[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51424-51443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20717]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0043]
RIN 1904-AD36


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for External Power 
Supplies

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 9, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued 
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test procedure for 
External Power Supplies (EPSs). That proposed rulemaking serves as the 
basis for this final rule. The U.S. Department of Energy is issuing a 
final rule amending its test procedure for external power supplies. 
These changes, which will not affect the measured energy use, will 
harmonize the instrumentation resolution and uncertainty requirements 
with the second edition of the International Electrotechnical 
Commission (IEC) 62301 standard when measuring standby power along with 
other international standards programs, and clarify certain testing 
set-up requirements. This final rule also clarifies which products are 
subject to energy conservation standards.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is September 24, 2015.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
September 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx?productid=23. This Web page will contain a link to the 
docket for this document 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.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional 
information may be sent to Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies 
Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870.
    Email: [email protected].
    In the office of the General Counsel, contact Mr. Michael Kido, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 
586-8145. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Measurement Accuracy and Precision
    B. Test Set-up
    C. EPSs with Current Limits
    D. Power Factor
    E. Adaptive EPSs
    F. EPS Loading Points
    G. Energy Conservation Standards
    H. Indirect Operation EPSs
    I. EPSs for Solid State Lighting
    J. Sampling Plan
    K. Expanding Regulatory Text
    L. Effective Date and Compliance Date of Test Procedure
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974

[[Page 51425]]

    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
    N. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act'') sets forth 
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All 
references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy 
Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015--Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015). 
Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as 
Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as 
codified), establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles.'' External power supplies are among 
the products affected by these provisions.
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency 
of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to 
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA.

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE follows when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered 
products. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test procedures 
prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed 
to produce test results that measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be 
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In addition, when DOE determines that a test procedure requires 
amending, it publishes a notice with the proposed changes and offers 
the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(2)) As part of this process, DOE determines the extent to 
which, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured 
energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the 
existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1))
    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 
adding certain provisions related to external power supplies (EPSs). 
Among these provisions were new definitions defining what constitutes 
an EPS and a requirement that DOE prescribe ``definitions and test 
procedures for the power use of battery chargers and external power 
supplies.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(A)) DOE complied with this 
requirement by publishing a test procedure final rule that, among other 
things, established a new Appendix Z to address the testing of EPSs to 
measure their energy efficiency and power consumption. See 71 FR 71340 
(Dec. 8, 2006) (codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix Z 
``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External 
Power Supplies'').
    Congress further amended EPCA's EPS provisions through its 
enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 
2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007). That law amended sections 
321, 323, and 325 of EPCA. These changes are noted below.
    Section 301 of EISA 2007 amended section 321 of EPCA by modifying 
the EPS-related definitions found in 42 U.S.C. 6291. While EPACT 2005 
defined an EPS as ``an external power supply circuit that is used to 
convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC 
current to operate a consumer product,'' \1\ 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A), 
Section 301 of EISA 2007 further amended this definition by creating a 
subset of EPSs called Class A External Power Supplies. EISA 2007 
defined this subset of products as those EPSs that, in addition to 
meeting several other requirements common to all EPSs,\2\ are ``able to 
convert [line voltage AC] to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time'' 
and have ``nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 
watts.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)) As part of these amendments, EISA 
2007 prescribed minimum standards for these products and directed DOE 
to publish a final rule by July 1, 2011, to determine whether to amend 
these standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A) and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The terms ``AC'' and ``DC'' refer to the polarity (i.e., 
direction) and amplitude of current and voltage associated with 
electrical power. For example, a household wall socket supplies 
alternating current (AC), which varies in amplitude and reverses 
polarity. In contrast, a battery or solar cell supplies direct 
current (DC), which is constant in both amplitude and polarity.
    \2\ The full EISA 2007 definition of a class A external power 
supply includes a device that ``(I) is designed to convert line 
voltage AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output; (II) is able to 
convert to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time; (III) is sold 
with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use product that 
constitutes the primary load; (IV) is contained in a separate 
physical enclosure from the end-use product; (V) is connected to the 
end-use product via a removable or hard-wired male/female electrical 
connection, cable, cord, or other wiring; and (VI) has nameplate 
output power that is less than or equal to 250 watts.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6291(36)(C)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 310 of EISA 2007 amended section 325 of EPCA by defining 
the terms ``active mode,'' ``standby mode,'' and ``off mode.'' Each of 
these modes corresponds to the operational status of a given product--
i.e., whether it is (1) plugged into AC mains and switched ``on'' and 
performing its intended function, (2) plugged in but not performing its 
intended function (i.e., simply standing by to be operated), or (3) 
plugged in, but switched ``off,'' if a manual on-off switch is present. 
Section 310 also required DOE to amend its test procedure to ensure 
that standby and off mode energy consumption are measured. It also 
authorized DOE to amend, by rule, any of the definitions for active, 
standby, and off mode as long as the DOE considers the most current 
versions of Standards 62301 (``Household Electrical Appliances--
Measurement of Standby Power'') and 62087 (``Methods of Measurement for 
the Power Consumption of Audio, Video and Related Equipment'') of the 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). See 42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A) (incorporating EISA 2007 amendments related to standby 
and off mode energy). Consistent with these provisions, DOE issued a 
final rule that defined and added these terms and definitions to 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, Appendix Z (``Appendix Z''). See 74 FR 13318 
(March 27, 2009).
    DOE further amended Appendix Z by adding a test method for 
multiple-voltage EPSs, 76 FR 31750 (June 1, 2011). The amendments also 
revised the definition of ``active power'' and clarified how to test an 
EPS that has a current-limiting function, that can communicate with its 
load, or that combines the current-limiting function with the ability 
to communicate with a load. A current-limited EPS is one that can 
significantly lower its output voltage once an internal output current 
limit has been exceeded, while an EPS that communicates with its load 
refers to an EPS's ability to identify or otherwise exchange 
information with its load (i.e., the end-use product to which it is 
connected). These revisions were

[[Page 51426]]

necessary to provide manufacturers with sufficient clarity on how to 
conduct the test and determine the measured energy use for these types 
of EPSs.
    After releasing a preliminary analysis and issuing a proposed set 
of energy conservation standards, DOE published a final rule 
prescribing new standards for non-Class A EPSs and amended standards 
for some Class A EPSs. See 79 FR 7845 (Feb. 20, 2014). EPSs 
manufactured on or after February 10, 2016 must comply with these 
standards; for products built outside the U.S., EPSs imported on or 
after February 10, 2016, must comply with the new standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Generally, a covered product must comply with the relevant 
standard in effect as of the date the product is manufactured. For 
products imported into the U.S., this is the date of importation. 
See 42 U.S.C. 6291(10) (``The term `manufacture' means to 
manufacture, produce, assemble or import.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the publication of these standards, DOE received many 
follow-up questions and requests for clarification regarding the 
testing of EPSs. To address these issues, DOE published a test 
procedure NOPR on October 9, 2014, which proposed amending the EPS test 
procedure to ensure sufficient clarity regarding EPS testing and 
certification. 79 FR 60996. As part of the proposed rule, DOE outlined 
certain clarifications to Appendix Z to eliminate any testing ambiguity 
when measuring the efficiency of an EPS. DOE also proposed to include 
additional, but optional, measurements within Appendix Z concerning EPS 
power factor and other loading points outside those previously codified 
in the CFR. Lastly, DOE expressed its intent to consider all EPSs 
within the scope of the standards under a single sampling plan rather 
than maintaining separate sampling plans for Class A EPSs and non-Class 
A EPSs.
    Upon stakeholder request, DOE held a public meeting on November 21, 
2014, to discuss these proposed changes to the EPS test procedure. 
Prior to that meeting, DOE extended the initial deadline for submitting 
comments. See 79 FR 65351 (Nov. 4, 2014). DOE noted this change at the 
public meeting. DOE analyzed all of the comments received in response 
to the October 2014 test procedure NOPR from the list of commenters in 
Table I-1 and incorporated recommendations, where appropriate, into 
this test procedure final rule.

                                          Table I-1--List of Commenters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Organization                    Abbreviation                       Organization type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association of Home Appliance          AHAM....................  Industry Trade Association.
 Manufacturers.
California Investor-Owned Utilities..  CA IOUs.................  Utilities.
Information Technology Industry        ITI.....................  Industry Trade Association.
 Council.
Lutron Electronics...................  Lutron..................  Manufacturer.
National Electrical Manufacturers      NEMA....................  Industry Trade Association.
 Association.
NRDC, ACEEE, ASAP....................  NRDC, et al.............  Energy Efficiency Advocates.
Power Tool Institute, Inc............  PTI.....................  Industry Trade Association.
Schneider Electric...................  Schneider Electric......  Manufacturer.
Telecommunications Industry            TIA.....................  Industry Trade Association.
 Association.
Wahl Clipper Corporation.............  Wahl Clipper............  Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    This final rule amends the DOE test procedure for EPSs. The 
amendments are based on the proposed changes in the test procedure 
NOPR. While DOE is adopting many of the proposals from the NOPR, some 
of the proposed amendments have been removed from consideration or 
modified based on stakeholder feedback. As indicated in greater detail 
below, these amendments clarify the current procedure in Appendix Z and 
the definitions set forth in 10 CFR 430.2, as well as update the 
materials incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 430.3. This rule also 
amends 10 CFR 430.32(w) by inserting a table to more clearly identify 
applicable EPS standards based on whether the EPS is (1) a Class A or 
non-Class A EPS and (2) direct or indirect operation. These minor 
amendments will eliminate any potential ambiguity contained in the test 
procedure and clarify the regulatory text to ensure that regulated 
entities fully understand the long-standing views and interpretations 
of DOE with respect to the application and implementation of the test 
procedure and the scope of the EPS standards. These amendments will not 
affect the measured energy use of these products. Instead, they will 
clarify the manner in which to test for compliance with the EPS energy 
conservation standards.
    First, this final rule harmonizes DOE's test procedure with the 
latest version of IEC 62301 by providing specific resolution and 
measurement tolerances. These specifications will help to ensure that 
testing is performed with equipment that is capable of reaching these 
tolerances and that the resulting measurements are consistent.
    Second, DOE is outlining the testing configurations that can be 
used to avoid potential losses caused by testing cables. Appendix Z 
currently does not clearly outline how multiple measurement devices 
that operate simultaneously should be connected to a unit under test 
(UUT). These changes remove the potential for electrical energy losses 
in the measurement cables and help ensure accurate and repeatable 
results.
    Third, DOE is clarifying that when testing an EPS that is incapable 
of being tested at one or more of the loading conditions used to 
calculate the average active mode efficiency, such conditions will be 
omitted when calculating this metric. Instead, the average active mode 
efficiency will be determined by averaging the efficiency results at 
each of the loading conditions that can be measured.
    Fourth, this final rule defines and clarifies how to test adaptive 
EPSs (also referred to as ``adaptive-charging,'' ``smart-charging,'' or 
``quick-charging'' EPSs). Because these types of EPSs were not 
considered when the current test procedure was first adopted, Appendix 
Z did not explicitly address the unique characteristics of these types 
of EPSs to ensure reproducible and repeatable results. This final rule 
makes certain clarifications to address these products by providing a 
standardized method for all manufacturers and testing laboratories to 
follow when testing an adaptive EPS.
    Fifth, DOE is including a table within 10 CFR 430.32 (``Energy and 
water conservation standards and their compliance dates'') that clearly 
outlines which sets of standards apply to which EPS classes. The 
inclusion of the table is again meant to provide clarity to 
manufacturers who are trying to determine the applicable standards.

[[Page 51427]]

    Sixth, DOE is adopting the same sampling plan that is already in 
place for Class A EPSs for those EPSs that will be subject to standards 
for the first time in 2016. These revisions consolidate all EPSs that 
are subject to standards under a single sampling plan and provide 
manufacturers with the necessary procedures they will need to follow 
when certifying their EPSs as compliant with the applicable standards. 
Previously, DOE only provided a sampling plan for Class A EPSs and 
reserved a second sampling plan for non-Class A EPSs. By adopting a 
single sampling plan that applies to all EPSs in this final rule, DOE 
is creating a single, statistically sufficient approach for ensuring 
that a given EPS basic model complies with the applicable standards.
    Finally, this rule incorporates text from the California Energy 
Commission's (CEC) ``Test Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency 
of Single-Voltage External AC-DC and AC-AC Power Supplies'' into 
Appendix Z. This document is already incorporated by reference in the 
current language of Appendix Z. DOE believes that by adopting the 
referenced text directly, it will help to reduce the testing burden on 
manufacturers and clarify the intended test methods within a single 
document.
    A summary of these amendments to specific sections of 10 CFR part 
430 can be found in Table II-1.

 Table II-1--Summary of Proposed Changes and Affected Sections of 10 CFR
                                Part 430
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subpart A of Part 430--General Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Section in 10 CFR Part 430       NOPR Proposal       Final Rule Action
          Subpart A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   430.2. Definitions...   Revising      Did not
                               definition of         finalize proposal.
                               ``indirect
                               operation external
                               power supply'' to
                               include battery
                               chargers contained
                               in separate
                               physical
                               enclosureswithin
                               Appendix Z.
                               Proposed to   Finalized
                               define ``adaptive     definition with
                               external power        clarification
                               supply''.             within 430.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
            the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section in Appendix Z         NOPR Proposal       Final Rule Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Scope....................   No Change..   Clarified
                                                     that scope of the
                                                     test procedure
                                                     extends only to
                                                     EPSs subject to
                                                     conservation
                                                     standards.
2. Definitions..............   Inserting     Finalized
                               definition for        as proposed.
                               ``average active
                               mode efficiency''.
3. Test Apparatus and          Insert        Finalized
 General Instructions.         exceptions to the     within adopted text
                               test method of 3(a)   from the CEC's
                               within subsections    ``Test Method for
                               3(a)(i) and           Calculating the
                               3(a)(ii).             Energy Efficiency
                                                     of Single-Voltage
                                                     External AC-DC and
                                                     AC-AC Power
                                                     Supplies''.
                               Incorporate   Finalized
                               by reference the      within adopted text
                               uncertainty and       from the CEC's
                               resolution            ``Test Method for
                               requirements of the   Calculating the
                               IEC 62301 (2nd Ed.)   Energy Efficiency
                               standard in           of Single-Voltage
                               3(a)(i)(A).           External AC-DC and
                                                     AC-AC Power
                                                     Supplies'' and
                                                     finalized identical
                                                     requirements within
                                                     3(b)(i)(A).
4. Test Measurement.........   Modify        Did not
                               4(a)(i) to include    finalize proposal.
                               a table of the
                               required loading
                               conditions and an
                               additional optional
                               loading point at a
                               10 percent loading
                               condition.
                               Insert an     Did not
                               optional power        finalize proposal.
                               factor measurement
                               at each loading
                               condition in
                               4(a)(i).
                               Clarify the   Finalized
                               necessary             as proposed.
                               connections when
                               using multiple
                               measurement devices
                               (4(a)(i)).
                               Clarify how   Finalized
                               to test when one or   within adopted text
                               more loading          from the CEC's
                               conditions cannot     ``Test Method for
                               be sustained          Calculating the
                               (4(a)(i)(B)).         Energy Efficiency
                                                     of Single-Voltage
                                                     External AC-DC and
                                                     AC-AC Power
                                                     Supplies''.
                               Modify        Did not
                               4(a)(ii) to refer     finalize as
                               to the appropriate    proposed.
                               loading conditions
                               in Table 1.
                               Modify        Did not
                               several sections of   finalize as
                               4(b)(i) to refer to   proposed.
                               an updated Table 2.
                               Revising      Did not
                               4(b)(i)(A)(5) to      finalize proposal.
                               refer to a new
                               Table 2, which
                               contains a list of
                               prescribed loading
                               conditions to use,
                               including a new 10
                               percent loading
                               condition.
                               Modify        Did not
                               4(b)(ii) to refer     finalize proposal.
                               to the updated
                               loading conditions
                               in new Table 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 51428]]

III. Discussion

A. Measurement Accuracy and Precision

    To ease the overall burden involved with the testing of EPSs, and 
to continue to improve DOE's efforts at harmonizing its testing 
requirements where feasible to do so, DOE proposed to incorporate by 
reference into the EPS test procedure the second edition of IEC 62301. 
The IEC published Edition 2.0 of IEC 62301 in January 2011, shortly 
before DOE's previous revision to the EPS test procedure. 76 FR 31750. 
This revised version of the testing standard refined the test equipment 
specifications, measuring techniques, and uncertainty determination to 
improve the method for measuring loads with high crest factors and/or 
low power factors, such as the low power modes typical of EPSs 
operating in no-load mode. Incorporating this edition into the EPS test 
procedure would encompass the resolution parameters for power 
measurements and uncertainty methodologies found in Section 4 (General 
conditions for measurements) as well as the associated references to 
Annexes B (Notes on the measurement of low power modes) and D 
(Determination of uncertainty of measurement) within that section of 
the second edition of the IEC 62301 standard. While harmonizing with 
the latest IEC standard is a statutory requirement, DOE nonetheless 
requested stakeholder feedback regarding the proposed revisions.
    TIA, the CA IOUs, NRDC, and Schneider Electric were all supportive 
of DOE's proposal to harmonize with the latest resolution and 
uncertainty requirements in the second edition of IEC 62301. (TIA, 
No.17 at p.2; \4\ CA IOUs, No.16 at p.2; NRDC, et al., No.18 at p.2; 
Schneider, No.13 at p.2) AHAM was also supportive of DOE's proposal but 
asserted that since harmonization is already required under the statute 
there is no need to amend the language in the test procedure. (AHAM, 
No.11 at p.2) ITI expressed similar thoughts, supporting DOE's 
harmonization efforts but suggesting that DOE should either allow for 
timely test procedure updates to amend the language for each successive 
revision of IEC standard or include language in the regulatory text 
referring to the ``most recent version'' of the standard. (ITI, No.10 
at p.2) PTI had no complaints concerning DOE's proposal but noted that 
the scope of IEC 62301 standard is limited to standby and low-power 
modes and that DOE should consider how these requirements apply to 
other tests. (PTI. No.15 at p.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information 
that is in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-
TP-0043), which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. This notation 
indicates that the statement preceding the reference is from 
document number 17 in the docket and appears at page 2 of that 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the unanimous support of stakeholders and the statutory 
mandate to harmonize with the latest IEC standard, DOE is amending the 
EPS test procedure, codified in Appendix Z of Subpart B to 10 CFR 430, 
in this final rule to incorporate by reference the second edition of 
IEC 62301. DOE is specifically referencing the second edition of this 
standard and is not adopting the proposed approach of referencing the 
most recent version. DOE lacks authority to adopt a ``generic'' 
provision for incorporation by reference. Any standard must be 
specifically approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of 
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 
51; furthermore, in order to request approval, the agency must 
summarize the pertinent parts of the standard in the preamble of both 
the proposed and final rules. (1 CFR 51.5). Accordingly, references to 
IEC 62301 are limited to the second edition and its relevant annexes. 
As part of these amendments, DOE will also amend section 430.3 
``Materials incorporated by reference'' to add Appendix Z to the list 
of test procedures that reference the second edition of IEC 62301.

B. Test Set-up

    In the NOPR, DOE attempted to clarify certain sections within the 
DOE test procedure to ensure the test procedure provides accurate, 
repeatable and reproducible test results. DOE had previously proposed, 
and ultimately finalized, requirements in 2006 that incorporated by 
reference certain sections of a test procedure adopted by the 
California Energy Commission (CEC) into Appendix Z. See generally, 71 
FR 71339 (Dec. 8, 2006) (final rule incorporating elements of the CEC 
test procedure for EPSs). That procedure--``Test Method for Calculating 
the Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External AC-DC and AC-AC Power 
Supplies (August 11, 2004)''--contained a number of provisions, 
including one (``Measurement Approach'') that outlined how UUTs should 
be conditioned and connected to metering equipment to properly perform 
the test regardless of the type of load. While this provision generally 
describes the testing set-up to follow, it also contains gaps that 
could lead to inconsistent results when testing an EPS.
    DOE specifically noted that the CEC procedure offers no clear 
instructions regarding how to avoid introducing additional efficiency 
losses when connecting additional metering equipment, such as 
voltmeters and ammeters. Using data it collected from investigative 
testing concerning multiple interpretations of the test procedure text, 
DOE found that technicians could measure a lower voltage on the output 
of the UUT when using a voltmeter and ammeter to determine the power 
consumption if the voltmeter is connected farther down the circuit path 
than the series ammeter connection. Such inconsistencies would not 
occur if the voltmeter were instead physically and electrically 
connected directly to the output of the UUT. In theory, the ammeter 
acts as a dead short (i.e., a short circuit having zero resistance) and 
does not introduce electrical resistance during the measurement. In 
practice, the testing leads can introduce resistive losses that vary 
based on, among other factors, the wire gauge of the leads, the length 
of the leads, and the frequency of the signal being measured. At higher 
current loads, these losses become even more pronounced and can lead to 
significant resistive losses within the signal path despite the low 
impedance nature of ammeters. To clarify the testing configuration, DOE 
proposed to amend section 4(a)(i) of Appendix Z to require that any 
equipment necessary to measure the active mode efficiency of a UUT at a 
specific loading condition must be directly connected to the output 
cable of the unit. DOE believed that this step would remove any 
unintended losses in the test measurement introduced by the metering 
equipment because both meters would be measuring directly from the 
output connector of the EPS rather than at different points in the 
signal path. DOE sought comment from stakeholders on whether these 
additional clarifications regarding the testing set-up when using 
voltmeters and ammeters would sufficiently clarify the test method and 
ensure testing accuracy.
    The CA IOUs and NRDC both agreed with DOE's proposal to clarify the 
language in the CEC test procedure within its own EPS procedure to 
accurately capture real world losses without introducing any additional 
losses from the test equipment. (CA IOUs, No.16 at p.2; NRDC, et al., 
No. 18 at p.2) AHAM was also supportive of the revised text and 
encouraged DOE to add a connection diagram for the additional equipment 
within the rule text to further assist technicians who

[[Page 51429]]

have to refer to multiple documents when following the test procedure. 
(AHAM, No.11 at p.3) ITI suggested that DOE require a Kelvin connection 
(i.e., a connection used to reduce the impact of parasitic resistances) 
be made between the voltmeter and the output port of the UUT. In ITI's 
view, separating the current and voltage contacts from each other would 
eliminate any contact resistance or contact impedance from affecting 
the overall measurement. (ITI, No.10 at p.3) Such connections are 
typically used in four-wire sensing applications where low voltages or 
currents are present such that the connection leads can have a 
significant impact on the final measurement. Wahl suggested that, 
rather than stating that the equipment should be directly connected to 
the output, DOE should revise the language to specify that measurements 
be taken directly at the physical enclosure of the UUT because it is 
more specific and usable for any EPS. (Wahl, No.5 at p.19) PTI, 
however, claimed that no changes are required to the test procedure, as 
any measurements should be presumed correct and taken by competent 
practitioners. (PTI, No.15 at p.2)
    In DOE's view, the adoption of the proposed revisions will enhance 
the usability and repeatability of the current test procedure. Based on 
the stakeholder comments noted above, in addition to adopting the 
language proposed in the NOPR to make these connections at the output 
cable of the EPS, DOE has included a configuration diagram for 
connecting additional metering equipment between the electronic or 
resistive load and the output of the UTT. Adding this diagram, in 
addition to being consistent with DOE's proposal, will help maximize 
the level of clarity for tests when conducting the test procedure, 
thereby minimizing the risk of obtaining significantly different 
results regarding the energy usage of a tested EPS. Figure III.1 which 
will be included as part of the regulatory text, illustrates an example 
on how to connect the test equipment to the UUT.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AU15.000

    This diagram only illustrates one possible connection assuming a 
single-voltage EPS, but DOE believes it will also help to provide 
further aid to technicians in addition to the new test procedure 
language. These two descriptions, in combination, will help avoid 
errors caused by differing interpretations of the test procedure 
language. As stakeholders correctly noted, ensuring a correct 
connection will reduce any additional losses in the circuit path by 
eliminating the influence of the testing leads and their contact 
resistance. Measuring the efficiency of a UUT at any other point would 
significantly depart from the test methodology currently in place. If 
DOE were to adopt the measurement method proposed by Wahl, it would 
allow manufacturers to ignore the DC output cord losses associated with 
their products. Such an allowance would ease the design burden on 
manufacturers and result in more products on the EPS market that are 
less efficient than the recently amended efficiency standards intended. 
Accordingly, DOE is not adopting Wahl's suggestion and is not requiring 
a certain type of setup (such as a Kelvin connection), as suggested by 
ITI. Instead, DOE has adopted its proposed approach and is clarifying 
the regulatory text by specifying that additional metering equipment 
should be physically and electrically connected at the end of the 
output cable of the UUT.

C. EPSs With Current Limits

    The EPS test procedure produces five output values that are used to 
determine whether a tested EPS complies with Federal standards. These 
output values (or metrics) are outlined in sections 4(a)(i) and 
5(b)(i)(A)(5) of Appendix Z and include active mode efficiency 
measurements at 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent 
load as well as the total power consumption of an EPS at 0 percent 
load. The measured efficiency levels at the loading points (i.e., 25 
percent through 100 percent) are averaged to determine the overall EPS 
conversion efficiency and measured against the Federal standard using 
an equation that outputs the minimum required efficiency based on the

[[Page 51430]]

nameplate output power of the EPS under consideration. However, some 
EPSs, like those used for radios and light-emitting diode (LED) 
applications, are designed to drive the output voltage to zero under 
specific loading conditions either to protect the EPS from damage, or 
overstress, or because the end-use application was never designed to 
operate in those states. Thus, it is not possible to measure the 
efficiency at these specific loading conditions. (This type of feature 
or technology is commonly referred to as ``output current-limiting'' or 
``current-limiting'' because of the device's actions to limit the 
output current to the connected device that the EPS serves.) Prior to 
the publication of the June 2011 test procedure final rule, DOE 
solicited comments from interested parties on how to test EPSs that 
utilize output current-limiting techniques at 100 percent load using 
the test procedure in Appendix Z. 75 FR 16958, 16973 (April 2, 2010). 
Based on the comments received, and to ensure that these types of EPSs 
could be tested for compliance with the federal standards, DOE amended 
section 4(a)(i) to allow manufacturers with products that utilize 
output current-limiting at 100 percent load to test affected individual 
units using active-mode efficiencies measured at 25 percent, 50 
percent, and 75 percent loads. 76 FR 31750, 31771 and 31782 (June 1, 
2011).
    However, as noted in the NOPR, DOE has become aware of other EPS 
designs which use hiccup protection at loading conditions under 100 
percent as a form of fault protection and reset. These EPSs will drive 
the output voltage down to zero to eliminate any power delivery when 
the end-use product demands less than a certain percentage of the 
nameplate output current. Once the output has been reduced to zero, the 
EPS will periodically check the output load conditions by momentarily 
reestablishing the nameplate output voltage and monitoring the 
resulting current draw. If the minimum output current is not reached 
during these periods, the output voltage is driven to zero again and 
the EPS output power drops to zero. Similar to EPSs that utilize output 
current-limiting at maximum load, these EPSs cannot be tested properly 
under the current DOE test procedure when testing at loading conditions 
where the hiccup protection is implemented.
    To quantify the active mode efficiency of these EPSs, DOE proposed 
to amend section 4(a)(i)(C) of Appendix Z (which includes a procedure 
to test those EPSs that list both an instantaneous and continuous 
output current) to require that in cases where an EPS cannot sustain 
output at one or more of the four loading conditions, these loading 
conditions should not be measured. Instead, for these EPSs, the average 
efficiency would be the average of the loading conditions for which it 
can sustain output. In addition to this provision, DOE proposed to 
define the ``average active mode efficiency'' of an EPS as the average 
of the active mode efficiencies recorded when an EPS is loaded at 100 
percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of its nameplate output 
current. DOE believed that defining average active mode efficiency 
would assist manufacturers in preparing certification reports and 
provide additional clarity as to which metrics are considered for 
compliance with the federal standards. DOE sought comment on the 
benefits or burdens of representing the average active mode efficiency 
of these devices as the average of the efficiencies at the loading 
conditions that can be tested and on the proposed definition for 
average active mode efficiency.
    ITI and Schneider Electric both favored letting manufacturers of 
EPSs with hiccup protection test their products using only the loading 
conditions that can be tested. (ITI, No.10 at p.3; Schneider Electric, 
No.13 at p.3) However, PTI and AHAM disagreed with DOE's proposal over 
concerns that manufacturers would be punished for innovation and 
designing for overall energy savings. AHAM stated that current-limiting 
technologies are a well-developed feature of EPS design and could 
possibly deliver less power more efficiently at the loading conditions 
by entering states similar to hiccup protection. (AHAM, No.11 at p.3) 
PTI agreed with AHAM, stating that manufacturers should not be punished 
for finding methods of lowering power consumption and that DOE should 
take the issue under further study to fully understand the impact of 
the proposed changes (PTI, No.15 at p.2).
    The EPS test procedure was developed to apply to any EPS that is 
subject to Federal energy conservation standards. EPSs are regulated 
based on the power conversion efficiency at multiple loading points and 
the no-load power consumption. While DOE recognizes that EPS active 
mode efficiency is optimized based on the loading conditions expected 
by the end-use product, DOE's method of measuring efficiency across the 
entire loading spectrum ensures that the EPS efficiency is quantifiable 
and repeatable for all EPSs subject to the federal efficiency standards 
regardless of usage profiles. The fact that an EPS uses current-
limiting techniques at specific loading conditions means that the EPS 
cannot support such loading conditions and will instead revert to a 
lower power state when such load demands are required. This means that 
the state of operation when the current-limiting process is initiated 
is not representative of the EPS's ability to deliver the required 
loading point current to the end-use product. Accordingly, DOE believes 
that any efficiency measurements taken under these circumstances would 
not represent the actual conversion efficiency at the loading condition 
where current-limiting occurs and should therefore not be included in 
the average active mode efficiency. Additionally, DOE is aware of 
current-limiting techniques utilized in EPSs at only very high loads or 
lower loads relative to the EPS's nameplate output power. While EPS 
efficiency tends to decrease at these loading conditions, the 
conversion efficiency is typically the poorest at very low loads. When 
EPSs enter current-limiting, low power states, they deliver a much 
lower power to the end-use product and the conversion efficiency 
suffers. Therefore, excluding these measurements from the average 
active-mode efficiency metric would not impair innovation or other 
energy efficiency efforts because average active-mode efficiency would 
only include the efficiency at the loading conditions that can be 
sustained, and not include loading conditions that are represented by 
lower power, but decreased conversion efficiency. DOE also believes, 
contrary to AHAM and PTI's comments, that this will result in an 
advantage to manufacturers by requiring them to calculate average 
active-mode efficiency using only the higher efficiency measurements 
taken at the loading conditions that the EPS can sustain. As a result, 
DOE is codifying in this final rule its definition for average active 
mode efficiency as the average of the loading conditions (100 percent, 
75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of its nameplate output current) 
for which the EPS can sustain the output current.

D. Power Factor

    As discussed in the NOPR, power factor is a relative measure of 
transmission losses between the power plant and an item plugged into AC 
mains (i.e., a wall outlet). The power factor of a given device is 
represented as a ratio of the active power delivered to the device 
relative to the combination of this reactive power and active power. An 
ideal load will have a power factor of 1, where all the power generated 
is delivered to the load as active power. For a given nameplate output 
power and

[[Page 51431]]

efficiency, products with a lower power factor cause greater power 
dissipation in the transmission wiring, an effect that also becomes 
more pronounced at higher input powers.
    DOE stated that power factor is a critical component in 
establishing the overall efficiency profile of EPSs. Most of the 
efficient power supplies available on the market today use switched-
mode topologies (i.e., power transfer circuits that use switching 
elements and electromagnetic fields to transmit power) that draw 
current in short spikes from the power grid. These current spikes can 
cause the voltage and current input waveforms of the EPS to be 
significantly out of phase, resulting in a low power factor and putting 
more stress on the power grid to deliver real power. While switched-
mode power supplies have served to dramatically improve the achievable 
efficiencies of EPSs, the fact that power factor had gone unexamined 
during their widespread adoption brought overall system efficiency into 
consideration. To help ascertain the power factor inputs, DOE proposed 
to collect power factor measurements at each loading condition through 
an optional provision within the test procedure but not to require its 
measurement or submission as part of a certification report. In DOE's 
view, this proposed change would increase testing flexibility while 
minimizing additional testing burden, as most modern power analyzers 
are capable of measuring true power factor. DOE sought comment on the 
inclusion of power factor measurements within the test procedure and 
the repeatability of such measurements.
    The CA IOUs and NRDC urged that power factor be measured at each 
loading condition because the power factor affects the overall system 
efficiency. Both also urged DOE to make power factor measurements 
mandatory for EPSs with a nameplate output power exceeding 50 watts. 
(CA IOUs, No.16 at p.3; NRDC, et al., No.18 at p.4) NRDC agreed with 
DOE's initial assessment that the additional burden placed on 
manufacturers would be minimal as most modern day power meters are 
capable of measuring true power factor and collecting such data would 
allow for a complete analysis of the impact of EPS power factor on 
energy consumption. (NRDC, et al., No.18 at p.4) Several stakeholders, 
however, disagreed with DOE's proposal to include optional power factor 
measurements at each loading condition.
    ITI and Schneider Electric both stated that they do not support 
measuring power factor below loads of 75 watts. (ITI, No.10 at p.3; 
Schneider, No.13 at p.3) ITI and Schneider questioned the value of 
measuring this value. They also noted that global criteria were 
available to measure power factor at ratings of 75 watts and higher. 
AHAM also suggested that DOE refrain from including power factor 
measurements and to instead focus on product efficiency, noting that 
without defined test parameters such as source impedance there cannot 
be meaningful and repeatable power factor measurements. (AHAM, No.11 at 
p.3) TIA expressed similar concerns, stating that expanding the rule 
beyond product efficiency to power distribution will only serve to 
increase stakeholder confusion when the emphasis of the test procedure 
should be focused on product efficiencies. (TIA, No.17 at p.3) PTI 
argued that power factor is outside the scope of the rulemaking to 
provide meaningful measures of energy efficiency. (PTI, No.15 at p.3)
    After carefully considering these comments, DOE has decided, at 
this time, not to adopt a voluntary provision to record power factor. 
As noted by several commenters and by DOE itself, see 79 FR at 61001, 
the efficiency impacts attributable to lower power factors are more 
pronounced in cases involving higher input powers. The availability of 
criteria for measuring power factors starting at 75 watts suggests that 
this power level may be an appropriate minimum power level at which to 
consider the impacts from power factor. However, DOE currently lacks 
sufficient data to make a fully informed decision on whether power 
factor measurements should be limited in this manner. Additionally, 
even though DOE presented its power factor proposal as a voluntary 
option, the benefits of the proposal are, at this time, unclear. In 
light of this situation, along with the significant questions raised by 
commenters, DOE is declining to adopt this aspect of its proposal. DOE 
may, however, continue to evaluate the merits of regulating power 
factor in future energy conservation efforts.

E. Adaptive EPSs

    In the test procedure NOPR, DOE described a new EPS technology that 
enables EPSs that connect to their end-use products via a universal 
serial bus (USB) to provide higher charging currents than specified in 
the USB standard by increasing the output voltage of the EPS in cases 
where the end-use product battery is severely depleted. This technology 
has the advantage of speeding the charging process and cutting the 
overall time needed to charge a product's battery. DOE noted that this 
faster charging was activated through communication lines between the 
charger and the charge control chip embedded in the end-use device. 
However, DOE stated that only certain products paired with the 
necessary chargers are able to communicate and have the EPS provide a 
higher charging current. The same chargers would not be able to reach 
the same charging current when paired with a device not capable of this 
communication.
    DOE proposed to refer to these types of EPSs as ``adaptive EPSs'' 
and to define them as single-voltage EPSs that can alter their output 
voltage during active mode based on an established communication 
protocol with the end-use application without any user-generated 
action. DOE believed that, due to the fluctuation in the output voltage 
of adaptive EPSs depending on the state of the end-use product, 
manufacturers might list multiple output voltages, multiple output 
currents, and/or multiple output powers to categorize all the potential 
states of the EPS, making the correct testing conditions difficult to 
discern within the existing DOE test procedure. To remove this 
potential ambiguity, DOE proposed that adaptive EPSs would be tested at 
both the highest and lowest achievable output voltages for loading 
conditions where output current is greater than 0% of the rated 
nameplate output current. For the 0% loading condition, or the no-load 
measurement condition, DOE proposed to add clarifying language stating 
that the EPS under test must be placed in no-load mode and any 
additional signal connections to the unit be disconnected prior to 
measuring input power. DOE believed that if the load was not 
disconnected from the EPS entirely, but instead, the current demand was 
decreased to zero electronically with the load still physically 
connected, that the output voltage may remain artificially high and 
impact the results of the no-load power measurement. The higher output 
voltage would not be representative of the voltage this EPS would 
operate under in no-load mode, because an adaptive EPS would only 
output a higher voltage when requested via the adaptive communication 
protocol. While this methodology was consistent with DOE's approach to 
testing switch-selectable EPSs, DOE sought input from stakeholders on 
its proposal and any additional proposals that may increase the 
accuracy of the test method.
    Several stakeholders commented on DOE's proposed definition of an 
adaptive EPS. Both the CA IOUs and ITI supported DOE's proposed 
definition of

[[Page 51432]]

an adaptive EPS. (CA IOUs, No.16 at p.2; ITI, No. 10 at p.4) However, 
Schneider Electric, AHAM, and PTI all stated that DOE's definition of 
an adaptive EPS was too broad and vague. (Schneider, No.13 at p.4; 
AHAM, No.11 at p.3, PTI, No.15 at p.2) Schneider claimed that it could 
not accurately identify any products that would qualify as adaptive 
EPSs based on DOE's proposed definition. (Schneider, No. 13 at p.4) 
Similarly, PTI urged DOE to refine the definition of adaptive EPSs to 
specify that the communication protocol is digital so as to avoid 
manufacturers classifying their products as adaptive EPSs due to 
regular and expected output voltage fluctuations. (PTI, No.15 at p.2)
    DOE is not aware of any existing adaptive EPS technology that 
relies on analog communication. Nonetheless, some stakeholders have 
urged DOE to provide further guidance as to what can be considered an 
adaptive EPS. To this end, DOE is clarifying its adaptive EPS 
definition by incorporating PTI's suggestion that the communication 
protocol used by adaptive EPSs is digital. Consequently, an adaptive 
EPS is an EPS that can alter its output voltage during active-mode 
based on an established digital communication protocol with the end-use 
application without any user-generated action. By specifying the use of 
digital communication, DOE seeks to remove any classification ambiguity 
related to the line and load fluctuations that are common with any 
power supply and help clarify the intended definition proposed in the 
NOPR.
    DOE also received feedback from stakeholders on its proposed 
approach to testing adaptive EPSs. While recognizing the limitations of 
the proposed approach, NRDC and the CA IOUs nevertheless supported 
DOE's proposed approach to test adaptive EPSs at the highest and lowest 
achievable output voltages. (NRDC, et al., No. 18 at p.6, CA IOUs, No. 
16 at p.2) However, the CA IOUs stated that DOE should test adaptive 
EPSs with and without the communication enabled at both the highest and 
lowest output voltage to establish the most accurate no-load power 
consumption metric. (CA IOUs, No.16 at p.2-3) AHAM, however, stated 
that EPSs should be tested at the nameplate rating regardless of 
whether they are adaptive EPSs and that the product classification 
should be decided by the manufacturer. AHAM also stated it was unclear 
whether the current procedure could not be performed on adaptive EPSs--
and if it could, in its view, there would be no reason to make a change 
for these EPSs. (AHAM, No.11 at p.3)
    Other stakeholders provided DOE with additional information 
concerning the likely nameplate markings of adaptive EPSs. Both 
Schneider Electric and ITI commented that adaptive EPSs should align 
with the IEC 60950 standard for safety of information technology 
equipment, which requires every output voltage to be listed along with 
the associated output current. (Schneider, No.13 at p.4; ITI, No.10 at 
p.4).
    DOE believes that any test procedure should be flexible enough to 
apply to several different design variations of one consumer product. 
Adaptive EPSs are unique among EPSs because of their ability to operate 
at one power level when communicating with certain consumer products 
but an inability to reach a similar operating point when used with 
other consumer products that lack the communication. The EPS test 
procedure should be able to capture the efficiencies at the various 
output conditions in which it will operate, which includes these two 
scenarios. DOE continues to believe that this could be performed by 
conducting the test twice at each loading condition--once at the 
highest achievable output voltage that is utilized while communicating 
with a load and once at the lowest achievable output voltage utilized 
during load communication. Due to the nature of EPS design, the points 
in between the highest and lowest output voltage will be no less 
efficient than either extreme.\5\ Additionally, DOE has been informed 
through conversations with manufacturers and through public comment 
submissions that manufacturers will list all the achievable output 
voltage and achievable output current combinations of adaptive EPSs on 
the nameplate in accordance with the IEC 60950 \6\ industry standard, 
making DOE's proposal practical to implement since the nameplate rating 
extremes will be used to determine the loading points for testing. 
Since manufacturers already include each output voltage on the 
nameplate, the highest and lowest achievable voltages will be included 
for adaptive EPSs and therefore technicians should be able to determine 
the appropriate test conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ At higher output voltages, EPSs typically have greater 
efficiency due to a lower loss ratio of the fixed voltage drops in 
the conversion circuitry to the nominal output voltage. These losses 
do not increase linearly with output voltage, so higher output 
voltages typically provide greater conversion efficiency.
    \6\ IEC 60950 Ed. 2.2, Safety of information technology 
equipment, December 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average active-mode efficiency will still be based on the 
average of the four loading conditions used to measure single-voltage 
efficiency. However, manufacturers of adaptive EPSs will generate two 
average active-mode efficiency metrics for each EPS--one based on the 
average of the efficiencies recorded at the lowest voltage achieved 
during the charging cycle and one based on the average of the 
efficiencies recorded at the highest voltage achieved during the 
charging cycle. This methodology will also allow DOE to maintain 
consistency with its testing approach for switch-selectable EPSs. 
Unlike switch-selectable EPSs, DOE will only require manufacturers of 
adaptive EPSs to certify their products with one no-load power 
measurement, as such EPSs operate at only one output voltage when in a 
no-load state.
    With respect to no-load mode, switch-selectable EPSs, by 
definition, can maintain several different output voltages when the 
end-use product is disconnected from the EPS. The exact output voltage 
is determined by the position of the switch on the EPS enclosure. The 
fact that the output voltage can change via a user-generated action 
means that the no-load power consumption at each output voltage can 
vary despite the fact that the power drawn from the mains is consumed 
by the EPS in the no-load state. For this reason, DOE requires 
manufacturers of switch-selectable EPSs to certify the no-load metric 
at the highest and lowest nameplate output voltage for these products.
    Adaptive EPSs, however, can only maintain higher voltages while 
communicating with the end-use product via a physical USB connection. 
During the no-load measurement, the EPS will be disconnected from any 
load and will, as a result, not be communicating with the end-use 
product. Placing the EPS into no-load mode will therefore yield a 
static output voltage such that one measurement will be sufficient to 
represent the actual power consumption of the EPS when disconnected 
from the load. DOE will amend section 429.37 to state that 
manufacturers will be required to submit average active-mode 
efficiencies at both the highest and lowest nameplate output voltage as 
well as a single no-load power measurement for adaptive EPSs.
    Stakeholders and interested parties also contributed a number of 
comments related to applicable standards for adaptive EPSs. NRDC and 
the CA IOUs both stated that adaptive EPSs should meet the applicable 
standards at both voltage conditions tested under DOE's test 
methodology. (NRDC, et al., No. 18 at p.6, CA IOUs, No.16 at p.3) 
However,

[[Page 51433]]

ITI stated that DOE needed to elaborate on the appropriate standard 
level equations that should be used to certify adaptive EPSs because 
the proposed language indicated that only basic voltage equations would 
apply, which may not always be the case for adaptive EPSs because of 
their fluctuating output voltage and current combinations. (ITI, No.10 
at p.5) Additionally, ITI commented that adaptive EPSs should not be 
subject to any federal efficiency standards to avoid stifling 
innovation. Instead, ITI recommended that DOE only focus on data 
collection for adaptive EPSs. (ITI, No. 10 at p.4)
    The ability of an adaptive EPS to alter its output voltage based on 
digital communication with an end-use product does not prevent an 
adaptive EPS from meeting the statutory definition of a Class A EPS as 
set by Congress in EISA 2007. Among other factors, a Class A EPS is 
able to convert to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time. Based on 
DOE's understanding of adaptive EPSs, while such EPSs can alter their 
output voltage, and/or current based on communications received from 
the end-use product, they still can only output one voltage at any 
given time. As such, DOE expects many adaptive EPSs to fall within the 
definition of a Class A EPS, and would therefore, be subject to the 
currently applicable standards for Class A EPSs. Manufacturers of Class 
A adaptive EPSs should be compliant and certify compliance with the 
Class A EPS standards by testing them according to the DOE test 
procedure. Similarly, these EPSs will be subject to the standards with 
which compliance in required in February 2016.

F. EPS Loading Points

    DOE currently requires that efficiency measurements be recorded by 
manufacturers at 0 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 
percent of the nameplate output current load. See 10 CFR 430, Subpart 
B, Appendix Z. The last four metrics are ultimately averaged to 
determine the overall active mode efficiency of an EPS. While these 
measurements span the majority of an EPS's loading profile, consumer 
loads are increasingly utilizing standby modes to minimize power 
consumption during periods of inactivity, a development that has 
resulted in many EPSs spending more time in loading conditions below 25 
percent, where the EPS active mode efficiency tends to rapidly decrease 
due to the increase in the ratio of fixed losses to the output power. 
This decrease is due in large part to a higher loss ratio where the 
fixed losses represent a higher percentage of the overall power 
consumed when compared to the output power.
    To collect data on EPS efficiency and energy consumption at these 
lower loading points, DOE proposed to add an optional, loading 
condition at 10% the nameplate output current of the EPS under test to 
the test procedure in the NOPR. DOE cited research conducted by NRDC 
\7\ as well as the efforts of the European Union \8\ as the reasoning 
behind the inclusion of the additional loading point. However, as with 
the EU voluntary program, DOE stated that the additional measurement 
would not be factored into the average active mode efficiency metric 
used to certify EPSs with the federal efficiency standards. Instead, 
the measurement would serve as a stand-alone data point for DOE's 
consideration should it be provided by manufacturers in the 
certification reports. This proposed change would have had no impact on 
measuring compliance with the current energy conservation standards for 
Class A EPSs or the recently promulgated standards for direct operation 
EPSs that manufacturers must meet beginning in 2016. DOE felt that this 
minimally burdensome revision would increase the flexibility of the EPS 
test procedure should DOE decide to incorporate such a measurement into 
an efficiency standard in the future. DOE received several comments 
from stakeholders on this proposed additional measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NRDC: External Power Supplies--Additional Efficiency 
Opportunities, http://www.appliance-standards.org/sites/default/files/Next_Efficiency_Opportunities_for_External_Power_Supplies_NRDC.pdf.
    \8\ European Union: Code of Conduct on External Power Supplies 
Version 5 (available at http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/code_of_conduct_for_ps_version_5_-_draft_120919.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs agreed that an additional measurement at 10% of the 
tested EPS's nameplate output power could be an important measurement 
when characterizing the energy consumption of EPSs and supported DOE's 
intention to exclude it from the average active mode efficiency metric. 
(CA IOUs, No.16 at p.2) In fact, both NRDC and the CA IOUs urged DOE to 
make the 10% measurement mandatory for all EPSs with a nameplate output 
power exceeding 50 watts in order to capture efficiency data for EPSs 
typically used with products that spend a significant portion of time 
in lower power modes such as laptops. (CA IOUs, No.16 at p.3; NRDC, et 
al., No.18 at p.3) However, several other stakeholders disagreed with 
DOE's proposed approach.
    ITI questioned the utility of including a 10% loading condition as 
an optional measurement, asserted that such a requirement would be 
burdensome without clearly being useful and noted that DOE should not 
expect to see significantly higher efficiency gains made at lower 
loads. ITI added that the inclusion of an additional 10% loading point 
does not more completely represent the achievable efficiencies of EPSs. 
(ITI, No.10 at p.5) ITI added that while the 10% loading point could 
represent achievable efficiencies for some EPSs in certain industries, 
it would not be universally applicable. See id. Schneider Electric 
agreed with ITI, stating that the 10% loading condition may more 
accurately capture the achievable efficiencies of EPSs in certain 
industries but not all. (Schneider, No.13 at p.5) PTI stated similarly 
that the currently-followed approach of averaging of the four loading 
conditions within the test procedure is already questionable because 
EPSs generally operate at higher loads and adding a 10% loading 
condition moves DOE further away from its intended goal of measuring 
EPS efficiency under typical usage. (PTI, No.15 at p.3) AHAM added that 
the inclusion of a 10% loading condition gives a low loading level the 
same weight as a much higher loading condition. (AHAM, No.11 at p.3) 
Lastly, TIA stated that DOE should not include an additional loading 
point measurement within the test procedure even in an optional 
capacity unless it has collected data that would support such a 
revision. (TIA, No.17 at p.3)
    After carefully considering these comments, DOE has re-evaluated 
its proposal to include an additional, optional active-mode efficiency 
measurement at 10% of an EPS's nameplate output power and is declining 
to include such a measurement in the test procedure at this time. While 
DOE does not believe this addition would have presented a significant 
burden to manufacturers, the fact that the measurement would have been 
optional leads DOE to believe that the likelihood of gathering 
substantial data on EPS efficiency at lower loads through voluntary 
additions to certification reports would be very low. Instead, DOE may 
opt to further evaluate the merits of recording additional loading 
point measurements prior to setting any future recording requirement at 
this or another level. As part of this effort, DOE may continue to 
evaluate any potential loading conditions that may better represent the 
total energy consumption of EPSs associated with various consumer 
products rather than focusing entirely

[[Page 51434]]

on the 10% loading condition. Should it conclude that significant 
energy savings may be possible by improving the active-mode conversion 
efficiency of additional loading points, DOE may revisit this issue in 
a future rulemaking.

G. Energy Conservation Standards

    After receiving several questions concerning the amended standards 
for EPSs issued on February 10, 2014, DOE proposed in the NOPR to amend 
10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(iii) to include a clarifying table to more clearly 
identify which EPS standards apply based on whether the EPS is (1) a 
Class A or non-Class A EPS and (2) direct or indirect operation. As 
currently defined in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.2, a ``direct 
operation EPS'' is an EPS that can operate a consumer product that is 
not a battery charger without the assistance of a battery, whereas an 
``indirect operation EPS'' is an EPS that cannot operate a consumer 
product (other than a battery charger) without the assistance of a 
battery. The applicable standards for each combination of these 
products can be seen in Table III-1 below.

    Table III-1--Applicable Standards of Class A and Non-Class A EPSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Class A EPS       Non-Class A EPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Operation EPS............  Level VI: 10 CFR    Level VI: 10 CFR
                                   430.32(w)(1)(ii).   430.32(w)(1)(ii).
Indirect Operation EPS..........  Level IV: 10 CFR    No Standards.
                                   430.32(w)(1)(i).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE intended the definitions of direct operation and indirect 
operation EPSs to be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, so 
that any EPS would be either a direct or indirect operation EPS, but 
not both. The new regulations required that any direct-operation EPS 
(regardless of whether it was also a Class A EPS) would have to meet 
these new standards. Any indirect operation EPS would not be required 
to meet the new standards, but would still be required to comply with 
the Class A efficiency requirements if that EPS meets the definition of 
a Class A EPS. The Class A EPS definition is found in 42 U.S.C. 
6291(36). DOE also updated the International Efficiency Marking 
Protocol to add a new mark, ``VI,'' to indicate compliance with the new 
efficiency requirements established for direct operation EPSs. In order 
to assist manufacturers in determining which standards apply to their 
product, DOE proposed to add Table III-1 to 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(iii).
    NRDC supported DOE's clarification on which standards apply to 
which types of EPSs and the proposed revisions to the CFR. (NRDC et 
al., No.18 at p.2) There were no comments opposing the inclusion of the 
clarifying table. As such, DOE is amending 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(iii) to 
include Table III-1. Although DOE had intended the definitions of 
direct operation and indirect operation EPSs to be collectively 
exhaustive, DOE now believes that these terms may not adequately 
describe the full range of EPSs available. Nonetheless, Table 1 does 
accurately reflect the relationship between the new standards and 
classifications and the statutory standards and classifications. 
Additionally, since manufacturers must use the test procedure in 
Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430 when making any representation of 
the energy efficiency or energy consumption of an external power supply 
that is within the scope of the test procedure.
    DOE is also clarifying that only those external power supplies 
subject to the energy conservation standards fall within the scope of 
the test procedure. By excluding external power supplies that are not 
subject to standards from the scope of the test procedure, 
manufacturers of these EPSs will not have to use Appendix Z when making 
representations of the energy efficiency or energy consumption of those 
EPSs.
    In addition to the clarifications made in this final rule, DOE 
expects to address additional issues that were raised in the context of 
this rulemaking in a forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking related 
to external power supplies.

H. Indirect Operation EPSs

    The NOPR discussed whether EPSs that power battery chargers 
contained in separate physical enclosures from their end-use products 
would be considered indirect operation EPSs under the proposed test 
procedure. 79 FR at 61005. DOE noted that a battery charger is 
considered a consumer product in and of itself, and DOE is currently 
undertaking a rulemaking to consider establishing efficiency standards 
for battery chargers. Because that rulemaking would encompass the 
efficiency of EPSs that power battery chargers, DOE has defined direct 
operation EPS to exclude such EPSs. See 10 CFR 430.2 (``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.''). An EPS that can only operate a battery 
charger in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product, but 
not any other consumer product, is not a direct operation EPS, and 
would therefore, not be subject to the efficiency standards for direct 
operation EPSs. See 79 FR 7859, 7929. DOE proposed to modify the 
indirect operation EPS definition to clarify that EPSs that can only 
operate battery chargers contained in physical enclosures separate from 
the end-use products (but not other consumer products) are indirect 
operation EPSs. The proposed definition specified that an indirect 
operation EPS is an EPS that (1) cannot operate a consumer product 
(that is not a battery charger) without the assistance of a battery or 
(2) solely provides power to a battery charger that is contained in a 
separate physical enclosure from the end-use product. DOE received 
several stakeholder comments on the definition and determination 
methodology associated with indirect operation EPSs.
    NRDC and AHAM both supported DOE's revision to the definition of an 
indirect operation EPS. (NRDC, et al., No.18 at 2-3, AHAM, No.11 at 
p.3) AHAM also expressed concern, however, that the determination 
method for an indirect operation EPS is part of the definition rather 
than the EPS test procedure. (AHAM, No.11 at p.2) In its view, because 
determining whether an EPS is an indirect operation EPS involves 
testing, those steps should be moved to become part of the test 
procedure. PTI agreed with AHAM's assertion and stated that the 
determination method needs to be performed in the context of a test 
procedure that specifies equipment and environmental requirements. 
(PTI, No.15 at p.3)
    ITI disagreed with the proposed revision to the indirect operation 
EPS definition and suggested removing the clause, ``that is contained 
in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product,'' from that 
revision. It also urged DOE to provide more clarity as to the meaning 
of ``operate a consumer product.'' According to ITI, a consumer product 
should operate by providing equivalent functionality when being

[[Page 51435]]

directly powered from an EPS as it would provide when being directly 
powered by a charged battery or batteries. (ITI, No.10 at p.6).
    The indirect operation determination method is not intended to test 
a product for energy consumption, but to place it into the appropriate 
product class for standards compliance and remains part of the indirect 
operation definition itself. Therefore, DOE does not believe that 
providing specific conditions is necessary for a determination method 
as opposed to a discrete test procedure. DOE does not see any 
compelling reason to move a determination of the applicability of the 
amended federal efficiency standards into the test procedure. 
Therefore, DOE intends to keep the determination of an indirect 
operation EPS outside the language of the test procedure.
    As has been discussed, an EPS that can only operate a battery 
charger, but not any other consumer product, may be regulated as part 
of the battery charger at a later date by separate efficiency standards 
for battery chargers. After consideration of the issues raised in ITI's 
comment, DOE believes that further consideration of how best to clarify 
the indirect operation external power supply definition is warranted. 
Accordingly, DOE plans to address the definition in a forthcoming 
notice of proposed rulemaking.
    In addition to proposed revisions to the indirect operation 
definition, DOE attempted to clarify some of the ambiguity regarding 
standards applicable to EPSs that can be used with multiple end-use 
applications, some of which are operated directly and others indirectly 
in the NOPR. See generally, 79 FR 60996. DOE stated that so long as an 
EPS can operate any consumer product directly, DOE considers it to be a 
direct operation EPS. If an EPS is shipped with a consumer product that 
the EPS can only operate indirectly, but that same EPS can also be used 
to directly operate another consumer product, DOE would still consider 
that EPS to be a direct operation EPS and subject to the applicable 
direct operation EPS efficiency standards.
    PTI commented that DOE's assertion that an EPS can only be indirect 
if it is incapable of powering any product directly is unreasonable 
because a manufacturer could in no way certify that the EPS associated 
with any end-use product might be used in another manner by a different 
manufacturer. (PTI, No.15 at p.3) AHAM similarly stated that 
manufacturers must not be held accountable for consumers using certain 
EPSs with other products they were never intended to be associated 
with. (AHAM, No.11 at p.2) ITI recommended that DOE resolve any 
confusion regarding the certification of products that could be used in 
multiple configurations by specifying that when an ``individual 
stakeholder'' sells an EPS in both configurations, the EPS should 
comply with the direct operation standards. (ITI, No.10 at p.6)
    DOE intended this proposal regarding indirect and direct operation 
EPSs to clarify the standards applicable to specific EPSs. In stating 
that so long as an EPS can operate any consumer product directly it is 
considered a direct operation EPS, DOE intended to refer to a 
manufacturer's distribution footprint and how its products may be 
deployed in the field. If, for example, a manufacturer uses one EPS 
design for a number of consumer products within a design family, and 
that EPS could be considered a direct operation EPS with one product 
and an indirect operation EPS with another product within that design 
family, then the EPS would need to meet the direct operation EPS 
standards. If the EPS is designed in a way that would make it only 
capable of operating certain types of products, and those products are 
operated exclusively indirectly, it would not be subject to the direct 
operation standards. Similarly, if an original equipment manufacturer 
(OEM) or an original design manufacturer (ODM) sells an EPS design to 
be used with other consumer products, the burden then falls on the EPS-
certifying manufacturer (typically importers) to understand the 
intended use of the EPS in the field and certify accordingly. Failure 
to submit a certification report as a direct operation EPS, however, is 
not determinative that an EPS is not a direct operation EPS.

I. EPSs for Solid State Lighting

    In the NOPR, DOE explained that certain components, commonly 
referred to as ``transformers'' or ``drivers'', that are used with 
solid state lighting (SSL) applications, would be subject to the Class 
A EPS energy conservation standards provided that they meet the 
statutory definition of a Class A EPS. This definition, as established 
by Congress in EISA 2007, provides six characteristics of a Class A 
EPS, all of which must be met in order for a device to be considered a 
Class A EPS. As discussed in the February 10, 2014 final rule, DOE 
determined that there were no technical differences between the EPSs 
that power certain SSL (including LED) products and those that are used 
with other end-use applications that would prevent an EPS used with SSL 
products from meeting the statutory definition of a Class A EPS. 79 FR 
7846. See also 79 FR at 61005-61006 (reiterating DOE's belief that 
``many drivers, or transformers, used for SSL applications would meet 
the definition of a Class A EPS and . . . be subject to the applicable 
energy conservation standards.'') As such, DOE believes that many 
drivers or transformers, such as LED drivers used for landscape 
lighting, lighting strings, portable luminaires, and other lighting 
applications, would meet all six characteristics of a Class A EPS and 
would therefore be subject to the applicable energy conservation 
standards. In the NOPR public meeting, DOE provided further guidance on 
how manufacturers should interpret the six characteristics of a Class A 
EPS as it relates to SSL applications.
    Specifically, DOE clarified at the public meeting that an EPS is 
designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower voltage AC or DC 
output and explained that because fluorescent ballasts output higher 
voltage AC waveforms than the line voltage input they receive, they 
would not be considered an EPS. See Transcript (Pub. Mtg. Transcript, 
No. 9 at p. 47-48). During the meeting, DOE also discussed that one of 
the Class A criteria is that the device must be contained in a separate 
physical enclosure from the end-use product. Because many LED drivers 
are contained inside the same housing as the luminaire itself, these 
devices would not be considered Class A EPSs because they are contained 
within the same physical enclosure of the end-use product.
    In response to the proposed rule, DOE received several comments on 
how to apply the statutory criteria for EPSs, particularly in the 
context of SSL drivers. The CA IOUs agreed that, with limited 
exceptions, drivers and transformers for SSL products meet the criteria 
to be considered within the scope of the rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No.16 at 
p.2) However, NEMA took issue with a number of aspects of DOE's 
approach regarding SSL products. It disagreed with DOE's conclusion 
that there are no technical differences between SSL drivers and other 
types of EPSs included within the scope of the revised EPS standards, 
citing such additional features as dimming functionality, network 
control, and light color control. (NEMA, No.14 at p.3) NEMA also 
commented that under certain interpretations of the rulemaking text, 
even the products DOE specifically listed as included within the EPS 
scope could be excluded. It requested that DOE revise its 
interpretation of a consumer product and provide concrete examples of 
covered and non-covered products to assist the lighting industry's

[[Page 51436]]

understanding of the scope of the rulemaking (NEMA, No.14 at p.3) NEMA 
further stated that many SSL/LED drivers are not sold with, or intended 
to be used with, a separate end-use product and, consequently, do not 
fall into the Class A EPS definition and should not be subject to 
regulation. Additionally, even if these products did meet the Class A 
definition, according to NEMA, DOE could not properly test SSL drivers 
under the existing DOE test procedure, even with the amendments 
proposed in the NOPR. (NEMA, No.14 at p.2)
    Lutron Electronics echoed many of NEMA's concerns, stating that the 
scope of the EPS rulemaking was unclear as it related to LED drivers 
and that DOE's assertion that LED drivers are technologically 
equivalent to other similarly rated EPSs that fall within the rule's 
scope was not based on any technical analysis. (Lutron, No.12 at p.2) 
Lutron also stated that DOE should follow the course of other standards 
development organizations and consider regulating LED drivers and 
lighting ballasts in a separate rulemaking from EPSs. Lutron claims 
that treating these products as regulated EPSs will eliminate certain 
SSL drivers with networking capabilities from the market because of the 
strict no-load standards required by the 2014 final rule. Lutron argued 
that eliminating this added utility will remove several smart energy 
management tools from buildings and result in higher overall energy 
consumption. Additionally, Lutron agreed with NEMA's statement that LED 
drivers should not be considered as part of the EPS rulemaking because 
they are not ``external'' to the luminaire they are powering. (Lutron, 
No.12 at p.3-4)
    Any device that meets the congressional definition of an EPS is a 
covered product that may be subject to energy conservation standards. 
(42 U.S.C. 6291(36)) Congress defined an EPS as ``an external power 
supply circuit that is used to convert household electric current into 
DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumer product.'' 
42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A). While a device that meets the EPS definition is 
considered a covered product, only certain EPSs are currently subject 
to energy conservation standards. Specifically, Congress defined, and 
established energy conservation standards for, Class A EPSs. (42 U.S.C. 
6291(36)(C)(i)). DOE has no authority to alter the applicability of the 
Class A EPS standards as set forth by Congress.
    Whether a given product satisfies the applicable definition is 
assessed at the time a product is manufactured. For products imported 
into the U.S., this is the date of importation. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(10) 
(``The term `manufacture' means to manufacture, produce, assemble or 
import.'') Thus, although many LED drivers are sold to an end-user 
inside the same housing as a luminaire, an LED driver imported into the 
U.S. as a separate product, prior to being incorporated into a 
luminaire, is a Class A EPS at the time of its manufacture 
(importation), if it meets the other five criteria, because it would 
not yet be contained within the same physical enclosure as the end-use 
product. However, if any such LED driver were not able to convert 
household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current 
at the time it is imported, it would not meet the definition of an EPS 
and, therefore, would not be subject to energy conservation standards.
    When determining whether an EPS meets the statutory definition of a 
Class A EPS, DOE evaluates whether all six characteristics are present 
in the device in question. While NEMA has brought forward several 
additional functionalities, such as dimming functionality, network 
control, and light color control, that may be used to distinguish one 
Class A EPS from another, any device that contains the six criteria of 
a Class A EPS would be subject to the Class A EPS energy conservation 
standards. Only the six characteristics of a Class A EPS, and not any 
additional technical functionality, are used by DOE to determine 
whether a device is considered a Class A EPS. As such, DOE expects some 
SSL drivers to fall within the definition of a Class A EPS and, 
consequently, are subject to the current Class A standards. Class A 
EPSs must meet the Class A EPS standards when tested using the DOE test 
procedure and sampling provisions. Similarly, these Class A EPSs will 
be subject to the standards with which compliance is required in 
February 2016. (See discussion regarding Table III-1.)
    Finally, in addressing stakeholder concerns that SSL drivers cannot 
be tested under the existing DOE test procedure when taking the no-load 
measurement of a hard-wired connection, DOE notes the test method 
states that the no-load measurement should be taken by cutting the cord 
adjacent to the end-use product and conducting the measurement probes 
at that point in section 4(a)(ii) of Appendix Z. As discussed in 
Section K, this language was previously incorporated by reference in 
Appendix Z by citing the CEC's ``Test Method for Calculating the Energy 
Efficiency of Single-Voltage External AC-DC and AC-AC Power Supplies 
(August 11, 2004)'', but will be adopted into Appendix Z as part of 
this final rule. Therefore, DOE's test method does, in fact, provide a 
clear method for testing no-load mode of hardwired connections.
    Nonetheless, DOE recognizes that EPSs may change over time as 
manufacturers add new features and update designs in order to compete 
for consumers. Acknowledging that innovation and product development 
may occasionally cause products to change in ways that either (1) make 
the results of a test procedure not representative of actual energy use 
or efficiency, or (2) make it impossible to test in accordance with the 
relevant test procedure, DOE considers petitions for waivers from test 
procedures under certain circumstances. Any interested party--typically 
a manufacturer--may submit a petition for a test procedure waiver for a 
basic model of a covered product if the basic model's design prevents 
it from being tested according to the test procedures, or if the test 
procedure yields materially inaccurate or unrepresentative energy use 
data. 10 CFR 430.27. To the extent that manufacturers wish to obtain a 
waiver from the EPS test procedure, manufacturers should petition DOE 
for a waiver and/or interim waiver. More information on the waiver 
process is available on the DOE Web site: http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/test-procedure-waivers.

J. Sampling Plan

    For certification and compliance, manufacturers are required to 
rate each basic model according to the sampling provisions specified in 
10 CFR part 429. In the NOPR, DOE explained that because the recent 
energy conservation standards apply to direct operation EPSs, which 
include both Class A and non-Class A EPSs, there is no longer a need to 
differentiate between Class A and non-Class A EPSs for the purposes of 
Part 429. See 79 FR at 61006. As a result, DOE proposed to amend Sec.  
429.37 so that the sampling plan would be applied to any EPS subject to 
energy conservation standards. DOE sought comment on this proposal to 
apply the sampling plan requirements to all EPSs subject to an energy 
conservation standard, regardless of whether they meet the Class A 
definition.
    AHAM agreed that there should not be differing class requirements 
between different types of EPSs and supported DOE's proposal to have 
one singular sampling plan for all products within the scope of the EPS 
standards. (AHAM, No.11 at p.3-4) The CA IOUs and NRDC

[[Page 51437]]

also agreed with DOE's proposal to unite all EPSs under the same 
sampling requirements that are currently outlined in the Class A EPS 
sampling plan in 429.37. (CA IOUs, No.16 at p.3; NRDC, et al., No. 18 
at p.2)
    ITI agreed that adopting one sampling plan may work for some but 
not all situations, citing the difference between DOE's sampling plans 
based on manufacturing volume and industry sampling plans. ITI 
recommended that DOE consider specific quality control documents 
typically used by industry to ensure an acceptable outgoing quality 
control level, optimize yield, and minimize cost. However, they did not 
outline specific instances where one sampling plan would be 
problematic. (ITI, No.10 at p.7)
    Based on the comments submitted by stakeholders, DOE has not found 
any technical reason that would prevent both Class A and non-Class A 
EPSs from being subject to the same sampling requirements. DOE's 
current Class A sampling requirements are consistent with the sampling 
plans of other consumer products. Therefore, DOE is amending 429.37 in 
this final rule to establish one sampling plan for EPSs.

K. Expanding Regulatory Text

    In the process of developing the EPS test procedure, DOE 
incorporated existing methodologies from a number of different standard 
setting organizations. For example, the single-voltage test procedure 
codified in Appendix Z references specific sections of the CEC's ``Test 
Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 
AC-DC and AC-AC Power Supplies (August 11, 2004)'' to outline how the 
active mode efficiency and no-load mode power consumption tests should 
be performed. Within these sections, there are two additional 
references to standards developed by IEC \9\ and the Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)\10\. Therefore, technicians 
must reference four separate documents published by four independent 
organizations in order to properly perform the functions required by 
the EPS test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ IEC 62301 Ed. 1.0, Household electrical appliances--
Measurement of standby power, June 2005.
    \10\ IEEE Std 1515-2000, IEEE Recommended Practice for 
Electronic Power Subsystems: Parameter Definitions, Test Conditions, 
and Test Methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) recognized the 
confusion associated with referencing multiple documents and amended 
their EPS test procedure \11\ to incorporate the text from Appendix Z 
directly. Rather than keep the references to the CEC procedure found in 
Appendix Z, however, the CSA adopted the text from the specific 
sections referenced by the DOE procedure. After reviewing the revised 
CSA procedure, DOE found that the new text is identical to the test 
procedure in Appendix Z, but greatly enhances the clarity of Appendix Z 
by consolidated the referenced text within the test procedure itself. 
DOE believes that these efforts have reduced the burden on stakeholders 
and technicians since the text referenced from the CEC procedure can 
now be found within a single document. Stakeholders agreed with this 
determination within the comments submitted for the test procedure 
NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CAN/CSA-C381.1, Test method for calculating the energy 
efficiency of single-voltage external ac-dc and ac-ac power 
supplies, (November 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM specifically commented that the DOE and CSA procedures are 
identical and if DOE wished to incorporate any language by reference it 
would be more appropriate to do so from a document published by a 
standard setting organization rather than one developed by a government 
contractor. (AHAM, No.11 at p.2-3) Since then, DOE has evaluated the 
merits of referencing the CSA test procedure directly rather than 
continuing to revise the CEC text with additional exceptions and 
clarifications.
    After further consideration, DOE is instead electing to incorporate 
the text previously incorporated by reference from the CEC's ``Test 
Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 
AC-DC and AC-AC Power Supplies (August 11, 2004)'' into Appendix Z of 
Subpart B to 10 CFR part 430. If DOE were to incorporate the CSA test 
procedure, it would still need to make certain clarifications based on 
the amendments adopted in this final rule, and the intent behind 
adopting one point of reference within the test procedure would be 
nullified. Technicians would still need to refer to multiple sources in 
order to follow the DOE EPS test procedure. Instead, DOE is adopting an 
approach identical to the one taken by the CSA during the 2013 revision 
of its test procedure such that multiple references can be consolidated 
into a single document. This approach will not alter the method used to 
determine the active mode efficiency or no-load power consumption in 
any way. Rather, it will directly insert the test methodology from the 
CEC test procedure into Appendix Z and eliminate the need for 
technicians to reference specific sections of that document. This 
revision will also allow DOE to modify the specific text within 
Appendix Z should the need arise in any future rulemakings rather than 
having to provide additional clarifications on the procedures detailed 
in the CEC test method.
    Any amendments DOE has codified within Appendix Z related to 
referenced CEC text will be incorporated into the language adopted in 
this final rule as well. For example, DOE will adopt nearly all of the 
text in the ``General Conditions for Measurement'' section of the CEC 
test procedure that was previously incorporated by reference, expect 
for those provisions in the section for which DOE had already codified 
exceptions. Specifically, this section of the CEC test procedure noted 
that EPSs are to be tested at both 115VAC, 60 Hz and 230VAC, 50 Hz. 
However, DOE codified language in the 2006 test procedure final rule 
that states that EPSs will only be tested at 115V, AC, 60Hz. So, 
although the text from this section is being adopted into Appendix Z as 
part of this final rule, DOE is modifying the specific language 
associated with the test voltages to align with the exceptions already 
codified in Appendix Z. All other similar instances are also reflected 
in the regulatory text. Since these clarifications to the referenced 
text were previously adopted for the EPS test procedure, the 
modifications to the text from the CEC procedure will not alter the way 
the test procedure is performed. DOE believes this approach will 
further reduce any confusion over the current EPS test procedure 
regulatory text, and is therefore adopting this approach as part of 
this final rule.

L. Effective Date and Compliance Date of Test Procedure

    The effective date for this test procedure is 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. At that time, the new metrics and 
any other measure of energy consumption relying on these metrics may be 
represented pursuant to the final rule. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 
6293(c), energy consumption or efficiency representations by 
manufacturers must be based on the new test procedure and sampling 
plans starting 180 days after the date of publication of this test 
procedure final rule. Starting on that date, any such representations, 
including those made on marketing materials, Web sites (including 
qualification with a voluntary or State program), and product labels 
must be based on results generated using the final rule procedure

[[Page 51438]]

as well as the sampling plan in 10 CFR part 429.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

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 (IFRA) 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 DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    For manufacturers of EPSs, the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
has set a size 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, 
30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (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/content/summary-size-standards-industry. EPS 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.
    DOE reviewed the final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. This final rule prescribes certain limited clarifying 
amendments to an already-existing test procedure that will help 
manufacturers and testing laboratories to consistently conduct that 
procedure when measuring the energy efficiency of an EPS, including in 
those instances where compliance with the applicable Federal energy 
conservation is being assessed. DOE has concluded that the final rule 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    Although DOE initially believed that there were no domestic 
manufacturers of EPS who qualify as small businesses, DOE conducted a 
further review to update its assessment. DOE's most recent small 
business search continued to show that the majority of EPS 
manufacturers are foreign-owned and -operated companies. Of the few 
that are domestically-owned, most are larger companies with more than 
500 employees. DOE's most recent search again showed that there are no 
small, domestic manufacturers of EPSs. Even if small domestic 
manufacturers of EPSs existed in the U.S., the nature of the revisions 
to the EPS test procedure make it unlikely that these changes would 
have created any additional certification costs that would cause 
adverse impacts to those manufacturers. Therefore, there are no small 
business impacts to evaluate for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act.
    In addition, DOE expects any potential impact from this final rule 
to be minimal. As noted earlier, DOE's EPS test procedure has existed 
since 2005 and the modest clarifications in the final rule are unlikely 
to create a burden on any manufacturers. These revisions harmonize the 
instrumentation resolution and uncertainty requirements with the second 
edition of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62301 
standard when measuring standby power along with other international 
standards programs. They also clarify certain testing set-up 
requirements. These updates will not increase the testing burden on EPS 
manufacturers.
    For these reasons, DOE certifies that this final rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of EPSs must certify to DOE that their products 
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying 
compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE 
test procedures for EPSs, including any amendments adopted for those 
test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification 
and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and 
commercial equipment, including EPSs. See 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. 
The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by 
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the 
certification is estimated to average 30 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.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    This rule amends the DOE test procedure for EPSs. DOE has 
determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are 
categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing 
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an 
existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of 
energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any environmental 
impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 
under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that 
interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the 
environmental effect of that rule.\12\ Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In its October 2014 proposal, DOE had inadvertently 
identified this exclusion as Category A6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 
implementing policies

[[Page 51439]]

or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined 
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State 
regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the 
subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from 
such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive 
Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final 
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that 
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate 
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, 
so these requirements do not apply.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,

[[Page 51440]]

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    This final rule incorporates testing methods contained in the 
following standard: IEC Standard 62301 ``Household electrical 
appliances--Measurement of standby power.'' It also incorporates a 
testing method developed by the State of California, section 1604(u)(1) 
of the CEC 2007 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. DOE has evaluated 
these testing standards and believes that the IEC standard was 
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, 
comment, and review. Additionally, DOE has consulted with the Attorney 
General and the Chairwoman of the FTC concerning the effect on 
competition of requiring manufacturers to use the test method in this 
standard and neither objected to its incorporation.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE is updating the incorporation by reference 
of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301 
(``IEC 62301''), (Edition 2.0, 2011-01), Household electrical 
appliances--Measurement of standby power, to add it to Appendix Z. This 
testing standard is an industry accepted test procedure that sets a 
standardized method to follow when measuring the standby power of 
household and similar electrical appliances. Included within this 
testing standard are the details regarding test set-up, testing 
conditions, and stability requirements that are necessary to help 
ensure consistent and repeatable test results. Copies of this testing 
standard are readily available from the IEC at https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/6789 and also from the American National Standards 
Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-
4900, or go to http://webstore.ansi.org.

N. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

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

10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 
below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.


0
2. Section 429.37 is amended by revising the section heading, and 
paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.37  External power supplies.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) External power supplies: The average active mode efficiency as 
a percentage (%), no-load mode power consumption in watts (W), 
nameplate output power in watts (W), and, if missing from the 
nameplate, the output current in amperes (A) of the basic model or the 
output current in amperes (A) of the highest- and lowest-voltage models 
within the external power supply design family.
    (ii) Switch-selectable single-voltage external power supplies: The 
average active mode efficiency as a percentage (%) value, no-load mode 
power consumption in watts (W) using the lowest and highest selectable 
output voltages, nameplate output power in watts (W), and, if missing 
from the nameplate, the output current in amperes (A).
    (iii) Adaptive single-voltage external power supplies: The average 
active-mode efficiency as a percentage (%) at the highest and lowest 
nameplate output voltages, no-load mode power consumption in watts (W), 
nameplate output power in watts (W) at the highest and lowest nameplate 
output voltages, and, if missing from the nameplate, the output current 
in amperes (A) at the highest and lowest nameplate output voltages.
    (iv) External power supplies that are exempt from no-load mode 
requirements under Sec.  430.32(w)(1)(iii) of this chapter: A statement 
that the product is designed to be connected to a security or life 
safety alarm or surveillance system component, the average active-mode 
efficiency as a percentage (%), the nameplate output power in watts 
(W), and if missing from the nameplate, the certification report must 
also include the output current in amperes (A) of the basic model or 
the output current in amperes (A) of the highest- and lowest-voltage 
models within the external power supply design family.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. Section 430.2 is amended by adding a definition for ``Adaptive 
external power supply (EPS)'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Adaptive external power supply (EPS) means an external power supply 
that can alter its output voltage during active-mode based on an 
established digital communication protocol with the

[[Page 51441]]

end-use application without any user-generated action.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (l);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (m) through (w) as paragraphs (l) through 
(v) respectively; and
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (p)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (4) IEC 62301 (``IEC 62301''), Household electrical appliances--
Measurement of standby power, (Edition 2.0, 2011-01), IBR approved for 
appendices C1, D1, D2, G, H, I, J2, N, O, P, X, X1 and Z to subpart B.
* * * * *

0
6. Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430 is amended:
0
a. By adding introductory text to Appendix Z.
0
b. By revising section 1., Scope.
0
c. In section 2, Definitions, by:
0
i. Redesignating paragraphs f. through x. as paragraphs h. through z.; 
and
0
ii. Adding new paragraphs f. and g.
0
d. In section 3, Test Apparatus and General Instructions, by:
0
i. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(i)(A);
0
ii. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(i)(B); and
0
iii. Removing paragraph (b)(i)(C).
0
e. In section 4, Test Measurement, by revising paragraphs (a)(i) and 
(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

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

    Starting on February 21, 2016, any representations made with 
respect to the energy use or efficiency of external power supplies must 
be made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this 
appendix. Prior to February 21, 2016, representations made with respect 
to the energy use or efficiency of external power supplies must be made 
in accordance with this appendix or Appendix Z as it appeared at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, Appendix Z as contained in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 
499 edition revised as of January 1, 2015. Because representations must 
be made in accordance with tests conducted pursuant to this appendix as 
of February 21, 2016, manufacturers may wish to begin using this test 
procedure as soon as possible.
1. Scope.
    This appendix covers the test requirements used to measure the 
energy consumption of direct operation external power supplies and 
indirect operation Class A external power supplies subject to the 
energy conservation standards set forth at Sec.  430.32(w)(1).
2. Definitions
* * * * *
    f. Average Active-Mode Efficiency means the average of the loading 
conditions (100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of its 
nameplate output current) for which it can sustain the output current.
    g. IEC 62301 means the test standard published by the International 
Electrotechnical Commission, titled ``Household electrical appliances--
Measurement of standby power,'' Publication 62301 (Edition 2.0 2011-01) 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
* * * * *
3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions
    (a) Single-Voltage External Power Supply.
    (i) Any power measurements recorded, as well as any power 
measurement equipment utilized for testing, shall conform to the 
uncertainty and resolution requirements outlined in Section 4, 
``General conditions for measurements,'' as well as Annexes B, ``Notes 
on the measurement of low power modes,'' and D, ``Determination of 
uncertainty of measurement,'' of IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; 
see Sec.  430.3).
    (ii) As is specified in IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  430.3), the tests shall be carried out in a room that has an air 
speed close to the unit under test (UUT) of <=0.5 m/s. The ambient 
temperature shall be maintained at 20  5 [deg]C throughout 
the test. There shall be no intentional cooling of the UUT by use of 
separately powered fans, air conditioners, or heat sinks. The UUT shall 
be tested on a thermally non-conductive surface. Products intended for 
outdoor use may be tested at additional temperatures, provided those 
are in addition to the conditions specified above and are noted in a 
separate section on the test report.
    (iii) If the UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage input 
in the United States, it shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. If the UUT 
is intended for operation on AC line-voltage input but cannot be 
operated at 115 V at 60 Hz, it shall not be tested. The input voltage 
shall be within 1 percent of the above specified voltage.
    (iv) The input voltage source must be capable of delivering at 
least 10 times the nameplate input power of the UUT as is specified in 
IEEE 1515-2000 (Referenced for guidance only, see Sec.  430.4). 
Regardless of the AC source type, the THD of the supply voltage when 
supplying the UUT in the specified mode must not exceed 2%, up to and 
including the 13th harmonic (as specified in IEC 62301). The peak value 
of the test voltage must be within 1.34 and 1.49 times its RMS value 
(as specified in IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3)).
    (v) Select all leads used in the test set-up as specified in Table 
B.2-- ``Commonly used values for wire gages and related voltage drops'' 
in IEEE 15152000.
    (b) * * *
(i) Verifying Accuracy and Precision of Measuring Equipment
    (A) Any power measurements recorded, as well as any power 
measurement equipment utilized for testing, must conform to the 
uncertainty and resolution requirements outlined in Section 4, 
``General conditions for measurements'', as well as Annexes B, ``Notes 
on the measurement of low power modes'', and D, ``Determination of 
uncertainty of measurement'', of IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; 
see Sec.  430.3).
    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
4. Test Measurement
    (a) * * *
(i) Standby Mode and Active-Mode Measurement.
    (A) Any built-in switch in the UUT controlling power flow to the AC 
input must be in the ``on'' position for this measurement, and note the 
existence of such a switch in the final test report. Test power 
supplies packaged for consumer use to power a product with the DC 
output cord supplied by the manufacturer. There are two options for 
connecting metering equipment to the output of this type of power 
supply: Cut the cord immediately adjacent to the DC output connector, 
or attach leads and measure the efficiency from the output connector 
itself. If the power supply is attached directly to the product that it 
is powering, cut the cord immediately adjacent to the powered product 
and connect DC measurement probes at that point. Any additional 
metering equipment such as voltmeters and/or ammeters used in 
conjunction with resistive or electronic loads must be

[[Page 51442]]

connected directly to the end of the output cable of the UUT. If the 
product has more than two output wires, including those that are 
necessary for controlling the product, the manufacturer must supply a 
connection diagram or test fixture that will allow the testing 
laboratory to put the unit under test into active-mode. Figure 1 
provides one illustration of how to set up an EPS for test; however, 
the actual test setup may vary pursuant to the requirements of this 
paragraph.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AU15.001

    (B) External power supplies must be tested in their final, 
completed configuration in order to represent their measured efficiency 
on product labels or specification sheets. Although the same procedure 
may be used to test the efficiency of a bare circuit board power supply 
prior to its incorporation into a finished housing and the attachment 
of its DC output cord, the efficiency of the bare circuit board power 
supply may not be used to characterize the efficiency of the final 
product (once enclosed in a case and fitted with a DC output cord). For 
example, a power supply manufacturer or component manufacturer may wish 
to assess the efficiency of a design that it intends to provide to an 
OEM for incorporation into a finished external power supply, but these 
results may not be used to represent the efficiency of the finished 
external power supply.
    (C) All single voltage external AC-DC power supplies have a 
nameplate output current. This is the value used to determine the four 
active-mode load conditions and the no load condition required by this 
test procedure. The UUT shall be tested at the following load 
conditions:

                        Table 1--Loading Conditions for a Single-Voltage Unit Under Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Percentage of Nameplate Output Current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Load Condition 1...........................  100% of Nameplate Output Current 2%.
Load Condition 2...........................  75% of Nameplate Output Current 2%.
Load Condition 3...........................  50% of Nameplate Output Current 2%.
Load Condition 4...........................  25% of Nameplate Output Current 2%.
Load Condition 5...........................  0%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2% allowance is of nameplate output current, not of the 
calculated current value. For example, a UUT at Load Condition 3 may be 
tested in a range from 48% to 52% of rated output current. Additional 
load conditions may be selected at the technician's discretion, as 
described in IEEE 1515-2000 (Referenced for guidance only, see Sec.  
430.4), but are not required by this test procedure. For Loading 
Condition 5, place the UUT in no-load mode, disconnect any additional 
signal connections to the UUT, and measure input power.
    1. Where the external power supply lists both an instantaneous and 
continuous output current, test the external power supply at the 
continuous condition only.
    2. If an external power supply cannot sustain output at one or more 
of loading conditions 1-4 as specified in Table 1, test the external 
power supply only at the loading conditions for which it can sustain 
output. In these cases, the average active mode efficiency is the 
average of the loading conditions for which it can sustain the output.

[[Page 51443]]

    (D) Test switch-selectable single-voltage external power supplies 
twice--once at the highest nameplate output voltage and once at the 
lowest.
    (E) Test adaptive external power supplies twice--once at the 
highest achievable output voltage and once at the lowest.
    (F) In order to load the power supply to produce all four active-
mode load conditions, use a set of variable resistive or electronic 
loads. Although these loads may have different characteristics than the 
electronic loads power supplies are intended to power, they provide 
standardized and readily repeatable references for testing and product 
comparison. Note that resistive loads need not be measured precisely 
with an ohmmeter; simply adjust a variable resistor to the point where 
the ammeter confirms that the desired percentage of nameplate output 
current is flowing. For electronic loads, adjust the desired output 
current in constant current (CC) mode rather than adjusting the 
required output power in constant power (CP) mode.
    (G) As noted in IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3), instantaneous measurements are appropriate when power readings 
are stable in a particular load condition. Operate the UUT at 100% of 
nameplate current output for at least 30 minutes immediately prior to 
conducting efficiency measurements. After this warm-up period, monitor 
AC input power for a period of 5 minutes to assess the stability of the 
UUT. If the power level does not drift by more than 5% from the maximum 
value observed, the UUT is considered stable and the measurements 
should be recorded at the end of the 5-minute period. Measure 
subsequent load conditions under the same 5-minute stability 
parameters. Note that only one warm-up period of 30 minutes is required 
for each UUT at the beginning of the test procedure. If the AC input 
power is not stable over a 5-minute period, follow the guidelines 
established by IEC 62301 for measuring average power or accumulated 
energy over time for both AC input and DC output. Conduct efficiency 
measurements in sequence from Load Condition 1 to Load Condition 5 as 
indicated in Table 1. If testing of additional, optional load 
conditions is desired, that testing should be conducted in accordance 
with this test procedure and subsequent to completing the sequence 
described above.
    (H) Calculate efficiency by dividing the UUT's measured DC output 
power at a given load condition by the true AC input power measured at 
that load condition. Calculate average efficiency as the arithmetic 
mean of the efficiency values calculated at Test Conditions 1, 2, 3, 
and 4 in Table 1, and record this value. Average efficiency for the UUT 
is a simple arithmetic average of active-mode efficiency values, and is 
not intended to represent weighted average efficiency, which would vary 
according to the duty cycle of the product powered by the UUT.
    (I) Power consumption of the UUT at each Load Condition 1-4 is the 
difference between the DC output power (W) at that Load Condition and 
the AC input power (W) at that Load Condition. The power consumption of 
Load Condition 5 (no load) is equal to the AC input power (W) at that 
Load Condition.
    (ii) Off-Mode Measurement--If the external power supply UUT 
incorporates manual on-off switches, place the UUT in off-mode, and 
measure and record its power consumption at ``Load Condition 5'' in 
Table 1. The measurement of the off-mode energy consumption must 
conform to the requirements specified in paragraph 4(a)(i) of this 
appendix, except that all manual on-off switches must be placed in the 
``off'' position for the off-mode measurement. The UUT is considered 
stable if, over 5 minutes with samples taken at least once every 
second, the AC input power does not drift from the maximum value 
observed by more than 1 percent or 50 milliwatts, whichever is greater. 
Measure the off-mode power consumption of a switch-selectable single-
voltage external power supply twice--once at the highest nameplate 
output voltage and once at the lowest.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 430.32 is amended by adding paragraph (w)(1)(iii) to read as 
follows:


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

    (w) * * *
    (1)* * *
    (iii) Except as provided in paragraphs (w)(5), (w)(6), and (w)(7) 
of this section, all external power supplies manufactured on or after 
February 10, 2016, shall meet the following standards:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Class A EPS                        Non-Class A EPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Operation EPS.................  Level VI: 10 CFR          Level VI: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii).
                                        430.32(w)(1)(ii).
Indirect Operation EPS...............  Level IV: 10 CFR          No Standards.
                                        430.32(w)(1)(i).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-20717 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P