumer product with which it is 
designed to operate. Thus, a consumer would not incur repair or 
maintenance costs for a battery charger or EPS. Also, if a battery 
charger or EPS failed, DOE expects that consumers would typically 
discard the battery charger or EPS and purchase a replacement. DOE 
received no comments challenging this assumption and has continued 
relying on this assumption for purposes of calculating the NOPR's 
potential costs and benefits.
    Although DOE did not assume any repair or maintenance costs would 
apply generally to battery chargers or EPSs, DOE has considered 
including a maintenance cost for the replacement of lithium ion 
batteries in certain battery charger applications. Through 
conversations with manufacturers, DOE learned that such batteries would 
need replacing within the service life of the battery charger for 
certain applications based on the battery lifetime and the usage 
profile assigned to the application. Lithium ion batteries are 
marginally more expensive than batteries with nickel chemistries (e.g. 
nickel metal-hydride or ``Ni-MH''), as explained in chapter 5 of the 
TSD. DOE accounted for this marginal cost increase in these 
applications at CSLs that use lithium batteries. This maintenance cost 
only applied to applications where DOE believed the lifetime of the 
application would surpass the lifetime of the battery. DOE estimated 
the battery lifetime based on the total number of charges the battery 
could handle divided by the number of charges per year projected for 
the application. DOE relied on data provided by manufacturers to 
estimate the total number of charges the battery could undergo before 
expiring. Further detail on maintenance costs can be found in chapter 8 
of the TSD.
6. Product Price Forecast
    As noted in section IV.F., to derive its central estimates DOE 
assumed no change in battery charger and EPS prices over the 2013-2042 
period. In addition, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis using three 
alternative price trends based on AEO indexes. These price trends, and 
the NPV results from the associated sensitivity cases, are described in 
appendix 10-B of the NOPR TSD.
7. Unit Energy Consumption
    The NOPR analysis uses the same approach for determining UECs as 
the one used in the preliminary analysis. The UEC was determined for 
each application based on estimated loading points and usage profiles 
(for EPSs), and battery characteristics and usage profiles (for battery 
chargers). DOE refined the usage profiles, battery characteristics, and 
usage profiles for the NOPR. Further detail on the UEC calculations can 
be found in chapter 7 of the TSD.
8. Electricity Prices
    DOE determined energy prices by deriving regional average prices 
for 13 geographic areas consisting of the nine U.S. Census divisions, 
with four large states (New York, Florida, Texas, and California) 
treated separately. The derivation of prices was based on data in EIA's 
Form EIA-861.
    In its written comments, NEEP stated that the high electricity 
prices in the Northeast region of the United States would likely make 
the LCC and PBP results more attractive for customers in this region. 
(NEEP, No. 49 at p. 2) Typically, higher energy costs increase a 
consumer's operating cost savings. As in the preliminary analysis, DOE 
sampled a regional electricity price for each trial of the Monte Carlo 
simulation. Additionally, the electricity price for the Northeast 
region used by DOE's analysis is greater than the national average. DOE 
estimates a residential electricity price of $0.166/kWh for the New 
England region and $0.181/kWh for the state of New York, which exceeds 
the national average of $0.112/kWh. Further detail on regional 
electricity price sampling is available in chapter 8 of the TSD.
9. Electricity Price Trends
    To project electricity prices to the end of the product lifetime in 
the preliminary analysis, DOE used data from EIA's Annual Energy 
Outlook (AEO) 2010 Early Release.\43\ This data source only contained a 
reference case scenario, which required DOE to separately project the 
high- and low-economic-growth scenarios using the relationship between 
the scenarios in the AEO 2009 data.\44\ For the NOPR, DOE used the 
final release of the AEO 2010,\45\ which contained reference, high- and 
low-economic-growth scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release. March, 
2010. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/.
    \44\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030. 
March, 2009. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/.
    \45\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2010. November, 2010. 
Washington, DC. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Lifetime
    DOE considers the lifetime of a battery charger or EPS to be from 
the moment it is purchased for end-use up until the time when it is 
permanently retired from service. Because the typical battery charger 
or EPS is purchased for use with a single associated application, DOE 
assumed that it will remain in service for as long as the application 
does. Even though many of the technology options to improve battery 
charger and EPS efficiencies may result in an increased useful life for 
the battery charger or EPS, the lifetime of the battery charger or EPS 
is still directly tied to the lifetime of its associated application. 
With the exception of EPSs for mobile phones and smartphones (see

[[Page 18540]]

below), the typical consumer will not continue to use an EPS or battery 
charger once its application has been discarded. For this reason, DOE 
used the same lifetime estimate for the baseline and standard level 
designs of each application for the LCC and PBP analyses. Further 
detail on product lifetimes and how they relate to applications can be 
found in chapter 3 of the TSD.
    The one exception to the rule that EPSs do not exceed the lifetime 
of their associated end-use products is the lifetime of EPSs for mobile 
phones and smartphones. While the typical length of a mobile phone 
contract is 2 years, and thus many phones are replaced and no longer 
used after 2 years, DOE assumed that the EPSs for these products will 
remain in use for an average of 4 years. This assumption is based on an 
expected standardization of the market around micro-USB plug 
technology, driven largely by the GSMA Universal Charging Solution.\46\ 
To verify that this evolution towards micro-USB plug technology is in 
fact taking place, DOE examined more than 30 top-selling basic mobile 
phone and smartphone models offered online by Amazon.com, Sprint, 
Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and AT&T. DOE found that all of the newest 
smartphone models other than the Apple iPhone use micro-USB plug 
technology. While some basic mobile phones continue to use mini-USB or 
other connector technologies, DOE found more than 15 basic mobile phone 
models that have adopted the micro-USB technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The GSMA Universal Charging Solution is an agreement 
between 17 mobile operators and manufacturers to have the majority 
of all new mobile phones support a universal charging connector by 
January 1, 2012. The press release for the agreement can be accessed 
here: <http://www.gsma.com/articles/mobile-industry-unites-to-drive-universal-charging-solution-for-mobile-phones/17752/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If new EPSs are compatible with a wide range of mobile phone and 
smartphone models, a consumer may continue to use the EPS from their 
old phone after upgrading to a new phone. Even though it is currently 
standard practice to receive a new EPS with a phone upgrade, DOE 
assumes that in the near future consumers will no longer expect 
manufacturers to include an EPS with each new phone. DOE requests 
comment from stakeholders on the reasonableness of this assumption. 
Tables IV-27 and IV-28 show that assuming a lifetime of 2 years (rather 
than 4 years) for mobile phone and smartphone EPSs results in lower 
life-cycle cost savings (or greater net costs) for consumers of those 
products. However, the net effect on Product Class B as a whole is 
negligible due to the fact that mobile phones and smartphones together 
comprise only 7 percent of shipments in Product Class B. LCC results 
for all other applications in Product Class B are shown in chapter 11 
of the TSD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.037

11. Discount Rate
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE derived residential discount rates 
by identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to 
purchase and operate products, including household assets that might be 
affected indirectly. DOE estimated the average shares of the various 
debt and equity classes in the average U.S. household equity and debt 
portfolios using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) from 
1989 to 2007. DOE used the mean share of each class across the seven 
sample years as a basis for estimating the effective financing rate for 
products. DOE estimated interest or return rates associated with each 
type of equity and debt using SCF data and other sources. The mean real 
effective rate across the classes of household debt and equity, 
weighted by the shares of each class, is 5.6 percent.
    For the commercial sector, DOE derived the discount rate from the 
cost of capital of publicly-traded firms falling in the categories of 
products that involve the purchase of battery chargers or EPSs. To 
obtain an average discount rate value for the commercial sector, DOE 
used the share of each category in total paid employees provided by the 
U.S. Census Bureau \47\ and Federal,\48\ State, and local \49\ 
governments. By multiplying the discount rate for each category by its 
share of paid employees, DOE derived a commercial discount rate of 7.0 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ U.S. Census Bureau. The 2010 Statistical Abstract. Table 
607--Employment by Industry. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0607.xls.
    \48\ U.S. Census Bureau. The 2010 Statistical Abstract. Table 
484--Federal Civilian Employment and Annual Payroll by Branch. 
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0484.xls.
    \49\ U.S. Census Bureau. Government Employment and Payroll. 2008 
State and Local Government. http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/08stlall.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the NOPR analysis, DOE uses the same methodology employed in 
the preliminary analysis but has changed the calculations to account 
for the

[[Page 18541]]

geometric means for all time-series data. Additionally, the analysis 
now includes updates to the risk-free rate to use a 40-year average 
return on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes, as reported by the U.S. Federal 
Reserve,\50\ and the equity risk premium--which now uses the geometric 
average return on the S&P 500 over a 40-year time period. The new 
discount rates are estimated to be 5.1 percent and 7.1 percent in the 
residential and commercial sectors, respectively. For further details 
on discount rates, see chapter 8 and appendix 8D of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve Statistical 
Release, Selected Interest Rates, Historical Data, Instrument: 
Treasury Constant Maturities, Maturity: 10-year, Frequency: Annual, 
Description: Market yield on U.S. Treasury securities at 10-year 
constant maturity, quoted on investment basis. Available at: http://www.federalfederalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Sectors Analyzed
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed battery chargers and EPSs 
in the residential sector for the reference case scenario and presented 
commercial sector results in appendix 8B. DOE developed several inputs 
specifically for the commercial sector, such as energy prices, energy 
price trends, and discount rates. Other application-specific inputs--
e.g. UEC, markups, and market distribution--were not altered between 
the residential sector and commercial sector analyses.
    The NOPR analysis includes an examination of a weighted average of 
the residential and commercial sectors as the reference case scenario. 
Additionally, all application inputs are specified as either 
residential or commercial sector data. Using these inputs, DOE then 
sampled each application based on its shipment weighting and used the 
appropriate residential or commercial inputs based on the sector of the 
sampled application. This approach provides more specificity as to the 
appropriate input values for each sector, and permits an examination of 
the LCC results for a given representative unit or product class in 
total. For further details on sectors analyzed, see chapter 8 of the 
TSD.
13. Base Case Market Efficiency Distribution
    For purposes of conducting the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed candidate 
standard levels relative to a base case (i.e., a case without new 
federal energy conservation standards). This analysis required an 
estimate of the distribution of product efficiencies in the base case 
(i.e., what consumers would have purchased in 2013 in the absence of 
new federal standards). Rather than analyzing the impacts of a 
particular standard level assuming that all consumers will purchase 
products at the baseline efficiency level, DOE conducted the analysis 
by taking into account the breadth of product energy efficiencies that 
consumers are expected to purchase under the base case.
    The preliminary analysis contained base case market efficiency 
distributions for each representative unit or product class. The 
distributions were based on test results, shipment-weighting of 
applications, and trends in efficiency that DOE identified. Under this 
approach, the resulting efficiency distribution could be heavily 
influenced by one or two very common applications associated with a 
particular product class or representative unit.
    In preparing the NOPR analysis, DOE derived base case market 
efficiency distributions that are specific to each application where it 
had sufficient data to do so. This approach helped to ensure that the 
market distribution for applications with fewer shipments was not 
disproportionately skewed by the market distribution of the 
applications with the majority of shipments. For battery chargers, DOE 
also adjusted its efficiency distributions for pending efficiency 
regulations in California (for more information please see IV.G.4). As 
a result, the updated analysis more accurately accounts for LCC and PBP 
impacts.
14. Compliance Date
    The compliance date is the date when a new standard becomes 
operative, i.e., the date by which battery charger and EPS 
manufacturers must manufacture products that comply with the standard. 
DOE's publication of a final rule in this standards rulemaking is 
scheduled for completion by 2013. EPCA had prescribed that DOE complete 
a rulemaking to amend the Class A EPS standards by July 2011 and had 
given manufacturers a two-year lead time to satisfy those standards--
i.e., July 2013. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(i)(II)(bb). Given the timing 
in issuing this rule, DOE may choose to retain this prescribed two-year 
lead time for EPS manufacturers in spite of the compliance date 
currently provided in EPCA. There are no similar requirements for the 
compliance date for battery charger and new (non-Class A) EPS 
standards, but DOE is also targeting a two-year time period between 
publication and compliance. DOE calculated the LCCs for all consumers 
as if each would purchase a new product in the year that manufacturers 
would be required to meet the new standard (2013). However, DOE bases 
the cost of the equipment on the most recent available data; all dollar 
values are expressed in 2010$. DOE invites comment on the compliance 
date it should provide manufacturers in light of the current set of 
circumstances.
15. Payback Period Inputs
    The PBP is the amount of time a consumer needs to recover the 
assumed additional costs of a more-efficient product through lower 
operating costs. As in the preliminary analysis, DOE used a ``simple'' 
PBP for the NOPR, because the PBP does not take into account other 
changes in operating expenses over time or the time value of money. As 
inputs to the PBP analysis, DOE used the total installed cost of the 
product to the consumer for each efficiency level, as well as the 
first-year annual operating costs for each efficiency level. The 
calculation requires the same inputs as the LCC, except for energy 
price trends and discount rates; only energy prices for the year the 
standard becomes required for compliance (2013 in this case) are 
needed.
    DOE received a single comment addressing its initial PBP analysis. 
In particular, Philips commented that DOE had underestimated the 
projected PBP for inductively charged toothbrushes (i.e., battery 
charger product class 1). (Philips, No. 43 at p. 2) DOE notes that 
payback periods comprise a metric demonstrating the underlying cost-
effectiveness of a standard level. An underestimated PBP could result 
from an underestimated incremental consumer purchase price or an 
overestimated amount of operating cost savings. Philips suggested an 
alternate usage profile for battery charger product class 1 that 
included time spent in unplugged mode. (Philips, No. 41 at p. 2) In its 
view, the use of such an adjusted profile would provide a more accurate 
picture of the projected savings.
    DOE agrees with Philips that battery chargers in product class 1 
likely spend some time in unplugged mode and adjusted its usage profile 
accordingly. The usage profile for these products now includes time in 
unplugged mode, which resulted in a reduction in operating cost 
savings. In the NOPR, DOE refined many of its estimates for the inputs 
contributing to purchase price and operating costs. While DOE is 
confident in the accuracy of these inputs and the accompanying PBP 
calculations presented in this NOPR, DOE continues to seek comment to 
help refine its approach as needed.

[[Page 18542]]

G. National Impact Analysis

    The National Impact Analysis (NIA) assesses the national energy 
savings (NES) and the net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs 
and savings that would be expected to result from new or amended 
standards at specific efficiency levels. (``Consumer'' in this context 
refers to consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE calculates the 
NES and NPV based on projections of annual unit shipments, along with 
the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the 
energy use and LCC analyses. For the NOPR analysis, DOE forecasted the 
energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of 
consumer benefits for products sold from 2013 through 2042.
    DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing 
base-case projections with standards-case projections. The base-case 
projections characterize energy use and consumer costs for each product 
class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. 
DOE compares these projections with projections characterizing the 
market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended standards 
at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or standards 
cases) for that class. For the base case forecast, DOE considers 
historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to 
affect the mix of efficiencies over time. For the standards cases, DOE 
also considers how a given standard would likely affect the market 
shares of efficiencies greater than the standard.
    To make the analysis more accessible and transparent to all 
interested parties, DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet model to calculate 
the energy savings and the national consumer costs and savings from 
each TSL. MS Excel is the most widely used spreadsheet calculation tool 
in the United States and there is general familiarity with its basic 
features. Thus, DOE's use of MS Excel as the basis for the spreadsheet 
models provides interested parties with access to the models within a 
familiar context. The TSD and other documentation that DOE provides 
during the rulemaking help explain the models and how to use them, and 
interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input 
quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses 
average values as inputs (as opposed to probability distributions).
    For the current analysis, the NIA used projections of energy prices 
from the AEO2010 Reference case. In addition, DOE analyzed scenarios 
that used inputs from the AEO2010 High Economic Growth, Low Economic 
Growth, and Carbon Cap and Trade cases. These cases have higher or 
lower energy price trends compared to the Reference case. NIA results 
based on these cases are presented in appendix 10A to the TSD.
    Table IV-29 summarizes the inputs and key assumptions DOE used in 
its preliminary NIA and the changes to the analysis for the NOPR. 
Discussion of these inputs and changes follows the table. See chapter 
10 of the TSD for further details.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.038

1. Shipments
    Forecasts of product shipments are needed to forecast the impacts 
standards will have on the Nation. DOE develops shipment forecasts 
based on an analysis of key market drivers for each considered product. 
In DOE's shipments model, shipments of products were calculated based 
on current shipments of product applications powered by battery 
chargers or EPSs. The inventory model takes an accounting approach, 
tracking remaining shipments and the vintage of units in the existing 
stock for each year of the analysis period.
    Stakeholders submitted several comments questioning DOE's 
assumption in the preliminary analysis that shipment volumes would not 
be affected by new or amended standards. AHAM and PTI stated that 
certain products, such as hair clippers, cordless vacuum cleaners, 
electric shavers, and DIY power tools, are discretionary purchases for 
consumers. Because of the discretionary nature of these purchases, AHAM 
and PTI claimed, standards that cause significant increases in the end-
use product's price may lead some families to forgo purchasing these 
products and find other means to meet their needs. These parties asked 
DOE to consider lower shipments in its standards case forecasts. (AHAM, 
No. 42 at pp. 14-15; PTI, No. 45 at p. 12) In addition, AHAM, CEA, and 
Cobra Electronics all stated that increases in product price could lead 
some manufacturers to substitute primary batteries for rechargeable 
batteries in certain products, e.g., portable navigation devices and 
portable radios, reducing the number of battery chargers and EPSs for 
these products. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 14; CEA, No. 46 at p. 3; Cobra, No. 
51 at p. 2) Lastly, Stanley Black & Decker and Lester stated that 
increases in product price for battery-operated gardening products and 
golf cars could drive consumers toward their gasoline-powered 
equivalents. (SBD, No. 44 at p. 2; Lester, No. 50 at p. 3)
    In response to these comments, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 
to

[[Page 18544]]

examine how increases in end-use product prices resulting from 
standards might affect shipment volumes. To DOE's knowledge, elasticity 
estimates are not readily available in existing literature for battery 
chargers, EPSs, or the end-use consumer products that DOE is analyzing 
in this rulemaking. Because some applications using battery chargers 
and EPSs, such as smartphones and videogame consoles, could be 
considered more discretionary than home appliances, which have an 
estimated relative price elasticity of -0.34 (See--http://ees.ead.lbl.gov/bibliography/an_analysis_of_the_price_elasticity_of_demand_for_household_appliances), DOE believed a higher 
elasticity of demand was possible. In its sensitivity analysis, DOE 
assumed a price elasticity of demand of -1, meaning a given percentage 
increase in the final product price would be accompanied by that same 
percentage decrease in shipments.
    Even under this relatively high assumption for price elasticity of 
demand, the standards being proposed today are unlikely to have a 
significant effect on the shipment volumes of those battery charger 
applications mentioned by stakeholders, with forecasted effects ranging 
from a decrease of 0.03 percent for electric shavers to a decrease of 
1.46 percent for DIY power tools with detachable batteries. Results for 
all battery charger applications are contained in appendix 9A to the 
TSD. The corresponding impacts on NES and NPV are included in appendix 
10A. DOE did not conduct a similar analysis for EPS applications due to 
the small size of the price increases (relative to the price of EPS 
applications) expected to result from the EPS standards being proposed 
today.
2. Shipment Growth Rate
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE noted that the market for battery 
chargers and EPSs has grown tremendously in the past 10 years. 
Additionally, DOE found that many market reports have predicted 
enormous future growth for the applications that employ battery 
chargers and EPSs. However, in forecasting the size of these markets 
over the next 32 years, DOE considered the possibility that much of the 
market growth associated with these products has already occurred. In 
many reports predicting growth of applications that employ battery 
chargers or EPSs, DOE noted that growth was predicted for new 
applications, but older applications were generally not included. That 
is, the demand for battery chargers and EPSs had not grown, but rather 
the products that use such devices had transitioned to a new product 
mix. (See chapter 9 of the Preliminary TSD.)
    With this in mind, DOE took a conservative approach in its forecast 
and estimated that while the specific applications that use battery 
chargers or EPSs will change, the overall number of individual units 
that use battery chargers or EPSs will grow slowly, with new 
applications replacing some current applications, but with little 
change in per-capita consumption of battery chargers or EPSs over time.
    To estimate future market size while assuming no change in the per-
capita battery charger and EPS purchase rate, DOE used population 
growth rate as the compound annual market growth rate. DOE presented 
this approach to stakeholders for comment and received no comments 
objecting to its use. Population growth rate values were obtained from 
the U.S. Census Bureau 2009 National Projections, which forecast 
population through 2050. DOE took the average annual population growth 
rate, 0.75 percent, and applied this rate to all battery charger and 
EPS product classes. For the NOPR analysis, DOE continues to apply this 
scenario.
3. Product Class Lifetime
    For the preliminary analysis, DOE calculated product class lifetime 
profiles using the percentage of shipments of applications within a 
given product class, and the lifetimes of those applications. These 
values were combined to estimate the percentage of units remaining in 
use for each year following the initial year in which those units were 
shipped. For the NOPR analysis, DOE continued to apply this scenario.
    For more information on the calculation of product class lifetime 
profiles, see chapter 10 of the TSD.
4. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
forecasted for the base case (without new or amended standards) and 
each of the standards cases. Section IV.A.2 above explains how DOE 
developed efficiency distributions (which yield shipment-weighted 
average efficiency) for battery charger and EPS product classes for the 
first year of the forecast period. To project the trend in efficiency 
over the entire forecast period, DOE considered recent standards, 
voluntary programs such as ENERGY STAR, and other trends.
    DOE received two comments regarding the effect of European Union 
(EU) energy efficiency standards on the efficiency of battery chargers 
and EPSs in the U.S. market. AHAM commented that the EU is planning to 
begin a series of battery charger efficiency standards in 2011 that 
could have an effect on some non-wall-adapter battery chargers. (AHAM, 
No. 42 at p. 15) Similarly, Cobra Electronics commented that the EU's 
most recent energy efficiency standard for EPSs was established at 
international efficiency marking protocol level V. (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 
3)
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE found two programs that would 
influence EPS efficiency in the short term. The first is the ENERGY 
STAR program for EPSs (called ``external power adapters''), which 
specified that EPSs be at or above CSL 1 in order to qualify. This 
voluntary program was very active, with more than 3,300 qualified 
products as of May 2010.\51\ The second program influencing EPS 
efficiency is the European Union Ecodesign requirements on Energy Using 
Products, which includes legislation on EPSs that requires that EPSs 
sold in the EU be at or above CSL 1, effective April 2011. Europe 
currently represents approximately one-third of the global EPS market. 
DOE did not identify any programs that required efficiency above CSL 1. 
These factors apply to Class A EPSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ EPA, ``ENERGY STAR External Power Supplies AC-DC Product 
List,'' May 24, 2010 and EPA, ``ENERGY STAR External Power Supplies 
AC-AC Product List,'' May 24, 2010. Both documents last retrieved on 
May 28, 2010 from http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=ext_power_supplies.power_supplies_consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE agrees that standards established by the EU will affect the 
U.S. market, due to the global nature of EPS design, production, and 
distribution. With these programs in mind, DOE estimated that 
approximately half of the Class A EPS market at CSL 0 in 2009 would 
transition to CSL 1 by 2013. In updating its analysis for the NOPR, DOE 
reviewed these two programs for any changes. DOE found that no new 
European standards had been announced during the time between the 
preliminary analysis and the NOPR. However, in regard to the ENERGY 
STAR program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that 
its program for EPSs would be cancelled effective December 31, 
2010.\52\ In preparing today's notice, DOE also noted that the European 
mobile phone industry agreed to adhere to the GSMA Universal Charging 
Solution, which incorporates a no-load (``standby'') power consumption

[[Page 18545]]

requirement that is stricter than both the current Federal standard and 
ENERGY STAR version 2.0 criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ EPA, ``ENERGY STAR EPS EUP Sunset Decision Memo,'' July 19, 
2010. Last retrieved on July 8, 2011 from http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/eps_eup_sunset_decision_july2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, DOE found no new evidence to support the long-term 
improvement of EPSs beyond the initial improvement of units as 
estimated during the preliminary analysis. Thus, DOE has maintained its 
earlier assumption that EPSs will not improve in efficiency after 2013 
in the base case.
    For battery charger efficiency trends, DOE considered three key 
factors: European standards, the EPA's ENERGY STAR program, and the 
recently approved battery charger standards in California.
    The EU included battery chargers in a preparatory study on eco-
design requirements that it published in January 2007. However, it has 
not yet announced plans to regulate battery chargers. Thus, DOE did not 
adjust the efficiency distributions that it calculated for battery 
chargers between the present-day and the compliance date in 2013 to 
account for European standards.
    DOE examined the ENERGY STAR voluntary program for battery charging 
systems and found that as of January 22, 2010, less than 150 battery 
charging systems had been qualified. As of July 1, 2011, only 241 
battery charging systems had been qualified.\53\ (Contrast this with 
the more than 3,300 EPSs that were ENERGY STAR-qualified as of May 
2010.) Given the small number of qualified products, DOE also did not 
adjust its battery charger efficiency distributions to account for any 
potential market effects of the ENERGY STAR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ EPA, ``Qualified Product (QP) List for ENERGY STAR 
Qualified Battery Charging Systems.'' Retrieved on July 8, 2011 from 
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/prod_lists/BCS_prod_list.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary analysis, DOE found no battery charger standards 
slated to take effect by 2013. Subsequently, the California Energy 
Commission (CEC) approved battery charger standards on January 12, 2012 
that will take effect on February 1, 2013 for most, if not all, of the 
battery chargers within the scope of DOE's rulemaking. Hence, DOE 
adjusted its base case efficiency distributions for battery chargers to 
account for these standards by assuming that in the absence of Federal 
standards all battery chargers sold in California would meet the CEC 
standards. In the absence of market share data, DOE assumed that 
California's share of the U.S. battery charger market is equivalent to 
its share of U.S. GDP (13 percent). Table IV-30 contrasts the resultant 
base case efficiency distributions, used in preparing today's notice, 
with those used in the preliminary analysis.

[[Page 18546]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.039

    DOE recognizes that the CEC standards may also raise the efficiency 
of battery chargers sold outside of California. However, the magnitude 
of this effect cannot be determined. Nevertheless, to explore the full 
range of possibilities DOE also evaluated the potential impacts of 
Federal standards under the assumption that the CEC standards become 
the de facto standard for the nation, i.e., all battery chargers sold 
in the United States just before the Federal standard takes effect in 
2013 meet the CEC standards. The base case efficiency distributions 
assumed in this sensitivity case are shown in Table IV-30. This 
scenario represents an upper bound on the possible impacts of the CEC 
standards and a lower bound on the energy savings that could be 
achieved by Federal standards. In fact, under this scenario, DOE might 
be limited to setting standards only for product classes 1 and 8, as 
further improvements to the efficiency of products in the other product 
classes are not currently projected to be cost-effective. Results of 
this sensitivity analysis can be found in Appendix 8-B and Appendix 10-
A.
    DOE believes it is unlikely that all battery chargers sold in the 
United States will meet the CEC standards by February 1, 2013. First, 
manufacturers have been given an extremely short transition period of 
only one year; second, DOE's proposed standards are not as stringent as 
the CEC standards for product classes 2 through 6, which would 
potentially reduce the cost of production for these products and make 
it unlikely that they would be manufactured on a nationwide basis to 
the higher CEC levels; and third, the CEC standards will be preempted 
by

[[Page 18547]]

Federal standards in the future if DOE finalizes standards for these 
products, giving manufacturers the option of specifically producing 
products solely for the California market for an interim period.
    DOE seeks comment on its assumptions concerning the impacts of the 
CEC standards on its base case efficiency distributions. In addition, 
DOE seeks comment on its assumptions about EPS efficiency, 
specifically, that EPSs within product classes B (DC output, basic-
voltage), C (DC output, low-voltage), D (AC output, basic-voltage) and 
E (AC output, low-voltage) will improve in efficiency slightly prior to 
2013, but then no longer improve in the absence of standards, and that 
EPSs within product classes X (multiple-voltage) and H (high-power) 
will not improve in efficiency in the absence of standards. (See issues 
10 and 11 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section VII.E 
of this notice.)
    To estimate efficiency trends in the standards cases, DOE has used 
``roll-up'' and/or ``shift'' scenarios in its standards rulemakings. 
Under the ``roll-up'' scenario, DOE assumes: (1) product efficiencies 
in the base case that do not meet the standard level under 
consideration would ``roll-up'' to meet the new standard level; and (2) 
product efficiencies above the standard level under consideration would 
not be affected. Under the ``shift'' scenario, DOE reorients the 
distribution above the new minimum energy conservation standard.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE used a roll-up scenario to develop 
its forecasts of efficiency trends in the standards cases. The NOPR 
analysis also applies this scenario. For further details about the 
forecasted efficiency distributions, see chapter 9 of the TSD.
5. Product Price Forecast
    As noted in section IV.F., DOE assumed no change in battery charger 
and EPS pricing over the 2013-2042 period. In addition, DOE conducted 
sensitivity analysis using three alternative price trends based on AEO 
indexes. These price trends, and the NPV results from the associated 
sensitivity cases, are described in appendix 10-B of the NOPR TSD.
6. Unit Energy Consumption and Savings
    DOE uses the efficiency distributions for the base case along with 
the annual unit energy consumption values to estimate shipment-weighted 
average unit energy consumption under the base and standards cases, 
which are then compared against one another to yield unit energy 
savings values for each CSL.
    To better evaluate actual energy savings when calculating unit 
energy consumption for a product class at a given CSL, DOE considered 
only those units that would actually be at that CSL and did not 
consider any units already at higher CSLs. That is, the shipment-
weighted average unit energy consumption for a CSL ignored any 
shipments from higher CSLs.
    In addition, when calculating unit energy consumption for a product 
class, DOE used marginal energy consumption, which was taken to be the 
consumption of a unit above the minimum energy consumption possible for 
that unit. Marginal unit energy consumption values were calculated by 
subtracting the unit energy consumption values for the highest 
considered CSL from the unit energy consumption values at each CSL.
    For the NOPR, DOE assumes that energy efficiency would not improve 
after 2013 in the base case. Therefore, the projected UEC values in the 
NOPR analysis, as well as the unit energy savings values, do not vary 
over time. In addition, the analysis assumes that manufacturers would 
respond to a standard by improving the efficiency of underperforming 
products but not those that already meet or exceed the standard.
    For further details on the calculation of unit energy savings for 
the NIA, see chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
7. Unit Costs
    DOE uses the efficiency distributions for the base case along with 
the unit cost values to estimate shipment-weighted average unit costs 
under the base and standards cases, which are then compared against one 
another to give incremental unit cost values for each CSL. In addition, 
when calculating unit costs for a product class, DOE uses that product 
class's marginal costs--the costs of a given unit above the minimum 
costs for that unit.
    For further details on the calculation of unit costs for the NIA, 
see chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
8. Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not consider repair or 
maintenance costs for battery chargers or EPSs because the vast 
majority cannot be repaired and do not require any maintenance. DOE 
maintains this assumption in its NOPR analysis.
    For the NOPR analysis, DOE considered the incremental maintenance 
cost for the replacement of lithium ion batteries in certain 
applications. After examining the possible impact of this cost in the 
life-cycle cost and payback period analyses, DOE determined that the 
actual impact at the product class level would most likely be 
negligible. Thus, DOE opted not to retool its NIA model to account for 
this cost in calculating NPV. For further discussion of this issue, see 
section IV.F.5 above.
9. Energy Prices
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE assumed that all energy 
consumption and savings would take place in the residential sector, and 
therefore any energy cost savings would be calculated using residential 
sector rates.
    However, DOE is aware that many products that employ battery 
chargers and EPSs are located within commercial buildings. Given this 
fact, the energy cost savings from such products should be calculated 
using commercial sector rates, which are lower in value than 
residential sector rates, and would lower the overall financial 
benefits derived from energy savings in the NPV. In order to account 
for these products in the NOPR analysis, DOE considered the impacts of 
battery charger and EPS usage in a commercial setting.
    In order to determine the energy usage split between the 
residential and commercial sector, DOE first separated products into 
residential and commercial categories. Then, for each product class, 
using shipment values for 2013, average lifetimes, and base-case unit 
energy consumption values, DOE calculated the approximate annual energy 
use split between the two sectors. DOE applied the resulting ratio to 
the electricity pricing to obtain a sector-weighted energy price. This 
ratio was held constant throughout the period of analysis.
    For further details on the calculation of sector-weighted energy 
prices for the NIA, see chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
10. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion
    To estimate the national energy savings expected from appliance 
standards, DOE uses a multiplicative factor to convert site energy 
savings (at the home or commercial building) into primary or source 
energy savings (the energy required to convert and deliver the site 
energy). These conversion factors account for the energy used at power 
plants to generate electricity and losses in transmission and 
distribution, as well as for natural gas losses from pipeline leakage 
and energy used for pumping. For electricity, the conversion factors 
vary over time due to projected changes in generation sources (i.e., 
the

[[Page 18548]]

power plant types projected to provide electricity to the country). The 
factors that DOE developed are marginal values, which represent the 
response of the system to an incremental decrease in consumption 
associated with appliance standards.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE used annual site-to-source 
conversion factors based on reported values in AEO2010, which provides 
energy forecasts through 2035. For 2036-2062, DOE used conversion 
factors that remain constant at the 2035 values. For the NOPR, DOE 
continued to use this approach.
    Section 1802 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) directed 
DOE to contract a study with the National Academy of Science (the 
Academy) to examine whether the goals of energy conservation standards 
are best served by measurement of energy consumed, and efficiency 
improvements, at the actual point-of-use or through the use of the 
full-fuel-cycle (FFC), beginning at the source of energy production. 
(Pub. L. No. 109-58). The FFC measure includes point-of-use energy plus 
the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary 
fuels and the energy losses associated with generation, transmission, 
and distribution of electricity. The study, ``Review of Site (Point-of-
Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building 
Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards,'' was completed in May 2009 and 
provided five recommendations. A free copy of the study can be 
downloaded at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12670.
    The Academy's primary recommendation was that ``DOE consider moving 
over time to use of a FFC measure of energy consumption for assessment 
of national and environmental impact, especially levels of greenhouse 
gas emissions, and to providing more comprehensive information to the 
public through labels and other means, such as an enhanced Web site.'' 
The Academy further recommended that DOE work with the Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC) to consider options for making product-specific GHG 
emissions estimates available to enable consumers to make cross-class 
product comparisons.
    More specifically, the Academy recommended that DOE use the FFC 
measure of energy consumption for the environmental assessment and 
national impact analyses used in energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. The FFC measure would provide more complete information 
about the total energy use and GHG emissions associated with operating 
an appliance than the primary energy measure currently used by DOE. 
Utilizing the FFC measure for environmental assessments and national 
impact analyses would not require alteration of the measures used to 
determine the energy efficiency of covered products and covered 
equipment as existing law still requires such measures to be based 
solely on the energy consumed at the point-of-use. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4), 
6311(4)). However, using the FFC measure in lieu of primary energy in 
environmental assessments and national impact analyses could affect 
DOE's consideration of future alternative standard levels.
    In response to the NAS committee recommendations, on August 20, 
2010, DOE issued a Notice of Proposed Policy proposing to incorporate a 
FFC analysis into the methods it uses to estimate the likely impacts of 
energy conservation standards on energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions, rather than the primary (extended site) energy measures it 
currently uses. Additionally, DOE proposed to work collaboratively with 
the FTC to make FFC energy and GHG emissions data available to the 
public to enable consumers to make cross-class comparisons. On October 
7, 2010, DOE held an informal public meeting to discuss and receive 
comments on its planned approach. The Notice, a transcript of the 
public meeting and all public comments received by DOE are available 
at: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EERE-2010-BT-NOA-0028. DOE is developing a 
final policy statement on these subjects and intends to begin 
implementing the policy in future energy conservation standards 
rulemakings.
    For further details about the calculation of national energy 
savings, see chapter 10 of the TSD.
11. Discount Rates
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers of battery chargers and EPSs are: (1) total 
increased product cost, (2) total annual savings in operating costs, 
and (3) a discount factor. For each standards case, DOE calculates net 
savings each year as total savings in operating costs less total 
increases in product costs, relative to the base case. DOE calculates 
operating cost savings over the life of each product shipped from 2013 
through 2042.
    DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a discount factor 
to determine their present value. For the preliminary analysis and 
today's NOPR, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 
3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount 
rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory 
analysis.\54\ The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the average 
before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy. The 
3-percent real value represents the ``societal rate of time 
preference,'' which is the rate at which society discounts future 
consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ OMB Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, ``Identifying 
and Measuring Benefits and Costs. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further details about the calculation of net present value, see 
chapter 10 of the TSD.
12. Benefits From Effects of Standards on Energy Prices
    The reduction in electricity consumption associated with new and 
amended standards for battery chargers and EPSs could affect overall 
electricity generation, and thus affect the electricity prices charged 
to consumers in all sectors of the economy. As a simplifying assumption 
in the preliminary analysis, DOE assumed no change in electricity 
prices as a result of energy savings from new or amended standards for 
battery chargers and EPSs.
    Commenting on the preliminary analysis, NEEP stated that the 
economic benefits of the reduced need for new power plants should be 
estimated and requested that DOE quantify electricity demand reductions 
achieved by these updated standards in financial terms. (NEEP, No. 49 
at p. 2)
    In preparing the NOPR analysis, DOE used NEMS-BT to assess the 
impacts of the reduced need for new electric power plants and 
infrastructure projected to result from standards. In NEMS-BT, changes 
in power generation infrastructure affect utility revenue requirements, 
which in turn affect electricity prices. From these data, DOE estimated 
the impact on electricity prices associated with each considered TSL. 
Although the aggregate benefits for electricity users are potentially 
large, there may be negative effects on some of the entities involved 
in electricity supply, particularly power plant providers and fuel 
suppliers. Because there is uncertainty about the extent to which the 
benefits for electricity users from reduced electricity prices would be 
a transfer from entities involved in electricity supply to electricity 
consumers, DOE tentatively concludes

[[Page 18549]]

that, at present, it should not give a heavy weight to this factor in 
its consideration of the economic justification of new or amended 
standards. DOE is continuing to investigate the extent to which 
electricity price changes projected to result from standards represent 
a net gain to society.
    For further details about the effect of standards on energy prices, 
see chapter 10 of the TSD.

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impacts of new or amended standards, DOE 
evaluates the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers (e.g., 
low-income households or small businesses) that may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard. In the preliminary 
analysis, DOE identified four consumer subgroups of interest--low-
income consumers, small businesses, top marginal electricity price tier 
consumers, and consumers of specific applications within a 
representative unit or product class.
    Interested parties supported DOE's decision to analyze consumers of 
specific applications in the subgroup analysis. AHAM commented that DOE 
should consider subgroups of applications to ensure that CSLs are 
justified for applications with different energy usage characteristics 
from the product class. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 12) Stanley Black & Decker 
also commented that outdoor gardening appliances were only operated a 
portion of the year, and would have different energy usage 
characteristics from the product class, necessitating a subgroup 
analysis. (SBD, No. 44 at pp. 1-2) Wahl Clipper commented that 
infrequently charged products should not be compared in the same 
fashion as those that are plugged in most of the time. (Wahl, No. 53 at 
p. 2)
    Additionally, manufacturers commented that averaging LCC results of 
various applications within the representative unit or product class 
would not lend enough weight to applications with fewer shipments. PTI 
noted that power tools have little in common with other applications 
aside from their battery energy and voltage levels. In its view, the 
averaging of LCC results would diminish the impact of the power tools 
on the LCC results for the entire product class. (PTI, No. 45 at pp. 6, 
13) Similarly, AHAM and PTI commented that certain applications sell at 
lower price points than other applications within the product class. 
They argued that averaging the LCC results across these applications 
would deemphasize the impacts on the individual applications. (AHAM, 
No. 42 at pp. 13-14; PTI, No. 45 at pp. 6, 13)
    DOE's subgroup analysis for consumers of specific applications 
considered the LCC impacts of each application within a representative 
unit or product class. This approach allowed DOE to consider the LCC 
impacts of individual applications when choosing the proposed standard 
level, regardless of the application's weighting in the calculation of 
average impacts. The impacts of the standard on the cost of the battery 
charger or EPS as a percentage of the application's total purchase 
price are not relevant to DOE's LCC analysis. The LCC considers the 
incremental cost between different standard levels. DOE used the cost 
of the EPS or battery charger component in the LCC, not the final price 
of the application. Therefore, a $2,000 and $20 product are assumed to 
have the same cost for a battery charger or EPS (e.g., $5) if they are 
within the same CSL of the same representative unit or product class. 
The LCC considers the incremental impacts on consumers who purchase the 
product, but does not account for price elasticity or the economic 
impacts of consumers switching to non-covered products. Instead, DOE 
explored these possibilities in a shipments sensitivity analysis, as 
explained in section IV.G.1 above. The application-specific subgroup 
analyses represent an estimate of the marginal impacts of standards on 
consumers of each application within a representative unit or product 
class.
    At the preliminary analysis public meeting, AHAM commented that 
some applications span multiple battery charger product classes, making 
it difficult for the LCC to focus on specific applications. (AHAM, Pub. 
Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 153)
    DOE notes that several applications span more than one product 
class or representative unit. Because each product class has associated 
characteristics and costs, it is difficult to aggregate LCC results 
across product classes. Therefore, DOE calculated application-specific 
results for each product class and representative unit. For 
applications that span multiple product classes, DOE calculated the LCC 
and PBP impacts for that application in each product class.
    For each subgroup, DOE considered variations on the standard 
inputs. DOE defined low-income consumers as residential consumers with 
incomes at or below the poverty line, as defined by the U.S. Census 
Bureau. DOE found that these consumers face electricity prices that are 
0.2 cents per kWh lower, on average, than the prices faced by consumers 
above the poverty line. For small businesses, DOE analyzed the 
potential impacts of standards by conducting the analysis with 
different discount rates, as small businesses do not have the same 
access to capital as larger businesses. DOE estimated that for 
businesses purchasing battery chargers or EPSs, small companies have an 
average discount rate that is 4.5 percent higher than the industry 
average. For top tier marginal electricity price consumers, DOE 
researched inclined marginal block rates for the residential and 
commercial sectors. DOE found that top tier marginal rates for general 
usage in the residential and commercial sectors were $0.306 and $0.221, 
respectively. Lastly, for the application-specific subgroup, DOE used 
the inputs from each application for lifetime, markups, market 
efficiency distribution, and UEC to calculate LCC and PBP results.
    Chapter 11 of the TSD contains further information on the LCC 
analyses for all subgroups.

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE conducted separate manufacturer impact analyses (MIA) for EPSs 
and battery chargers to estimate the financial impact of new or amended 
energy conservation standards on these industries. The MIA is both a 
quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative part of the MIA 
relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry 
cash-flow model customized for EPSs and applications that include 
battery chargers covered in this rulemaking. The key MIA output is 
industry net present value, or INPV. DOE used the GRIM to calculate 
cash flows using standard accounting principles and to compare changes 
in INPV between a base case and various TSLs (the standards case). The 
difference in INPV between the base and standards cases represents the 
financial impact of the new and amended standards on manufacturers. 
Different sets of assumptions (scenarios) produce different results.
    DOE calculated the MIA impacts of new and amended energy 
conservation standards by creating separate GRIMs for EPS original 
device manufacturers (ODMs) and battery charger manufacturers. In each 
GRIM, DOE presents the industry impacts by grouping similarly impacted 
products. For EPSs DOE presented the industry impacts by grouping the 
four representative product class B units (with output powers at 2.5, 
18, 60, and

[[Page 18550]]

120 Watts) to characterize the results for product classes B, C, D, and 
E. DOE also presented the results for product classes X and H 
separately. For battery chargers, DOE presented the industry impacts by 
the major product class groupings for which TSLs are selected (product 
class 1; product classes 2, 3, and 4; product classes 5 and 6; product 
class 7; product class 8; product class 10). When appropriate, DOE also 
presented the results for differentially impacted industries within and 
across those groupings. This is necessary because a given industry, 
depending upon how narrowly it is defined, may fall into several 
product classes. By segmenting the results into these similar 
industries, DOE is also able to discuss how subgroups of battery 
charger manufacturers will be impacted by new energy conservation 
standards.
    The complete MIA is presented in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
2. EPS MIA
    The MIA for EPSs focused on the original device manufacturers--or 
ODMs. These companies manufacture the EPS itself, as opposed to the 
application it is designed for or sold with. DOE analyzed the impact of 
standards on EPS manufacturers at the ODM level for three basic 
reasons: (1) The ODM typically certifies compliance with the DOE energy 
conservation standards and completes most design work for the EPS (even 
if EPS specifications are given by an OEM); (2) unlike battery 
chargers, the EPS is not fully integrated into end-use applications; 
and (3) most of the EPS final assembly and manufacturing is done by 
ODMs, which then ship the EPS as a component to OEMs. In essence, 
unlike a battery charger, the EPS typically becomes a final product 
when under the control of the ODMs, regardless of any additional steps 
in the distribution chain to the consumer.
a. EPS GRIM Key Inputs
    Many of the inputs to the GRIM come from the engineering analysis, 
the NIA, manufacturer interviews, and other research conducted during 
the MIA. The major GRIM inputs are described in detail in the sections 
below.
i. EPS Manufacturer Production Costs
    The MIA is concerned with how changes in efficiency impact the 
manufacturer production costs (MPCs). The MPCs and the corresponding 
prices for which fully assembled EPSs are sold to OEMs, frequently 
referred to as ``factory costs'' in the industry, are major factors in 
industry value calculations. DOE's MPCs include the cost of components 
(including integrated circuits), other direct materials of the 
finalized EPS, the labor to assemble all parts, factory overhead, and 
all other costs borne by the ODM to fully assemble the EPS.
    In the engineering analysis, cost-efficiency curves are developed 
for the four representative product class B units and product classes X 
and H, which were all analyzed directly. The MPCs are calculated in one 
of two ways. For the product class B representative units, DOE based 
its MPCs on information gathered during manufacturer interviews. In 
these interviews, manufacturers described the costs they would incur to 
achieve increases in energy efficiency. For product classes H and X, 
the engineering analysis created a complete bill of materials (BOM) 
derived from the disassembly of the units selected for teardown.
    To calculate the percentage of the MPC attributable to labor, 
material, and overhead, DOE used the average percentages from all 
teardowns completed as part of the engineering analysis.
    For further detail, see the Engineering Analysis discussion in 
section IV.C.1 of this NOPR.
ii. EPS Shipment Forecast
    Industry value, the key GRIM output, depends on industry revenue, 
which, in turn, depends on the quantity and prices of EPSs shipped in 
each year of the analysis period. Industry revenue calculations require 
forecasts of: (1) Total annual shipment volume; (2) the distribution of 
shipments across analyzed representative units (because prices vary by 
representative unit); and, (3) the distribution of shipments across 
efficiencies (because prices vary with efficiency).
    In the NIA, DOE estimated total EPS shipments by application in 
2009 and assumed a constant compound annual growth rate for total EPS 
shipments throughout the analysis period. DOE did not assume a decrease 
in shipments due to energy conservation standards.
    The GRIM requires that shipments be disaggregated by analyzed 
representative unit. In the LCC, DOE allocated total EPS shipments 
among all analyzed EPS applications. In the MIA, DOE assigned each 
application's associated EPS shipments to one of the six representative 
units in the following manner. First, DOE assigned any EPS application 
that uses multiple voltages to product class X. Second, any EPS 
application with an output power greater than 250 Watts was assigned to 
product class H. Lastly, DOE assigned each unit shipped in product 
classes B, C, D, and E to one of four groups, corresponding to one of 
the four representative units (output powers of 2.5, 18, 60, and 120 
Watts), whichever has the closest output power. For example, if an 
application has an output power of 4 Watts, DOE assigned that 
application to the 2.5W representative unit grouping.
    As discussed above, revenue calculations also require knowledge of 
the efficiency distribution in each year of the analysis period. DOE 
first developed efficiency distributions for 2009 based on products 
that DOE tested. Next, DOE estimated a 2013 efficiency distribution 
based on an assessment of recent trends in product efficiency. DOE then 
linearly extrapolated the efficiency distributions for the intermediate 
years between 2009 and 2013. DOE assumed a constant efficiency 
distribution in the base case throughout the analysis period. See 
section IV.G of this NOPR for more information about DOE's base-case 
EPS shipments forecast.
iii. EPS Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    DOE expects new and amended energy conservation standards to cause 
some manufacturers to incur one-time conversion costs to bring their 
production facilities and product designs into compliance with the new 
and amended standards. For the MIA, DOE classified these one-time 
conversion costs into two major groups: (1) product conversion costs 
and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are one-time 
investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other 
non-capitalized costs focused on making product designs comply with the 
new and amended energy conservation standards. Capital conversion costs 
are one-time investments in property, plant, and equipment to adapt or 
change existing production facilities so that new product designs can 
be fabricated and assembled.
    DOE received several comments on the preliminary analysis about the 
impact of product and capital conversion costs on EPS manufacturers and 
OEMs. Many commenters expressed concerns about potential conversion 
costs. AHAM suggested that DOE seek input from manufacturers related to 
the impact of additional engineering, testing, and capital improvements 
that are associated with any significant design changes. Specifically, 
AHAM noted that changes to the outside housing of some battery chargers 
and EPSs will result in changes to plastic injection molds that cost 
tens of thousands of dollars each year, as well

[[Page 18551]]

as changes in the size of external packaging of the product. (AHAM, No. 
42 at p. 11) Similarly, Cobra suggested that incremental engineering 
design costs be assessed because they may become a significant part of 
the initial cost of the product. (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 2)
    DOE agrees that testing, certification, and engineering costs could 
represent a substantial cost for the EPS industry. DOE relied on a 
number of assumptions from other analyses and data gathered from 
publicly available sources to estimate product conversion costs. The 
key values used to estimate product conversion costs were application 
lifetimes, shipments of each application from 2011 and 2013, and 
typical industry research and development expenses. Because the product 
lifecycle tends to be shorter for electronics, DOE assumed that in the 
base case, a portion of the applications will be redesigned between the 
announcement of an energy conservation standard and the implementation 
of that energy conservation standard. Those applications that are 
scheduled for redesign are excluded from the projected product 
conversion costs.
    DOE assumed that an application's product lifetime--the average 
number of years a product is used by consumers--is equal to its 
production cycle, the average number of years between when 
manufacturers redesign that application. DOE based this simplifying 
assumption on feedback received from several manufacturers during 
manufacturer interviews. However, DOE is aware that not all product 
lifetimes directly correspond to their production cycle, as some 
products may have shorter or longer production cycles compared to their 
product lifetimes. DOE believes on average the product lifetime is an 
appropriate estimate of the production cycle for an application. So for 
example, for an application with a five-year product lifetime, DOE 
assumed that application to also have a five-year production cycle. 
Therefore on average one-fifth of these applications would be 
redesigned each year by manufacturers. Because there is a two-year time 
period between the announcement of the standard and its compliance 
date, two-fifths of the applications with a five-year production cycle 
will be redesigned in that timeframe, irrespective of whether a 
standard is implemented. As a result, three-fifths of the five-year 
applications would need to be redesigned as a result of a new or 
amended energy conservation standard. In addition, only those products 
that do not meet the established energy conservation standard would be 
required to be redesigned, as the efficiency of products meeting or 
exceeding the standard would remain unchanged.
    AHAM stated that products that undergo changes must be sent to 
third-party testing laboratories for energy efficiency testing and 
these testing costs must be factored into the overall cost of changing 
a product's design. AHAM suggested that DOE ask manufacturers for 
information on these costs. AHAM also argued the cost of safety 
certification should be included in the overall cost. (AHAM, No. 42 at 
pp. 11) Cobra commented that third-party testing would be an undue 
burden on manufacturers, stating that DOE should not require it unless 
a significant compliance problem with the current system is proven. 
(Cobra, No. 51 at p. 4)
    DOE notes that it does not currently require manufacturers to use 
third-party testing to demonstrate compliance with EPS or battery 
charger energy conservation standards as the above comments suggest. 
However, DOE recognizes other organizations that provide certifications 
for safety or other product attributes may constitute part of the total 
product conversion costs (such as UL certification). DOE also 
understands that many ODMs and/or OEMs will likely pay for third-party 
testing to ensure compliance with the energy conservation standard 
because many do not have certified labs. DOE included testing costs as 
part of the research and development costs used to calculate the 
product conversion cost for the industry because these costs represent 
a significant portion of existing expenses that are factored into the 
methodology.
    DOE used a similar approach to calculate capital conversion costs, 
using application lifetimes and the shipments of each application 
between 2011 and 2013 as the key assumptions. Whereas DOE estimated 
product conversion costs using a multiple of typical industry R&D 
expenditures, DOE estimated capital conversion costs using a multiple 
of typical industry capital expenditures. In response to AHAM's comment 
regarding the potential changes to the plastic injection molds used to 
cast the external casings of EPSs, DOE assumed in its analysis that the 
changes for the actual EPS designs would require a lower capital 
investment than for battery chargers because these changes would affect 
only the external housing of an EPS. By comparison, battery chargers 
may require changes to the entire housing, which would require a 
greater capital investment.
    Cobra also expressed concerns about conversion costs for 
manufacturers of linear EPSs because, depending on the efficiency level 
DOE sets, a manufacturer would have to transition from a mechanical 
assembly process to an automated printed circuit board (PCB) assembly 
process. (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 3)
    The capital cost of transitioning from a mechanical assembly 
process to an automated PCB assembly process would be borne by the EPS 
ODM in most cases. For most CSLs, there are a variety of technologies 
available for EPSs and many ODMs do not exclusively offer linear EPSs. 
OEMs that do not own their own manufacturing facilities will also be 
impacted by this transition, but the impact will manifest itself 
primarily through higher factory costs after standards apply. DOE fully 
analyzed these costs in the engineering costs and the GRIM's INPV 
calculations. In particular, the capital conversion cost assumptions 
that DOE used increase at CSLs that require a technology change 
because, as Cobra states, these transitions greatly increase the 
required capital and product conversion costs, especially for 
manufacturers that must transition to a new assembly process. This 
factor is taken into account for the 2.5W representative unit. DOE 
assumed the product and capital conversion costs associated with 
upgrading CSL 1 and baseline 2.5W representative units would be greater 
than the product and capital conversion costs of other representative 
units because the technology employed in upgrading those 2.5W 
representative units change from linear to switch mode technology. This 
technology change would be more costly than an ordinary product 
redesign because companies focusing on incremental changes for 
applications using linear technology may not have the experience and 
expertise to implement switch mode technology in their applications 
without additional product development efforts.
    See chapter 12 of the TSD for a complete description of DOE's 
assumptions for the capital and product conversion costs.
iv. Financial Inputs
    DOE was unable to locate sufficient data on publicly-traded EPS 
manufacturers because few, if any, major EPS ODMs are publicly traded 
in the United States. Consequently, few, if any, of these companies 
file annual 10-K reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
Because these documents were not available, the preliminary MIA DOE 
developed began with the basic financial parameters used in the ballast 
rulemaking (such as R&D percentage of revenue, capital expenditure 
percentage of revenue,

[[Page 18552]]

SG&A percentage of revenue, tax rate as a percentage of revenue, etc.) 
because many of the companies included in that analysis were structured 
similarly to EPS manufacturers, manufacture products in similar 
locations, and use similar production processes [76 FR 20090, 20134-
20135 April 11, 2011 (notice of proposed rulemaking to set amended 
efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts, describing various 
aspects of the manufacturing industry) and section 4.3 of chapter 13 of 
the NOPR TSD accompanying that notice]. During manufacturer interviews, 
DOE asked EPS manufacturers to comment on these initial financial 
parameters. Several EPS manufacturers interviewed confirmed that these 
initial financial parameters were an appropriate representation of the 
EPS industry. Consequently, DOE applied these parameters in analyzing 
the EPS industry in the MIA.
v. EPS Standards-Case Shipments
    The base-case efficiency distribution and growth rate drive total 
industry revenue in the base case. In the standards case, DOE assumed 
that manufacturers will respond to new and amended standards by 
improving only those products that do not meet the standards in 2013, 
but not exceed, the new and amended standard level. Products that 
already meet or exceed the proposed level remain unaffected. This is 
referred to as a ``roll-up'' scenario. See chapter 9 of the TSD for a 
complete explanation of the efficiency distribution of EPSs and battery 
chargers by product class.
vi. EPS Markup Scenarios
    As discussed above, the MPCs of the six representative units are 
the factory costs of the ODM and include direct labor, material, 
overhead, and depreciation. The MSP is the price the ODM sells an EPS 
to an OEM. The MSP is equal to the MPC multiplied by the manufacturer 
markup. The manufacturer markup covers all the ODM's non-production 
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest, etc.) and profit. Total EPS 
revenue is equal to the MSPs at each CSL multiplied by the shipments at 
that CSL.
    Modifying these manufacturer markups in the standards case yields 
different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled 
two standards-case markup scenarios to represent the uncertainty 
regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for 
manufacturers following the implementation of new and amended energy 
conservation standards: (1) A flat markup scenario and (2) a 
preservation of operating profit scenario. These scenarios lead to 
different markups values, which, when applied to the inputted MPCs, 
result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
    The flat markup scenario assumed that the cost of goods sold for 
each product is marked up by a flat percentage to cover SG&A expenses, 
R&D expenses, and profit. This scenario represents the upper bound of 
industry profitability in the standards case because manufacturers are 
able to fully pass through additional costs due to standards to their 
customers.
    DOE also modeled a lower-bound profitability scenario. During 
interviews, ODMs and OEMs indicated that the electronics industry is 
extremely price sensitive throughout the distribution chain. Because of 
the highly competitive market, this scenario models the case in which 
ODMs' higher production costs for more efficient EPSs cannot be fully 
passed through to OEMs. In this scenario, the manufacturer markups are 
lowered such that manufacturers are only able to maintain the base-case 
total operating profit in absolute dollars in the standards case, 
despite higher product costs and required investment. DOE implemented 
this scenario in the GRIM by lowering the manufacturer markups at each 
TSL to yield approximately the same earnings before interest and taxes 
in both the base case and standards cases in the year after the 
compliance date for the new and amended standards. This scenario 
represents the lower bound of industry profitability following new and 
amended energy conservation standards because higher production costs 
and the investments required to comply with the new and amended energy 
conservation standard do not yield additional operating profit.
b. Comments From Interested Parties Related to EPSs
    DOE also received comments on the potential manufacturer impacts 
that would result from DOE's treatment of EPSs as both a stand-alone 
product and a component of another regulated product (the battery 
charger). AHAM stated that this treatment could lead to duplicative 
testing if this rulemaking were to establish different compliance dates 
for EPSs and battery chargers, or if future standards were to be 
updated at different points for battery charger and EPSs. (AHAM No. 44 
at p. 11)
    In response, DOE notes that EPS and battery charger standards for 
this rulemaking will go into effect on the same date. Therefore, DOE 
does not foresee a situation in which updated regulations would occur 
at different intervals.
    To account for the compliance costs for certifying an EPS alone and 
as a component of a battery charging system, DOE has included 
compliance costs for both the EPS and the battery charging system in 
its conversion cost estimates in the EPS GRIM and the battery charger 
GRIM, respectively. DOE also notes for product class N EPSs, which only 
function as a battery charger component (as opposed to EPSs that can 
directly power the application), the Class A EPS standards prescribed 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3) will continue to apply to the Class A EPSs in 
product class N. Any additional energy-related savings generated by the 
use of more efficient product class N EPSs will be captured through the 
battery charger standards that DOE is proposing to set. Consequently, 
conversion costs for product class N EPSs are not included in the EPS 
analysis, but the conversion costs for the battery charging portion of 
the application are included in the battery charger GRIM for these 
applications. DOE believes that this approach will help to ensure that 
additional energy savings can be obtained by applying more stringent 
levels in a manner that reduces the complexity of the overall standards 
that are set. Depending on the additional information that DOE receives 
in response to this proposed approach, the agency may alter the 
approach to account for that additional information.
    In response to the preliminary analysis, Cobra suggested that DOE 
account for incremental engineering design costs in the rulemaking 
analysis, as those costs may comprise a significant portion of the 
product's initial cost. DOE notes that the incremental engineering 
costs are directly accounted for in the MPCs which are a central input 
to the GRIM.
    Cobra also questioned what it viewed as a DOE assumption that 
achieving a new or amended standard can be done with present staffing 
and within the two years between the notice and the compliance date. 
Cobra stated that while this may be possible if the standard is set 
close to today's standards, it will not continue to be the case if the 
standard is set closer to the max tech level. Cobra stated that 
achieving a new or amended standard will take even longer if DOE 
regulates products under an EPS and battery charger regulation at the 
same time due to additional design burdens. (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 2)
    Partly in recognition of this situation, DOE is not proposing new 
or amended standards for product class N EPSs in

[[Page 18553]]

today's notice. This approach allows manufacturers to focus on 
improving the efficiency of these products as a system. As shown by 
DOE's capital and product conversion costs that increase at each higher 
efficiency level, DOE also agrees that standards that are closer to 
max-tech would require a more substantial research and development 
effort by manufacturers and are accounted for in DOE's analysis. 
However, DOE does not assume that standards set closer to the max tech 
level could be met by all manufacturers with their present staffing. In 
addition to standard research and development expenses that account for 
ongoing product development, DOE's methodology accounts for the 
additional product conversion costs that would be required for products 
that fall below the required efficiency level or would not have been 
redesigned in the period between the final rule's issuance and the 
compliance date of the standard. The EPS conversion cost estimates also 
account for any additional engineering or product development resources 
necessary to meet new or amended energy conservation standards.
c. High-Power EPS Manufacturer Interviews
    To better understand the possible impacts on product class H, DOE 
attempted to gather more information about the possible impacts on 
high-power EPS ODMs. DOE identified a total of 13 manufacturers of 
high-power EPSs. DOE attempted to contact all manufacturers of high-
power EPSs. DOE managed to locate contact information for eleven of 
these manufacturers and contacted each to schedule interviews. Six of 
these eleven were domestic manufacturers and five were foreign 
manufacturers. Of these eleven manufacturers for whom DOE found contact 
information, five were non-responsive. The remaining six declined to 
discuss the impacts of new standards on high-power EPSs. Four of the 
six manufacturers that declined to be interviewed were domestic 
manufacturers and two were foreign manufacturers.
3. Battery Charger MIA
    In the battery charger MIA, DOE analyzed the impacts of standards 
on manufacturers of the applications that incorporate the covered 
battery chargers (the application OEMs). DOE believes this MIA focus, 
which differs from the approach DOE is using for the EPS MIA, is 
appropriate for several reasons.
    First, the application OEM will be the party most directly 
financially impacted by any energy conservation standards, as evidenced 
by their participation in the rulemaking process. Battery chargers are 
almost always integrated into and/or sold with the final application--
meaning the severity of necessary conversion costs and the financial 
impact of higher battery charger costs can only be assessed 
meaningfully at the application level. Because most battery chargers 
are sold with, or fully integrated into, the end-use application, OEMs 
will pay for any costs required to alter the application if the new 
battery charger design requires it. These costs will vary from 
application to application, even within a product class.
    Second, the battery charger value chain varies greatly and is 
principally dictated by the application for which it is designed and 
with which it is sold. While EPSs are almost exclusively sold as 
finalized components, battery charger manufacturing is split between 
companies that produce battery chargers for OEMs and OEMs that produce 
battery chargers ``in house.''
    Third, the OEM typically designs the battery charger and would 
certify compliance with any DOE regulations because it is often 
impossible to separate the battery charger from the application.
    Fourth, even if the OEM does not design the battery charger, it 
typically will still integrate it into the final product. As a result, 
even if an OEM did not design the battery charger, it must still 
integrate it into the final application. Therefore, the OEM will be 
responsible for any changes to the application (such as the plastic 
housing) which are necessary due to the changes in the battery charger.
    Lastly, within a given product class, individual applications may 
be much more severely impacted than others within the same product 
class--even at the same CSL. These differential impacts would be 
obscured if DOE did not consider the different characteristics of the 
application industries.
    In some industries, particularly those that utilize high-energy 
battery chargers, the directly impacted party will likely be the 
battery charger ODM (as opposed to the OEM). Manufacturers of battery 
chargers for golf cars, for example, produce and sell stand alone 
battery chargers and would be responsible for compliance with energy 
conservation standards and all associated conversion costs. DOE 
conducted a subgroup analysis for product class 7, which it presents in 
the regulatory flexibility analysis, section VI.B. That analysis 
addresses the potential impacts of the proposed standards on small 
businesses. DOE is following this approach because the only 
manufacturers of these products that DOE identified are small 
businesses.
    To calculate impacts on the application OEM, DOE analyzed the 
industries of the applications that use covered battery chargers. DOE 
presents results in two different ways. First, DOE presents the 
industry impacts by the major product class groupings for which TSLs 
are derived (product class 1; product classes 2, 3, and 4; product 
classes 5 and 6; product class 7; product class 8; product class 10).
    Second, DOE used an alternative construction for evaluating the MIA 
results for battery chargers. DOE has developed this approach because 
if it grouped results in the same manner as the TSL product class 
groupings noted above, they would not adequately account for the fact 
that many applications within the same product class groupings are very 
dissimilar. The aggregate projected impacts would not necessarily be 
representative of each particular industry within each product class 
grouping. To address this potential problem, the analysis (particularly 
for product classes 2, 3, and 4) groups applications into four industry 
subcategories. These industry subgroups share similar characteristics 
and the proposed standards are projected to affect these industry 
subgroups similarly. To group the applications, DOE assigned each 
application to one of four distinct industry subgroups: small 
appliances, consumer electronics, power tools, and high-energy products 
(``high-energy'' products are those applications that fit into product 
classes 5, 6, and 7). This additional approach enhances the 
interpretability and transparency of the MIA results by providing a 
meaningful way to compare impacts across applications.
    DOE has set up a flexible methodology that allows the analysis of 
individual applications or a set of applications. DOE reports these 
quantitative MIA results for each individual application, product 
class, and industry subgroup in chapter 12 of the TSD.
a. Battery Charger GRIM Key Inputs
    Many of the inputs to the GRIM come from the engineering analysis, 
the NIA, manufacturer interviews, and other research conducted in 
preparing the MIA. The major GRIM inputs are described in detail in the 
sections below.
i. Battery Charger Manufacturer Production Costs and Application Prices
    Calculating manufacturer impacts at the OEM level for battery 
chargers

[[Page 18554]]

requires two critical inputs: First, the price that the application OEM 
charges for its finished product (to calculate revenue); and, second, 
the portion of that price represented by its battery charger (to 
calculate costs) at each CSL.
    For the first component, DOE determined representative retail 
prices for each application by surveying popular online retailer Web 
sites to sample a number of price points of the most commonly sold 
products for each application. The price of each application can vary 
greatly depending on many factors (such as the features of each 
individual product). For each application, DOE used the average 
application price found in the product survey. DOE then discounted this 
representative retail price back to the application MSP using the 
retail markups derived from annual SEC 10-K reports in the Markups 
Analysis, as discussed in section IV.F.
    DOE calculated the second figure--the price of the battery charger 
itself at each CSL--in the engineering analysis. The engineering 
analysis calculated a separate cost efficiency curve for each of the 10 
battery charger product classes. Based on product testing data, tear-
down data and manufacturer feedback, DOE created a BOM at the ODM level 
to which markups were applied to calculate the MSP of the battery 
charger at each CSL. DOE then allocated the battery charger MSPs of 
each product class to all the applications within each product class. 
In this way, DOE arrived at the cost to the application OEM of the 
battery charger for each application.
ii. Battery Charger Financial Parameters
    Because any two application OEMs may compete in very different 
markets, a single set of financial parameters cannot adequately 
characterize each manufacturer's cost structure. To address this 
limitation, DOE gathered and disaggregated publicly available financial 
data for representative manufacturers in each of the four industry 
categories it analyzes: Small appliance manufacturers, consumer 
electronics manufacturers, power tool manufacturers, and high-energy 
product manufacturers. DOE then assigned each application to one of the 
four industry subgroups. In the GRIM, each individual application uses 
the cost structure of the industry subgroup to which it belongs.
iii. Battery Charger Shipment Forecast
    As with EPS shipments, DOE estimated total domestic shipments of 
each analyzed application for 2013 that is sold with a battery charger. 
DOE then distributed the associated shipments among the 10 product 
classes and among the four industry subgroups. See chapter 12 of the 
TSD for a complete list of the applications DOE included in each of the 
four industry subgroups. DOE also adjusted its efficiency distributions 
and shipments in the base case, to account for pending efficiency 
regulations in California (for more information please see IV.A.2.d). 
In the GRIM, DOE used the battery charger shipment projections from 
2009 to 2042 that were generated in the NIA.
iv. Battery Charger Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    Capital and product conversion costs triggered by a new energy 
conservation standard are critical inputs to the GRIM. DOE received 
various comments about the impact of product and capital conversion 
costs on manufacturers of applications that incorporate covered battery 
chargers.
    AHAM suggested that DOE seek manufacturer input regarding the 
impact of additional engineering, testing, and capital improvements 
that are associated with any significant design changes that would be 
needed to satisfy new standards for battery chargers. Specifically, 
AHAM noted that changes to the outside housing of some battery chargers 
will result in changes to plastic injection molds that cost tens of 
thousands of dollars each year, as well as changes in the size of the 
external packaging of the product. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 11) PTI stated 
that manufacturers will encounter redesigning, retooling and re-
qualifying costs for battery chargers used in power tools. The 
magnitude of these costs will depend on the final CSL selected. For 
example, the difference between CSL 1 and CSL 2 for product class 4 
could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. (PTI, No. 45 at p. 13) 
Similarly, Cobra argued that incremental engineering design costs 
should be included in the analysis because they may become a 
significant part of the initial cost of the product. (Cobra, No. 51 at 
p. 2)
    DOE agrees that testing and engineering costs could represent a 
substantial cost burden to manufacturers, depending on the efficiency 
levels eventually selected. DOE has included the testing costs for 
battery charger applications to comply with the energy conservation 
standards in its calculation of conversion costs. At the higher CSLs, 
manufacturers could be compelled to redesign products that would have 
been redesigned years later in the base case. DOE accounts for the 
additional testing and engineering time by assuming that energy 
conservation standards would require manufacturers to alter products 
before the end of their natural lifecycle, resulting in substantial 
product conversion costs. The extent of the product conversion costs 
depends largely on whether a given standard level requires a technology 
change--moving from NiMH to lithium ion chemistry, for example--or only 
minor design tweaks. Within a given product class, some applications 
will face technology changes and the associated major redesigns at much 
lower CSLs than other applications. Therefore, DOE estimated product 
conversion costs for each individual application, rather than in 
aggregate by product class.
    Because of the large number of applications analyzed, DOE 
approximates the impacts of standards-driven conversion costs by 
assuming manufacturers will incur a given multiple of normal R&D and 
normal capital expenditures. The exact multiple used depends on each 
CSL and each product class and is calibrated to manufacturer feedback 
received during interviews. Intuitively, this approach to product and 
capital expenditures accelerates the product cycle and compresses 
resources that would normally have been spread over a number of years 
into a shorter timeframe. In the standards case, these expenditures are 
in addition to, and not in lieu of, normal engineering, testing and 
equipment costs. DOE only assumes conversion costs for the proportion 
of shipments that fall below the analyzed TSL within any given 
application. Also, DOE separately calculated the conversion costs 
associated with the products sold in California that would have to 
comply with the CEC battery charger standard. These conversion costs 
are included in the base case and separate from the conversion costs 
associated with the DOE standard. For example, in product class 4, 
computer notebooks would not be impacted at CSL 1 because all computer 
notebooks meet CSL 1 in the base case. In contrast, DIY power tools 
would face more substantial conversion costs at CSL 1 because 40 
percent of all models would not meet this level and would need to be 
upgraded. Therefore, DOE assumes these applications, despite 
incorporating battery chargers that are in the same product class, 
would incur different levels of R&D and capital expenditures.
    Based on manufacturer interviews and the engineering analysis, DOE 
anticipates that new standards may result in the alteration of the 
external housing in the application, which would trigger additional 
design costs and expenses for new injection molds used to construct 
these housings. DOE tentatively believes these changes

[[Page 18555]]

would most likely occur in those applications incorporating battery 
chargers that require a substantial technology shift to meet the new 
standards. DOE includes the associated housing costs in its estimates 
of the capital conversion costs and believes its methodology accounts 
for these changes.
    As discussed in section IV.I.2.a.iii of the EPS MIA methodology, 
AHAM and Cobra communicated concerns regarding testing and 
certification costs that are associated with changes in products due to 
new standards. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 11; Cobra, No. 51 at p. 4) DOE 
summarizes and responds to these comments, which relate to battery 
chargers as well as EPSs, in section IV.I.2.a.iii.
    PTI also noted that manufacturers will encounter ``stranded costs'' 
when forced to retire tooling before the end of its service life, 
resulting in unused inventory. Stranded costs are capital assets that 
are not yet fully depreciated, but are made obsolete by a new or 
amended energy conservation standard. (PTI, No. 47 at p. 13)
    DOE agrees with PTI that energy conservation standards could strand 
tooling before the end of its useful life. DOE has estimated these 
costs as part of stranded assets, which are treated as a non-cash 
expense in the compliance year of the standard.
    PTI asserted that the resources that manufacturers would ordinarily 
devote to new product development, which drives much of the power tool 
industry, would be reduced in order to meet any new regulations. (PTI, 
No. 47 at p. 13)
    DOE understands there are opportunity costs related to any 
investment and that manufacturers may face difficult decisions in 
selecting non-energy related product development projects when faced 
with the prospect of standards-induced resource allocation. DOE notes 
that the GRIM analysis accounts for both ordinary, ongoing research and 
development efforts, as well as those prompted by new energy standards. 
DOE weighs these impacts when deciding the most appropriate TSL for the 
proposed standard.
    PTI stated that the power tool industry is somewhat unique because 
a significant proportion of its members' product offerings revolve 
around detachable pack battery systems. Achieving higher CSLs depends 
on fulfilling certain technical changes that would require redesigning 
the entire battery charger, including the battery pack. According to 
PTI, this situation would disrupt the market because manufacturers 
would be required to abandon these legacy systems and strand a large 
installed base of consumers with unsupported systems. For example, in 
product class 4, PTI argued that CSL 2 would require nickel-based 
systems to switch to Li-ion, which would most likely require a complete 
redesign of the system that is unlikely to be backward compatible with 
existing tools. (PTI, No. 47 at p. 12)
    DOE agrees it would take a substantial research and development 
effort to redesign nickel-based systems to Li-ion. For power tools, the 
backward compatibility issues described by PTI arise from designing the 
entire battery chargers (including the battery pack) for power tool 
applications. Based on its engineering analysis, DOE tentatively 
believes that the technical challenges to achieving backward 
compatibility could be met at CSL 2 in the context of a complete 
redesign. DOE has accounted for the additional engineering costs in the 
MIA.
v. Battery Charger Standards-Case Shipments
    The base-case efficiency distribution and growth rate drive total 
industry revenue in the base case. As with EPS shipments, the standards 
case assumes that manufacturers will respond to standards by improving 
those products that do not meet the new standards to meet, but not 
exceed, the standard level. Products that are already as efficient as, 
or more efficient than, the standard level would remain unaffected 
under this approach. This is referred to as a ``roll-up'' scenario. DOE 
did not consider elasticity or substitution away from battery chargers 
in the standards case in the main NIA scenario. However, this was 
considered as a sensitivity analysis which is included as an appendix 
in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
vi. Battery Charger Markup Scenarios
    The revenue DOE calculates for the battery charger GRIM is the 
revenue generated from the sale of the application that incorporates 
the covered battery charger. It is the revenue earned on the sale of 
the product to the OEM's first customer (e.g., the retailer). After 
calculating the average retail price from the product price survey as 
discussed above, DOE discounted the price by the appropriate retailer 
markup (calculated in the market and technology assessment) to 
calculate the per-unit revenue the OEM generates for each application. 
To calculate the potential impacts on manufacturer profitability in the 
standards case, DOE analyzed how the incremental costs of more 
efficient battery chargers would impact this revenue stream on an 
application-by-application basis.
    In comments, manufacturers raised concerns about higher battery 
charger input costs resulting in reduced profit margins. PTI stated 
that many manufacturers only sell through retailers and have ``price 
points'' that they must hit, particularly in the ``do-it-yourself'' 
(DIY) market. Although the cost to produce the product may change with 
more efficient battery chargers, in its view, there would be no change 
in price for the consumer. Faced with higher product costs, PTI 
asserted that manufacturers will have to reduce gross margin or 
ultimately reduce the utility of the product. (PTI, No. 47 at p. 12) 
Lester also expressed concerns about increased costs to produce golf 
cars, which will either be passed along to purchasers or result in 
reduced profit margins for the manufacturers. (Lester, No. 52 at p. 1)
    DOE acknowledges that new or amended standards have the potential 
to increase product prices and disrupt manufacturer profitability, 
particularly as the market transitions to meet a new energy 
conservation standard. Based on the comments from interested parties 
and DOE's manufacturer interviews, there is a great deal of uncertainty 
regarding how the markets for such a wide variety of applications will 
adjust, both in the near term and long term. To account for this 
uncertainty, DOE analyzes three profitability, or markup, scenarios in 
the GRIM: the ``constant price,'' ``pass through,'' and ``flat markup'' 
scenarios.
    The constant price scenario analyzes the situation in which 
manufacturers of applications are unable to pass on any incremental 
costs of more efficient battery chargers to their customers. This 
scenario is reflective of some manufacturers' description of the 
negotiating power of large retailers, who account for the vast majority 
of shipments of some applications. Manufacturers believe these large 
retailers would be unwilling to accept any price increases. This 
scenario results in the most significant negative impacts because no 
incremental costs added to the application--either because of higher 
battery charger component costs or because of investments in tooling 
and design--can be recouped. As a result, manufacturer gross margins 
decline as cost-of-goods-sold increase, on a dollar-for-dollar basis. 
The higher the incremental cost of the battery charger with respect to 
the total application price, the greater the impacts on the 
manufacturer. For example, the impact of an incremental $2.00 increase 
in the cost of the battery

[[Page 18556]]

charger is much greater on a product that sells for $50 than on a 
product that retails for $500.
    For some applications in certain product classes, the max-tech 
battery charger price is nearly as expensive as the total base case 
application price itself. Under the constant price scenario, such 
circumstances can yield highly negative results, which are not 
meaningful because, in reality, producers would not continue to produce 
at prices that did not cover variable costs. If prices fell below the 
level necessary to cover variable costs, a firm would be better off not 
producing anything at all. Therefore, DOE applies a boundary condition 
in the constant price scenario, which assumes that as battery charger 
costs increase, application prices remain constant (and gross margin 
would continue to decline) only until manufacturers cease to cover 
their variable costs (where gross margin is zero). At that point, DOE 
assumes manufacturers can pass on any further incremental costs of the 
battery charger on a dollar-for-dollar basis to their customers.
    In the pass through scenario, DOE assumes that manufacturers are 
able to pass through the incremental costs of more efficient battery 
chargers to their customers, but without earning any additional 
operating profit on those higher costs. Therefore, though less severe 
than the constant price scenario in which manufacturers absorb all 
incremental costs, this scenario also results in margin compression and 
adverse financial impacts as battery charger costs increase.
    Lastly, DOE considers a flat markup scenario to analyze the upper 
bound (most positive) of profitability impacts following the compliance 
date of new standards. In this scenario, manufacturers are able to 
maintain their base case gross margin as a percentage of revenue at 
higher CSLs despite higher product costs of more efficient battery 
chargers. In other words, manufacturers are able to pass on, and fully 
mark up, the higher incremental product costs due to more efficient 
battery chargers. This scenario is a more likely outcome for high-
value, differentiated products, for which energy efficiency indirectly 
drives customer-valued benefits such as lighter weight and greater 
transportability. For other applications, particularly low-cost 
products for which energy efficiency is not an important selling 
attribute, the scenario is less likely.
    In summary, DOE believes these three scenarios present the 
potential range of profitability impacts on OEM application 
manufacturers.
b. Battery Charger Comments From Interested Parties
    The following section discusses interested parties' comments on the 
preliminary analyses that impact the battery charger MIA methodology. 
In general, DOE provides background on an issue that was raised by 
interested parties, summarizes the interested parties' comments, and 
responds to those comments.
i. Compliance Date and Implementation Period
    Many manufacturers commented on the implementation timeline of a 
new standard. For example, with respect to medical devices, Philips 
noted that the development life cycle is at least two to four years. 
Philips also mentioned that the regulatory approval cycle for medical 
products is longer than for consumer grade products, suggesting that 
medical devices should either be exempt or be given a longer transition 
time. (Philips, No. 43 at p. 3)
    Lester expressed similar concerns, noting that the proposed 
timelines are not reasonable for large, integrated vehicle 
manufacturers. It added that properly designing, testing, and ramping 
up production of a battery charging system commonly exceeds three 
years. Furthermore, Lester stated that an insufficient timeline could 
lead manufacturers to utilize components that have not been designed or 
tested properly. Additionally, a premature compliance date could cause 
product shortages, defects, increased costs, and unplanned capital 
expenditures that will either be passed on to purchasers or result in 
reduced profits. Lester suggested a timeline extension to five years. 
(Lester, No. 52 at p. 1, 2) Similarly, Cobra stated that two years will 
not be enough time to comply if DOE sets the standard level near max 
tech. (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 2)
    AHAM commented that the effective date should be two years after 
the final rule for small appliance battery charger products, but noted 
a longer time period might be necessary for some other product groups. 
AHAM argued that an earlier effective date would facilitate consistency 
across all 50 states. However, AHAM also mentioned that DOE must factor 
in additional time due to new requirements for third-party testing. 
(AHAM, No. 44 at p. 3, 11) Lastly, AHAM pointed out that the time 
needed depends significantly upon which standard level DOE chooses, as 
well as whether products are treated as both EPSs and battery chargers. 
(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 37 at p. 373, 374)
    EISA 2007 prescribed a two-year period between the issuance of the 
final rule for Class A EPSs and the compliance date of the amended 
energy conservation standard. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D). Congress did 
not grant DOE with the specific authority to change this date for 
individual product classes falling within Class A as requested by 
Philips, Lester, and AHAM. However, DOE notes that Congress did not 
impose a specific compliance date timeline for battery chargers and 
newly covered non-Class A EPSs. For these products, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that the two-year window between the announcement of the 
final rule and compliance with rule is sufficient for manufacturers to 
meet the TSLs analyzed in today's rule. As the comments suggest, 
depending on the resources available to a given manufacturer, their 
technological starting point, and the proposed CSL, the typical product 
design cycle will vary significantly. As such, some manufacturers will 
likely have to dedicate more resources than others to upgrade some or 
all of their product lines. DOE notes, however, that designs achieving 
the levels proposed in today's NOPR are currently on the market for all 
product classes except battery charger product class 10. For all of 
these product classes, the TSLs proposed are below the max-tech level 
and either represent the best-in-market efficiency or a lower level. 
For battery charger product class 10, however, DOE is proposing the 
max-tech level based on information derived from manufacturer input. 
Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that the technologies required 
to reach the efficiencies proposed in today's rule are achievable 
within two years.
    DOE requests comment on what an appropriate compliance date for 
battery chargers and non-Class A EPSs would be, including whether a 
two-year lead time would be reasonable. DOE may decide to adjust the 
compliance date for these products depending on the nature of the 
information it receives on this issue.
    With respect to unplanned capital expenditures, DOE agrees that 
standards may require changes to tooling and equipment, as well as 
incremental engineering efforts. Ultimately, whether any manufacturer 
chooses to allocate the resources necessary to upgrade some or all of 
their product lines, or to source some or all of them, is a business 
decision. Regardless of these decisions, DOE accounts for the 
conversion costs for manufacturers to upgrade all their non-compliant 
products to comply with each TSL. DOE considers the results of

[[Page 18557]]

this analysis in weighing the projected benefits and burdens associated 
with the rule. See section 0 for that determination.
ii. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    Several manufacturers expressed concerns about other regulations 
that affect battery chargers. Three potential regulations are the U.S. 
Department of Transportation's regulation of the packaging and 
transportation of Li-ion cells in both end-products and in cell 
configurations, see 75 FR 1302 (Jan. 11, 2010), the future series of 
regulations on battery chargers from the European Union, (Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 278/2009 of 6 April 2009), and the California 
battery charger standard set by CEC (Docket  11-AAER-2). 
(AHAM, No. 44 at p. 11, 15)
    For the cumulative regulatory burden, DOE attempts to quantify and/
or describe the impacts of other Federal regulations that have a 
compliance date within three years of the compliance date of this 
rulemaking. This analysis does not include the Department of 
Transportation's proposal to regulate the packaging and transportation 
of lithium ion cells given that no requirements are yet in place and 
any analysis attempting to account for what these requirements might be 
would be speculative. DOE does acknowledge that EU regulations on 
battery chargers would be an overlapping regulatory burden on 
manufacturers, if the EU decides to regulate battery chargers in the 
future, because identical products are sold throughout the world. At 
this time the EU has specifically excluded battery chargers from their 
regulations but will consider in the future to expand the scope of the 
regulation to include battery chargers (see the adopted draft 
regulation of EC No 278/2009, 17 October 2008, p. 10). DOE does not 
include the costs to comply with future regulations in the EU because 
they are outside the scope of the cumulative regulatory burden, which 
focuses on Federal regulations. However, DOE did quantitatively assess 
the impacts of the CEC battery charger standard on battery charger 
manufacturers in section V.B.2.e of this NOPR.
iii. Employment
    Lester expressed concerns about losing domestic manufacturing jobs 
to low-cost countries as a result of implementing the new standard. The 
company stated that because switch-mode battery charger assembly is 
more labor intensive than other designs, it expects standards requiring 
switch-mode designs to accelerate the trend towards offshore 
manufacturing. Lester added that DOE should prioritize the impact to 
manufacturing in the U.S. among other criteria in determining which 
standards to adopt. According to Lester, battery chargers for 
applications that use transformer-based battery chargers, which are 
typically used in high-energy applications, tend to correlate with 
requirements for longer life, greater durability, and higher 
reliability. (Lester, No. 52 at p. 3)
    While the vast majority of applications using EPSs and battery 
chargers are manufactured overseas, DOE agrees that new or amended 
standards could adversely impact domestic employment for companies 
currently producing covered products in the United States. This is 
especially a concern for the golf car industry because battery chargers 
for this application still have a significant U.S. manufacturing 
presence. Any manufacturers that would be forced to develop a new 
technology to meet new standards, especially one that is more labor 
intensive, would face significant economic pressures to move operations 
overseas or source products directly from overseas third-party 
suppliers. DOE's direct employment analysis (see section V.B.2.b) 
discusses the preliminary estimates for the impacts on changes in 
employment at the analyzed TSLs.
    In selecting the TSLs proposed in today's notice, the Secretary 
considers a variety of factors to weigh the overall benefits and 
burdens of the rule, including, as Lester notes, the impact on United 
States manufacturing. DOE also notes that the impacts on small 
businesses are treated directly in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
in section VI.B.
iv. Supply Chain
    Lester expressed concerns over the potential for supply chain 
disruptions, noting that as production of chargers is moved to lower-
cost countries, manufacturers of electric vehicles will face logistical 
risks that are less likely to occur domestically. (Lester, No. 52 at p. 
2)
    DOE agrees that overseas manufacturing can complicate the supply 
chain of firms that elect to move production offshore. However, such a 
strategy is a business decision and not one that is required to meet 
the TSLs analyzed in today's rulemaking. DOE also notes that the vast 
majority of all battery chargers on the market already make use of 
global supply chains.
4. Comments From Interested Parties Related to EPSs and Battery 
Chargers
    The following section discusses interested parties' comments on the 
preliminary analyses that impact both the EPS and battery charger MIA 
methodology. This section provides background on specific issues raised 
by interested parties, summarizes the relevant comments, and discusses 
DOE's response.
a. Cumulative Burden
    AHAM expressed concern about the possibility of DOE applying CEC's 
Tier 2 EPS standards which, it asserts, are wrongly applied to the wall 
adapters of battery chargers. (AHAM, No. 44 at p. 15) PTI added that 
DOE should consider the cumulative regulatory burden that would be 
imposed if the CEC were to regulate the power factor of battery 
chargers. This would increase the costs of achieving higher 
efficiencies. (PTI, No. 47 at p. 11)
    With respect to the CEC standards, DOE notes that the proposed EPS 
standards in today's NOPR would preempt state regulations on EPS 
efficiencies. As for potential power factor regulation, DOE has 
included a quantitative analysis of the CEC standard on battery charger 
manufacturers in section V.B.2.e.
    Similarly, Philips expressed concerns about FDA regulations on 
medical products, which can delay the time-to-market from a few weeks 
to many months. Philips also noted that the EU Directive on the 
Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) proposed a minimum of six 
years for medical device manufacturers to reach compliance, which 
reflects a longer product design cycle and regulatory approval process. 
(Philips, No. 43 at p. 3)
    DOE acknowledges that the EU RoHS proposed a minimum of six years 
for medical device manufacturers to comply with the directive. However, 
EU's RoHS regulations have the potential to affect the entire medical 
application, while the DOE energy conservation standards at issue here 
cover only the battery charger or EPS portion of the device. DOE does 
not include the costs to comply with future regulations in the EU as 
part of the cumulative regulatory burden because they are outside its 
scope, which focuses on U.S. regulations. DOE notes that it has the 
authority to set a compliance period for non-Class A EPSs and battery 
chargers that varies from the two-year lag between the issuance of the 
final rule and the compliance date of the standard prescribed in EISA 
for Class A

[[Page 18558]]

EPSs. However, DOE has consulted with the FDA and does not believe that 
this extension for non-Class A EPSs is necessary. This situation is 
described in detail in chapter 3 of the TSD. DOE also does not believe 
there are technical differences between medical EPSs and non-medical 
EPSs that would affect the ability of manufacturers to improve the 
efficiency of medical EPSs. However, DOE requests further comment on 
the appropriateness of the proposed compliance date for non-Class A EPS 
and battery charger product classes and if there are any specific 
medical applications that would be adversely affected by a 2013 date 
that mirrors the statutorily-prescribed compliance date for Class A 
EPSs.
    Cobra commented on the significant burden facing small 
manufacturers from recent regulatory actions including EISA 2007, the 
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA 2008), 
California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 
(Proposition 65), Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery 
Management Act, recycling regulations, and EU's RoHS. Cobra contended 
that these regulations challenge its ability to compete against larger 
companies while spending resources to prove compliance with all 
established regulations. Cobra also mentioned that while it does not 
manufacture products that are covered under CPSIA 2008, it asserted 
that it needs to demonstrate to customers that its products can still 
satisfy those requirements for marketing purposes. (Cobra, No. 53 at 
pp. 1, 2)
    DOE agrees that maintaining compliance with the various standards 
may be a challenge for manufacturers, especially smaller manufacturers. 
Furthermore, DOE understands that because products with EPSs and 
battery chargers are sold globally, the design of these products are 
more harmonized than for other appliances. DOE has analyzed the cost to 
comply with the EISA requirements in this rulemaking. DOE also further 
describes the recycling requirements and RoHS in chapter 12 of the TSD. 
DOE has also attempted to quantify these costs where applicable.
b. Competition
    AHAM asked DOE to evaluate the potential for a reduction in 
competition, in the event standards cause manufacturers of low-cost 
products to leave the market. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No., No. 37 at p. 
144)
    EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition likely to 
result from standards. It directs the Attorney General to determine the 
impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a 
proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary, 
not later than 60 days after the publication of a proposed rule, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of 
today's proposed rule to the Attorney General and request that the U.S. 
Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. 
DOE will publish and address the Attorney General's determination in 
the final rule, if any, and will pay particular attention to any 
potential competitive impacts in that determination.
    At this time, DOE does not believe there is significant potential 
for a reduction in competition due to the standards proposed in this 
rule. Particularly for some of the low-cost products, there are 
relatively few barriers to entry and the TSLs proposed in today's rule 
do not require use of patented technology. Technology that can be used 
exclusively by one manufacturer does not pass the screening analysis.
    However, given the wide array of applications that incorporate 
covered EPSs and battery chargers, DOE seeks comment on which specific 
markets, if any, exhibit the potential for a reduction in competition.
5. Manufacturer Interviews
    DOE conducted additional interviews with manufacturers following 
the preliminary analysis in preparation for the NOPR analysis. In these 
interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major concerns 
with this rulemaking. The following section describes the key issues 
identified by manufacturers during these interviews.
a. Product Groupings
    Several manufacturers expressed concern over the approach DOE 
outlined in which a variety of different applications would be grouped 
together within the same product class and would have to meet 
equivalent standards. EPS and battery charger product classes are 
defined by characteristics such as type of current conversion, voltage, 
and output power. However, the proposed EPS and battery charger product 
classes do not necessarily group applications performing similar end-
use functions. Manufacturers stated that grouping applications that 
consume a larger amount of electricity over their lifetime with 
applications that consume only a fraction of electricity over their 
lifetime can put the applications that are used less frequently at an 
unfair disadvantage.
    Manufacturers were particularly concerned about the potential for 
groupings to impact specific battery charger applications after 
finalizing the standard. For battery chargers, DOE is proposing 
standards using one UEC equation for each product class. Specific 
applications can be grouped into a product class whose individual usage 
profile differs from the usual profile of the product class. This is 
especially true if the shipments of one application are significantly 
greater than the shipments of another application with a very different 
usage profile (i.e., the millions of laptop shipments versus DIY power 
tools). Both laptops and DIY power tools would be regulated using the 
same usage profile parameters to satisfy a given energy conservation 
standard. Therefore, there is less potential for consumers to save 
energy cost effectively with respect to those applications that are not 
used frequently compared to applications that are used continuously 
even though both applications would be required to meet the same 
standard.
    DOE recognizes manufacturer concerns over how specific applications 
are grouped together as a result of the proposed division of product 
classes. DOE's LCC analysis and manufacturing impact analysis evaluate 
the impacts on users and manufacturers, respectively, on a 
applications-specific basis. Although the UEC is established at the 
product class level, the granularity of these analyses enables DOE to 
consider the benefits and burdens on users and manufacturers of 
specific applications, and take those results into consideration in 
determining which TSLs to select.
b. Competition From Substitutes
    Manufacturers have stated that several of their applications 
compete directly with applications using other forms of energy, such as 
products powered by gasoline, disposable alkaline batteries, or corded 
products. Products that use battery chargers must remain cost 
competitive with these alternatively powered products because these 
products are close substitutes. Manufacturers of lawn care products, 
such as mowers and trimmers, and mobility units, such as motorized 
bikes and golf cars, are competing in the same markets as gas-powered 
versions of these applications. Similarly, manufacturers of smaller 
electronic devices, such as digital cameras, are competing in the same 
market as disposable alkaline battery-powered digital cameras. Several 
applications also have direct competition with similar non-electric 
applications, such as electric toothbrushes and DIY power

[[Page 18559]]

tools. Having products powered by a rechargeable battery is a feature 
that adds value for consumers. A significant increase in the cost of 
manufacturing the battery charger could lead manufacturers to remove 
the rechargeable feature of an application or choose an alternative 
method to power the device, ultimately reducing the consumer utility 
for these applications. If energy conservation standards lead to a 
significant price increase, consumers could switch to these 
alternatives.
    Based on these concerns, DOE considered the impact of price 
elasticity on application shipment volumes. These price elasticity 
sensitivity results are presented in Appendix 12-B of the TSD.
c. Test Procedure Concerns
    While most manufacturers agree that using the UEC is an appropriate 
test procedure metric for battery chargers, some battery charger 
manufacturers stated there is a problem of separating the battery 
charging function of an application from the other functions being 
performed by the application. In their view, it is not easy to isolate 
the battery charging portion of the application for testing and/or 
creating cost-efficiency curves. Manufacturers stated that the test 
procedure must clearly separate out the charging portion of the energy 
consumption in order to regulate its efficiency accurately. DOE 
specifically took this factor into consideration for UPS manufacturers 
and explains its approach in detail in section IV.C.2.i of this NOPR.
d. Multiple Regulation of EPSs and Battery Chargers
    Manufacturers raised concerns that specific applications that are 
shipped with both an EPS and a battery charger would be subject to 
regulations for both components--one energy conservation standard for 
the EPS and a separate energy conservation standard for the battery 
charger of the same application. Having to meet two separate standards 
may not allow the manufacturers to maximize the efficiency of both the 
EPS and the battery charger together and could add to the overall cost 
of the application. DOE took these comments into consideration but has 
tentatively determined that establishing standards for each product was 
the most appropriate action given the statutory requirements to set 
standards for these products. For further detail and DOE's rationale 
for this decision, see section IV.A.1 of this NOPR.
e. Profitability Impacts
    Several manufacturers stated that they expect energy conservation 
standards to negatively impact the profitability of battery chargers. 
At higher CSLs, standards could increase MPCs and manufacturers 
believed these higher costs would not necessarily be passed on to 
consumers. Several applications use specific price points that 
consumers expect those applications to have. Consequently, 
manufacturers believe that cost increases would be at least partly 
absorbed by manufacturers to keep retail prices from rising sharply.
    The battery charger often represents a significant portion of the 
overall cost of the application. Any increase in the cost of the 
battery charger would have a significant impact on the cost of these 
applications as a whole. If energy conservation standards led to a 
significant reduction in profitability, some manufacturers could 
potentially exit the market and reduce the number of competitors. 
Additionally, many electronic applications are considered luxury items 
so consumers could also choose to forgo their purchases altogether if 
the application prices increased substantially.
    As discussed in section IV.I.2.a and IV.I.3.a of this NOPR, DOE 
evaluates a range of profitability scenarios in the MIA that take these 
specific concerns into account. These sections and Chapter 12 of the 
TSD discuss the results and details of those analyses.
f. Potential Changes to Product Utility
    Manufacturers believe adverse impacts from new and amended 
standards could also indirectly affect product utility. Several 
manufacturers indicated that other features that do not affect 
efficiency could be removed or component quality could be sacrificed to 
meet new and amended standard levels and maintain current application 
prices. Manufacturers also stated that the financial burden of 
developing products to meet new and amended energy conservation 
standards has an opportunity cost due to limited capital and R&D 
dollars. Investments incurred to meet new and amended energy 
conservation standards reflect foregone investments in innovation and 
the development of new features that consumers value and on which 
manufacturers earn higher absolute profit.
    DOE's engineering analysis only analyzes utility-neutral design 
changes to meet higher efficiency standards and accounts for the costs 
incurred to achieve those levels. While there may be cheaper ways to 
meet a given efficiency level by reducing other features that provide 
utility, those design paths are not assumed in DOE's analyses. DOE 
recognizes the opportunity cost of standards-induced investment and 
accounts for the conversion expenditures manufacturers may incur at 
each TSL, as discussed in section IV.I.3.a.iv. Whether a given 
manufacturer chooses to mitigate these costs (and the associated 
product costs illustrated in the engineering analysis' cost-efficiency 
curves) by reducing product utility is a business decision and not one 
mandated by the proposed energy conservation standards.

J. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts include 
direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment impacts are changes in 
the number of employees of manufacturers of the products subject to 
standards, their suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA 
addresses the direct employment impacts that concern manufacturers of 
battery chargers and EPSs. Indirect employment impacts from standards 
consist of the jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, 
other than in the manufacturing sector being regulated, due to: (1) 
Reduced spending by end users on energy; (2) reduced spending on new 
energy supplies by the utility industry; (3) increased spending on new 
products to which the new standards apply; and (4) the effects of those 
three factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sectoral 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS regularly publishes its estimates of 
the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in 
different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere 
in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate 
that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs 
(both directly and indirectly) than do expenditures in other sectors of 
the economy.\55\ There are many reasons for these differences, 
including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more 
capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the

[[Page 18560]]

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. Because reduced consumer 
expenditures for energy likely lead to increased expenditures in other 
sectors of the economy, the general effect of energy conservation 
standards is to shift economic activity from a less labor-intensive 
sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-intensive sectors 
(e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, based on the BLS data 
alone, the Department believes net national indirect employment may 
increase due to shifts in economic activity resulting from amended 
standards for Class A EPSs and new standards for non-Class A EPSs and 
battery chargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A 
User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS 
II), U.S. Department of Commerce (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing today's NOPR, DOE estimated indirect national 
employment impacts using an input/output (I-O) model of the U.S. 
economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 3.1.1 
(ImSET).\56\ ImSET is a special purpose version of the ``U.S. Benchmark 
National Input-Output'' model, designed to estimate the national 
employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 
software includes a computer-based I-O model with structural 
coefficients to characterize economic flows among 187 sectors most 
relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential building energy 
use. DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model. Given the relatively small change to expenditures due to 
efficiency standards and the resulting small changes to employment, 
however, DOE believes that the size of any forecast error caused by 
using ImSET will be small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ M.J. Scott, O.V. Livingston, J.M. Roop, R.W. Schultz, and 
P.J. Balducci, ImSET 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies; 
Model Description and User's Guide (2009) (Available at: http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments were received on the preliminary TSD for battery 
chargers and EPSs concerning the employment impacts analysis. For more 
details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 13 of the NOPR 
TSD.

K. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several important effects on 
the utility industry that would result from the adoption of new or 
amended energy conservation standards. For the NOPR analysis, DOE used 
the NEMS-BT model to generate forecasts of electricity and natural gas 
consumption, electricity generation by plant type, and electric 
generating capacity by plant type, that would result from each 
considered TSL. DOE obtained the energy savings inputs associated with 
efficiency improvements to the subject products from the NIA. DOE 
conducts the utility impact analysis as a scenario that departs from 
the latest AEO Reference case. For this NOPR, the estimated impacts of 
amended energy conservation standards are the differences between 
values forecasted by NEMS-BT and the values in the AEO2010 Reference 
case (which does not contemplate amended standards).
    As part of the utility impact analysis, DOE used NEMS-BT to assess 
the impacts on natural gas prices of the reduced demand for natural gas 
projected to result from the considered standards. DOE also used NEMS-
BT to assess the impacts on electricity prices of the reduced need for 
new electric power plants and infrastructure projected to result from 
the considered standards. In NEMS-BT, changes in power generation 
infrastructure affect utility revenue, which in turn affects 
electricity prices. DOE estimated the change in electricity prices 
projected to result over time from each considered TSL. The benefits 
associated with the impacts of proposed standards on energy prices are 
discussed in section IV.G.5.
    For more details on the utility impact analysis, see chapter 14 of 
the NOPR TSD

L. Emissions Analysis

    In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power 
sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and mercury (Hg) from amended energy conservation 
standards for Class A EPSs and new energy conservation standards for 
non-Class A EPSs and battery chargers. DOE used the NEMS-BT computer 
model, which is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, except that battery 
charger and EPS energy use is reduced by the amount of energy saved (by 
fuel type) due to each TSL. The inputs of national energy savings come 
from the NIA spreadsheet model, while the output is the forecasted 
physical emissions. The net benefit of each TSL in today's proposed 
rule is the difference between the forecasted emissions estimated by 
NEMS-BT at each TSL and the AEO 2010 Reference Case. NEMS-BT tracks 
CO2 emissions using a detailed module that provides results 
with broad coverage of all sectors and inclusion of interactive 
effects. For today's NOPR, DOE used the version of NEMS-BT based on 
AEO2010, which incorporated projected effects of all emissions 
regulations promulgated as of January 31, 2010. For the final rule, DOE 
intends to revise the emissions analysis using the most current version 
of NEMS-BT.
    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade 
programs, and DOE has preliminarily determined that these programs 
create uncertainty about the impact of energy conservation standards on 
SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual 
emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous 
States and the District of Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 
28 eastern states and DC are also limited under the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an 
allowance-based trading program. Although CAIR was remanded to EPA by 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 
Circuit), see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), it 
remains in effect temporarily, consistent with the D.C. Circuit's 
earlier opinion in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 
2008). On July 6, 2011 EPA issued a replacement for CAIR, the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). (See http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/). On December 30, 2011, however, the D.C. 
Circuit stayed the new rules while a panel of judges reviews them, and 
told EPA to continue enforcing CAIR (see EME Homer City Generation v. 
EPA, No. 11-1302, Order at *2 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011)). The AEO 2010 
NEMS used for today's NOPR assumes the implementation of CAIR.
    The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs 
and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable 
permits. Under existing EPA regulations any excess SO2 
emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused 
by the imposition of an efficiency standard could be used to permit 
offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. 
However, if the amended and new standards resulted in a permanent 
increase in the quantity of unused emissions allowances, there would be 
an overall reduction in SO2 emissions from the standards. 
While there remains some uncertainty about the ultimate effects of 
efficiency standards on SO2 emissions covered by the 
existing cap-and-trade system, the NEMS-BT modeling system that DOE 
uses to forecast emissions reductions currently indicates that no 
physical reductions in power sector emissions would occur for 
SO2.
    As discussed above, the AEO 2010 NEMS used for today's NOPR assumes 
the implementation of CAIR, which established a cap on NOX 
emissions in 28 eastern States and the District of Columbia. With CAIR 
in effect, the

[[Page 18561]]

energy conservation standards for battery chargers and EPSs are 
expected to have little or no physical effect on NOX 
emissions in those States covered by CAIR, for the same reasons that 
they may have little effect on SO2 emissions. However, the 
proposed standards would be expected to reduce NOX emissions 
in the 22 States not affected by CAIR. For these 22 States, DOE is 
using the NEMS-BT to estimate NOX emissions reductions from 
the standards considered in today's NOPR.
    On December 21, 2011, EPA announced national emissions standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for mercury and certain other 
pollutants emitted from coal and oil-fired EGUs. (See http://epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111216MATSfinal.pdf). The NESHAPs do not include a trading 
program and, as such, DOE's energy conservation standards would likely 
reduce Hg emissions. For the emissions analysis for this rulemaking, 
DOE estimated mercury emissions reductions using NEMS-BT based on 
AEO2010, which does not incorporate the NESHAPs. DOE expects that 
future versions of the NEMS-BT model will reflect the implementation of 
the NESHAPs.
    For more details on the emissions analysis, see chapter 15 of the 
NOPR TSD.

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this proposed rule, DOE considered 
the estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced 
emissions of CO2 and NOX that are expected to 
result from each of the TSLs considered. In order to make this 
calculation similar to the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, 
DOE considered the reduced emissions expected to result over the 
lifetime of products shipped in the forecast period for each TSL. This 
section summarizes the basis for the monetary values used for each of 
these emissions and presents values considered in this rulemaking.
    For today's NOPR, DOE is relying on a set of values for the social 
cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed by an interagency process. A 
summary of the basis for these values is provided below, and a more 
detailed description of the methodologies used is provided as an 
appendix to chapter 16 of the TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
    Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, agencies must, to the 
extent permitted by law, ``assess both the costs and the benefits of 
the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits 
are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs.'' The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is 
to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of 
reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of 
regulatory actions that have small, or ``marginal,'' impacts on 
cumulative global emissions. The estimates are presented with an 
acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear 
understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect 
increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts.
    As part of the interagency process that developed these SCC 
estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular 
basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in 
relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main 
objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a 
defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific 
and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model 
differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC 
estimates used in the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an 
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is 
intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural 
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, 
and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided 
in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide.
    When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of 
carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious 
challenges. A recent report from the National Research Council \57\ 
points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 
speculation, and lack of information about (1) future emissions of 
greenhouse gases, (2) the effects of past and future emissions on the 
climate system, (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical 
and biological environment, and (4) the translation of these 
environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to 
quantify and monetize the harms associated with climate change will 
raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be 
viewed as provisional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced 
Consequences of Energy Production and Use. National Academies Press: 
Washington, DC (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization, 
SCC estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Consistent with the directive in 
Executive Order 12866 quoted above, the purpose of the SCC estimates 
presented here is to make it possible for Federal agencies to 
incorporate the social benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions 
into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or 
``marginal,'' impacts on cumulative global emissions. Most Federal 
regulatory actions can be expected to have marginal impacts on global 
emissions.
    For such policies, the agency can estimate the benefits from 
reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by 
multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC value 
appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits can 
then be calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an 
appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years. This 
approach assumes that the marginal damages from increased emissions are 
constant for small departures from the baseline emissions path, an 
approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects on 
emissions that are small relative to cumulative global carbon dioxide 
emissions. For policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on 
global cumulative emissions, there is a separate question of whether 
the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits of reduced 
emissions. This concern is not applicable to this notice, and DOE does 
not attempt to answer that question here.
    At the time of the preparation of this notice, the most recent 
interagency estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from 
reduced CO2 emissions in 2010, expressed in 2010$, were 
$4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton avoided. For emissions 
reductions that occur in later years, these values grow in real terms 
over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range 
of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the 
global SCC to calculate domestic effects,\58\ although preference is 
given to

[[Page 18562]]

consideration of the global benefits of reducing CO2 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values 
is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There is no a 
priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 
net global damages over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is 
committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic 
understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves 
over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a preliminary 
goal of revisiting the SCC values within 2 years or at such time as 
substantially updated models become available, and to continue to 
support research in this area. In the meantime, the interagency group 
will continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and 
consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency process.
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
    To date, economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide 
range of values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing 
carbon dioxide emissions. In the final model year 2011 CAFE rule, the 
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) used both a ``domestic'' SCC 
value of $2 per ton of CO2 and a ``global'' SCC value of $33 
per ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$), 
increasing both values at 2.4 percent per year.\59\ DOT also included a 
sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of CO2. See Average Fuel 
Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Year 2011, 74 
FR 14196 (March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final Environmental Impact 
Statement Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and 
Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-90 (Oct. 2008) (Available at: 
http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A domestic SCC value is meant to 
reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting from a unit 
change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC value is meant 
to reflect the value of damages worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Throughout this section, references to tons of 
CO2 refer to metric tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of 
$7 per ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission reductions 
(with a range of $0-$14 for sensitivity analysis), also increasing at 
2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger 
Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) 
(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average 
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 
2011-2015 at 3-58 (June 2008) (Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A regulation for packaged terminal air conditioners and 
packaged terminal heat pumps finalized by DOE in October of 2008 used a 
domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton CO2 for 2007 
emission reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008) In 
addition, EPA's 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act identified 
what it described as ``very preliminary'' SCC estimates subject to 
revision. 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA's global mean values were 
$68 and $40 per ton CO2 for discount rates of approximately 
2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 emissions).
    In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a 
preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how 
benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to 
develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for 
the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from 
reduced CO2 emissions. The interagency group did not 
undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC estimates 
from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more 
comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the 
preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five 
interim values: global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, $33, 
$19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO2.
    These interim values represent the first sustained interagency 
effort within the U.S. government to develop an SCC for use in 
regulatory analysis. The results of this preliminary effort were 
presented in several proposed and final rules and were offered for 
public comment in connection with proposed rules, including the joint 
EPA-DOT fuel economy and CO2 tailpipe emission proposed 
rules.
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group 
reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates, which 
were considered for this proposed rule. Specifically, the group 
considered public comments and further explored the technical 
literature in relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three 
integrated assessment models (IAMs) commonly used to estimate the SCC: 
the FUND, DICE, and PAGE models.\60\ These models are frequently cited 
in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each model was given 
equal weight in the SCC values that were developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The models are described in appendix 16-A of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes 
in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of 
the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the 
three models while respecting the different approaches to quantifying 
damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of 
the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 
for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions 
trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for 
climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In 
addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the 
socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. 
All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model 
developers' best estimates and judgments.
    The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in 
regulatory analyses. Three values are based on the average SCC from 
three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 
percent. The fourth value, which represents the 95th percentile SCC 
estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is 
included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature 
change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. For emissions 
(or emission reductions) that occur in later years, these values grow 
in real terms over time, as depicted in Table IV-31.

[[Page 18563]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.040

    It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties 
remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional 
and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and 
economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the 
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research 
Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between 
the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from 
an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to 
model these effects. There are a number of concerns and problems that 
should be addressed by the research community, including research 
programs housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the 
interagency process to estimate the SCC.
    DOE recognizes the uncertainties embedded in the estimates of the 
SCC used for cost-benefit analyses. As such, DOE and others in the U.S. 
Government intend to periodically review and reconsider those estimates 
to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate 
impacts, as well as improvements in modeling. In this context, 
statements recognizing the limitations of the analysis and calling for 
further research take on exceptional significance.
    In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting 
from reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the most recent values 
identified by the interagency process, adjusted to 2010$ using the GDP 
price deflator. For each of the four cases specified, the values used 
for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton 
avoided (values expressed in 2010$).\61\ To monetize the CO2 
emissions reductions expected to result from amended standards for 
Class A EPSs and new standards for non-Class A EPSs and battery 
chargers in 2013-2042, DOE used the values identified in Table A1 of 
the ``Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
Executive Order 12866,'' which is reprinted in appendix 16-A of the 
NOPR TSD, appropriately adjusted to 2010$. To calculate a present value 
of the stream of monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of 
the four cases using the specific discount rate that had been used to 
obtain the SCC values in each case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. For DOE's 
calculation, it derived values after 2050 using the 3-percent per 
year escalation rate used by the interagency group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
    DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced 
NOX emissions from the TSLs it considered. As noted above, 
new or amended energy conservation standards would reduce 
NOX emissions in those 22 states that are not affected by 
the CAIR. DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions 
reductions resulting from each of the TSLs considered for today's NOPR 
based on environmental damage estimates found in the relevant 
scientific literature. Available estimates suggest a very wide range of 
monetary values, ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of 
NOX from stationary sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent 
to a range of $450 to $4,623 per ton in 2010$).\62\ In accordance with 
OMB guidance, DOE conducted two calculations of the monetary benefits 
derived using each of the economic values used for NOX, one 
using a real discount rate of 3 percent and another using a real 
discount rate of 7 percent.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ For additional information, refer to U.S. Office of 
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 
Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 
Entities, Washington, DC.
    \63\ OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the 
appropriate range of values used in evaluating the potential economic 
benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further 
guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions 
before it once again monetizes Hg emissions in its rulemakings.

N. Discussion of Other Comments

    NEEP viewed the adoption of strong Federal energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers and EPSs as smart, minimal-cost 
mechanisms to help Northeast states achieve their aggressive energy 
savings goals. (NEEP, No. 49 at p. 3)
    Lester suggested that DOE consider establishing incentive programs 
for U.S. manufacturers as an alternative to setting efficiency 
standards. The company claimed that these incentives would encourage 
the development of efficient, domestically produced products. (Lester, 
No. 50 at p. 3) DOE notes that this rulemaking constitutes an 
``economically significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
(E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 
1993) Under 10

[[Page 18564]]

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section III.12, DOE must evaluate 
non-regulatory alternatives to proposed standards by performing a 
regulatory impact analysis (RIA). 61 FR 36981 at p. 36978 (July 15, 
1996) In this RIA, DOE compared the effectiveness of multiple possible 
alternatives to standards, including manufacturer tax credits for 
efficient battery chargers and EPSs. The results of this analysis are 
available in chapter 17 of the TSD.
    During manufacturer interviews, DOE also received questions 
regarding multi-voltage and multi-capacity battery chargers. 
Particularly with multi-voltage battery chargers, it is possible for 
the device to fall into more than one product class and manufacturers 
sought clarification on how to certify these devices. DOE notes that 
its recently promulgated test procedure describes the manner in which a 
multi-voltage or multi-capacity device must be tested. 76 FR 31750. For 
these devices, manufacturers may be required to test their product more 
than once and the batteries with which the devices are used for each 
test may put the battery charger into two product classes. If that is 
the case, the device would need to be certified for each product class 
for which it has been tested. This approach is consistent with DOE's 
approach for switch-selectable EPSs and DOE tentatively believes that 
this approach will result in the maximum energy savings for its 
proposed standards. DOE will consider alternative approaches and 
requests feedback from manufacturers and other interested parties on 
this proposal and any others, such as certifying at just the highest or 
lowest capacity or voltage.

O. Marking Requirements

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5), Congress granted DOE with the specific 
authority to establish labeling or marking requirements for a number of 
consumer products. Among these products are battery chargers and EPSs. 
DOE notes that the creation of such marking requirements, particularly 
for a portion of the products covered by today's proposal, was 
specifically contemplated by Congress. In particular, EISA 2007 set 
standards for Class A EPSs and created marking requirements for these 
products. Section 301 of that public law specified that all Class A 
EPSs shall be clearly and permanently marked in accordance with the 
``International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power 
Supplies'' (the ``Marking Protocol'').\64\ (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(C))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ U.S. EPA, ``International Efficiency Marking Protocol for 
External Power Supplies,'' October 2008, available at Docket No. 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Marking Protocol, developed by the EPA in consultation with 
stakeholders both within and outside the United States, was originally 
designed in 2005 and updated in 2008 to meet the needs of those 
voluntary and regulatory programs in place at those times. In 
particular, the Marking Protocol defines efficiency mark ``IV'', which 
corresponds to the current Federal standard for Class A EPSs, and 
efficiency mark ``V'', which corresponds to ENERGY STAR version 2.0. 
(The ENERGY STAR program for EPSs ended on December 31, 2010.) In 
addition, these marks currently apply only to single-voltage EPSs with 
nameplate output power less than 250 watts, but not to multiple-voltage 
or high-power EPSs.
    In today's notice, DOE proposes to amend the product marking (or 
``labeling'') requirements for EPSs and is considering adopting a 
similar requirement for battery chargers. Specifically, DOE proposes to 
(1) extend to all EPSs the marking requirement created by EISA 2007, 
which currently applies only to Class A EPSs; (2) reserve an efficiency 
mark (or marks) in the Marking Protocol for standard levels in the 
final rule that do not already have a corresponding mark; and (3) 
require that EPSs in proposed product class N bear a specific marking 
to distinguish them from other EPSs and facilitate compliance 
verification. In addition, DOE is considering establishing a 
distinguishing mark for EPSs for certain security or life safety alarm 
or surveillance systems and is considering requiring that battery 
chargers be marked in accordance with a battery charger marking 
protocol similar to that for EPSs. DOE welcomes comment on all of these 
issues.
    DOE notes that it is proposing standards for EPSs in product 
classes B, C, D, and E that exceed efficiency level ``V'', the highest 
level currently defined in the Marking Protocol. In addition, it is 
proposing standards for multiple-voltage and high-power EPSs. DOE is 
working with EPA to revise the Marking Protocol to accommodate all of 
the new and amended standards for EPSs being proposed today.
    DOE is also proposing to create a separate product class (product 
class N) for EPSs that cannot power an end-use consumer product 
directly. They would be subject to less stringent standards than those 
being proposed today for their ``direct operation'' counterparts. To 
aid in determining whether EPSs are in compliance with standards, DOE 
proposes that (1) a Class A EPS in product class N be permanently 
marked with an ``N'' as a superscript to the circle that contains the 
appropriate Roman numeral; (2) a non-Class A EPS in product class N be 
permanently marked with the abbreviation ``EPS-N''; (3) an EPS in 
product class N that is sold separately from the battery charger or 
end-use consumer product with which it is intended to be used shall 
also be permanently marked with the manufacturer and model number of 
that battery charger or end-use consumer product; and (4) an EPS that 
is in product class N but, nonetheless, meets the relevant standard set 
for direct operation EPSs (and bears the appropriate Roman numeral) 
need not be marked with an ``N'', with ``EPS-N'', nor with the 
manufacturer and model number of the associated device.
    DOE seeks input on what distinguishing mark should appear on EPSs 
for certain security and life safety equipment. A recently enacted law 
amended EPCA to exclude these devices from the no-load mode efficiency 
standards. Public Law 111-360 (Jan. 4, 2011) (to be codified at 42 
U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)). The exclusion applies to AC-AC EPSs manufactured 
before July 1, 2017, that have nameplate output of 20 watts or more, 
are certified as being designed to be connected to a security or life 
safety alarm or surveillance system component (as defined in the law), 
and are permanently marked with a distinguishing mark for such products 
as established within the Marking Protocol. No such distinguishing mark 
exists within the Marking Protocol, but DOE intends to work with EPA 
and other stakeholders to establish such a mark. The mark, which could 
be the word ``ACTIVE'' or an ``A'' in a circle, for example, would 
likely be required to appear adjacent to the appropriate Roman numeral. 
DOE welcomes input on what mark would be appropriate, where it should 
be located, and any other details related to how that mark should be 
presented on a given device.
    Lastly, EPS efficiency markings can be useful in certain 
circumstances to help verify whether a given product complies with the 
relevant standards. To assist in ensuring that compliant products can 
be readily identified, DOE is also considering marking requirements for 
battery chargers. NRDC submitted a comment in November 2010, after the 
close of the preliminary analysis comment period, requesting that DOE 
consider such a marking protocol for battery chargers. (NRDC, No. 56) 
NRDC

[[Page 18565]]

claimed that establishing an efficiency marking protocol for battery 
chargers would have several benefits, including creating a simple 
vocabulary for all stakeholders, facilitating enforcement, lowering the 
cost of compliance for industry by facilitating international adoption, 
and encouraging voluntary adoption of higher levels. NRDC proposed 
using Roman numerals, as is done for EPSs. To avoid confusion, the 
Roman numerals on battery chargers would appear next to the word 
``BC'', as shown in Table IV-32, in contrast to the Roman numerals on 
EPSs, which stand alone. NRDC's comment also includes recommendations 
on where the mark should be located.
    Consistent with this suggestion, DOE is considering adopting a 
marking protocol for battery chargers that would have ``BC III'' denote 
the battery charger standard levels adopted in the final rule. This 
marking would give other standards-setting bodies the option of 
defining a lower efficiency level (``BC II'') for use on BCs sold to 
consumers outside the United States and would reserve ``BC I'' for 
products that do not meet the criteria for the other (higher) marks. A 
similar approach was used when the efficiency marking protocol for EPSs 
was established. The formulas given for each of the battery charger 
product classes for BC Level III match the standards being proposed 
today and could change.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.041

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE is considering multiple approaches for determining where on the 
external housing of the battery charger the mark shall be placed. 
NRDC's proposal specifies where the mark shall be placed in cases where 
the battery charger has more than one housing, as described in Table 
IV-33. (NRDC, No. 56) DOE's concern with NRDC's proposal is the 
difficulty in accurately identifying and locating

[[Page 18567]]

charge control in a battery charger. Alternatively, DOE could give 
manufacturers the flexibility to choose where to place the mark. DOE 
expects that manufacturers will most often choose to place the mark on 
a cradle or charging base, if one is present, or on the end-use 
consumer product.

       Table IV-33--Proposed Location for Battery Charger Marking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Location of battery charger
              Form factor                            marking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three separate housings................  Charge control component.
Power supply and charge control          Power supply & charge control
 together, battery separate.              component.
Charge control and battery together,     Charge control & battery
 power supply separate.                   component.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is also considering other requirements for the battery charger 
mark. For example, DOE could require that the mark be placed on a 
nameplate or in an equally visible location or that the font size used 
for the mark be similar to that used for other markings on the product 
such as the UL and CE symbols. DOE is aware that the CEC also is 
considering establishing marking requirements for battery chargers and 
is following that process as it develops. If the CEC adopts marking 
requirements for battery chargers within the scope of today's notice, 
those requirements would be preempted by any future battery charger 
marking requirements adopted by DOE. Manufacturers would then have to 
transition from meeting the CEC's requirements to meeting DOE's 
requirements. Therefore, DOE would consider adopting the CEC's 
requirements to minimize the burden associated with that transition.
    DOE recognizes that there are several challenges inherent in 
creating a marking protocol for battery chargers. First, it may prove 
difficult to specify unambiguously where the mark should be placed 
given the variety of form factors found in the marketplace. Second, in 
contrast to EPSs, some battery chargers may not have a nameplate to add 
a mark to. Third, in those cases where the mark is placed on an end-use 
consumer product containing a battery charger, it may be misinterpreted 
by consumers as an endorsement of that product. DOE welcomes comment on 
these issues, NRDC's proposal, and any other issues related to 
efficiency markings for battery chargers.

P. Reporting Requirements

    For battery chargers and non-Class A external power supplies, DOE 
will establish certification, compliance, and enforcement provisions in 
a future rulemaking. This future rulemaking will outline the necessary 
information that manufacturers must provide in order to certify 
compliance with any energy conservation standards established by this 
rulemaking.

V. Analytical Results

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to potential energy efficiency standards for the various 
product classes examined as part of this rulemaking. Issues discussed 
include the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of 
these levels if adopted as energy efficiency standards for battery 
chargers and EPSs, and the standards levels that DOE is tentatively 
proposing in today's NOPR. Additional details regarding the analyses 
conducted by the agency are contained in the publicly available TSD 
supporting this proposal.

A. Trial Standard Levels

    DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of multiple TSLs for the 
products that are the subject of today's proposed rule. A description 
of each TSL DOE analyzed is provided below. DOE attempted to limit the 
number of TSLs considered for the NOPR by excluding efficiency levels 
that do not exhibit significantly different economic and/or engineering 
characteristics from the efficiency levels already selected as a TSL. 
While the NOPR presents only the results for those efficiency levels in 
TSL combinations, the TSD contains a more fulsome discussion and 
includes results for all efficiency levels that DOE examined.
1. External Power Supply TSLs
    Table V-1 presents the TSLs for EPSs and the corresponding 
efficiency levels. DOE chose to analyze product class B directly and 
scale the results from the engineering analysis to product classes C, 
D, and E. As a result, the TSLs for these three product classes 
correspond to the TSLs for product class B. DOE created separate TSLs 
for the multiple-voltage (product class X) and high-power (product 
class H) EPSs to determine their standards. DOE did not analyze TSLs 
above the baseline CSL for product class N and instead proposes 
applying the baseline EISA 2007 standard to all EPSs in this product 
class, as discussed in section B below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.042


[[Page 18568]]


    For EPS product class B, DOE examined three TSLs corresponding to 
each candidate standard level of efficiency developed in the 
engineering analysis. TSL 1 is an intermediate level of performance 
above ENERGY STAR, which offers the greatest consumer NPV. TSL 2 is 
equivalent to the best-in-market CSL and represents an incremental rise 
in energy savings over TSL 1. TSL 3 is the max-tech level and 
corresponds to the greatest NES.
    For product class X, DOE examined three TSLs above the baseline. 
TSL 1 is an intermediate level of performance above the baseline. TSL 2 
is equivalent to the best-in-market CSL and corresponds to the maximum 
consumer NPV. TSL 3 is the max-tech level and corresponds to the 
greatest NES.
    For product class H, DOE examined three TSLs above the baseline. 
TSL 1 corresponds to an intermediate level of efficiency. TSL 2 is the 
scaled best-in-market CSL and corresponds to the maximum consumer NPV. 
TSL 3 is the scaled max-tech level, which provides the highest NES.
2. Battery Charger TSLs
    Table V-2 presents the TSLs and corresponding candidate standard 
levels for battery chargers. While DOE examined most product classes 
individually, there were two groups of product classes that use 
generally similar technology options and cover the exact same range of 
battery energies. Because of this situation, DOE grouped all three low-
energy, non-inductive, product classes (i.e. 2, 3, and 4) together and 
examined the results. Similarly, DOE grouped the two medium energy 
product classes, product classes 5 and 6, together when it examined 
those results.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.043

    For battery charger product class 1 (low-energy, inductive), DOE 
examined three trial standard levels corresponding to each candidate 
standard level developed in the engineering analysis. TSL 1 is an 
intermediate level of performance above the baseline. TSL 2 is 
equivalent to the best-in-market and corresponds to the maximum 
consumer NPV. TSL 3 is the max-tech level and corresponds to the 
greatest NES.
    For its second set of TSLs, which covers product classes 2 (low-
energy, low-voltage), 3 (low-energy, medium-voltage), and 4 (low-
energy, high-voltage), DOE examined four TSLs of different combinations 
of the various efficiency levels found for each product class in the 
engineering analysis. In this grouping, TSL 1 is an intermediate 
efficiency level above the baseline for each product class and 
corresponds to the maximum consumer NPV. For 2 of the 3 product 
classes, TSL 2 corresponds to the same efficiency level, but for the 
third class, product class 2, TSL 2 represents an incremental 
efficiency level below best-in-market. TSL 3 corresponds to the best-
in-market efficiency level for all product classes. Finally, TSL 4 
corresponds to the max-tech efficiency level for all product classes 
and therefore, the maximum NES.
    DOE's third set of TSLs corresponds to the grouping of product 
classes 5 (medium-energy, low-voltage) and 6 (medium-energy, high-
voltage). For this grouping, three TSLs corresponding to different 
combinations of efficiency levels were examined. For both product 
classes, TSL 1 is an intermediate efficiency level above the baseline. 
TSL 2 corresponds to the best-in-market efficiency level for both 
product classes and is the level with the highest consumer NPV. 
Finally, TSL 3 corresponds to the max-tech efficiency level for both 
product classes and the maximum NES.
    For product class 7 (high-energy), DOE examined only two TSLs 
because of the paucity of products available on the market. TSL 1 
corresponds to an efficiency level equivalent to the best-in-market and 
maximizes consumer NPV is maximized. TSL 2 is the max-tech level and 
corresponds to the level with the maximum NES.
    For product class 8 (low-voltage DC input), DOE examined three TSLs 
at incremental levels above the baseline. TSL 1 is the first 
incremental level between the baseline and best-in-market. Consumer NPV 
is maximized at this level. TSL 2 is the best-in-market efficiency 
level and is projected to yield higher NES levels over TSL 1. Finally, 
at TSL 3, or the max-tech efficiency level, NES is maximized.
    For product class 9 (high-voltage DC input), DOE did not examine 
any TSLs in depth. Rather, when DOE completed its engineering analysis, 
it conducted its LCC analysis on the efficiency levels that had been 
developed and found that all efficiency levels above the baseline 
showed negative LCC savings. This fact,

[[Page 18569]]

combined with the minimal energy consumed per year for these devices, 
led DOE to propose an alternative standard level for these products. 
DOE's proposal for this product class is discussed in section V.B.2.f 
below.
    For product class 10 (AC input, AC output), DOE examined three 
TSLs, each corresponding to an efficiency level developed in the 
engineering analysis. TSL 1 corresponds to an incremental level of 
performance above the baseline. TSL 2 is equivalent to what 
manufacturers stated would be equivalent to the best-in-market level. 
TSL 3, which DOE projects to yield maximized NPV and NES values, is 
equivalent to the max-tech efficiency level for product class 10.

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

    As discussed in section II.A, EPCA provides seven factors to be 
evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation 
standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The 
following sections generally discuss how DOE is addressing each of 
those seven factors in this rulemaking. For further details and the 
results of DOE's analyses pertaining to economic justification, see 
sections IV and V of today's notice.
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. 
The LCC, which is also separately specified as one of the seven factors 
to be considered in determining the economic justification for a new or 
amended standard (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)), is discussed in the 
following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates 
the net present value from a national perspective of the economic 
impacts on consumers over the forecast period used in a particular 
rulemaking.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    As in the preliminary analysis phase, DOE calculated the average 
LCC savings relative to the base case market efficiency distribution 
for each representative unit and product class. DOE's projections 
indicate that a new standard would affect different battery charger and 
EPS consumers differently, depending on the market segment to which 
they belong and their usage characteristics. Section IV.F discusses the 
inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP. Inputs used for 
calculating the LCC include total installed costs, annual energy 
savings, electricity rates, electricity price trends, product lifetime, 
and discount rates.
    The key outputs of the LCC analysis are average LCC savings for 
each product class for each considered efficiency level, relative to 
the base case, as well as a probability distribution of LCC reduction 
or increase. The LCC analysis also estimates, for each product class or 
representative unit, the fraction of customers for which the LCC will 
either decrease (net benefit), or increase (net cost), or exhibit no 
change (no impact) relative to the base case forecast. No impacts occur 
when the product efficiencies of the base case forecast already equal 
or exceed the considered efficiency level. Battery chargers and EPSs 
are used in applications that can have a wide range of operating hours. 
Battery chargers and EPSs that are used more frequently will tend to 
have a larger net LCC benefit than those that are used less frequently 
because of the large operating cost savings.
    Another key output of the LCC analysis is the median payback period 
at each CSL. DOE presents the median payback period rather than the 
mean payback period because it is more robust in the presence of 
outliers in the data.\65\ These outliers skew the mean payback period 
calculation but have little effect on the median payback period 
calculation. A small change in operating costs, which derive the 
denominator of the payback period calculation, can sometimes result in 
a very large payback period, which skews the mean payback period 
calculation. For example, consider a sample of PBPs of 2, 2, 2, and 20 
years, where 20 years is an outlier. The mean PBP would return a value 
of 6.5 years, whereas the median PBP would return a value of 2 years. 
Therefore, DOE considers the median payback period, which is not skewed 
by occasional outliers. Table V-3 through Table V-5 show the results 
for the representative units and product classes analyzed for EPSs and 
battery chargers. Additional detail for these results, including 
frequency plots of the distributions of life-cycle costs and payback 
periods, are available in chapter 8 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ DOE notes that it uses the median payback period to reduce 
the effect of outliers on the data. This method, however, does not 
eliminate the outliers from the data.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.044

    For EPS product class B (basic-voltage, AC-DC, class A EPSs), each 
representative unit has a unique value for LCC savings and median PBP. 
The 2.5W representative unit has positive LCC savings at all TSLs 
considered, while the 60W representative unit has negative LCC savings 
at all TSLs. Both the 18W and 120W representative units have positive 
LCC savings through TSL 2, but turn negative at TSL 3.

[[Page 18570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.045

    The Non-Class A EPSs have varying LCC results at each TSL. See 
Table V-4. The 203W Multiple Voltage unit (product class X) has 
positive LCC savings through TSL 2. DOE notes that for this product 
class, the LCC savings remain largely the same for TSL 1 and 2 because 
the difference in LCC is approximately $0.01 and 95 percent of this 
market consists of purchased products that are already at TSL 1. 
Therefore, the effects are largely from the movement of the 5 percent 
of the market up from the baseline. The 345W High-Power unit (product 
class H) has positive LCC savings for each TSL. This projection is 
largely attributable to the installed price of the baseline unit, a 
linear switching device, which is more costly than higher efficiency 
switch-mode power devices, so as consumers move to higher efficiencies, 
the purchase price actually decreases, resulting in savings.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.046

    The LCC results for battery chargers depend on the product class 
being considered. See Table V-5. For product class 1, LCC results are 
positive through TSL 2. For the low-energy product classes (PC2, 3, and 
4), LCC results are generally positive through TSL 2, with the 
exception of product class 2, and become negative at TSL 3. The medium-
energy product classes (PC5 and 6) are positive through TSL 2 and 
negative at TSL 3. The high-energy product class (PC7) has positive LCC 
savings of $38.26 at TSL 1, and then becomes negative at TSL 2. Product 
class 8 has positive LCC savings only at TSL 1, while product class 10 
has positive LCC savings at each TSL (see entries for PC8 and PC10 in 
Table V-5).
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    Certain consumer subgroups may be disproportionately affected by 
standards. DOE performed LCC subgroup analyses in this NOPR for low-
income consumers, small businesses, top tier marginal electricity price 
consumers, and consumers of specific applications. See section IV.F of 
this NOPR for a review of the inputs to the LCC analysis. The following 
discussion presents the most significant results from the LCC subgroup 
analysis.
Low-Income Consumers
    For low-income consumers, the LCC impacts and payback periods are 
different than for the general population. This subgroup considers only 
the residential sector, and uses an adjusted electricity price from the 
reference case scenario. DOE found that low-income consumers below the 
poverty line typically paid electricity prices that were 0.2 cents per 
kWh lower than the general population. To account for this difference, 
DOE adjusted electricity prices by a factor of 0.9814 to derive 
electricity prices for this subgroup. Table V-6 through Table V-8 show 
the LCC impacts and payback

[[Page 18571]]

periods for low-income consumers purchasing EPSs and battery chargers.
    The LCC savings and PBPs of low-income consumers is similar to that 
of the total population of consumers. In general, low-income consumers 
experience slightly reduced LCC savings, particularly in product 
classes dominated by residential applications. However, product classes 
with a large proportion of commercial applications experience less of 
an effect under the low-income consumer scenario, which is specific to 
the residential sector, and sometimes have greater LCC savings than the 
reference case results. None of the changes in LCC savings move a TSL 
from positive to negative LCC savings, or vice versa.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.048

Small Businesses
    For small business customers, the LCC impacts and payback periods 
are different than for the general population. This subgroup considers 
only the commercial sector, and uses an adjusted discount rate from the 
reference case scenario. DOE found that small businesses typically have 
a cost of capital that is 4.48 percent higher than the industry 
average, which was applied to the discount rate for the small business 
consumer subgroup.
    The small business consumer subgroup LCC results are not directly 
comparable to the reference case LCC results because this subgroup only 
considers commercial applications. In the reference case scenario, the 
LCC results are strongly influenced by the

[[Page 18572]]

presence of residential applications, which typically comprise the 
majority of application shipments. For EPS product class B, the LCC 
savings for the 2.5W representative unit become negative at TSL 2 and 3 
under the small business scenario, but none of the savings for other 
representative units change from positive to negative, or vice versa. 
Similarly, none of the battery charger product classes that were 
positive in the reference case become negative in the small business 
subgroup analysis, and vice versa. This observation indicates that 
small business consumers would experience similar LCC impacts as the 
general population.
    Table V-9 and Table V-10 show the LCC impacts and payback periods 
for small businesses purchasing EPSs and battery chargers. DOE did not 
identify any commercial applications for Non-Class A EPSs, and, 
consequently, did not evaluate these products as part of the small 
business consumer subgroup analysis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.050

Top Tier Marginal Electricity Price Consumers
    For top tier marginal electricity price consumers, the LCC impacts 
and payback periods are different than for the general population. The 
analyses for this subgroup consider a weighted-average of the 
residential and commercial sectors, and uses an adjusted electricity 
price from the reference case scenario. DOE used an upper tier inclined 
marginal block rate for the electricity price in the residential and 
commercial sectors, resulting in a price of $0.310 and $0.225 per kWh, 
respectively. Table V-11 through Table V-13 show the LCC impacts and 
payback periods for top tier marginal electricity price consumers 
purchasing EPSs and battery chargers.
    Consumers in the top tier marginal electricity price bracket 
experience greater LCC savings than those in the reference case 
scenario. This result occurs because these consumers pay more for their 
electricity than other consumers, and, therefore, experience greater 
savings when using products

[[Page 18573]]

that are more energy efficient. This subgroup analysis changed many of 
the negative LCC savings results to positive LCC savings. Some product 
classes and representative units still have negative LCC savings, which 
indicates that these product classes have increasing installed costs 
(purchase price plus installation costs, the latter of which are 
assumed to be zero) at higher TSLs that cannot be overcome through 
operating cost savings using top tier marginal electricity prices.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.052

Consumers of Specific Applications
    DOE performed an LCC and PBP analysis on every application within 
each representative unit and product class. This subgroup analysis used 
the application's specific inputs for lifetime, markups, base case 
market efficiency distribution, and UEC. Many applications in each 
representative unit or product class experienced LCC impacts and 
payback periods that were different from the average results across the 
representative unit or product class. Because of the large number of 
applications considered in the analysis,

[[Page 18574]]

some of which span multiple representative units or product classes, 
DOE did not present application-specific LCC results here. Detailed 
results on each application are available in chapter 11 of the TSD.
    For EPS product class B, the application-specific LCC results 
indicate that most applications will experience similar levels of LCC 
savings as the representative unit's average LCC savings. The 2.5W 
representative unit has positive LCC savings for each TSL, but 
infrequently charged applications, such as beard and moustache trimmers 
(among others), experience negative LCC savings. Similarly, the 18W 
representative unit has projected positive LCC savings through TSL 2, 
but other applications using EPSs, such as portable DVD players and 
camcorders, have negative savings. For the 60W representative unit, all 
applications follow the shipment-weighted average trends, except EPSs 
used in sleep apnea machines, which have positive LCC savings at each 
TSL. The same is true for the 120W representative unit, except for EPSs 
used in portable O2 concentrator applications, which are 
projected to yield negative LCC results for all TSLs.
    For battery charger product classes, DOE noted similar trends where 
less frequently used applications experienced lower LCC savings. For 
product class 2, LCC savings are negative beyond TSL 1, but frequently 
used applications within that class--e.g., answering machines, cordless 
phones, and home security systems--experience positive LCC savings. The 
top three product class 3 applications (which account for over 50 
percent of total shipments) have negative LCC savings and contribute to 
the negative LCC savings of the product class average. However, some 
applications have significantly positive LCC savings, such as handheld 
vacuums, LAN equipment, stick vacuums, and universal battery chargers, 
which together comprise 15 percent of the total shipments in PC3. 
Product class 4 (e.g., notebooks and netbooks) have no impacts at TSL 1 
or TSL 2 because these products already use battery charger technology 
above the baseline efficiency level. In the other battery charger 
product classes, the disparate applications tend to experience similar 
LCC savings. See chapter 11 of the TSD for further detail.
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section III.D.2, EPCA provides a rebuttable 
presumption where, in essence, an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product 
that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the 
first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. However, DOE 
routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full 
range of impacts, including those to the customer, manufacturer, 
Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) 
and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1). The results of this analysis serve as the 
basis for DOE to evaluate definitively the economic justification for a 
potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results 
of any preliminary determination of economic justification).
    For EPSs and battery chargers, energy savings calculations in the 
LCC and PBP analyses used both the relevant test procedures as well as 
the relevant usage profiles. DOE's recent changes to the test 
procedures did not affect any characteristics that impact the payback 
period calculation. Because DOE calculated payback periods using a 
methodology consistent with the rebuttable presumption test for EPSs 
and battery chargers in the LCC and payback period analyses, DOE did 
not perform a stand-alone rebuttable presumption analysis, as it was 
already embodied in the LCC and PBP analyses.
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new and amended 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of EPSs and battery 
chargers. The section below describes the expected impacts on 
manufacturers at each potential TSL.
a. Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    The INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between 
the base case and the standards case, which DOE calculated by summing 
the discounted industry cash flows from the base year (2011) through 
the end of the analysis period. The discussion also notes the 
difference in cash flow between the base case and the standards case in 
the year before the compliance date of potential new and amended energy 
conservation standards. This figure provides a proxy for the magnitude 
of the required conversion costs, relative to the cash flow generated 
by the industry in the base case.
i. EPS Cash Flow Impacts
    For EPSs, the MIA describes the impacts on EPS ODMs. Each set of 
results below shows two tables of INPV impacts on the ODM. The first 
table reflects the lower (less severe) bound of impacts and the second 
represents the upper (more severe) bound. To evaluate this range of 
cash-flow impacts on EPS manufacturers, DOE modeled two different 
scenarios using different markup assumptions. These assumptions 
correspond to the bounds of a range of market responses that DOE 
anticipates could occur in the standards case. Each scenario results in 
a unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry value at each 
TSL.
    To assess the lower (less severe) end of the range of potential 
impacts, DOE modeled the flat markup scenario. The flat markup scenario 
assumes that in the standards case manufacturers would be able to pass 
the higher production costs required to manufacture more efficient 
products on to their customers. To assess the higher (more severe) end 
of the range of potential impacts, DOE modeled the preservation of 
operating profit markup scenario in which higher energy conservation 
standards result in lower manufacturer markups. DOE used the main NIA 
shipment scenario for both the lower- and higher-bound MIA scenarios 
that were used to characterize the potential INPV impacts.
Product Classes B, C, D, and E
    Table V-14 and Table V-15 present the projected results for product 
classes B, C, D, and E under the flat and preservation of operating 
profit markup scenarios. DOE examined four representative units in 
product class B and scaled the results to product classes C, D, and E 
using the most appropriate representative unit for each product class.

[[Page 18575]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.054

    At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$38.9 
million to -$62.5 million, or a change in INPV of -16.8 percent to -
26.9 percent. At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by approximately 179.2 percent to -$10.8 million, compared to 
the base-case value of $13.6 million in the year leading up to when the 
new and amended energy conservation standards would need to be met.
    At TSL 1, manufacturers of product class B, C, D, and E EPSs face a 
moderate loss in INPV. For these product classes, the required 
efficiencies at TSL 1 correspond to an intermediate level above the 
ENERGY STAR 2.0 levels but below the best in market efficiencies. The 
conversion costs are a major contribution of the decrease in INPV 
because the vast majority of the product class B, C, D, and E EPS 
shipments fall below CSL 2. Manufacturers will incur product and 
capital conversion costs of approximately $61.4 million at TSL 1. In 
2013, approximately 84 percent of product class B, C, D, and E 
shipments are projected to fall below the proposed amended energy 
conservation standards. In addition, 92 percent of the products for the 
2.5W representative unit are projected to fall below the proposed 
efficiency standard, and would likely require more substantial 
conversion costs because meeting the efficiency standard would require 
2.5W representative units to switch from linear to switch mode 
technology. This change would increase the conversion costs for these 
2.5W representative units, which account for approximately a quarter of 
all the product class B, C, D, and E shipments.
    At TSL 1, the MPC increases 45 percent for the 2.5W representative 
units (a representative unit for product class B and all shipments of 
product classes C and E), 5 percent for the 18 Watt representative 
units (a representative unit for product class B and all shipments of 
product class D), 14 percent for the 60W representative units, and 3 
percent for the 120W representative units over the baseline. The 
conversion costs are significant enough to cause a moderately negative 
industry impact even if the incremental change in MPCs is fully passed 
on to OEMs. Impacts are more significant under the preservation of 
operating profit scenario because under this scenario manufacturers 
would be unable to pass on the full increase product cost.
    At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$35.2 
million to -$81.4 million, or a change in INPV of -15.2 percent to -
35.1 percent. At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by approximately 212.1 percent to -$15.2 million, compared to 
the base-case value of $13.6 million in the year before the compliance 
date.
    TSL 2 represents the best-in-market efficiencies for product class 
B, C, D, and E EPSs. The difference in conversion costs and incremental 
production costs at TSL 2 make the INPV impacts slightly better than 
TSL 1 in the flat markup scenario and worse under the preservation of 
operating profit scenario. The product conversion costs increase by 
$5.4 million and the capital conversion costs increase by $5.9 million 
from TSL 1 because the vast majority of current products fall below the 
efficiency requirements at TSL 2. Also, at TSL 2, the MPC increases 60 
percent for the 2.5W representative units (a representative unit for 
product class B and all shipments of product classes C and E), 18 
percent for the 18 Watt representative units (this is a representative 
unit for product class B and all shipments of product class D), 22 
percent for the 60W representative units, and 4 percent for the 120W 
representative units over the baseline. However, the similar conversion 
costs and relatively minor additional incremental costs make the 
industry impacts at TSL 2 similar to those at TSL 1.
    At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from $17.9 million 
to -$123.5 million, or a change in INPV of 7.7 percent to -53.2 
percent. At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by approximately 223.0 percent to -$16.7 million, compared to 
the base-case value of

[[Page 18576]]

$13.6 million in the year before the compliance date.
    TSL 3 represents the max-tech CSL for product class B, C, D, and E 
EPSs. At TSL 3, DOE modeled a wide range of industry impacts because 
the very large increases in per-unit costs lead to a wide range of 
potential impacts depending on who captures the additional value in the 
distribution chain. None of the existing products on the market meet 
the efficiency requirements at TSL 3. However, since most of the 
products at TSL 2 also fall below the standard level, there is only a 
slight difference between the conversion costs at TSL 2 and TSL 3. The 
different INPV impacts occur due to the large changes in incremental 
MPCs at the max-tech level. At TSL 3, the MPC increases 69 percent for 
the 2.5W representative unit (this is a representative unit for product 
class B and all shipments for product classes C and E), 80 percent for 
the 18 Watt representative units (this is a representative unit for 
product class B and all shipments for product class D), 46 percent for 
the 60W representative units, and 53 percent for the 120W 
representative units over the baseline. If manufacturers are able to 
fully pass on these costs to OEMs (the flat markup scenario), the 
increase in cash flow from operations is enough to overcome the 
conversion costs to meet the max-tech level and INPV increases 
slightly. However, if the manufacturers are unable to pass on these 
costs and only maintain the current operating profit (the preservation 
of operating profit markup scenario), there is a large, negative impact 
on INPV, because substantial increases in working capital drain 
operating cash flow. The conversion costs associated with switching the 
entire market, the large increase in incremental MPCs, and the extreme 
pressure from OEMs to keep product prices down make it more likely that 
ODMs will not be able to fully pass on these costs to OEMs and the ODMS 
would face a substantial loss instead of a slight gain in INPV at TSL 
3.
Product Class X
    Table V-16 and Table V-17 below present the projected results for 
product class X under the flat and preservation of operating profit 
markup scenarios.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.056

    At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$0.4 million 
to -$0.7 million, or a change in INPV of -1.0 percent to -1.7 percent. 
At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 
approximately 10.9 percent to $2.3 million, compared to the base-case 
value of $2.6 million in the year before the compliance date.
    At TSL 1, manufacturers of product class X face a very slight 
decline in INPV because most of the market already meets TSL 1. The 
total conversion costs are approximately $0.7 million. Conversion costs 
are low because 95 percent of the products already meet the TSL 1 
efficiency requirements.
    At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$12.0 
million to -$12.8 million, or a change in INPV of -27.1 percent to -
28.9 percent. At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by approximately 218.6 percent to -$3.1 million, compared to 
the base-case value of $2.6 million in the year leading up to when the 
new energy conservation standards would need to be met.
    At TSL 2, manufacturers face a more noticeable loss in industry 
value. DOE estimates that manufacturers will incur total product and 
capital conversion costs of $14.4 million at TSL 2. The conversion 
costs increase at TSL 2 because the entire market falls below the 
efficiency requirements at TSL 2. However, the total impacts are also 
driven by the incremental MPCs at TSL 2. At TSL 2, the MPC increases 16 
percent over the baseline. Therefore, the projected changes in INPV 
under both the flat and preservation of operating profit markup 
scenarios are similar.
    At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$4.6 million 
to

[[Page 18577]]

-$17.9 million, or a change in INPV of -10.3 percent to -40.5 percent. 
At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 
approximately 218.6 percent to $3.1 million, compared to the base-case 
value of $2.6 million in the year before the compliance date.
    TSL 3 could result in substantial impacts on INPV. As with TSL 2, 
the entire market falls below the required efficiency at TSL 3 and 
total industry conversion costs are also $14.4 million. However, the 
main difference at TSL 3 is the increase in the MPC. At TSL 3, the MPC 
increases 46 percent over the baseline. If the ODM can pass on the 
higher price of these products to the OEM at TSL 3, the decline in INPV 
is not severe. However, if ODMs cannot pass on these higher MPCs to 
OEMs, the loss in INPV is much more substantial.
Product Class H
    Table V-18 and Table V-19 present the projected results for product 
class H under the flat and preservation of operating profit markup 
scenarios.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.057

    At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range -$0.04 million to 
-0.05 million, or a change in INPV of -32.7 percent to -45.5 percent. 
At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 
approximately 284.4 percent to -$0.01 million, compared to the base-
case value of $0.01 million in the year before the compliance date.
    At TSL 1, product class H manufacturers face a significant relative 
loss in industry value. The base case industry value of $100,000 is low 
and since DOE estimates that total conversion costs at TSL 1 would be 
approximately $50,000, the conversion costs represent a substantial 
portion of total industry value. The conversion costs are high relative 
to the base case INPV because the entire market in 2013 is projected to 
fall below an efficiency standard set at TSL 1. This means that all 
products in product class H would have to be redesigned to meet the 
efficiency level at TSL 1, leading to total conversion costs that are 
large relative to the base case industry value. In addition, the MPC at 
TSL 1 declines by 21 percent compared to the baseline since the 
switching technology that would be required to meet this efficiency 
level is less costly to manufacture than baseline products that use 
linear technology. This situation results in a lower MSP and lower 
revenues for manufacturers of baseline products, which exacerbates the 
impacts on INPV from new energy conservation standards for these 
products.
    At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -0.04 million 
to -0.05 million, or a change in INPV of -33.8 percent to -44.0 
percent. At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by approximately 284.4 percent to -$0.01 million, compared to 
the base-case value of $0.01 million in the year before the compliance 
date.
    The impacts on INPV at TSL 2 are similar to TSL 1. The conversion 
costs are the same since the entire market in 2013 would fall below the 
required efficiency at both TSL 1 and TSL 2. Also, the MPC is projected 
to decrease by 19 percent at TSL 2 compared to the baseline, which is 
similar to the 21 percent decrease at TSL 1. Overall, the similar 
conversion costs and lower industry revenue for the minimally compliant 
products make the INPV impacts at TSL 2 similar to TSL 1.
    At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$0.03 
million to -0.05 million, or a change in INPV of -24.4 percent to -47.3 
percent. At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by approximately 284.4 percent to -$0.01 million, compared to 
the base-case value of $0.01 million in the year leading up to when the 
new energy conservation standards would need to be met.
    Impacts on INPV range from moderately to substantially negative at 
TSL 3. As with TSL 1 and TSL 2, the entire market falls below the 
required efficiency and the total industry

[[Page 18578]]

conversion costs estimated by DOE remain at $50,000. However, the MPC 
increases at TSL 3 relative to the estimated cost of the baseline unit 
and changes the possible impacts on INPV at TSL 3. If ODMs can fully 
pass on the higher production cost of these products to the OEM at TSL 
3, the decline in INPV is less severe. However, if the ODM cannot pass 
on these higher MPC to OEM then the loss in INPV is much more 
substantial.
ii. Battery Charger Cash Flow Impacts
    DOE reports INPV impacts at each TSL for the six product class 
groupings below. When appropriate, DOE also discusses the results for 
groups of related applications that would experience impacts 
significantly different from the overall product class group to which 
they belong.
    In general, two major factors drive the INPV results: (1) The 
relative difference between a given application's MSP and the 
incremental cost of improving its battery charger; and (2) the dominant 
base case battery charger technology that a given application utilizes, 
which is approximated by the application's efficiency distribution.
    With respect to the first point, the higher the MSP of the 
application relative to the battery charger cost, the lower the impacts 
of battery charger standards on OEMs of the application. For example, 
an industry that sells an application for $500 would be less affected 
by a $2 increase in battery charger costs than one that sells its 
application for $10. On the second point regarding base case efficiency 
distribution, some industries, such as producers of laptop computers, 
already incorporate highly efficient battery chargers. Therefore, a 
higher standard would be unlikely to impact the laptop industry as it 
would other applications using baseline technology in the same product 
class.
    As discussed in section IV.I, DOE analyzed three markup scenarios--
constant price, pass through, and flat markup. These scenarios were 
described earlier. The constant price scenario analyzes the situation 
in which application manufacturers are unable to pass on any 
incremental costs of more efficient battery chargers to their 
customers. This scenario generally results in the most significant 
negative impacts \66\ because no incremental costs added to the 
application--whether driven by higher battery charger component costs 
or depreciation of required capital investments--can be recouped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Notably, this is not the case with negative sloping cost-
efficiency curves. When a higher efficiency level can be achieved at 
a lower product cost, the constant price scenario yields positive 
impacts because larger margins are realized by the manufacturer on 
each unit produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the pass through scenario, DOE assumes that manufacturers are 
able to pass the incremental costs of more efficient battery chargers 
through to their customers, but not with any markup to cover overhead 
and profit. Therefore, though less severe than the constant price 
scenario in which manufacturers absorb all incremental costs, this 
scenario results in negative cash flow impacts due to margin 
compression and greater working capital requirements.
    Finally, DOE considers a flat markup scenario to analyze the upper 
bound (most positive) of profitability impacts.\67\ In this scenario, 
manufacturers are able to maintain their base case gross margin, as a 
percentage of revenue, at higher CSLs, despite the higher product costs 
associated with more efficient battery chargers. In other words, 
manufacturers can fully pass on--and mark up--the higher incremental 
product costs associated with more efficient battery chargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ While the Flat Markup scenario typically results in the 
most positive impacts of any scenario, a negatively sloping cost-
efficiency curve will yield the opposite effect. When a higher 
efficiency level can be achieved at a lower product cost, the margin 
on each unit produced is lower, in absolute terms, in the Flat 
Markup scenario. This effect leads to lower operating profit, cash 
flow, and INPV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Class 1
    The following tables (Table V-20 through Table V-23) summarize 
information related to the analysis performed to project the potential 
impacts on product class 1 battery charger manufacturers.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18579]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.058

    Product class 1 has only two applications: Rechargeable 
toothbrushes and water jets. Rechargeable toothbrushes represent 99.9 
percent of the product class 1 shipments. DOE found the majority of 
these models include nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) battery chemistries, 
although products with NiMH and Li-ion chemistries exist in the market. 
More than three quarters of market shipments are at the baseline CSL. 
However, the efficiency distribution is not necessarily indicative of 
the distribution of retail price points. During interviews, 
manufacturers indicated that energy efficiency was not a primary 
selling point in this market. As a consequence, manufacturers expect 
that stringent standards would likely impact the low-end of the market, 
where price competition is most fierce and retail selling prices are 
lowest.
    The incremental costs of meeting TSL 1 and TSL 2, which represent 
CSL 1 and CSL 2 for product class 1, respectively, are relatively minor 
compared to the average application MSP of $58.36. While most 
applications will have to be altered at these TSLs, the relatively 
small increase in battery charger costs do not greatly impact industry 
cash flow even if none of these incremental costs can be passed on to 
retailers. At max-tech, however, the battery charger is 3.3 times more 
expensive than the baseline charger. The baseline level is set at the 
CSL at which the majority of the market currently ships. Therefore, in 
addition to the R&D efforts necessary to prepare all product lines to 
incorporate the max-tech levels, the inability to pass those much 
higher battery charger costs down the distribution chain drive the 
negative impacts at max-tech in the worst-case constant price scenario.

[[Page 18580]]

Product Classes 2, 3, and 4
    The following tables (Table V-24 through Table V-30) summarize 
information related to the analysis performed to project the potential 
impacts on manufacturers of devices falling into product classes 2, 3, 
and 4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.059


[[Page 18581]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.060

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    Taken together, product classes 2, 3, and 4 include the greatest 
number of applications and account for more than 75 percent of total 
battery charger shipments in 2013, the anticipated compliance year for 
new energy conservation standards. These product classes also include a 
wide variety of applications, characterized by differing shipment 
volumes, base case efficiency distributions, and MSPs. Because of this 
variety, this product class grouping, more than any other, requires a 
greater level of disaggregation to evaluate specific industry impacts. 
Presented only on a product class basis, industry impacts are 
effectively shipment-weighted and mask impacts on certain industry 
applications that vary substantially from the aggregate results. 
Therefore, in addition to the overall product class group results, DOE 
also presents results by industry subgroups--consumer electronics, 
small appliances, power tools, and high-energy applications--in the 
pass through scenario, which approximates the mid-point of the 
potential range of impacts. These results highlight impacts at various 
TSLs.
    TSL 1 would require battery chargers in product classes 2, 3 and 4 
to each meet CSL 1. Impacts on INPV are relatively moderate at TSL 1 
because a majority of application shipments in these product classes 
already meet CSL 1. However, those shipments already meeting CSL 1 are 
heavily weighted toward the consumer electronics sector. In most cases, 
CSL 1 could be met with incremental circuit design improvements and 
higher efficiency components. Satisfying this level would not require a 
full topology redesign or a move to Li-ion chemistry, although 
manufacturers of some applications indicated in interviews that they 
may elect such a design path.
    TSL 2 has the same efficiency requirements for product classes 3 
and 4 as TSL 1 (CSL 1). Product class 2 manufacturers would have to 
meet CSL 2 at TSL 2, which would likely require battery charger design 
changes (e.g., moving to switched-mode and Li-ion chemistries) that 
would likely cause application manufacturers to incur significant R&D 
expenditures relative to what is normally budgeted for battery 
chargers. However, the financial impact of this investment effect would 
be minor compared to the base case industry value, which is largely 
driven by consumer electronics applications.
    Industry impacts would become more acute at TSL 3 and TSL 4, as 
best-in-market or max-tech designs would be required for all battery 
chargers. The cost of a battery charger in product classes 3 and 4 
rises sharply at CSL 2 (best in market) and further at CSL 3 (max-
tech). For relatively inexpensive applications, the inability to fully 
pass on these substantially higher costs (as assumed in the pass 
through and, to a greater extent, the constant price scenario) leads to 
significant margin compression, working capital drains, and, 
ultimately, reductions in INPV at the max-tech TSL.
    As discussed above, these aggregated results can mask 
differentially impacted industries and manufacturer subgroups. Nearly 
90 percent of shipments in product classes 2, 3 and 4 fall under the 
broader consumer electronics category, with the remaining share split 
between small appliances and power tools. Consumer electronics 
applications have a much higher shipment-weighted average MSP ($175) 
than the other product categories ($80 for power tools and $60 for 
small appliances). Consequently, consumer electronics manufacturers are 
better able to absorb higher battery charger costs than small appliance 
and power tool manufacturers. Further, consumer electronics typically 
incorporate higher efficiency battery chargers already, while small 
appliances and power tool applications tend to cluster around baseline 
and CSL 1 efficiencies. These factors lead to proportionally greater 
impacts on small appliance and power tool manufacturers in the event 
they are not able to pass on and markup higher battery charger costs.
    Table V-28 through Table V-30 present INPV impacts in the pass

[[Page 18582]]

through markup scenario for consumer electronic, power tool, and small 
appliance applications, respectively (for only those applications 
incorporating battery chargers in product class 2, 3 or 4). The results 
clearly indicate manufacturers of power tools and small appliances 
would face disproportionately adverse impacts, as compared to consumer 
electronics manufacturers and the overall product group's results 
(shown above in Table V-25 through Table V-27), if they are not able to 
mark up the incremental product costs.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.061

Product Classes 5 and 6
    The following tables (Table V-31 through Table V-34) summarize 
information related to the analysis performed to project the potential 
impacts on manufacturers of devices falling into product classes 5 and 
6.

[[Page 18583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.062

    Ride-on toy vehicles represent nearly three quarters of the 
combined shipment volume in product classes 5 and 6, with marine 
chargers and electric scooters accounting for the majority of the 
remaining share. DOE's market survey and interviews found that nearly 
all of the higher energy applications incorporate battery chargers with 
lead acid battery chemistries. With the exception of battery chargers 
for toy ride-on vehicles and lawn mowers, the majority of products in 
these groupings use baseline battery chargers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.063


[[Page 18584]]


    TSL 1, TSL 2, and TSL 3 represent CSL 1, CSL 2, and CSL 3, 
respectively, for both product class 5 and product class 6. The battery 
charger cost associated with each CSL is the same for product classes 5 
and 6. The industry impacts at TSL 1 are minor to moderate because a 
large percentage of the market already meets the CSLs represented in 
that TSL and because the incremental battery charger product costs are 
minor relative to the average application MSP of $220. At TSL 2, the 
battery charger cost declines compared to the baseline because of the 
technology shift from a line-frequency power supply to a switch-mode 
power supply, and the resulting impacts are projected to remain fairly 
moderate. At TSL 3, however, the impacts on INPV are severe because the 
required max-tech battery chargers would cost nearly seven times the 
cost of a baseline charger.
    Under the flat markup scenario, which assumes manufacturers could 
fully mark up the product to recover this additional cost, such an 
increase generates substantially greater cash flow and industry value. 
However, as noted earlier, the greater the increase in product costs, 
the less likely DOE believes that manufacturers will be able to fully 
markup the substantially higher production costs (the flat markup 
scenario). DOE believes manufacturers would be forced to absorb much of 
this dramatic cost increase at max-tech, yielding the substantially 
negative industry impacts, as shown by the lower-bound results.
Product Class 7
    The following tables (Table V-35 through Table V-38) summarize 
information related to the analysis performed to project the potential 
impacts on manufacturers of devices falling into product class 7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.064


[[Page 18585]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.065

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    Golf cars are the only application in product class 7. 
Approximately half the market incorporates baseline battery charger 
technology--the other half employs technology that meets the efficiency 
requirements at CSL 1. The cost of a battery charger in product class 
7, though higher relative to other product classes, remains a small 
portion of the overall selling price of a golf car. As such, large 
percentage increases in the cost of the battery charger, as in the case 
of max-tech, do not yield severe impacts on golf car OEMs, even in the 
constant price scenario. Note, however, this analysis focuses on the 
application manufacturer, or the OEM. DOE did identify a U.S. small 
business manufacturer of the golf car battery charger itself (as 
opposed to the application). DOE evaluates the impacts on standards on 
such manufacturers in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (see section 
VI.B for the results of that analysis).
Product Class 8
    The following tables (Table V-39 through Table V-42) summarize 
information related to the analysis performed to project the potential 
impacts on manufacturers of devices falling into product class 8.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18586]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.067

    Product class 8 includes 14 applications, mostly consumer 
electronics. MP3 players and mobile phones make up the vast majority of 
product class 8 shipments (58 percent and 31 percent, respectively). 
Approximately 50 percent of MP3 players meet CSL 1 or higher and 73 
percent of mobile phones already incorporate best-in-market battery 
chargers that exceed CSL 2. For most other applications in this product 
class, roughly two-thirds of the incorporated battery chargers already 
meet or exceed CSL 1. Furthermore, because the manufacturer selling 
prices of these dominant applications dwarf the incremental product 
costs associated with increasing the efficiency--even at max-tech--the 
overall industry impacts are projected to be minor for all TSLs for 
product class 8.
Product Class 9

[[Page 18587]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.068

    DOE did not examine any TSLs for product class 9 and did not 
conduct any downstream analyses for this product class. For product 
class 9, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation standards. 
Section V.B.2.fof this NOPR provides a more detailed reason for this 
decision.
Product Class 10
    The following tables (Table V-44 through Table V-47) summarize 
information related to the analysis performed to project the potential 
impacts on manufacturers of devices falling into product class 10.

[[Page 18588]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.069

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    Product class 10 has only one application: Uninterruptible power 
supplies. The vast majority of models on the market have sealed lead-
acid battery chemistries. The efficiency distribution for product class 
10 assumes all shipments are at the baseline CSL. Compared to the 
average application MSP of approximately $289, the incremental costs of 
meeting the higher CSLs remain relatively low, despite increasing 
substantially on a percentage basis. Therefore, even in the constant 
price scenario, INPV impacts are projected to be limited.
b. Impacts on Employment
    As part of the direct employment impact analysis, DOE attempted to 
quantify the number of domestic workers involved in EPS manufacturing. 
Based on manufacturer interviews and DOE's research, DOE believes that 
all major EPS ODMs are foreign owned and operated. DOE did identify a 
few smaller niche EPS ODMs based in the U.S. and attempted to contact 
these companies. All of the companies DOE reached indicated their EPS 
manufacturing takes place abroad. During manufacturer interviews, large 
manufacturers also indicated the vast majority, if not all, EPS 
production takes place overseas. Due to DOE's inability to identify any 
EPS ODMs with domestic manufacturing, DOE has tentatively concluded 
that there are no EPSs currently manufactured domestically.

[[Page 18589]]

However, in recognition of the fragmented nature of this market, DOE 
seeks comment and input as to whether there are EPS manufacturers that 
have domestic production.
    DOE also recognizes there are several OEMs or their domestic 
distributors that have employees in the U.S. that work on design, 
technical support, sales, training, certification, and other 
requirements. However, in interviews manufacturers generally did not 
expect any negative changes in the domestic employment of the design, 
technical support, or other departments of EPS OEMs located in the U.S. 
in response to new or amended energy conservation standards.
    For battery chargers, DOE similarly attempted to quantify the 
number of domestic workers involved in battery charger production. 
Based on manufacturer interviews and DOE's research, DOE believes that 
the vast majority of all small appliance and consumer electronic 
applications are manufactured abroad. When looking specifically at the 
battery charger component, which is typically designed by the 
application manufacturer but sourced for production, the same dynamic 
holds to an even greater extent. That is, in the rare instance when an 
application's production occurs domestically, it is very likely that 
the battery charger component is still produced and sourced overseas. 
For example, DOE identified several power tool applications with some 
level of domestic manufacturing. However, based on more detailed 
information obtained during interviews, DOE believes the battery 
charger components for these applications are sourced from abroad.
    Also, DOE was able to find a few manufacturers of medium and high 
power applications with facilities in the U.S. However, only a limited 
number of these companies produce battery chargers domestically for 
these applications. Therefore, based on manufacturer interviews and 
DOE's research, DOE believes that golf cars are the only application 
with U.S.-based battery charger manufacturing. Any change in U.S. 
production employment due to new battery charger energy conservation 
standards is likely to come from changes involving these particular 
products. DOE seeks comment on the presence of any domestic battery 
charger manufacturing outside of the golf car industry and beyond 
prototyping for R&D purposes.
    At the proposed efficiency levels, domestic golf car manufacturers 
will face a difficult decision on whether to attempt to manufacture 
more efficient battery chargers in-house and try to compete with a 
greater level of vertical integration than their competitors, move 
production to lower-wage regions abroad, or source their battery 
charger manufacturing. DOE believes one of the latter two strategies 
would be more likely for domestic golf car manufacturers. DOE describes 
the major implications for golf car employment in the regulatory 
flexibility section VI.B below because the major domestic manufacturer 
is also a small business manufacturer. Similar to EPSs, DOE does not 
anticipate any negative changes in the domestic employment of the 
design, technical support, or other departments of battery charger 
application manufacturers located in the U.S. in response to new energy 
conservation standards. Standards may require some companies to 
redesign their battery chargers, change marketing literature, and train 
some technical and sales support staff. However, during interviews, 
manufacturers generally agreed these changes would not lead to positive 
or negative changes in employment.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    DOE does not anticipate that the standards proposed in today's rule 
would adversely impact manufacturer capacity. For EPSs, EISA has set a 
statutory compliance date. The EPS industry is characterized by rapid 
product development lifecycles. Most battery charger applications have 
similar design cycles. While there is no statutory compliance date for 
battery chargers, DOE believes the compliance date proposed in today's 
rule provides sufficient time for manufacturers to ramp up capacity to 
meet the proposed standards for battery chargers and EPSs. DOE requests 
comment on the appropriate compliance date for battery charger (see 
section I).
d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers
    Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow 
estimate is not adequate for assessing differential impacts among 
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche equipment 
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure 
substantially different from the industry average could be affected 
disproportionately. DOE addressed manufacturer subgroups in the battery 
charger MIA. Because certain applications are disproportionately 
impacted compared to the overall product class, DOE reports those 
results individually so they can be considered as part of the overall 
MIA. DOE did not identify any EPS manufacturer subgroups that would 
require a separate analysis in the MIA.
    DOE also identified small businesses as a subgroup that could 
potentially be disproportionally impacted. DOE discusses the impacts on 
the small business subgroup in the regulatory flexibility analysis 
(section VI.B).
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on 
manufacturers, the combined effects of several impending regulations 
may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of 
manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single 
regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition 
to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly 
affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations 
affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and can lead 
companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected 
future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts 
an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings 
pertaining to appliance efficiency. DOE received many comments about 
the potential cumulative regulatory burden (see section IV.I.4.a) that 
may result from a standard for battery chargers and EPSs. The 
regulatory burdens described in those comments, however, generally fall 
outside of the scope of the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, 
which generally focuses on the impacts related to Federal regulations 
with a compliance date within three years of the anticipated compliance 
date of today's proposal. DOE notes that the potential for duplicative 
testing requirements raised by some commenters were addressed above.
i. Impact Due to CEC Battery Charger Standard
    Table V-48 presents the range of impacts on all battery charger 
product classes due to the CEC battery charger standards.

[[Page 18590]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.070

    DOE quantitatively assessed the impact of the CEC battery charger 
standard on battery charger application manufacturers. This standard 
affects applications using a battery charger that are sold in 
California beginning in 2013. DOE estimates the impacts on 
manufacturers to range from $137 million to -$575 million, or a change 
in INPV of 0.3 percent to -1.1 percent. This range depends on 
manufacturers' ability to pass on the incremental price increases to 
consumers in the California markets caused by the CEC standard. DOE 
also estimated manufacturers will have to invest $12.6 million in 
product conversion costs and $3.8 million in capital conversion costs 
in order to have all battery charger applications sold in California 
meet the CEC standard by 2013.
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings during the analysis period 
attributable to potential standards for battery chargers and EPSs, DOE 
compared the energy consumption of these products in the base case to 
their anticipated energy consumption with standards set at each TSL.
    Table V-49 and Table V-50 present DOE's forecasts of the national 
energy savings at each TSL for battery chargers and EPSs. The savings 
were calculated using the approach described in section IV.G. Chapter 
10 of the NOPR TSD presents tables that also show the magnitude of the 
energy savings if the savings are discounted at rates of 3 and 7 
percent. Discounted energy savings represent a policy perspective in 
which energy savings realized farther in the future are less 
significant than energy savings realized in the nearer term.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.071


[[Page 18591]]


b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to the Nation of the total costs 
and savings for consumers that would result from potential standard 
levels for battery chargers and EPSs. In accordance with the OMB's 
guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, section E, 
September 17, 2003), DOE calculated NPV using both a 3-percent and a 7-
percent real discount rate.
    Table V-51 and Table V-52 show the consumer NPV results for each 
TSL DOE considered for EPSs, using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 
discount rate. Table V-53 and Table V-54 show the corresponding results 
for battery chargers. In each case, the impacts cover the lifetime of 
products purchased in 2013-2042. See chapter 10 of the TSD for more 
detailed NPV results.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18592]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.072

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE conducted NPV sensitivity analysis using three alternative 
price trends. The NPV results from the associated sensitivity cases are 
described in appendix 10-X of the NOPR TSD.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    DOE develops estimates of the indirect employment impacts of 
potential standards on the economy in general. As discussed above, DOE 
expects energy conservation standards for battery chargers and EPSs to 
reduce energy bills for consumers of these products, and the resulting 
net savings

[[Page 18593]]

to be redirected to other forms of economic activity. These expected 
shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for 
labor. As described in section IV.J, to estimate these effects DOE used 
an input/output model of the U.S. economy. DOE understands that there 
are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts generated 
by an input/output model, especially changes in the later years of the 
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes, 
such as 2015, where these uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest the proposed standards are likely to have 
negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net 
change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national 
labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on 
employment. Chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD presents more detailed results.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As presented in section III.B of this notice, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that none of the TSLs considered in this notice would reduce 
the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this 
rulemaking. Furthermore, manufacturers of these products currently 
offer EPSs and battery chargers that meet or exceed the proposed 
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely 
to result from amended standards. The Attorney General determines the 
impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a 
proposed standard, and transmits such determination to the Secretary, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))
    To assist the Attorney General in making such determination, DOE 
will provide DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the TSD for review. DOE 
will consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in preparing the 
final rule, and DOE will publish and respond to DOJ's comments in that 
document.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    An improvement in the energy efficiency of the products subject to 
today's NOPR is likely to improve the security of the Nation's energy 
system and reduce the costs of energy production. Reduced electricity 
demand may also improve the reliability of the electricity system, 
particularly during peak-load periods. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))
    Energy savings from amended standards for Class A EPSs and new 
standards for non-Class A EPSs and battery chargers could also produce 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with electricity production. 
Table V-55 and Table V-56 provide DOE's estimate of cumulative 
CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions that would 
be expected to result from each of the TSLs considered in this 
rulemaking for EPSs and battery chargers, respectively. In the 
environmental assessment (chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD), DOE reports 
annual CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions for 
each considered TSL.
    As discussed in section IV.L, DOE has not reported SO2 
emissions reductions from power plants, because there is uncertainty 
about the effect of energy conservation standards on the overall level 
of SO2 emissions in the United States due to SO2 
emissions caps. DOE also did not include NOX emissions 
reduction from power plants in States subject to CAIR because an 
amended energy conservation standard would not affect the overall level 
of NOX emissions in those States due to the emissions caps 
mandated by CAIR.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18594]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.073

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 18595]]

    DOE also estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the 
reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that DOE 
estimated for each of the TSLs considered for battery chargers and 
EPSs. In order to make this calculation similar to the calculation of 
the NPV of consumer benefits, DOE considered the reduced emissions 
expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in the 
forecast period for each TSL.
    As discussed in section IV.M, a Federal interagency group selected 
four SCC values for use in regulatory analyses, which DOE used in the 
NOPR analysis. The four SCC values (expressed in 2007$) are $4.7/ton 
(the average value from a distribution that uses a 5-percent discount 
rate), $21.4/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 3-
percent discount rate), $35.1/ton (the average value from a 
distribution that uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and $64.9/ton (the 
95th-percentile value from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 
discount rate). These values correspond to the value of CO2 
emission reductions in 2010; the values for later years are higher due 
to increasing damages as the magnitude of climate change increases. For 
each of the four cases, DOE calculated a present value of the stream of 
annual values using the same discount rate as was used in the studies 
upon which the dollar-per-ton values are based.
    Table V-57 to Table V-60 and Table V-61 to Table V-66 present the 
global values of CO2 emissions reductions at each TSL 
considered for energy efficiency for EPSs and battery chargers, 
respectively. As explained in section IV.M.1, DOE calculated domestic 
values as a range from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global values, 
and these results are presented in Table V-67to Table V-70 and Table V-
71 to Table V-76 for EPSs and battery chargers, respectively.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18596]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.074


[[Page 18597]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.075


[[Page 18598]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.076


[[Page 18599]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.077


[[Page 18600]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.078


[[Page 18601]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.079


[[Page 18602]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.080

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed in 
this rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions is subject to 
change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will continue to 
review various methodologies for estimating the monetary value of 
reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 
review will consider any comments on this subject that are part of the 
public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other 
methodological assumptions and issues. However, consistent with DOE's 
legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved 
with this particular issue, DOE has included in this NOPR the most 
recent values and analyses resulting from the ongoing interagency 
review process.
    DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the 
economic benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from amended standards for Class A EPSs and new 
standards for non-Class A EPSs and battery chargers. The dollar-per-ton 
values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.M. Table V-77 presents 
the cumulative present values for each TSL considered for EPSs, 
calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates. Table V-78 
presents similar results for the TSLs considered for battery chargers.

[[Page 18603]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.081

    The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions 
reductions can be viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer 
savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. Table V-
79 shows an example of the calculation of the combined NPV, including 
benefits from emissions reductions for the case of TSL 1 for battery 
chargers product classes 2, 3, 4. Table V-80 and Table V-81 present the 
NPV values that result from adding the estimates of the potential 
economic benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and 
NOX emissions in each of four valuation

[[Page 18604]]

scenarios to the NPV of consumer savings calculated for each TSL 
considered for EPSs, at both a 7-percent and a 3-percent discount rate. 
The CO2 values used in the columns of each table correspond 
to the four scenarios for the valuation of CO2 emission 
reductions presented in section IV.M. Table V-82 and Table V-83 present 
similar results for the TSLs considered for battery chargers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.082


[[Page 18605]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.083


[[Page 18606]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.084


[[Page 18607]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.085


[[Page 18608]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.086

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of 
emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should 
be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. 
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 
transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on 
a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and 
CO2 savings are performed with different methods that use 
quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost 
savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped in the 30-year 
period after the compliance date. The SCC values, on the other hand, 
reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts 
resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. 
These impacts go well beyond 2100.
7. Other Factors
    In determining whether a standard is economically justified, DOE 
may consider any other factors that it deems relevant. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))) The California IOUs asked that DOE consider 
adopting the standard levels proposed by the State of California. 
(California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 2) In January 2012, the CEC finalized 
its battery charger energy conservation standards and published energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers. Prior to finalizing these 
standards, CEC published a draft staff report outlining the 
requirements that were ultimately adopted.\68\ The standards consist of 
two metrics; one is a maximum allowance for 24-hour charge and 
maintenance energy, while the other is a maximum allowance for the 
combination of maintenance and no battery mode power. DOE analyzed the

[[Page 18609]]

CEC's proposal and determined, for each of DOE's product classes, which 
CSL aligns most closely with the CEC's proposed standards, as explained 
in section IV.C.2.d above. Table shows this mapping and the national 
energy savings and net benefits that could be expected to result from 
federal standards at these levels. Additional results for these CSLs 
are presented elsewhere in section V.B and in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Singh, Harinder; Rider, Ken. 2011. Staff Report Staff 
Analysis of Battery Chargers and Self-Contained Lighting Controls. 
2011 California Energy Commission, Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
Division, Appliances and Process Energy Office. CEC-400-2011-001-SF.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.087

    DOE incorporated the CEC's battery charger standards into its 
analysis by adjusting its base case efficiency distributions, as 
explained in section IV.G.4 above. It did not choose proposed standard 
levels with the explicit intention of aligning its standards with the 
CEC's. Rather, as in all such rulemakings, the proposed levels were 
selected to meet a number of criteria specified in EPCA. These 
decisions for each product class grouping are explained in detail in 
the following section.

C. Proposed Standards

    When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy 
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of 
covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 
determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary 
must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens 
by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in the significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    For today's NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of standards at each 
TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to 
determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-
tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the next most 
efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the 
most efficient level that is both technologically feasible and 
economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.
    DOE separately discusses the benefits and burdens of each TSL for 
each group of products. To aid the reader in its discussion of the 
benefits and burdens of each TSL, DOE presents summary tables 
containing the results of DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL.
    In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, 
DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that impact whether a 
given efficiency level is economically justified. These factors include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers, such as low-income 
households and seniors, who may be disproportionately affected by a 
national standard. Section V.B.1 presents the estimated impacts of each 
TSL on these subgroups. DOE also considers impacts on employment 
stemming from the manufacture of the products subject to standards (see 
section V.B.2.b), as well as potential indirect impacts in the national 
economy (see section V.B.3.c).
    DOE notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging 
discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings 
in the absence of government intervention. Much of this literature 
attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue energy 
efficiency improvements. This undervaluation suggests that regulation 
that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net private 
gains (as well as producing social gains by, for example, reducing 
pollution). There is evidence that consumers undervalue future energy 
savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a lack of 
sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack 
of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering; (4) excessive 
focus on the short term, in the

[[Page 18610]]

form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative 
to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other 
difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and 
(6) a divergence in incentives (that is, renter versus owner; builder 
vs. purchaser). Other literature indicates that with less than perfect 
foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, consumers 
may trade off these types of investments at a higher than expected rate 
between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego a 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers and the cost to manufacturers is included in the 
MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to 
products actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a 
regulatory option decreases the number of products used by consumers, 
this decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation 
standard. DOE provides detailed estimates of shipments and changes in 
the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD. However, 
DOE's current analysis does not explicitly control for heterogeneity in 
consumer preferences, preferences across subcategories of products or 
specific features, or consumer price sensitivity variation according to 
household income.
    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy efficiency 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\69\ DOE 
welcomes comments on approaches for improved assessment of the consumer 
welfare impacts of appliance standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Alan Sanstad. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. 2010. Available online at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. External Power Supplies
a. Product Class B--Direct Operation External Power Supplies
    Table V-85 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated 
for each TSL for EPSs in product class B. As outlined in section V.A.1, 
DOE is extending the TSLs for product class B to product classes C, D, 
and E since product class B was the only one directly analyzed and 
interested parties supported this approach because of the technical 
similarities among these products. The efficiency levels contained in 
each TSL are described in section V.A.1.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.088


[[Page 18612]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.089

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency level. TSL 3 would save 1.316 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefits would 
be -$2.357 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$3.292 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 62.5 Mt of 
CO2, 51.6 kt of NOX, and 0.331 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $0.263 billion to $3.936 billion.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of 
$0.02 for the 2.5W unit and a cost (LCC savings decrease) of $1.19 for 
the 18W unit, $1.38 for the 60W unit, and $5.49 for the 120W unit. The 
median payback period is 4.3 years for the 2.5W unit, 8.1 years for the 
18W unit, 6.4 years for the 60W unit, and 9.1 years for the 120W unit. 
The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 38.7 percent 
for the 2.5W unit, 25.6 percent for the 18W unit, 7.2 percent for the 
60W unit, and 0 percent for the 120W unit. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC cost is 61.3 percent for the 2.5W unit, 74.4 
percent for the 18W unit, 92.8 percent for the 60W unit, and 100 
percent for the 120W unit.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV for direct operation product 
classes B, C, D, and E as a group ranges from a decrease of $123.5 
million to an increase of $17.9 million. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the 
risk of very large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a 
net loss of 53.2 percent in INPV to manufacturers of EPSs in these 
product classes. However, as DOE has not identified any domestic 
manufacturers of direct operation EPSs, it does not project any 
immediate negative impacts on direct domestic jobs.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for EPSs in 
product class B, the negative NPV of consumer benefits, the economic 
burden on a significant fraction of consumers due to the large 
increases in product cost, and the capital conversion costs and profit 
margin impacts that could result in a very large reduction in INPV, 
outweigh the benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.7246 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 
benefits would be $463 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$1.138 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. Additionally, TSL 2 
yields the maximum NPV of consumer benefits added to the social cost of 
carbon and monetized NOX emissions reductions \70\ with a 
value of $1.199 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $1.894 billion 
at a 3-percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Assuming the social cost of carbon equal to $21.4 per 
metric ton and NOX calculated with a medium value of 
$2,514 per short ton. These values are applied throughout the TSL 
discussion that follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 34.3 Mt of 
CO2, 28.4 kt of NOX, and 0.182 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $0.145 billion to $2.166 billion.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of 
$0.04 for the 2.5W unit, $0.69 for the 18W unit, $0.61 for the 120W 
unit, and a cost (LCC savings decrease) of $0.45 for the 60W unit. The 
median payback period is 4.3 years for the 2.5W unit, 3.1 years for the 
18W unit, 5.4 years for the 60W unit, and 1.9 years for the 120W unit. 
The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 38.6 percent 
for the 2.5W unit, 52.3 percent years for the 18W unit, 13.6 percent 
for the 60W unit, and 88.4 percent for the 120W unit. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 59.1 percent for the 2.5W unit, 
37.5 percent for the 18W unit, 85.2 percent for the 60W unit, and 8.6 
percent for the 120W unit.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV for product classes B, C, D, 
and E as a group ranges from a decrease of $81.4 million to a decrease 
of $35.2 million. DOE recognizes the risk of large negative impacts if 
manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced profit margins are 
realized. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE 
expects, TSL 2 could result in a net loss of 35.1 percent in INPV to 
manufacturers of EPSs in these product classes.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for EPSs in 
product class B, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of 
consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary 
value of the CO2 emissions reductions outweigh the economic 
burden on a significant fraction of consumers due to the increases in 
product cost and the capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts 
that could result in a reduction in INPV to manufacturers.
    After considering the analysis, comments to the preliminary 
analysis and TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the Secretary 
tentatively concludes that this TSL will offer the maximum improvement 
in efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified and will result in the significant conservation of energy.

[[Page 18613]]

Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 2 for EPSs in product class 
B and, by extension, for EPSs in product classes C, D, and E because of 
the technical similarities among all of these devices. The proposed new 
and amended energy conservation standards for these EPSs, expressed as 
equations for minimum average active-mode efficiency and maximum no-
load input power, are shown in Table V-86.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.090


[[Page 18614]]


b. Product Class X--Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies
    Table V-87 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated 
for each TSL for multiple-voltage EPSs. The efficiency levels contained 
in each TSL are described in section V.A.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.091

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency level. TSL 3 would save 0.147 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefits would 
be -$364 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$533 
million, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 6.92 Mt of 
CO2, 5.71 kt of NOX, and 0.036 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $0.029 billion to $0.440 billion.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC savings decrease) 
of $3.09. The median payback period is 13.2 years. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 5 percent while the fraction 
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 95 percent.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$17.9 million to a decrease of $4.6 million. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes 
the risk of very large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high range of 
impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 
40.5 percent in INPV to manufacturers of multiple-voltage EPSs. 
However, as DOE has not identified any domestic manufacturers of 
multiple-voltage EPSs, it does not project any immediate negative 
impacts on direct domestic jobs.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for multiple-
voltage EPSs, the negative NPV of consumer benefits, the economic 
burden on a significant fraction of consumers due to the large

[[Page 18615]]

increases in product cost, and the capital conversion costs and profit 
margin impacts that could result in a very large reduction in INPV 
outweigh the benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.0718 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 
benefits would be $176 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$330 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent. Additionally, TSL 2 
yields the maximum NPV of consumer benefits added to the social cost of 
carbon and monetized NOX emissions reductions with a value 
of $248 million at a 7-percent discount rate and $405 million at a 3-
percent discount rate.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of 
$2.07. The median payback period is 4.7 years. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 49 percent while the fraction 
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 51 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 3.38 Mt of 
CO2, 2.79 kt of NOX, and 0.018 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $0.014 billion to $0.215 billion.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$12.8 million to a decrease of $12.0 million. At TSL 2, DOE recognizes 
the risk of large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 2 could result in a 
net loss of 28.9 percent in INPV to manufacturers of multiple-voltage 
EPSs.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for multiple-
voltage EPSs, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions outweigh the economic burden on a 
significant fraction of consumers due to the increases in product cost 
and the capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could 
result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
    After considering the analysis, comments to the preliminary 
analysis and TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the Secretary 
tentatively concludes that this TSL will offer the maximum improvement 
in efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified and will result in the significant conservation of energy. 
Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 2 for multiple-voltage EPSs. 
The proposed new and amended energy conservation standard for multiple-
voltage EPSs, expressed as an equation for minimum average active-mode 
efficiency and maximum no-load input power, is shown in Table V-88.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.092

c. Product Class H--High-Power External Power Supplies
    Table V-89 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated 
for each TSL for high-power EPSs. The efficiency levels contained in 
each TSL are described in section V.A.

[[Page 18616]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.093

    DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency level. TSL 3 would save 0.0015 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefits 
would be $3.6 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.6 
million, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 0.065 Mt of 
CO2, 0.053 kt of NOX, and less than 0.0001 t of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 
emissions reductions at TSL 3 ranges from less than $0.0001 to $0.004 
billion.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of 
$92.96. The median payback period is 2.5 years. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 83.1 percent while the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 16.9 percent.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$0.05 million to a decrease of $0.03 million. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes 
the risk of very large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a 
net loss of 47.3 percent in INPV to manufacturers of high-power EPSs. 
However, as DOE has not identified any domestic manufacturers of high 
power EPSs, it does not project any immediate negative impacts on 
direct domestic jobs.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for high-power 
EPSs, the additional considerations of the potential negative impacts 
of a standard at this max-tech TSL outweigh the benefits of energy 
savings, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions. DOE notes that it scaled results 
for product class B to estimate the cost and efficiency of this max-
tech CSL. Consequently, DOE is unaware of any product that can achieve 
this CSL in either product class B or H. Thus, although DOE's analysis 
indicates that the max-tech efficiency level is achievable, there is a 
risk that unforeseen obstacles remain to creating an EPS at this TSL.
    Additionally, setting a standard at TSL 3 would create a 
discontinuity in the average efficiency standards for EPSs. For product 
class B devices, the average efficiency standard is constant

[[Page 18617]]

for nameplate output power ratings greater than 49 watts up to 250 
watts. At 250 watts, where product class H begins, the average 
efficiency standard would increase by 4 percent if DOE set standards 
for this product class at the max-tech TSL. This discontinuity in 
efficiency between the two product classes would be the result of the 
proposed standards for product class B EPSs being equivalent to the 
best-in-market CSL equation while the proposed standards for product 
class H would be equivalent to the max-tech CSL equation for high-power 
EPSs. DOE believes that setting a standard with a large discontinuity 
between these product classes is not consistent with EPS design trends.
    In contrast, by applying the same level of stringency, scaled for 
the representative unit voltage, to all EPSs with output power greater 
than 250 watts, the achievable efficiency in EPS designs that have an 
output power above 49 watts remains nearly constant. This result occurs 
because the switching and conduction losses associated with the EPS 
remain proportionally the same with the increase in output power, which 
creates a relatively flat achievable efficiency above 49 watts. If DOE 
were to adopt a level that created a discontinuity in the efficiency 
levels, it would ignore this trend and set a higher efficiency standard 
between two product classes despite numerous technical similarities. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.0014 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 
benefits would be $5.0 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$9.7 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a gain (consumer savings) of 
$129.08. The median payback period is 0.2 years. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 100 percent while the fraction 
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 0 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 0.058 Mt of 
CO2, 0.048 kt of NOX, and less than 0.0001 t of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 
emissions reductions at TSL 2 ranges from less than $0.0001 to $0.004 
billion. Additionally, TSL 2 yields the maximum NPV of consumer 
benefits added to the social cost of carbon and monetized 
NOX emissions reductions with a value of $6.3 million at a 
7-percent discount rate and $11.1 million at a 3-percent discount rate.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$0.04 million to a decrease of $0.04 million. At TSL 2, DOE recognizes 
the risk of large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 2 could result in a 
net loss of 44.0 percent in INPV to manufacturers of high-power EPSs.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for high-power 
EPSs, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, positive LCC savings for all consumers, emission reductions, 
and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions outweigh the economic burden of the capital conversion costs 
and profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in INPV for 
manufacturers. The Secretary also tentatively concludes that this TSL 
will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified and will result in 
the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes 
to adopt TSL 2 for high-power EPSs. The proposed new and amended energy 
conservation standards for high-power EPSs, expressed as a discrete 
standard for minimum average active-mode efficiency and maximum no-load 
input power, are shown in Table V-90.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.094

d. Product Class N--Indirect-Operation External Power Supplies
    Product class N consists of indirect-operation EPSs, which are EPSs 
that serve only as battery charger components and do not operate an 
end-use consumer product or power any auxiliary functions of an end-use 
consumer product on their own. See section IV.A.3 above. The 
applications that use these EPSs consist of applications using motors 
and detachable batteries, which correspond to MADB non-Class A EPSs and 
other applications that use Class A EPSs. DOE believes that the Class A 
and non-Class A devices in product class N are technically equivalent. 
Because of this technical equivalency, DOE believes that EPSs of both 
types can achieve the same efficiency level for the same cost and, 
thus, grouped these EPSs into one product class for analysis. DOE is 
not aware of any capacity- or performance-related features of the non-
Class A devices in product class N that would enable DOE to create a 
separate class for this group of devices. 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)
    Of the estimated 75 million EPSs in this product class sold 
annually, 46 percent are Class A and are already subject to the Federal 
standards prescribed by EISA 2007. The remaining 54 percent are non-
Class A EPSs, which are not currently subject to Federal standards. 
Table V-91 lists those applications that DOE has identified as product 
class N EPSs and indicates how many of each are subject to the current 
Federal standard for Class A EPSs and how many are non-Class A devices. 
DOE seeks comment on the accuracy of its estimates regarding the 
proportions of these applications that ship with indirect-operation 
EPSs versus direct-operation EPSs. (See Issue 17 under ``Issues on 
Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in Section VII.E of this notice.)
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18618]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.095

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    First, DOE considered setting standards for EPSs in product class N 
at an efficiency level greater than the level prescribed by EISA for 
all Class A EPSs. While such a standard would theoretically yield 
energy savings, DOE tentatively believes that these savings would not 
be cost justified. In the case of these particular devices, DOE 
believes that a more effective way to obtain additional energy savings 
is to

[[Page 18619]]

regulate the battery chargers of which product class N EPSs are a part, 
since all of the power flowing through an indirect-operation EPS flows 
to the battery charger. In contrast, a direct-operation EPS's output 
power flows to both a battery charger and an end-use consumer product, 
which means that regulating only the battery charger would not 
adequately address the entire system. Thus, by not setting new 
standards for product class N EPSs beyond the existing EISA standard 
level, DOE believes that manufacturers will have greater flexibility in 
designing more efficient battery chargers without adversely impacting 
their utility and performance. This approach would help ensure that 
consumers and the Nation as a whole will realize cost-effective savings 
either through improvements to the EPS or other components in the 
battery charger. Thus, DOE tentatively believes that any cost-effective 
energy savings for these products will be realized through the battery 
charger standard itself.
    Next, DOE considered standards equivalent to the current EISA 
standards for Class A EPSs. This approach would represent no change in 
standards for Class A devices and a new standard for non-Class A 
devices in product class N. (Note that all Class A EPSs, including 
those in product class N, cannot, by virtue of EPCA's anti-backsliding 
provision, be subject to a standard less stringent than the current 
Class A standard prescribed by EISA 2007 (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)).)
    As indicated in section IV.A.1 above, DOE has not identified any 
non-Class A EPSs in product class N that are not already subject to the 
California EPS standard. As a result, all of these non-Class A EPSs 
that fall into product class N must already comply with the California 
standard. The California standard for non-Class A EPSs is at the same 
efficiency level as the Federal Class A EPS standard. California also 
relies on the Federal test procedure to verify compliance with its EPS 
standards. Since California requires identical standards and test 
methods for non-Class A EPSs as DOE does for Class A, DOE considers 
these standards to be equivalent.
    Additionally, manufacturers have alluded informally to DOE that the 
California standard is the ``de facto'' national standard for their 
non-Class A EPSs because they typically sell the same EPS for a given 
product line throughout the country. The California IOUs concurred with 
this view. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 9) Thus, DOE believes that 
the non-Class A EPSs in product class N already meet the Federal 
standards currently in place for Class A EPSs and seeks comment on the 
accuracy of this belief. (See Issue 18 under ``Issues on Which DOE 
Seeks Comment'' in section VII.E of this notice.)
    Under the assumption that all non-Class A EPSs in product class N 
already meet the Federal standards currently in place for Class A EPSs, 
a new standard at the EISA level for these products would not yield 
significant energy savings and, therefore, would not be cost-justified. 
Therefore, DOE is not proposing new standards for indirect operation 
EPSs today. If DOE receives new information indicating that this 
assumption is incorrect, i.e., that manufacturers are not producing all 
indirect operation EPSs at or above the EISA efficiency levels, DOE 
will reconsider this decision and evaluate potential new standards for 
this product class.
2. Battery Chargers
a. Low-Energy, Inductive Charging Battery Chargers, Product Class 1
    Table V-92 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated 
for each TSL for low-energy, inductive charging battery chargers. The 
efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18620]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.096

    DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency level. TSL 3 would save 0.178 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefits would 
be -$527 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$781 
million, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 8.36 Mt of 
CO2, 6.90 kt of NOX, and 0.044 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $0.035 billion to $0.531 billion.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC savings decrease) 
of $2.87 for low-energy inductive charging battery chargers. The median 
payback period is 8.5 years. The fraction of consumers experiencing an 
LCC benefit is 1.8 percent and the fraction of consumers experiencing 
an LCC cost is 98.2 percent.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$441 million to an increase of $29 million. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes 
the risk of very large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a 
net loss of 89.7 percent in INPV to manufacturers of battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for low-energy, 
inductive charging battery chargers, the benefits of energy savings, 
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative 
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction 
of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the 
capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in 
a very large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the 
Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.130 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 
benefits would be $318 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$606 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 6.11 Mt of 
CO2, 5.05 kt of NOX, and 0.032 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2

[[Page 18621]]

emissions reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $0.026 billion to $0.388 
billion. Additionally, the NPV of consumer benefits added to the social 
cost of carbon and monetized NOX emissions reductions is 
maximized with a value of $741 million at a 3-percent discount rate and 
$450 million at a 7-percent discount rate at TSL 2.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $1.52 for low-
energy inductive charging battery chargers. The median payback period 
is 1.7 years. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
88.9 percent and the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 
0 percent.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$101 million to an increase of $1 million. DOE recognizes the risk of 
large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning 
reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of 
impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 2 could result in a net loss of 
20.6 percent in INPV to manufacturers of low-energy inductive charging 
battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for low-energy, 
inductive charging battery chargers, the benefits of energy savings, 
positive NPV of consumer benefits, positive mean LCC savings, emission 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 
emissions reductions outweigh the economic burden of the capital 
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a 
reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
    After considering the analysis, comments to the September 2010 
notice and the preliminary TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, 
the Secretary tentatively concludes that this TSL will offer the 
maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified and will result in the significant conservation 
of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 2 for low-energy 
inductive charging battery chargers. The proposed new energy 
conservation standard for low-energy inductive charging battery 
chargers is shown in Table V-97.

            Table V-93--Proposed Standard for Product Class 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Maximum unit energy
               Product class                    consumption  (kWh/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (Low-Energy, Inductive).................                          3.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Low-Energy, Non-Inductive Charging Battery Chargers, Product Classes 
2, 3, and 4
    Table presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated for 
each TSL for low-energy, non-inductive charging battery chargers. The 
efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18622]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.097

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 18623]]

    DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency level. TSL 4 would save 1.9971 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefits 
would be -$23.54 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -
$38.44 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 94.6 Mt of 
CO2, 78.1 kt of NOX, and 0.502 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $0.398 billion to $5.949 billion.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC savings decrease) 
of $4.54, $2.15, and $10.14 for low-energy non-inductive charging 
battery charger product classes 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The median 
payback period is 16.9, 21.5, and 37.6 years for product classes 2, 3, 
and 4 respectively. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC 
benefit is 3.2, 14.2, and 1.8 percent for each product class and the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 96.8, 85.8, and 98.2 
percent for each product class.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$14.56 billion to an increase of $0.98 billion. At TSL 4, DOE 
recognizes the risk of very large negative impacts if manufacturers' 
expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the 
high end of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 4 
could result in a net loss of 33.2 percent in INPV to manufacturers of 
battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for low-energy, 
non-inductive charging battery chargers, the benefits of energy 
savings, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative 
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction 
of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the 
capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in 
a very large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the 
Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3, which represents the best-in-market 
efficiency level. TSL 3 would save 1.797 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefits would 
be -$8.97 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$14.16 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 85.1 Mt of 
CO2, 70.3 kt of NOX, and 0.452 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $0.358 billion to $5.352 billion.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC savings decrease) 
of $1.81, $2.12, and $2.73 for low-energy non-inductive charging 
battery charger product classes 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The median 
payback period is 8.5, 21.9, and 13.8 years for product classes 2, 3, 
and 4 respectively. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC 
benefit is 10.0, 13.3, and 2.2 percent for each product class and the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 87.1, 65.8, and 46.4 
percent for each product class.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$10.86 billion to an increase of $0.53 billion. At TSL 3, DOE 
recognizes the risk of large negative impacts if manufacturers' 
expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the 
high end of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 
could result in a net loss of 24.8 percent in INPV to manufacturers of 
battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for low-energy, 
non-inductive charging battery chargers, the benefits of energy 
savings, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative 
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction 
of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and the 
capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in 
a very large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the 
Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2, which represents an intermediate 
efficiency level. TSL 2 would save 0.759 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefits would 
be -$435 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$367 
million, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 35.9 Mt of 
CO2, 29.7 kt of NOX, and 0.191 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $0.151 billion to $2.260 billion.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC savings decrease) 
of $0.12 for product class 2 and a savings (LCC savings increase) of 
$0.35 and $0.43 product classes 3 and 4 respectively. The median 
payback period is 5.2, 3.9, and 3.0 years for product classes 2, 3, and 
4 respectively. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 
is 17.0, 8.3, and 5.8 percent for each product class and the fraction 
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 26.8, 8.9, and 3.4 percent for 
each product class.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$6.06 billion to an increase of $0.13 billion. At TSL 2, DOE recognizes 
the risk of large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 2 could result in a 
net loss of 13.8 percent in INPV to manufacturers of battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for low-energy, 
non-inductive charging battery chargers, the benefits of energy 
savings, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative 
NPV of consumer benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction 
of consumers due to the increases in product cost, and the capital 
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large 
reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary 
has tentatively concluded that TSL 2 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 1, which represents another intermediate 
efficiency level. Relative to TSL 2, the efficiency level for product 
class 2 has decreased, while the efficiency levels for product classes 
3 and 4 are the same. TSL 1 would save 0.309 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 1, the NPV of consumer benefits 
would be $664 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.255 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 1 are 14.7 Mt of 
CO2, 12.1 kt of NOX, and 0.078 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 1 ranges from $0.062 billion to $0.921 billion. 
Additionally, the NPV of consumer benefits added to the social cost of 
carbon and monetized NOX emissions reductions is maximized 
with a value of $1.576 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and $0.977 
billion at a 7-percent discount rate at TSL 1.
    At TSL 1, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC savings 
increase) of $0.16, $0.35, and $0.43 for low-energy non-inductive 
charging battery charger product classes 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The 
median payback period is 0.5, 3.9, and 3.0 years for product classes 2, 
3, and 4 respectively. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC 
benefit is 17.0, 8.3, and 5.8 percent for each product class and the 
fraction of

[[Page 18624]]

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 1.0, 8.9, and 3.4 percent for 
each product class.
    At TSL 1, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$4.90 billion to an increase of $0.02 billion. DOE recognizes the risk 
of negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced 
profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of impacts is 
reached, TSL 1 could result in a net loss of 11.2 percent in INPV to 
manufacturers of low-energy non-inductive charging battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 1 for low-energy, 
non-inductive charging battery chargers, the benefits of energy 
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, positive mean LCC savings, 
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions outweigh the economic burden of the 
capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in 
a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
    After considering the analysis, comments to the September 2010 
notice and the preliminary TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 1, 
the Secretary tentatively concludes that this TSL will offer the 
maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified and will result in the significant conservation 
of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 1 for low-energy 
non-inductive charging battery chargers. The proposed new energy 
conservation standards for low-energy, non-inductive charging battery 
chargers, expressed as equations for minimum unit energy consumption, 
are shown in Table V-99.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.098

c. Medium-Energy Battery Chargers, Product Classes 5 and 6
    Table V-96 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated 
for each TSL for medium-energy battery chargers. The efficiency levels 
contained in each TSL are described in section V.A.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.099

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency level. TSL 3 would save 0.781 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefits would 
be -$6.96 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$11.12 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 35.9 Mt of 
CO2, 29.6 kt of NOX, and 0.187 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $0.154 billion to $2.318 billion.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC savings decrease) 
of $104.58 and $86.76 for medium-energy battery charger product classes 
5 and 6 respectively. The median payback period is 53.4 and 20.8 years 
for product classes 5 and 6 respectively. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing an

[[Page 18626]]

LCC benefit is 8.4 and 1.6 percent for product classes 5 and 6, 
respectively, and the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 
78.6 and 85.4 percent for product classes 5 and 6, respectively.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$1.31 billion to an increase of $0.69 billion. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes 
the risk of very large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a 
net loss of 84.8 percent in INPV to manufacturers of battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for medium-energy 
battery chargers, the benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, 
and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer 
benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction of consumers 
due to the large increases in product cost, and the capital conversion 
costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a very large 
reduction in INPV for manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has 
tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2, which represents the best-in-market 
efficiency level. TSL 2 would save 0.596 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefits would 
be $2.54 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $4.65 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 27.4 Mt of 
CO2, 22.6 kt of NOX, and 0.143 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $0.118 billion to $1.770 billion. 
Additionally, the NPV of consumer benefits added to the social cost of 
carbon and monetized NOX emissions reductions is maximized 
with a value of $5.264 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and $3.139 
billion at a 7-percent discount rate at TSL 2.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC savings 
increase) of $33.79 and $40.78 for medium-energy battery charger 
product classes 5 and 6, respectively. The median payback period is 0.0 
and 0.0 years for product classes 5 and 6, respectively. The fraction 
of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 79.9 and 64.8 percent for 
each product class and the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC 
cost is 0.0 and 0.0 percent for each product class.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$225 million to a decrease of $40 million. DOE recognizes the risk of 
negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced 
profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of impacts is 
reached, TSL 2 could result in a net loss of 14.5 percent in INPV to 
manufacturers of medium-energy battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for medium-energy 
battery chargers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of 
consumer benefits, positive mean LCC savings, emission reductions, and 
the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 
outweigh the economic burden of the capital conversion costs and profit 
margin impacts that could result in a reduction in INPV for 
manufacturers.
    After considering the analysis, comments to the September 2010 
notice and the preliminary TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, 
the Secretary tentatively concludes that this TSL will offer the 
maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified and will result in the significant conservation 
of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 2 for medium-
energy battery chargers. The proposed new energy conservation standards 
for medium-energy battery chargers, expressed as equations for minimum 
unit energy consumption, are shown in Table V-101.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.100

d. High-Energy Battery Chargers, Product Class 7
    Table V-98 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated 
for each TSL for high-energy battery chargers. The efficiency levels 
contained in each TSL are described in section V.A.

[[Page 18627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.101

    DOE first considered TSL 2, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency level. TSL 2 would save 0.021 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefits would 
be -$299 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$493 
million, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 0.975 Mt of 
CO2, 0.808 kt of NOX, and 0.006 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $0.004 billion to $0.061 billion.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC savings decrease) 
of $127.30 for high-energy battery chargers. The median payback period 
is 27.2 years. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
0.0 percent and the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 
100.0 percent.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$136 million to an increase of $23 million. At TSL 2, DOE recognizes 
the risk of large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 2 could result in a 
net loss of 13.1 percent in INPV to manufacturers of battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for high-energy 
battery chargers, the benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, 
and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer 
benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction of consumers 
due to the large increases in product cost, and the capital conversion 
costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction 
in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary has 
tentatively concluded that TSL 2 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 1, which is the best-in-market efficiency 
level. TSL 1 would save 0.007 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers 
significant. Under TSL 1, the NPV of consumer benefits would be $70 
million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $119 million, using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 1 are 0.312 Mt of 
CO2, 0.259 kt of NOX, and 0.002 t of Hg. The

[[Page 18628]]

estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 1 ranges from $0.001 billion to $0.019 billion. 
Additionally, the NPV of consumer benefits added to the social cost of 
carbon and monetized NOX emissions reductions is maximized 
with a value of $126 million at a 3-percent discount rate and $76 
million at a 7-percent discount rate at TSL 1.
    At TSL 1, the average LCC impact is a savings of $38.26 for high-
energy battery chargers. The median payback period is 0.0 years. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 43.5 percent and 
the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 0.0 percent.
    At TSL 1, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $4 
million to an increase of $47 million. DOE recognizes the risk of 
negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced 
profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of impacts is 
reached, as DOE expects, TSL 1 could result in a net loss of 0.4 
percent in INPV to manufacturers of high-energy battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 1 for high-energy 
battery chargers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of 
consumer benefits, positive mean LCC savings, emission reductions, and 
the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 
outweigh the economic burden associated with the potential direct 
employment losses, capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts 
that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
    After considering the analysis, comments to the September 2010 
notice and the preliminary TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 1, 
the Secretary tentatively concludes that this TSL will offer the 
maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified and will result in the significant conservation 
of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 1 for high-energy 
battery chargers. The proposed new energy conservation standard for 
high-energy battery chargers, expressed as an equation for minimum unit 
energy consumption, is shown in Table V-103.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.102

e. Battery Chargers With a DC Input of Less Than 9 V, Product Class 8
    Table V-100 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for battery chargers with a DC input less than 9 
V. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section 
V.A.

[[Page 18629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.103

    DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency level. TSL 3 would save 0.045 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefits would 
be -$1.21 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$2.00 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 2.16 Mt of 
CO2, 1.78 kt of NOX, and 0.011 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $0.009 billion to $0.136 billion.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC savings decrease) 
of $2.31 for battery chargers with a DC input of less than 9 V. The 
median payback period is 24.9 years. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 44.6 percent and the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 55.4 percent.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$61 million to a decrease of $30 million. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the 
risk of large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a 
net loss of 1.1 percent in INPV to manufacturers of battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for battery 
chargers with a DC input of less than 9 V, the benefits of energy 
savings, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative 
NPV of consumer benefits and the economic burden on a significant 
fraction of consumers due to the large increases in product cost, and 
the capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could 
result in a reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the 
Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2, which represents the best-in-market 
efficiency level. TSL 2 would save 0.041 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefits would 
be -$1.00 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$1.65 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 1.95 Mt of 
CO2, 1.61 kt of NOX, and 0.010 t of Hg. The 
estimated

[[Page 18630]]

monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 
TSL 2 ranges from $0.008 billion to $0.122 billion.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC savings decrease) 
of $1.96 for battery chargers with a DC input of less than 9 V. The 
median payback period is 0.0 years. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 50.0 percent and the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 40.0 percent.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of 
$4 million to an increase of $78 million. At TSL 2, DOE believes there 
are minimal risks of negative impacts on manufacturers and expects that 
TSL 2 could result in a net gain of 0.1 percent in INPV to 
manufacturers of battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for battery 
chargers with a DC input of less than 9 V, the benefits of energy 
savings, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative 
NPV of consumer benefits and the economic burden on a significant 
fraction of consumers due to the large increases in product cost. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 2 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 1, which is an intermediate efficiency 
level. TSL 1 would save 0.010 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers 
significant. Under TSL 1, the NPV of consumer benefits would be $1.66 
billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $2.78 billion, using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 1 are 0.46 Mt of 
CO2, 0.38 kt of NOX, and 0.002 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 1 ranges from $0.002 billion to $0.029 billion. 
Additionally, the NPV of consumer benefits added to the social cost of 
carbon and monetized NOX emissions reductions is maximized 
with a value of $2.790 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and $1.669 
billion at a 7 percent discount rate at TSL 1.
    At TSL 1, the average LCC impact is a savings of $3.04 for battery 
chargers with a DC input of less than 9 V. The median payback period is 
0.0 years. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
50.0 percent and the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 
0.0 percent.
    At TSL 1, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$75 million to an increase of $1,300 million. DOE recognizes the risk 
of negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced 
profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of impacts is 
reached, as DOE expects, TSL 1 could result in a net loss of 1.3 
percent in INPV to manufacturers of battery chargers with a DC input 
less than 9 V.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 1 for battery 
chargers with a DC input of less than 9 V, the benefits of energy 
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, positive mean LCC savings, 
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions outweigh the economic burden 
associated with the capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts 
that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
    After considering the analysis, comments to the September 2010 
notice and the preliminary TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 1, 
the Secretary tentatively concludes that this TSL will offer the 
maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified and will result in the significant conservation 
of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 1 for battery 
chargers with a DC input less than 9 V. The proposed new energy 
conservation standard for battery chargers with a DC input less than 9 
V is shown in Table V-105.

           Table V-101--Proposed Standard for Product Class 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Maximum unit energy
               Product class                    consumption (kWh/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 (Low-Voltage DC Input)..................                          0.66
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is also considering an alternative approach for product class 8 
because of the considerations expressed in section IV.C.2.i above. This 
approach is same as the proposal that DOE has for product class 9, 
discussed in the following section.
f. Battery Chargers With a DC Input Greater Than 9 V, Product Class 9
    DOE ran a number of analyses in an attempt to ascertain whether an 
appropriate efficiency level could be created for product class 9. A 
battery charger is in product class 9 if it operates using a DC input 
source greater than 9 V, it is unable to operate from a universal 
serial bus (USB) connector, and a manufacturer does not package, 
recommend, or sell a wall adapter for the device. Such products would 
be in-vehicle battery chargers that can operate outside of a vehicle. 
After completing its engineering analysis for these products, DOE ran 
the LCC analysis. These analyses projected that no efficiency level 
would be likely to exhibit a positive LCC savings. The LCC results 
showed a cost (LCC savings decrease) of $0.08 and $0.24 for CSLs 1 and 
2 respectively. That fact, combined with the minimal UECs found for 
products in this category, leads DOE to tentatively believe that there 
would be no economically justifiable TSLs that correspond to the 
efficiency levels found in the engineering analysis for this product 
class.
g. AC Output Battery Chargers, Product Class 10
    Table V-102 presents a summary of the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for battery chargers with an AC output. The 
efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A.

[[Page 18631]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.104

    DOE first considered TSL 3, which is the max-tech efficiency level. 
TSL 3 would save 0.312 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers 
significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefits would be $789 
million, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.55 billion, using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 13.9 Mt of 
CO2, 11.5 kt of NOX, and 0.092 t of Hg. The 
estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 
reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $0.060 billion to $0.910 billion. 
Additionally, the NPV of consumer benefits added to the social cost of 
carbon and monetized NOX emissions reductions is maximized 
with a value of $1.866 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and $1.097 
billion at a 7-percent discount rate at TSL 3.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $8.30 for AC 
battery output battery chargers. The median payback period is 1.5 
years. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 87.0 
percent and the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 13.0 
percent.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$126 million to a decrease of $5 million. DOE recognizes the risk of 
large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning 
reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of 
impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 
20.5 percent in INPV to manufacturers of AC output battery chargers.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for AC output 
battery chargers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of 
consumer benefits, positive mean LCC savings, emission reductions, and 
the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 
outweigh the economic burden associated with the capital conversion 
costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in 
INPV for manufacturers.
    After considering the analysis, comments to the September 2010 
notice and the preliminary TSD, and the benefits and burdens of TSL 3, 
the Secretary tentatively concludes that this TSL will offer the 
maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified and will result in

[[Page 18632]]

the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes 
to adopt TSL 3 for AC output battery chargers. The proposed new energy 
conservation standards for AC output battery chargers is shown in Table 
V-108.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.105

3. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Proposed Standards for 
External Power Supplies
    The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards for EPSs can 
also be expressed in terms of annualized values over the 2013-2042 
period. The annualized monetary values are the sum of: (1) The 
annualized national economic value (expressed in 2010$) of the benefits 
from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting 
primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus 
increases in equipment purchase costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV); and (2) the monetary value of the benefits 
of emission reductions, including CO2 emission 
reductions.\71\ The value of the CO2 reductions, otherwise 
known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a range 
of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent 
Federal interagency process. The monetary costs and benefits of 
cumulative emissions reductions are reported in 2010$ to permit 
comparisons with the other costs and benefits in the same dollar units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the 
time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE 
calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting 
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of 
costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent 
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates. From 
the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over 
a 30-year period, starting in 2013, which yields the same present 
value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although 
DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-
series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were 
determined would be a steady stream of payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues 
should be considered. First, the national operating savings are 
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods 
that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national 
operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped 
in 2013-2042. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present 
value of future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 
one metric ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts go well 
beyond 2100.
    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards for EPSs are shown in Table V-104. Using a 7-percent discount 
rate and the SCC value of $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$), the cost of the 
energy efficiency standards proposed in today's NOPR is $251.9 million 
per year in increased equipment installed costs, while the annualized 
benefits are $325.2 million per year in reduced equipment operating 
costs, $52.3 million in CO2 reductions, and $3.2 million in 
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts 
to $128.7 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate and the SCC 
value of $22.3/metric ton in 2010 (in 2010$), the cost of the energy 
efficiency standards proposed in today's NOPR is $247.3 million per 
year in increased equipment installed costs, while the benefits are 
$348.2 million per year in reduced operating costs, $52.3 million in 
CO2 reductions, and $3.3 million in reduced NOX 
emissions. At a 3-percent discount rate, the net benefit amounts to 
$156.6 million per year.

[[Page 18633]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.106


[[Page 18634]]


4. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Proposed Standards for 
Battery Chargers
    The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards for battery 
chargers can also be expressed in terms of annualized values over the 
2013-2042 period. The annualized monetary values are the sum of: (1) 
The annualized national economic value (expressed in 2010$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, 
minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV); and (2) the monetary value of the benefits 
of emission reductions, including CO2 emission 
reductions.\72\ The value of the CO2 reductions, otherwise 
known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a range 
of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent 
Federal interagency process. The monetary costs and benefits of 
cumulative emissions reductions are reported in 2010$ to permit 
comparisons with the other costs and benefits in the same dollar units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the 
time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE 
calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting 
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of 
costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent 
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 
shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the 
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in 2013 that 
yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the 
annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this 
does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which 
the annualized values were determined would be a steady stream of 
payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues 
should be considered. First, the national operating savings are 
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods 
that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national 
operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped 
in 2013-2042. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present 
value of future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 
one metric ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts go well 
beyond 2100.
    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards for battery chargers are shown in Table V-104. Using a 7-
percent discount rate and the SCC value of $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 
2010$), the standards proposed in today's NOPR result in $110.0 million 
per year in equipment costs savings, and the annualized benefits are 
$447.2 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $71.6 
million in CO2 reductions, and $4.3 million in reduced 
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$633.0 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate and the SCC 
value of $22.3/metric ton in 2010 (in 2010$), the standards proposed in 
today's NOPR result in $107.9 million per year in equipment costs 
savings, and the benefits are $485.2 million per year in reduced 
operating costs, $71.6 million in CO2 reductions, and $4.5 
million in reduced NOX emissions. At a 3-percent discount 
rate, the net benefit amounts to $669.3 million per year.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18635]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.107


[[Page 18636]]


BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify 
the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable, 
the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new 
agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. 
The problems that today's standards address are as follows:
    (1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information 
processing capability about energy efficiency opportunities in the home 
appliance market.
    (2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has 
more and better information than the other) and/or high transactions 
costs (costs of gathering information and effecting exchanges of goods 
and services) in the home appliance market.
    (3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy 
efficiency of battery chargers and EPSs that are not captured by the 
users of such equipment. These benefits include externalities related 
to environmental protection and energy security that are not reflected 
in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.
    In addition, DOE has determined that today's regulatory action is 
an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(1) 
of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of the Executive 
Order requires that DOE prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on 
today's rule and that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review this rule. 
In the RIA, DOE identified and analyzed six alternatives to standards, 
including consumer rebates, consumer tax credits, manufacturer tax 
credits, voluntary energy efficiency targets, an early replacement 
program, and a bulk government purchasing program. DOE quantified the 
NES and NPV for these alternatives and did not find any alternatives to 
be more beneficial than standards for any BC or EPS product class.
    DOE presented to OIRA for review the draft rule and other documents 
prepared for this rulemaking, including the RIA,\73\ and has included 
these documents in the rulemaking record. The assessments prepared 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can be found in the technical support 
document for this rulemaking. They are available for public review in 
the Resource Room of DOE's Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The Regulatory Impact Analysis is also available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_preliminaryanalysis_tsd.html#tsd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). EO 
13563 is supplemental to, and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in, 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are 
required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 
only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs 
(recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); 
(2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, 
among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of 
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    We emphasize as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 
``to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present 
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' In its 
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
emphasized that such techniques may include ``identifying changing 
future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation 
or anticipated behavioral changes.'' For the reasons stated in the 
preamble, DOE believes that today's notice of proposed rulemaking is 
consistent with these principles, including that, to the extent 
permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits justify its costs and select, in 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that 
maximize net benefits.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site (www.gc.doe.gov). DOE reviewed the potential 
standard levels considered in today's NOPR under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003.
    As a result of this review, DOE has prepared an IRFA addressing the 
impacts on small manufacturers with respect to the battery charger 
portion of this proposal. DOE will transmit a copy of the IRFA to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). As presented and discussed below, the 
IFRA describes potential impacts on small business manufacturers of 
battery chargers associated with the required capital and product 
conversion costs at each TSL and discusses alternatives that could 
minimize these impacts. Because DOE did not find any small business EPS 
manufacturers, DOE did not prepare an IRFA regarding the impacts on EPS 
manufacturers from this proposal.
    A statement of the reasons for the proposed rule, and the 
objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule, are set forth 
elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here.
1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    For manufacturers of EPSs and battery chargers, the SBA has set a 
size

[[Page 18637]]

threshold, which defines those entities classified as ``small 
businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small 
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would 
be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 
2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53545 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 
13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description 
and are available at http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. EPS and battery charger 
manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335999, ``All Other 
Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing.'' The 
SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or less for an entity to be 
considered as a small business for this category.
    To estimate the number of companies that could be small business 
manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a 
market survey using all available public information to identify 
potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved industry trade 
association membership directories, product databases, individual 
company Web sites, and the SBA's Small Business Database to create a 
list of every company that could potentially manufacture products 
covered by this rulemaking. DOE also asked stakeholders and industry 
representatives if they were aware of any other small manufacturers 
during manufacturer interviews and at previous DOE public meetings. DOE 
contacted companies on its list, as necessary, to determine whether 
they met the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of 
covered EPSs and battery chargers. DOE screened out companies that did 
not offer products covered by this rulemaking, did not meet the 
definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
    Based on this screening, DOE identified 30 companies that could 
potentially manufacture EPSs or battery chargers. DOE eliminated most 
of these companies from consideration as small business manufacturers 
based on a review of product literature and Web sites. When those steps 
yielded inconclusive information, DOE contacted the companies directly. 
As part of these efforts, DOE identified Lester Electrical, Inc. 
(Lincoln, Nebraska), a manufacturer of golf car battery chargers, as 
the only small business that appears to produce covered battery 
chargers domestically.
    DOE did not identify any small business manufacturers of EPSs. DOE 
also did not identify any domestic manufacturers of EPSs, which 
indicates that all residential EPSs sold in the United States are 
imported. Because there are no small business manufacturers of EPSs, 
DOE certifies that the standards for EPSs set forth in the proposed 
rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared 
a regulatory flexibility analysis for the EPS portion of this 
rulemaking. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting 
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    DOE requests comment on the above analysis, as well as any 
information concerning small businesses that could be impacted by this 
rulemaking and the nature and extent of those potential impacts of the 
proposed energy conservation standards on small EPS manufacturers. (See 
Issue 30 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section VII.E 
of this NOPR.)
    The following sections address the IFRA for small business 
manufacturers of battery chargers.
b. Manufacturer Participation
    Before issuing this NOPR, DOE contacted the potential small 
business manufacturers of battery chargers it had identified. One small 
business consented to being interviewed during the MIA interviews. DOE 
also obtained information about small business impacts while 
interviewing large manufacturers.
c. Battery Charger Industry Structure
    With respect to battery chargers, industry structure is typically 
defined by the characteristics of the industry of the application(s) 
for which the battery chargers are produced. In the case of the small 
business DOE identified, however, the battery charger itself is the 
product the small business produces. That is, the company does not also 
produce the applications with which the battery charger is intended to 
be used. Specifically, the company manufactures battery chargers 
predominantly intended for golf cars (product class 7) and wheelchairs 
(product classes 5 and 6).
    A high level of concentration exists in both battery charger 
markets. Two players account for the vast majority of the golf car 
battery charger market and each has a similar share. Both competitors 
in the golf car battery charger market are small businesses: One is 
foreign-owned and operated, while the other is a domestic small 
business. Despite this concentration, there is considerable competition 
for three main reasons. First, each manufacturer sells into a market 
that is almost as equally concentrated: Three golf car manufacturers 
supply the majority of the golf cars sold domestically. Second, while 
there are currently only two major suppliers of battery chargers to the 
domestic market, the constant prospect of potential entry from other 
foreign countries has ceded substantial buying power to the three golf 
car OEMs. Third, golf car manufacturers have the ever-present option of 
not building electric golf cars altogether (and thus the need for the 
battery charger) by opting to build gas-powered products. DOE examines 
a price elasticity sensitivity scenario for this in chapter 12 of the 
TSD to assess this possibility. Currently, roughly three-quarters of 
the golf car market is electric, with the remainder gas-powered.
    The majority of industry shipments flow to the ``fleet'' segment--
i.e. battery chargers sold to golf car manufacturers who then lease the 
cars to golf courses. Most cars are leased for the first few years 
before being sold to smaller golf courses or other individuals for 
personal use. A smaller portion of golf cars are sold as new through 
dealer distribution.
    Further upstream, approximately half of the battery chargers 
intended for golf car use is manufactured domestically, while the other 
half is foreign-sourced. These latter-sourced battery chargers are 
typically high frequency designs, while line frequency designs, which 
are usually less efficient, are made domestically. During the design 
cycle of the golf car, the battery charger supplier and OEM typically 
work closely together when designing the battery charger.
    The small business manufacturer is also a relatively smaller player 
in the markets for wheelchair and industrial lift battery chargers. 
Most wheelchair battery chargers and the wheelchairs themselves are 
manufactured overseas. Three wheelchair manufacturers supply the 
majority of the U.S. market, but do not have domestic manufacturing.
d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
    As discussed above, there are two major suppliers in the golf car 
battery charger market. Both are small businesses, although one is 
foreign-owned and operated. DOE did not identify any large businesses 
with which to compare the projected impacts on small businesses.

[[Page 18638]]

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    The U.S.-owned small business DOE identified manufactures battery 
chargers for golf cars (product class 7) and wheelchairs (product 
classes 5 and 6), as well as industrial lifts (which are not covered by 
this rulemaking). DOE anticipates the proposed rule will require both 
capital and product conversion costs to achieve compliance. Various 
combinations of selected TSLs for product classes 5 and 6 (which are 
combined under a single TSL) and product class 7 will drive different 
levels of small business impacts. The compliance costs associated with 
this combination of potential TSLs are present in tables Table VI-1. 
Compared to the product development (R&D) efforts required to achieve 
the proposed levels, DOE does not expect the various potential 
combinations of TSLs to require significant capital expenditures. 
Although some replacement of fixtures, new assembly equipment and 
tooling would be required, the magnitude of these expenditures would be 
unlikely to cause significant adverse financial impacts. Product class 
7 drives the majority of these costs. See Table VI.1 below for the 
estimated capital conversion costs for a typical small business.
    Table VI-1The product conversion costs associated with standards 
are more significant for the small business manufacturer at issue than 
the projected capital costs. As discussed in section V.B.2.a.ii of this 
notice, TSL 1 for product class 7 reflects a technology change from a 
linear battery charger at the baseline to a switch-mode or high-
frequency design. This change would require manufacturers that produce 
linear battery chargers to invest heavily in the development of a new 
product design, which would require investments in engineering 
resources for R&D, testing, and certification, and marketing and 
training changes. Again, the level of expenditure at each TSL is driven 
almost entirely by the changes required for product class 7 at each 
TSL. See the table below for estimated product conversion costs for a 
typical small business.
    Table VI-2, and Table VI-3 below, accompanied by a description of 
these and other impacts.
a. Capital Conversion Costs
    Compared to the product development (R&D) efforts required to 
achieve the proposed levels, DOE does not expect the various potential 
combinations of TSLs to require significant capital expenditures. 
Although some replacement of fixtures, new assembly equipment and 
tooling would be required, the magnitude of these expenditures would be 
unlikely to cause significant adverse financial impacts. Product class 
7 drives the majority of these costs. See Table VI.1 below for the 
estimated capital conversion costs for a typical small business.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.108

b. Product Conversion Costs
    The product conversion costs associated with standards are more 
significant for the small business manufacturer at issue than the 
projected capital costs. As discussed in section V.B.2.a.ii of this 
notice, TSL 1 for product class 7 reflects a technology change from a 
linear battery charger at the baseline to a switch-mode or high-
frequency design. This change would require manufacturers that produce 
linear battery chargers to invest heavily in the development of a new 
product design, which would require investments in engineering 
resources for R&D, testing, and certification, and marketing and 
training changes. Again, the level of expenditure at each TSL is driven 
almost entirely by the changes required for product class 7 at each 
TSL. See the table below for estimated product conversion costs for a 
typical small business.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.109

c. Summary of Compliance Impacts

[[Page 18639]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.110

    Based on its engineering analysis, manufacturer interviews and 
public comments, DOE believes TSL 1 for product class 7 would establish 
an efficiency level that standard linear battery chargers could not 
cost-effectively achieve. Not only would the size and weight of such 
chargers potentially conflict with end-user preferences, but the 
additional steel and copper needs would make such chargers cost-
prohibitive in the marketplace. Baseline linear designs are already 
significantly more costly to manufacture than the more-efficient 
switch-mode designs, as DOE's cost efficiency curve shows (see Table 
IV-22). Because, in this case, the small business manufacturer is 
positioned as a vertically integrated supplier of linear battery 
chargers, any energy conservation standard that effectively required 
switch-mode technology would likely cause significant adverse impacts 
on that manufacturer. All products currently manufactured in-house by 
this manufacturer would likely require complete redesigns.
    The potential impacts of a standard on the small business 
manufacturer are not entirely captured by the conversion costs 
estimates, however. While standard linear battery chargers typically 
have much higher associated material costs relative to the switch-mode 
battery chargers, the manufacturing process of switch-mode designs is 
more labor intensive. Therefore, in high-wage countries like the United 
States, a manufacturer is at a relative cost-disadvantage in producing 
switch-mode battery chargers. It is most likely for this reason that 
DOE was unable to identify any domestic manufacturing of switch-mode 
battery chargers.
    At the proposed efficiency levels, the small business manufacturer 
will face a difficult decision on whether to attempt to manufacture 
switch-mode battery chargers in-house and likely compete on factors 
other than price, move production to lower-wage regions, or source 
their battery charger manufacturing to a foreign company and rebrand 
these battery chargers. Given the lack of domestic switch-mode battery 
charger manufacturers, one of the latter two strategies would appear 
the more likely course.
3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    The discussion above analyzes impacts on small businesses that 
would result from the other TSLs DOE considered. Though TSLs lower than 
the proposed TSLs are expected to reduce the impacts on small entities, 
DOE is required by EPCA to establish standards that achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that are technically feasible and 
economically justified, and result in a significant conservation of 
energy. Once DOE determines that a particular TSL meets those 
requirements, DOE adopts that TSL in satisfaction of its obligations 
under EPCA.
    In addition to the other TSLs being considered, the NOPR TSD 
includes a regulatory impact analysis in chapter 17. For battery 
chargers, this report discusses the following policy alternatives: (1) 
No standard, (2) consumer rebates, (3) consumer tax credits, (4) 
manufacturer tax credits, and (5) early replacement. DOE does not 
intend to consider these alternatives further because they are either 
not feasible to implement, or not expected to result in energy savings 
as large as those that would be achieved by the standard levels under 
consideration.
    DOE continues to seek input from businesses that would be affected 
by this rulemaking and will consider comments received in the 
development of any final rule.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of battery chargers and EPSs must certify to DOE that 
their product complies with any applicable energy conservation 
standard. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their 
products according to the DOE test procedure for battery chargers and 
EPSs, including any amendments adopted for that test procedure. DOE has 
proposed regulations for the certification and recordkeeping 
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial 
equipment, including EPSs 75 FR 56796 (Sept. 16, 2010). The collection-
of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is 
subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval and only 
applies to Class A EPSs. As discussed, new reporting requirements for 
battery chargers and non-Class A EPSs will be proposed and a 
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA will 
be submitted as part of a future certification, compliance, and 
enforcement rule promulgated by DOE. Public reporting burden for the 
certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.
    Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information to Victor 
Petrolati (see ADDRESSES) and by email to [email protected].
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless

[[Page 18640]]

that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control 
Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 
DOE has determined that the proposed rule fits within the category of 
actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets 
the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, 
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The proposed rule fits 
within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that 
establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or 
industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified 
in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for 
this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed rule. 
DOE's CX determination for this proposed rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 
1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA governs and 
prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of today's proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No 
further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty 
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors 
and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a 
general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically 
requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure 
that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if 
any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct 
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the 
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) 
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general 
draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. 
Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to 
review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and 
section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 
meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and 
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule 
meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    Although today's proposed rule does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, it may impose expenditures of $100 million 
or more on the private sector. Specifically, the proposed rule will 
likely result in a final rule that could impose expenditures of $100 
million or more. Such expenditures may include (1) investment in 
research and development and in capital expenditures by battery charger 
and EPS manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the 
compliance date for the new standard, and (2) incremental additional 
expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency battery 
chargers and EPSs, starting in 2013.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an agency to respond to the content 
requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this NOPR and the ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for this proposed rule respond to 
those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an 
explanation for doing otherwise or the selection of such an alternative 
is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(u), today's 
proposed rule would establish energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers and EPSs that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement 
in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically 
feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the 
alternatives considered by DOE is presented in the ``Regulatory Impact 
Analysis'' section of the TSD for today's proposed rule.

[[Page 18641]]

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation 
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under 
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed today's NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant 
energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action 
by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of 
a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that today's proposed regulatory 
action, which sets forth proposed energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers and EPSs, is not a significant energy action because 
the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been 
designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has 
not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed rule.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality 
Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 
The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be 
peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the 
Federal Government, including influential scientific information 
related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to 
enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific 
information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards 
rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific information,'' which 
the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information the agency reasonably 
can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on 
important public policies or private sector decisions.'' 70 FR 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress 
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process 
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this 
report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using 
objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 
judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or 
anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness 
of programs and/or projects. The ``Energy Conservation Standards 
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been 
disseminated and is available at the following Web site: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the 
DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you 
plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945 or [email protected]. As explained in the 
ADDRESSES section, foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 
subject to advance security screening procedures.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html. Participants 
are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the 
webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement 
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at 
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an 
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), 
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to 
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 
of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be 
received at least one week before the public meeting and may be 
emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive 
requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone 
number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The 
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but 
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may 
submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of 
the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.

[[Page 18642]]

    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed 
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), 
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time 
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general 
statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE 
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public 
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those 
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any 
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that 
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the 
transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov web 
page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. Email submissions are 
preferred. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all 
items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed 
copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and are free of any defects or 
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. 
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:

[[Page 18643]]

    1. DOE requests interested party feedback, including any 
substantive data, regarding today's proposed standard levels and the 
potential for lessening of utility or performance related features.
    2. DOE requests interested party feedback on whether the standards 
proposed in today's rule would necessitate the use of any proprietary 
designs or patented technologies.
    3. DOE seeks comment on its analysis of the costs and benefits of 
the standards proposed in this rulemaking, including but not limited to 
DOE's analytic assumptions as highlighted in the list of issues herein. 
More specifically, DOE seeks comment on the Agency's estimate that the 
proposed standard for battery chargers lead to between $92.8 million 
and $98.3 million in cost savings (i.e. negative costs) relative to the 
assumed baseline. Recognizing that the cost models used for this 
analysis have certain limitations, DOE seeks comment on the assumed 
market failure the agency has identified as the underlying reason that 
private markets have not taken advantage of these cost savings in the 
absence of this proposed rulemaking. DOE also seeks comment on key 
assumptions that contributed to this estimate, including but not 
limited to assumptions regarding energy consumption, shipments, and 
manufacturer costs, treatment of existing regulatory requirements for 
battery chargers and EPSs, and treatment of Energy Star and other 
emerging technologies in both the baseline and standards cases. 
Finally, DOE seeks comment on the assumption that incremental product 
costs for battery chargers are negative because of a shift in 
technology from linear power supplies to switch mode power for the 
larger battery chargers in product classes 5, 6, and 7.
    4. DOE seeks comment on its estimates of battery charger and EPS 
shipments, lifetimes, and efficiency distributions for each application 
and product class. DOE is especially interested in receiving comment on 
its assumption that EPSs for mobile phones and smartphones are likely 
to standardize around a common connection standard and, as a result, 
remain in use beyond the lifetimes of their associated applications (an 
average lifetime of 4 years as opposed to an average lifetime of 2 
years).
    5. DOE seeks comment and related data on which battery charger and 
EPS applications are used in the commercial sector, what fraction of 
shipments are to the commercial sector, and how product lifetimes and 
usage may differ between residential and commercial settings.
    6. DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach in classifying EPSs 
that indirectly operate consumer products and whether that approach 
requires modifications. If changes are required, DOE seeks specific 
suggestions on how the proposed approach should be altered.
    7. DOE welcomes comment on whether there are any performance-
related features characteristic of either Class A or non-Class A 
devices (but not both) in product class N that would justify different 
standard levels for the two groups. DOE also seeks comment on the 
merits of applying a standard to EPSs falling into product class N. DOE 
also welcomes comment on the proposed compliance dates for non-Class A 
EPSs.
    8. DOE seeks comment, information, and/or data on whether the 
proposed standards would impact any features in the regulated products 
or in their associated complimentary applications. If so, DOE seeks 
comment as to whether these impacts would impact the utility of either 
the product or the application, and on whether, how, and to what degree 
consumer welfare might be impacted by the proposed standards.
    9. DOE requests any information regarding existing products that 
may seem to be able to be classified in multiple product classes.
    10. DOE seeks comment on possible issues of electromagnetic 
interference and/or radio frequency interference associated with 
switch-mode power supplies (SMPS) used with amateur radios, including 
design options for reducing or eliminating interference.
    11. DOE would like to request any feedback on the proposed approach 
to determining the average efficiency for multiple-voltage EPSs.
    12. DOE seeks comment on its methodology for generating CSL3 and 
CSL4 for high-power EPSs.
    13. DOE seeks comment on its proposal to set a standard for 
multiple-voltage EPSs as a continuous function of output power.
    14. DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach in calculating unit 
energy consumption for battery chargers and the appropriateness of the 
various equations to calculate this consumption that are presented in 
today's proposal.
    15. DOE seeks information, including any substantive data, to help 
it assess factors of durability, reliability, and preference of 
transformer based battery chargers versus those incorporating switch-
mode power supplies.
    16. DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach in developing a 
cost-efficiency relationship for battery charger product class 6.
    17. DOE requests comment on the results of its LCC and PBP 
analyses, particularly with respect to the projected results for 
multiple voltage EPSs (i.e., product class X). In addition, DOE 
requests comment regarding the Agency's approach of calculating LCC by 
averaging estimated installation costs within subproduct categories. 
Further, DOE requests comment on the household debt equity discount 
rate applied specifically to the LCC cost analysis. Finally, DOE 
requests comment regarding the segregation of the LCC analysis and 
consumer price impacts, which are separately addressed in a shipment-
based analysis.
    18. DOE seeks comment on its treatment of the market path, markups, 
and MSP estimates.
    19. DOE seeks comment on its use of a roll-up market response, 
which projects that only those products which fall below a standard 
will improve in efficiency, and that the same products will only 
improve in efficiency so as to meet, but not exceed, the efficiency 
required by the standard. DOE further seeks comments on the assumptions 
regarding efficiency distributions in the baseline, such as the extent 
to which the worst and best energy performers are and are not 
represented in the baseline.
    20. DOE seeks comment on whether, and to what extent, battery 
charger efficiency would be likely to improve in the absence of 
standards, including the assumption that battery charger efficiency 
will not improve between today and the compliance date in 2013.
    21. DOE seeks comment on its assumptions about the extent to which, 
if at all, EPS efficiency will improve for product classes B, C, D, E, 
X and H in the absence of mandatory standards, both prior to and after 
2013.
    22. DOE recognizes that significant variation in use exists for 
battery chargers, EPSs, and the applications they power. In an effort 
to ensure the accuracy of its assumed usage profiles, DOE seeks 
substantiated estimates, with supporting data, of usage profiles for 
battery chargers, EPSs, and the applications they power.
    23. DOE seeks comment on its EPS loading points, as well as test 
results that will allow it to improve the accuracy of those loading 
points.
    24. DOE seeks comment on its estimate that shipments of EPSs and 
battery chargers are inelastic and on other elasticity assumptions DOE 
has made. DOE further seeks comment, information, and data regarding 
DOE's market assessment of EPSs and battery chargers via complimentary 
applications with which these products are nearly always bundled.

[[Page 18644]]

    25. DOE seeks comment on its estimate that substitution impacts for 
EPSs and battery chargers are negligible.
    26. DOE seeks comment on the methodology employed for conducting 
the National Impact Analysis, including the calculations of National 
Inventory, National Energy Savings, and Net Present Value.
    27. DOE seeks comment on its estimates regarding the proportions of 
certain applications--including mobile phones, MP3 players, GPS 
equipment, and personal care products--that ship with EPSs designed to 
directly operate the application versus indirectly operate the 
application.
    28. DOE seeks comment on what level of efficiency EPSs in product 
class N already meet and whether EPSs sold in California are different 
in terms of their energy efficiency than EPSs sold in other States.
    29. DOE seeks comment on the accuracy of its distribution models 
for battery chargers and EPSs, as well as its estimates off battery 
charger and EPS markups. To the extent that these models and estimates 
can be improved, DOE seeks specific suggestions and supporting data.
    30. DOE seeks information concerning small businesses that could be 
impacted by this rulemaking and the nature and extent of those 
potential impacts. For example, DOE is interested in information 
concerning impacts on the golf cart industry that have not been 
captured in the current rulemaking analysis. Further, DOE seeks further 
information and data regarding the `double jeopardy' EPS and battery 
charger impacts on small businesses as raised by commenters.
    31. DOE seeks comment on whether the proposed standards would lead 
to lessening of market competition in the regulated industries.
    32. DOE seeks comment on whether there are any products on the 
market that are not already subject to California or Federal energy 
efficiency standards that would be covered by the new EPS standards 
being proposed for product class N today. DOE welcomes specific 
examples of such products, if they exist.
    33. DOE invites comment on solid-state lighting EPSs, specifically 
on whether there are any differences between SSL EPSs and other EPSs 
that might warrant treating them as a separate product class, the size 
of the market for these products, what proportion of SSL luminaires use 
EPSs, the efficiency of those EPSs, and usage patterns.
    34. DOE seeks comment on whether any battery chargers exist that 
can only be operated on 12V input, whether a device that can be powered 
only from a 12V power outlet can be assumed to be designed solely for 
use in recreational vehicles (RVs) and other mobile equipment, and 
whether there are battery chargers with DC inputs other than 5V and 
12V.
    35. DOE welcomes comment on any and all issues related to 
efficiency markings for battery chargers and EPSs.
    36. DOE is interested in receiving comments from industry, states, 
and other interested parties on the best ways to ensure a smooth 
transition from the battery charger standards established in California 
to the national standards addressed in this proposed rule.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 8, 2012.
Henry Kelly,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

    1. The authority for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Section 430.2 is amended by adding definitions for AC-AC 
external power supply, AC-DC external power supply, basic-voltage 
external power supply, direct operation external power supply, indirect 
operation external power supply, low-voltage external power supply, and 
multiple-voltage external power supply in alphabetical order to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    AC-AC external power supply means an external power supply that is 
used to convert household electric current into a single lower-voltage 
AC current.
    AC-DC external power supply means an external power supply that is 
used to convert household electric current into a single lower-voltage 
DC current.
* * * * *
    Basic-voltage external power supply means an external power supply 
that is not a low-voltage power supply.
* * * * *
    Direct operation external power supply means an external power 
supply that can operate a consumer product that is not a battery 
charger without the assistance of a battery.
* * * * *
    Indirect operation external power supply means an external power 
supply that cannot operate a consumer product that is not a battery 
charger without the assistance of a battery as determined by the 
following steps:
    (1) If a product can be connected to an end-use consumer product 
and that consumer product can be operated using battery power, the 
method for determining if an EPS can directly power an application is 
as follows:
    (i) Charge the battery in the application via the EPS such that the 
application can operate as intended before taking any additional steps.
    (ii) Disconnect the EPS from the application. From an off mode 
state, turn on the application and record the time necessary for it to 
become operational to the nearest five second increment (5 sec, 10 sec, 
etc.).
    (iii) Operate the application using power only from the battery 
until the application stops functioning due to the battery discharging.
    (iv) Connect the EPS first to mains and then to the application. 
Immediately attempt to operate the application. Record the time for the 
application to become operational to the nearest five second increment 
(5 sec, 10 sec, etc.).
    (2) If the time recorded in paragraph (1)(iv) of this definition is 
less than or equal to the summation of the time recorded in paragraph 
(1)(ii) of this definition and five seconds, the EPS can operate the 
application directly and is not in product class N. Otherwise, it is an 
indirect operation EPS and is subject to the standards of product class 
N in Sec.  430.32(w).
* * * * *
    Low-voltage external power supply means an external power supply 
with a nameplate output voltage less than 6 volts and nameplate output 
current greater than or equal to 550 milliamps.
* * * * *
    Multiple-voltage external power supply means an external power 
supply that is used to convert household

[[Page 18645]]

electric current into multiple simultaneous output currents.
* * * * *
    3. Section 430.32 is amended by revising the paragraph (w) heading 
and adding paragraphs (w)(1)(iv), (w)(2), (w)(3), (w)(4), (w)(5) and 
(y) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
effective dates.

* * * * *
    (w) External Power Supplies.
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Except as provided in this paragraph (w)(1)(iii) of this 
section, all direct operation external power supplies manufactured on 
or after July 1, 2013, shall meet the following standards:
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 18646]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.111


[[Page 18647]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.112

    (2) The standards described in paragraphs (w)(1)(i) and (iv) of 
this section shall not constitute an energy conservation standard for 
the separate end-use product to which the external power supply is 
connected.
    (3) Any external power supply subject to the standards in 
paragraphs (w)(1)(i) and (iv) of this section shall be clearly and 
permanently marked in accordance with the External Power Supply 
International Efficiency Marking Protocol, as referenced in the 
``Energy Star Program Requirements for Single Voltage External Ac-Dc 
and Ac-Ac Power Supplies,'' (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3), published by the Environmental Protection Agency.
    (4) Any indirect operation external power supply subject to the 
standards in paragraph (w)(1)(i) of this section and not labeled with a 
Roman numeral VI in accordance with the marking protocol referred to in 
paragraph (w)(3) of this section:
    (i) Shall be permanently marked with the capital letter ``N'' as a 
superscript to the circle that contains the Roman numeral, for example,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.113


and

    (ii) If sold separately from the battery charger or end-use 
consumer product with which it is intended to be used, shall be marked 
with the manufacturer and model number of that battery charger or end-
use consumer product.
    (5) Any indirect operation external power supply not subject to the 
standards in paragraph (w)(1)(i) of this section and not labeled with a 
Roman numeral VI in accordance with the marking protocol referred to in 
paragraph (w)(3) of this section:
    (i) Shall be permanently marked with the abbreviation ``EPS-N'', 
for example,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.114


and

    (ii) If sold separately from the battery charger or end-use 
consumer product with which it is intended to be used, shall be marked 
with the manufacturer and model number of that battery charger or end-
use consumer product.
* * * * *
    (y) Battery Chargers. (1) Battery chargers manufactured on or after 
July 1, 2013, shall have a unit energy consumption (UEC) less than or 
equal to the standard calculated using the equations for the 
appropriate product class and corresponding measured battery energy as 
shown below:

[[Page 18648]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.115

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    (2) Unit energy consumption shall be calculated for a device 
seeking certification using one of the two equations listed below. If a 
device is tested and its charge test duration as determined in section 
5.2 of Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430 minus 5 hours exceeds the 
threshold charge time listed in the table below, the equation in 
paragraph (y)(2)(ii) of this section shall be used to calculate UEC; 
otherwise a device's UEC shall be calculated using the equation in 
paragraph (y)(2)(i).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.116


[[Page 18649]]


Where:

E24 = 24-hour energy as determined in section 5.10 of 
Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430,
Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in section 
5.6 of Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430,
Pm = Maintenance mode power as determined in section 5.9 
of Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430,
Psb = Standby mode power as determined in section 5.11 of 
Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430,
Poff = Off mode power as determined in section 5.12 of 
Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430,
tcd = Charge test duration as determined in section 5.2 
of Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430,

And
ta&m, n, tsb, and toff, are 
constants used depending upon a device's product class and found in 
the following table:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.117

    (3) Any battery charger subject to the standards in paragraph 
(y)(1) of this section shall be clearly and permanently marked on the 
outside of its housing with the encircled upper case letters ``BC'' 
coupled with the Roman numeral ``III'' or a Roman numeral having a 
greater value, for example,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.118

[FR Doc. 2012-6042 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P