[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52850-52933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20218]



[[Page 52849]]

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 169

September 1, 2015

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 430





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery 
Chargers; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 52850]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

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


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Battery Chargers

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 
(``EPCA'' or in context, ``the Act''), prescribes energy conservation 
standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and 
industrial equipment, including battery chargers. EPCA also requires 
the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'' or, in context, ``the 
Department'') to determine whether Federal energy conservation 
standards for a particular type of product or equipment would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and save a 
significant amount of energy. On March 27, 2012, DOE published a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to establish energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers. DOE received comments suggesting 
changes to DOE's proposed approach. To this end, this supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR'') updates and revises DOE's 
prior analysis by considering, among other things, the impacts 
attributable to standards issued by the California Energy Commission 
(CEC), along with accompanying data included in the CEC's compliance 
database. This notice also announces a public meeting to receive 
comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and 
results.

DATES: Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed 
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in 
the ADDRESSES section before October 1, 2015.
    DOE will hold a public meeting on September 15, 2015 from 9 a.m. to 
4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a 
webinar. See section VII, Public Participation, for webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
SNOPR before and after the public meeting, but no later than November 
2, 2015. See section VII, Public Participation, for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585.
    Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR on Energy 
Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers, and provide docket number 
EE-2008-BT-STD-0005 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-
AB57. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket 
number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic 
comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and 
avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.
    3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on 
a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include 
printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to 
include printed copies.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to 
[email protected].
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (Public 
Participation).
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 
index. However, some documents listed in the index may not be publicly 
available, such as those containing information that is exempt from 
public disclosure,
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx?productid=84. This Web page contains a link to the docket 
for this notice on the www.regulations.gov site. The 
www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to 
access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for further information on how 
to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] 
before October 1, 2015. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your 
email the title and Docket Number of this rulemaking notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email: 
[email protected].
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Summary
    A. Efficiency Distributions
    1. 2012 NOPR Efficiency Distributions
    2. SNOPR Efficiency Distributions
    B. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    C. Impact on Manufacturers
    D. National Benefits and Costs
    E. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority

[[Page 52851]]

    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers
III. General Discussion
    A. Test Procedure
    B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    E. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Products Included in this Rulemaking
    2. Market Assessment
    3. Product Classes
    4. Technology Assessment
    B. Screening Analysis
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Representative Units
    2. Battery Charger Efficiency Metrics
    3. Calculation of Unit Energy Consumption
    4. Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels
    5. Test and Teardowns
    6. Manufacturer Interviews
    7. Design Options
    8. Cost Model
    9. Battery Charger Engineering Results
    10. Scaling of Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels
    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    1. Product Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    6. Product Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Sectors Analyzed
    9. Base Case Market Efficiency Distribution
    10. Compliance Date
    11. Payback Period Inputs
    G. Shipments Analysis
    1. Shipment Growth Rate
    2. Product Class Lifetime
    3. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases
    H. National Impacts Analysis
    1. Product Price Trends
    2. Unit Energy Consumption and Savings
    3. Unit Costs
    4. Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit
    5. Energy Prices
    6. National Energy Savings
    7. Discount Rates
    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Manufacturer Production Costs
    2. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    3. Comments from Interested Parties Related to Battery Chargers
    4. Manufacturer Interviews
    K. Emissions Analysis
    L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
    O. Marking Requirements
    P. Reporting Requirements
V. Analytical Results
    A. Trial Standards Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
    3. National Impact Analysis
    4. Impact on Utility and Performance of the Products
    5. Impact on Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusions
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Battery Chargers
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    3. Stakeholder Comments on Standards Proposed in NOPR
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    3. Duplication, Overlap and Conflict with Other Rules and 
Regulations
    4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (``EPCA'' or in context, ``the Act''), Public Law 94-163 (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.\2\ These products 
include battery chargers, the subject of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical 
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must 
result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 
EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any 
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either 
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to 
be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed 
energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
    DOE had previously proposed to establish new energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers in March 2012. See 77 FR 18478 (March 
27, 2012). Since the publication of that proposal, the State of 
California finalized new energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers sold within that State. See 45Z Cal. Reg. 1663, 1664 (Nov. 9, 
2012) (summarizing proposed regulations and their final effective 
dates). Those new standards were not factored into DOE's analysis 
supporting its initial battery charger proposal. To assess whether 
DOE's proposal would satisfy the requirements under 42 U.S.C. 6295, DOE 
revisited its analysis in light of these new California standards. As a 
result, DOE is proposing new energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers. The revised proposal would provide a set of maximum annual 
energy consumption levels expressed as a function of battery energy. 
These proposed standards are shown in Table I-1.
    These new standards, if adopted, would apply to all products listed 
in Table I-1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States 
starting on the date corresponding to two years after the publication 
of the final rule for this rulemaking.

[[Page 52852]]



                     Table I-1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Proposed standard as a function of battery
            Product class                Product class description                 energy  (kWh/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................  Low-Energy, Inductive          3.04
                                        Connection.
2....................................  Low-Energy, Low-Voltage <4V..  0.1440 * Ebatt + 2.95
3....................................  Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage 4-  For Ebatt <10Wh, 1.42 kWh/y
                                        10 V.                         Ebatt >=10 Wh,
                                                                      0.0255 * Ebatt + 1.16
4....................................  Low-Energy, High-Voltage >10V  0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18
5....................................  Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage     For Ebatt < 19 Wh,
                                        <20 V.                        1.32 kWh/yr
                                                                      For Ebatt >= 19 Wh,
                                                                      0.0257 * Ebatt + .815
6....................................  Medium-Energy, High-Voltage    For Ebatt < 18 Wh
                                        >=20 V.                       3.88 kWh/yr
                                                                      For Ebatt >= 18 Wh
                                                                      0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4
7....................................  High-Energy..................  0.0502 * Ebatt + 4.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Efficiency Distributions

    To evaluate the potential impacts of standards, DOE develops a base 
case efficiency forecast, which represents DOE's estimate of the future 
state of the market with respect to efficiency if energy conservation 
standards for the units covered under this rulemaking are not adopted. 
DOE estimated the efficiency distributions for the base year 2013 in 
the original battery charger NOPR (published March 27, 2012), and 
updated the distributions based on new market conditions for the base 
year 2018 in today's SNOPR.
1. 2012 NOPR Efficiency Distributions
    In the battery charger NOPR that was published March 27, 2012, DOE 
determined the base case efficiency distribution using test data from 
224 models, which enabled application-specific efficiency distributions 
to be developed for most product classes. For some product classes, 
there were insufficient test data, and the efficiency distributions 
were based on manufacturer interviews. DOE further assumed that the 
influence of two battery charger programs active at the time (ENERGY 
STAR and EU Ecodesign requirements) would shift some of the historical 
market share away from baseline efficiency to more efficient CSLs. In 
January 2012, the CEC standards on battery chargers were announced with 
an effective date of February 1, 2013. To account for this 
announcement, DOE assumed that the fraction of battery chargers sold in 
California (assumed to equal California's share of US GDP, or 13%) 
would shift away from baseline efficiency to CSLs that approximated CEC 
standard levels. The market change was assumed to be a ``roll-up'', 
such that the market responds to standards by improving those products 
that do not meet the standards to the standard level, but no higher, 
while the products that were already as or more efficient than the 
standard remain unaffected. No further changes in the base-case 
efficiency distributions were assumed to occur after the first year of 
the analysis.
    The following table summarizes the efficiency distribution 
assumptions for each product class in the 2012 NOPR analysis. For 
reference, the table also includes the Unit Energy Consumption (UEC) of 
the representative unit defining each CSL from the NOPR engineering 
analysis (see section IV.C.1 and IV.C.2), and estimated shipments in 
2018 from the NOPR shipments analysis.

                                      Table I-2--Base Case 2012 NOPR Estimated Efficiency Distributions in 2013 \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                     Estimated shipments
             Product class                                            CSL 0        CSL 1        CSL 2        CSL 3        CSL 4            in 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..          78%          11%          11%           0%          N/A            16,150,369
                                        UEC......................         8.73          6.1         3.04         1.29          N/A
2.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..          18%          22%          57%           3%           0%           266,339,577
                                        UEC......................         8.66         6.47         2.86         1.03         0.81
3.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..          17%          62%          21%           0%          N/A            24,664,587
                                        UEC......................         11.9         4.68         0.79         0.75          N/A
4.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..           9%          39%          52%           0%          N/A            65,163,723
                                        UEC......................        37.73         9.91         4.57         3.01          N/A
5.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..          28%          52%           7%          13%          N/A             5,204,768
                                        UEC......................         84.6        56.09        29.26        15.35          N/A
6.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..          36%          29%          22%          13%          N/A               667,039
                                        UEC......................        120.6         81.7         38.3        16.79          N/A
7.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..          44%          57%           0%          N/A          N/A               225,271
                                        UEC......................       255.05       191.74       131.44          N/A          N/A
8.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..          50%          40%          10%           0%          N/A            69,745,891
                                        UEC......................          0.9         0.66         0.24         0.19          N/A
9.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..          25%          50%          25%          N/A          N/A            10,249,869
                                        UEC......................         0.79         0.26         0.13          N/A          N/A
10....................................  Efficiency Distribution..          87%           0%           0%          13%          N/A             8,556,487
                                        UEC......................        19.27         6.13            4          1.5          N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This information was taken from DOE's NOPR that was issued on March 27, 2012.


[[Page 52853]]

2. SNOPR Efficiency Distributions
    For the SNOPR analysis considered in today's action, DOE assumed 
that the CEC standards, effective since February 1, 2013, had moved the 
market not just in California, but nationally as well. To reach this 
conclusion, DOE solicited stakeholder comments through a Request for 
Information published on March 26, 2013, conducted additional 
manufacturer interviews, and performed its own examination of the 
efficiency of products sold nationally. In response to the RFI, many 
commenters indicated that there was evidence that the market had 
accepted the CEC standards and that technology improvements were made 
to meet the CEC standards. DOE found products available for sale in 
physical locations outside of California and available for sale online 
that met CEC standards, and had the accompanying CEC efficiency mark on 
them. Finally, additional manufacturer interviews supported the view 
that the majority of products sold in California (and thus meeting CEC 
standards) were sold nationally as well.
    Therefore, DOE re-developed its efficiency distribution analysis, 
and based it on the CEC database of certified small battery chargers 
(downloaded in November 2014 and containing 12652 unique models). Each 
model was assigned an estimated product class and application based off 
its battery characteristics. Application-specific efficiency 
distributions were then developed using the reported energy performance 
for each model in that application. If an application had less than 20 
identified models, it was assigned the efficiency distribution of the 
overall product class. Due to slight variations between CEC and DOE 
metrics, products were conservatively assigned to the higher CSL (in 
order to not overstate savings) when their UECs were within 5% of the 
next highest CSL compliance line compared to the distance between the 
compliance lines of the higher and lower CSLs.
    The SNOPR analysis acknowledges, however, that units not complying 
with CEC standards can still be sold outside of California, but assumed 
the percentage of such units is small. For this analysis, DOE 
conservatively assumed 5% of units sold nationally do not meet CEC 
standards. To account for this, each application's efficiency 
distribution was multiplied by 95%, and then 5% was added to the CSL 
below the CEC approximate CSL. These became the base case efficiency 
distributions shown in the table below. No further changes in the base-
case efficiency distributions were assumed to occur after the first 
year of the analysis. It is important to note that the CSLs were 
redefined in the SNOPR analysis, and do not perfectly match those in 
the NOPR analysis. This was done based on additional testing conducted 
for some product classes and to have a CSL that is a closer 
approximation to the CEC standard levels. For reference, the table 
below also lists the tested UECs defining each CSL from the SNOPR 
engineering analysis and the estimated shipments in 2018 from the SNOPR 
shipments analysis.

                                          Table I-3--Base Case SNOPR Estimated Efficiency Distributions in 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                     Estimated shipments
             Product class                                            CSL 0        CSL 1        CSL 2        CSL 3        CSL 4            in 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..           7%          56%          33%           4%          N/A            15,772,035
                                        UEC......................         8.73          6.1         3.04         1.29          N/A
2.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..           9%          42%           9%          15%          25%           400,052,285
                                        UEC......................         5.33         3.09         1.69         1.58         1.11
3.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..           6%          35%           2%          58%          N/A            27,088,679
                                        UEC......................         3.65         1.42         0.74          0.7          N/A
4.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..           6%           8%          12%          74%          N/A            80,146,173
                                        UEC......................        12.23         5.38         3.63         3.05          N/A
5.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..           0%           5%          95%           0%          N/A             4,717,743
                                        UEC......................         88.1         58.3        21.39         9.45          N/A
6.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..           0%           5%          95%           0%          N/A               668,489
                                        UEC......................       120.71        81.82        33.53         16.8          N/A
7.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..          80%          20%           0%          N/A          N/A               238,861
                                        UEC......................       255.05       191.74       131.44          N/A          N/A
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..
                                        UEC......................
9.....................................  Efficiency Distribution..  No longer in scope
                                        UEC......................
10....................................  Efficiency Distribution..
                                        UEC......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support the assumption that 95% of the national market meets CEC 
standard levels, DOE examined the top-selling products for various BC 
applications at several national online and brick & mortar retailers 
(with an online portal). These represent products sold not just in 
California, but available nationally. DOE focused its search on the 
top-selling 20 products (separately for each retailer) in applications 
with the highest shipments. DOE also looked at products in a variety of 
product classes. The applications examined cover over 50% of all 
battery charger shipments. If the battery charger model number was 
found in the CEC's database of certified products, or if the product 
was available for sale or pick-up in a physical store in California, 
then the product was assumed to meet CEC standard levels. Over 90% of 
products in each application examined met CEC standard levels (these 
results are lower bounds since battery charger model numbers were not 
always available). These results are therefore consistent with DOE's 
assumption that 95% of the national market for battery chargers meets 
the CEC standards. The table below summarizes the results of DOE's 
market examination.

[[Page 52854]]



                    Table I-4--Summary of DOE Market Examination of CEC Units by Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Percentage of
                                                        Percentage of                           models examined
           Application               Product class         total BC      Retailers examined *   in cec database
                                                         shipments in                              or sold in
                                                       application  (%)                         California  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smartphones......................                  2                 21  Amazon, Best Buy,                   100
                                                                          Sears.
Media Tablets....................                  2                  8  Amazon, Best Buy,                    93
                                                                          Sears.
MP3 Players......................                  2                  8  Amazon, Best Buy,                    93
                                                                          Sears.
Notebook Computers...............                  4                  8  Amazon, Best Buy,                    93
                                                                          Sears.
Digital Cameras..................                  2                  6  Amazon, Best Buy,                    97
                                                                          Sears.
Power Tools (includes DIY and                2, 3, 4                  2  Amazon, Home Depot,                  90
 professional).                                                           Sears.
Toy Ride-On Vehicles.............               3, 5                  1  Walmart, Toys R Us..                 93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I-5 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
proposed standards on consumers of battery chargers, as measured by the 
average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period 
(``PBP'').\3\ The average LCC savings are positive for all product 
classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of battery 
chargers, which is estimated to be between 3.5 and 9.7 years, depending 
on product class (see section IV.F.5). For comparative purposes, Table 
I-5 also presents the results from the NOPR for battery chargers. See 
77 FR 18478 (March 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The average LCC savings are measured relative to the base-
case efficiency distribution, which depicts the market in the 
compliance year in the absence of standards (see section IV.F.9). 
The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency 
levels, is measured relative to the baseline model (see section 
IV.F.11).

          Table I-5--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Average LCC savings        Simple payback period (years)      Average
          Product class          ----------------------------------------------------------------    lifetime
                                   NOPR (2010$)    SNOPR (2013$)       NOPR            SNOPR          (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1--Low E, Inductive...........            1.52            0.71             1.7             1.5             5.0
PC2--Low E, Low Voltage.........            0.16            0.07             0.5             0.6             4.0
PC3--Low E, Medium Voltage......            0.35            0.08             3.9             0.8             4.9
PC4--Low E, High Voltage........            0.43            0.11             3.0             1.4             3.7
PC5--Medium E, Low Voltage......           33.79            0.84             0.0             2.7             4.0
PC6--Medium E, High Voltage.....           40.78            1.89             0.0             1.1             9.7
PC7--High E.....................           38.26           51.06             0.0             0.0             3.5
PC 8--DC-DC, <9V Input..........            3.04  ..............             0.0  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: As described in section IV.A.3 of this notice, the standards proposed in this SNOPR no longer consider
  product classes 8 and 10. Products that were found in product class 8 of the NOPR analysis were redistributed
  among other product classes for the SNOPR, and product class 10 was removed from consideration. Therefore, for
  comparison between the NOPR and SNOPR analyses, the results for product class 8 are included in the table
  above, while results for product class 10 are excluded.

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
consumers is described in section IV.F of this notice.

C. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted 
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the 
analysis period (2015 to 2047). Using a real discount rate of 9.1 
percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of battery 
chargers in the base case is $79,904 million in 2013$. Under the 
proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 0.7 
percent of the INPV, which is approximately -$529 million. 
Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the domestic manufacturers 
of battery chargers, DOE does not expect any plant closings or 
significant loss of employment.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this notice.

D. National Benefits and Costs \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2013 
dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation 
standards would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the 
base case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for 
battery chargers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
anticipated year of compliance with the new standards (2018-2047) 
amount to 0.170 quadrillion Btu (quads).\5\ This represents a savings 
of 11.2 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the 
base case (i.e. without standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A quad is equal to 10 \15\ British thermal units (Btu).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 
savings of the proposed standards ranges from $0.6 billion (at a 7-
percent discount rate) to $1.2 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). 
This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost 
savings minus the estimated increased product costs for battery 
chargers purchased in 2018-2047.
    In addition, the proposed standards for battery chargers would have 
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed 
standards would result in cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emission 
reductions of approximately 10.45 million metric tons

[[Page 52855]]

(Mt) \6\ of carbon dioxide (CO2), 8.92 thousand tons of 
sulfur dioxide (SO2), 15.41 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), 44.8 thousand tons of methane, 0.137 thousand tons of 
nitrous oxide (N2), and 0.027 tons of mercury (Hg).\3\ The 
cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions through 2030 amounts 
to 4.3 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the 
annual electricity use of approximately half a million homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons. 3 
DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the base case, which 
reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO2014) 
Reference case, which generally represents current legislation and 
environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were 
available as of October 31, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The value of the CO2 reductions is calculated using a 
range of values per metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 
the Social Cost of Carbon, or ``SCC'') developed by a Federal 
interagency process.\7\ The derivation of the SCC values is discussed 
in section IV.M. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC 
values (see Table I-6), DOE estimates that the net present monetary 
value of the CO2 emissions reductions (not including 
CO2 equivalent emissions of other gases with global warming 
potential) is between $0.084 billion and $1.114 billion, with a value 
of $0.362 billion using the central SCC case represented by $40.5/t in 
2015. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the 
NOX emissions reduction is $13.65 million at a 7-percent 
discount rate, and $24.43 million at a 3-percent discount rate.\8\
    Table I-6 summarizes the national economic benefits and costs 
expected to result from the proposed standards for battery chargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working 
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; 
revised November 2013. (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.)
    \8\ DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided 
SO2 and Hg emissions.

 Table I-6--Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed
      Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers (TSL 2) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Present value
                Category                    (billion      Discount rate
                                             2013$)            (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........            0.7               7
                                                   1.4               3
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t             0.1               5
 case) **..............................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t             0.4               3
 case) **..............................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t             0.6               2.5
 case) **..............................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t              1.1               3
 case) **..............................
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at                  0.01              7
 $2,684/ton) **........................
                                                   0.02              3
Total Benefits [dagger]................            1.1               7
                                                   1.8               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Installed Costs...            0.1               7
                                                   0.2               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including Emissions Reduction Monetized           *1.0               7
 Value[dagger].........................
                                                   1.6               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with battery
  chargers shipped in 2018-2047. These results include benefits to
  consumers which accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018-
  2047. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs
  incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be
  incurred in preparation for the rule.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in
  2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The
  first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated
  using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case
  represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated
  using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an
  escalation factor. The value for NOx is the average of high and low
  values found in the literature.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using
  the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate
  ($40.5/t case).


  Table I-7--Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Energy
    Conservation Standards Proposed in the NOPR for Battery Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Present value
                Category                     (billion      Discount rate
                                              2010$)            (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........           3.815               7
                                                   7.007               3
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($4.9/t              0.208               5
 case) *................................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $22.3/           1.025               3
 t case) *..............................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $36.5/           1.720             2.5
 t case) *..............................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $67.6/           3.127               3
 t case) *..............................

[[Page 52856]]

 
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,537/          0.036               7
 ton) *.................................
                                                   0.065               3
Total Benefits **.......................           4.876               7
                                                   8.097               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Installed Costs              -1.435               7
 [Dagger]...............................
                                                  -2.402               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Net Benefits/Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including Emissions Reduction Monetized            6.311               7
 Value **...............................
                                                  10.498               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: As described in section IV.A.3 of this notice, the standards
  proposed in this SNOPR no longer consider product classes 8 and 10.
  Products that were found in product class 8 of the NOPR analysis were
  redistributed among other product classes for the SNOPR, and product
  class 10 was removed from consideration. Therefore, for comparison
  between the NOPR and SNOPR analyses, the results for product class 8
  are included in the table above, while results for product class 10
  are excluded.
* These values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of
  CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9,
  $22.3 and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions
  calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The
  value of $67.6 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC
  distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX
  (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's
  NOPR analysis.
** Total Benefits and Net Benefits/Costs for both the 3% and 7% cases
  utilize the central estimate of social cost of CO2 emissions
  calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is equal to $22.3/ton in 2010
  (in 2010$).
[Dagger] Consumer Incremental Installed Costs represent the total
  present value (in 2010$) of costs borne by consumers due to increased
  manufacturing costs from efficiency improvements. The incremental
  product costs for battery chargers are negative because of an assumed
  shift in technology from linear power supplies to switch mode power
  for the larger battery chargers in product classes 5, 6, and 7. For
  more details, see chapter 5 of the NOPR Technical Support Document.

    For comparative purposes, Table I-7 summarizes the national 
economic benefits and costs for the standards proposed in the March 27, 
2012, NOPR for battery chargers shipped in 2013-2042. For the 
comparison between the NOPR and SNOPR analyses, products that were 
found in product class 8 of the NOPR analysis were redistributed among 
other product classes for the SNOPR, and product class 10 was removed 
from consideration in the SNOPR. As the CEC standards were effective 
since February 1, 2013, DOE did not specifically consider the NPV of 
costs and benefits of achieving the CEC efficiency levels in the 2012 
NOPR for the California market. For the SNOPR, DOE assumed that the CEC 
standards had moved the market not just in California, but for the 
remainder of the country. DOE therefore only considered the NPV of 
costs and benefits of going beyond the where the market efficiency 
levels had moved in response to the CEC standards, across the entire 
U.S. See 77 FR 18478 (March 27, 2012).
    The benefits and costs of the today's proposed standards, for 
products sold in 2018-2047, can also be expressed in terms of 
annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) 
the annualized national economic value of the benefits from consumer 
operation of products that meet the new standards (consisting primarily 
of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in 
product purchase prices and installation costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of 
the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 emission 
reductions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2015, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from 
each year to 2015. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 
percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of 
CO2 reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount 
rates, as shown in Table I.3. Using the present value, DOE then 
calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting 
in the compliance year, which yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 emission reductions provides a useful perspective, two 
issues should be considered. First, the national operating cost savings 
are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions, whereas the value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods 
that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating 
cost savings is measured for the lifetime of battery chargers shipped 
in 2018-2047. Because CO2 emissions have a very long 
residence time in the atmosphere,\10\ the SCC values after 2050 reflect 
future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 
CO2 that continue beyond 2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of 
the order of 30-95 years. Jacobson, MZ (2005). ``Correction to 
`Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, 
possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming,''' J. 
Geophys. Res. 110. pp. D14105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards are shown in Table I-8. The results under the primary 
estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits 
and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-
percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a 
value of $40.5/ton in 2015, the cost of the standards in this rule is 
$9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated 
annual benefits are $68 million per year in reduced equipment operating 
costs, $20 million in CO2 reductions, and $1.26 million in 
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts 
to $80 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 
benefits and costs and the SCC series corresponding to a value of 
$40.5/ton in 2015, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $10 
million per year in increased equipment costs, while the

[[Page 52857]]

estimated annual benefits are $75 million per year in reduced operating 
costs, $20 million in CO2 reductions, and $1.32 million in 
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts 
to $86 million per year.
    For comparative purposes, Table I-9 presents the annualized results 
from the March 27, 2012, NOPR for battery chargers shipped in 2013-
2042. For the comparison between the NOPR and SNOPR analyses, products 
that were found in product class 8 of the NOPR analysis were 
redistributed among other product classes for the SNOPR, and product 
class 10 was removed from consideration in the SNOPR. As the CEC 
standards were effective since February 1, 2013, DOE did not 
specifically consider the annualized costs and benefits of achieving 
the CEC efficiency levels in the 2012 NOPR for the California market. 
For the SNOPR, DOE assumed that the CEC standards had moved the market 
not just in California, but for the remainder of the country. DOE 
therefore only considered the annualized costs and benefits of going 
beyond where the market efficiency levels had moved in response to the 
CEC standards, across the entire U.S. See 77 FR 18478 (March 27, 2012).

 Table I-8--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers (TSL 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         (Million 2013$/year)
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                   Discount rate (%)                       Low net benefits    High net benefits
                                                      Primary estimate *      estimate *          estimate *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.  7.................  68................  68................  69
                                  3.................  75................  74................  76
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     5.................  6.................  6.................  6
 ($12.0/t case) *.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     3.................  20................  20................  20
 ($40.5/t case) *.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     2.5...............  28................  28................  28
 ($62.4/t case) *.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     3.................  60................  60................  60
 ($119/t case) *.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value     7.................  1.26..............  1.26..............  1.26
 (at $2,684/ton) **.              3.................  1.32..............  1.32..............  1.32
    Total Benefits [dagger].....  7 plus CO2 range..  76 to 130.........  75 to 130.........  76 to 131
                                  7.................  89................  89................  90
                                  3 plus CO2 range..  82 to 136.........  82 to 136.........  83 to 138
                                  3.................  96................  95................  97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product      7.................  9.................  9.................  6
 Costs.                           3.................  10................  10................  6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger]..................  7 plus CO2 range..  66 to 120.........  66 to 120.........  70 to 124
                                  7.................  80................  79................  84
                                  3 plus CO2 range..  73 to 127.........  72 to 126.........  77 to 132
                                  3.................  86................  86................  91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2018-2047.
  These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018-2047.
  The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the
  standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High
  Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the Annual Energy Outlook for 2014 (``AEO2014'')
  Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. Additionally, the High
  Benefits Estimates include a price trend on the incremental product costs.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the
  updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and
  2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution
  calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOx
  is the average of high and low values found in the literature.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average
  SCC with a 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t case). In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2
  range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values
  are added to the full range of CO2 values.


   Table I-9--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Energy Conservation Standards Proposed in the NOPR for Battery
                                                    Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Monetized (Million 2010$/year)
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                     Discount rate                         Low net benefits    High net benefits
                                                      Primary estimate *      estimate *          estimate *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.  7%................  352.0.............  335.4.............  368.6
                                  3%................  379.2.............  359.8.............  399.2

[[Page 52858]]

 
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     5%................  14.9..............  14.9..............  14.9
 ($4.9/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     3%................  55.5..............  55.5..............  55.5
 ($22.3/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     2.5%..............  86.3..............  86.3..............  86.3
 ($36.5/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     3%................  169.3.............  169.3.............  169.3
 ($67.6/t case) **.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value     7%................  3.3...............  3.3...............  3.3
 ($2,537/ton) **.
                                  3%................  3.5...............  3.5...............  3.5
    Total Benefits                7% plus CO2 range.  370.2 to 524.6....  353.6 to 508.0....  386.9 to 541.2
     [dagger][dagger].
                                  7%................  410.8.............  394.2.............  427.4
                                  3%................  438.2.............  418.8.............  458.2
                                  3% plus CO2 range.  397.7 to 552.1....  378.2 to 532.6....  417.7 to 572.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product      7%................  (132.4)...........  (132.4)...........  (132.4)
 Costs [dagger].
                                  3%................  (130.0)...........  (130.0)...........  (130.0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total [dagger][dagger]......  7% plus CO2 range.  502.7 to 657.0....  486.1 to 640.4....  519.3 to 673.6
                                  7%................  543.2.............  526.6.............  559.8
                                  3%................  568.2.............  548.8.............  588.2
                                  3% plus CO2 range.  527.7 to 682.0....  508.2 to 662.6....  547.7 to 702.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: As described in section IV.A.3 of this notice, the standards proposed in this SNOPR no longer consider
  product classes 8 and 10. Products that were found in product class 8 of the NOPR analysis were redistributed
  among other product classes for the SNOPR, and product class 10 was removed from consideration. Therefore, for
  comparison between the NOPR and SNOPR analyses, the results for product class 8 are included in the table
  above, while results for product class 10 are excluded.
* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2042 from the products purchased from 2013
  through 2042. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2013 in preparation for
  the rule, are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High
  Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High
  Estimate, respectively.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under
  several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions
  calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per
  ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The
  value for NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's NOPR analysis.
[dagger] The incremental product costs for battery chargers are negative because of an assumed shift in
  technology from linear power supplies to switch mode power for the larger battery chargers in product classes
  5, 6, and 7. For more details, see chapter 5 of the NOPR Technical Support Document.
[dagger][dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value
  calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as ``7%
  plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the
  labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

    DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is 
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this SNOPR.

E. Conclusion

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

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of standards for 
battery chargers. Generally, battery chargers are power conversion 
devices that transform input voltage to a suitable voltage for the 
battery they are powering. A portion of

[[Page 52859]]

the energy that flows into a battery charger flows out to a battery 
and, thus, cannot be considered to be consumed by the battery charger.

A. Authority

    Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975, as amended (``EPCA'' or in context ``the Act''), Public Law 94-
163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,\11\ 
a program covering most major household appliances (collectively 
referred to as ``covered products'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 309 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (``EISA 
2007'') amended EPCA by directing DOE to prescribe, by rule, 
definitions and test procedures for the power use of battery chargers 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)), and to issue a final rule that prescribes 
energy conservation standards for battery chargers or classes of 
battery chargers or to determine that no energy conservation standard 
is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(1)(E))
    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered 
products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; 
(3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) 
certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the 
remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, 
DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy 
efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each 
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) Manufacturers of 
covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the 
basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the 
applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when 
making representations to the public regarding the energy use or 
efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) 
Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the 
products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for battery chargers appear at title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, 
appendix X.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new and 
amended standards for covered products. Any new or amended standard for 
a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement 
in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may 
not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not 
prescribe a standard: (1) for certain products, including battery 
chargers, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or 
(2) if DOE determines by rule that the new or amended standard is not 
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven statutory factors:
    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
    3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe a 
new or amended standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).
    Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when 
promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that 
has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard 
level for a type or class of products that has the same function or 
intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) 
Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered 
products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on 
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(2))
    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d).
    Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in EISA 2007, any 
final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated 
after July 1, 2010 is required to address standby mode and off mode 
energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg) (3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a 
standard for a covered product after that date, it must,

[[Page 52860]]

if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into 
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate 
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures and proposed 
standards for battery chargers address standby mode and off mode energy 
use.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    Currently, there are no Federal energy conservation standards that 
apply to battery chargers.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers
    Section 135 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58 
(Aug. 8, 2005), amended sections 321 and 325 of EPCA by defining the 
term ``battery charger.'' That provision also directed DOE to prescribe 
definitions and test procedures related to the energy consumption of 
battery chargers and to issue a final rule that determines whether to 
set energy conservation standards for battery chargers or classes of 
battery chargers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(A) and (E))
    On December 8, 2006, DOE complied with the first of these 
requirements by publishing a final rule that prescribed test procedures 
for a variety of products. 71 FR 71340, 71365-71375. That rule, which 
was codified in multiple sections of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR), included a definition and test procedure for battery chargers. 
The test procedure for these products is found in 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, Appendix Y (``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy 
Consumption of Battery Chargers'').
    On December 19, 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''). Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 
2007). Section 309 of EISA 2007 amended section 325(u)(1)(E) of EPCA by 
directing DOE to issue a final rule that prescribes energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers or classes of battery chargers or to 
determine that no energy conservation standard is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E))
    Finally, section 310 of EISA 2007 established definitions for 
active, standby, and off modes, and directed DOE to amend its test 
procedures for battery chargers to include a means to measure the 
energy consumed in standby mode and off mode. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(B)(i)) Consequently, DOE published a final rule 
incorporating standby- and off-mode measurements into the DOE test 
procedure. 74 FR 13318, 13334-13336 (March 27, 2009) Additionally, DOE 
amended the test procedure for battery chargers to include an active 
mode measurement. 76 FR 31750 (June 1, 2011).
    DOE initiated its current rulemaking effort for these products by 
issuing the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document 
for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies (the Framework 
Document). See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-
BT-STD-0005-0005. The Framework Document explained the issues, 
analyses, and process DOE anticipated using to develop energy 
conservation standards for those products. DOE also published a notice 
announcing the availability of the Framework Document, announcing a 
public meeting to discuss the proposed analytical framework, and 
inviting written comments concerning the development of standards for 
battery chargers and external power supplies (EPSs). 74 FR 26816 (June 
4, 2009). DOE held the Framework Document public meeting on July 16, 
2009. Manufacturers, trade associations, environmental advocates, 
regulators, and other interested parties attended the meeting and 
submitted comments.
    On September 15, 2010, having considered comments from interested 
parties, gathered additional information, and performed preliminary 
analyses for the purpose of developing potential amended energy 
conservation standards for Class A EPSs and new energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers and non-Class A EPSs, DOE announced a 
public meeting and the availability on its Web site of a preliminary 
technical support document (preliminary TSD). 75 FR 56021. The 
preliminary TSD is available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0031. The preliminary TSD 
discussed the comments DOE received at the framework stage of this 
rulemaking and described the actions DOE took in response to those 
comments. That document also described in detail the analytical 
framework DOE used, and the content and results of DOE's preliminary 
analyses. Id. at 56023-56024. DOE convened the public meeting to 
discuss and receive comments on: (1) The product classes DOE analyzed, 
(2) the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE was using to 
evaluate potential standards, (3) the results of the preliminary 
analyses performed by DOE, (4) potential standard levels that DOE might 
consider, and (5) other issues participants believed were relevant to 
the rulemaking. Id. at 56021, 56024. DOE also invited written comments 
on these matters. The public meeting took place on October 13, 2010. 
Many interested parties participated, twelve of whom submitted written 
comments during the comment period; two additional parties filed 
comments following the close of the formal comment period.
    After considering all of these comments, DOE published its notice 
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''). 77 FR 18478 (March 27, 2012). DOE 
also released the NOPR TSD, which incorporated the analyses DOE 
conducted and accompanying technical documentation. The TSD included 
the LCC spreadsheet, the national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet, 
and the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) spreadsheet--all of which 
are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0005-0070. In the March 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed new energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers as follows:

   Table II-1--NOPR Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Battery
                                Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Proposed standard as
         Product class            Product class    a function of battery
                                   description        energy (kWh/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  Low-Energy,        3.04
                                 Inductive.
2.............................  Low-Energy, Low-   0.2095 * (Ebatt) +
                                 Voltage.           5.87
3.............................  Low-Energy,        For Ebatt < 9.74 Wh,
                                 Medium-Voltage.    4.68; For Ebatt >=
                                                    9.74 Wh, = 0.0933 *
                                                    (Ebatt) + 3.77
4.............................  Low-Energy, High-  For Ebatt < 9.71 Wh,
                                 Voltage.           9.03; For Ebatt >=
                                                    9.71 Wh, = 0.2411 *
                                                    (Ebatt) + 6.69
5.............................  Medium-Energy,     For Ebatt < 355.18
                                 Low-Voltage.       Wh, 20.06; For Ebatt
                                                    >= 355.18 Wh, =
                                                    0.0219 * (Ebatt) +
                                                    12.28
6.............................  Medium-Energy,     For Ebatt < 239.48
                                 High-Voltage.      Wh, 30.37; For Ebatt
                                                    >= 239.48 Wh, =
                                                    0.0495 * (Ebatt) +
                                                    18.51
7.............................  High-Energy......  0.0502 * (Ebatt) +
                                                    4.53
8.............................  Low-Voltage DC     0.1140 * (Ebatt) +
                                 Input.             0.42; For Ebatt <
                                                    1.17 Wh, 0.55 kWh/yr

[[Page 52861]]

 
9.............................  High-Voltage DC    No Standard.
                                 Input.
10a...........................  AC Output, VFD     For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh,
                                 (Voltage and       2.54; For Ebatt >=
                                 Frequency          37.2 Wh, 0.0733 *
                                 Dependent).        (Ebatt)--0.18
10b...........................  AC Output, VI      For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh,
                                 (Voltage           6.18; For Ebatt >=
                                 Independent).      37.2 Wh, 0.0733 *
                                                    (Ebatt) + 3.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the March 2012 NOPR, DOE identified 24 specific issues on which 
it sought the comments and views of interested parties. Id. at 18642-
18644. In addition, DOE also specifically requested comments and data 
that would allow DOE to clarify certain issues and potential solutions 
to address them. DOE also held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on 
May 2, 2012, to receive public comments on its proposal. DOE also 
received many written comments responding to the March 2012 NOPR, which 
are further presented and addressed throughout this notice. All 
commenters, along with their corresponding abbreviations and 
organization type, are listed in Table II-2 below.

                                       Table II-2--List of NOPR Commenters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Organization                      Abbreviation            Organization type           Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actuant Electric.......................  Actuant Electric.........  Manufacturer.............                146
ARRIS Group, Inc.......................  ARRIS Broadband..........  Manufacturer.............                 90
Appliance Standards Awareness Project..  ASAP.....................  Energy Efficiency                        162
                                                                     Advocates.
ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, CFA, NEEP, and NEEA..  ASAP, et al..............  Energy Efficiency                        136
                                                                     Advocates.
Association of Home Appliance            AHAM.....................  Industry Trade                           124
 Manufacturers.                                                      Association.
Brother International Corporation......  Brother International....  Manufacturer.............                111
California Building Industry             CBIA.....................  Industry Trade                           126
 Association.                                                        Association.
California Energy Commission...........  California Energy          State Entity.............                117
                                          Commission.
California Investor-Owned Utilities....  CA IOUs..................  Utilities................                138
City of Cambridge, MA..................  City of Cambridge, MA....  Local Government.........                155
Cobra Electronics Corporation..........  Cobra Electronics........  Manufacturer.............                130
Consumer Electronics Association.......  CEA......................  Industry Trade                           106
                                                                     Association.
Delta-Q Technologies Corp..............  Delta-Q Technologies.....  Manufacturer.............                113
Duracell...............................  Duracell.................  Manufacturer.............                109
Earthjustice...........................  Earthjustice.............  Energy Efficiency                        118
                                                                     Advocates.
ECOVA..................................  ECOVA....................  Private Entity...........                 97
Energizer..............................  Energizer................  Manufacturer.............                123
Flextronics Power......................  Flextronics..............  Manufacturer.............                145
GE Healthcare..........................  GE Healthcare............  Manufacturer.............                142
Information Technology Industry Council  ITI......................  Industry Trade                           131
                                                                     Association.
Korean Agency for Technology and         Republic of Korea........  Foreign Government.......                148
 Standards.
Lester Electrical......................  Lester...................  Manufacturer.............            87, 139
Microsoft Corporation..................  Microsoft................  Manufacturer.............                110
Motorola Mobility, Inc.................  Motorola Mobility........  Manufacturer.............                121
National Electrical Manufacturers        NEMA.....................  Industry Trade                           134
 Association.                                                        Association.
Natural Resources Defense Council......  NRDC.....................  Energy Efficiency                        114
                                                                     Advocate.
Nebraska Energy Office.................  Nebraska Energy Office...  State Government.........                 98
Nintendo of America Inc................  Nintendo of America......  Manufacturer.............                135
Nokia Inc..............................  Nokia....................  Manufacturer.............                132
Northeast Energy Efficiency              NEEP.....................  Energy Efficiency                   144, 160
 Partnerships.                                                       Advocate.
Panasonic Corporation of North America.  Panasonic................  Manufacturer.............                120
PG&E...................................  PG&E.....................  Utility..................                 16
PG&E and SDG&E.........................  PG&E and SDG&E...........  Utilities................                163
Philips Electronics....................  Philips..................  Manufacturer.............                128
Power Sources Manufacturers Association  PSMA.....................  Industry Trade                           147
                                                                     Association.
Power Tool Institute, Inc..............  PTI......................  Industry Trade                           133
                                                                     Association.
Power Tool Institute, Inc., Association  PTI, AHAM, CEA...........  Industry Trade                           161
 of Home Appliance Manufacturers,                                    Association.
 Consumer Electronics Association.
NOPR Public Meeting Transcript, various  Pub. Mtg. Tr.............  Public Meeting...........                104
 parties.
Representatives of Various State         States...................  State Government.........                159
 Legislatures.
Salcomp Plc............................  Salcomp Plc..............  Manufacturer.............                 73
Schneider Electric.....................  Schneider Electric.......  Manufacturer.............                119
Schumacher Electric....................  Schumacher Electric......  Manufacturer.............                143

[[Page 52862]]

 
Southern California Edison.............  SCE......................  Utility..................                164
Telecommunications Industry Association  TIA......................  Industry Trade                           127
                                                                     Association.
Wahl Clipper Corporation...............  Wahl Clipper.............  Manufacturer.............                153
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of particular interest to commenters was the potential interplay 
between DOE's proposal and a competing proposal to establish battery 
charger energy conservation standards published by the California 
Energy Commission (``the CEC'') on January 12, 2012. (The CEC is 
California's primary energy policy and planning agency.) The CEC 
standards, which eventually took effect on February 1, 2013,\12\ 
created an overlap between the classes of battery chargers covered by 
the CEC rule and those classes of battery chargers DOE proposed to 
regulate in the March 2012 NOPR. Additionally, the standards proposed 
by DOE differed when compared to the ones issued by the CEC, with some 
being more stringent and others being less stringent than the CEC 
standards. To better understand the impact of these standards on the 
battery charger market in the U.S., DOE published a request for 
information (RFI) on March 26, 2013 that sought stakeholder comment on 
a variety of issues related to the CEC standards. 78 FR 18253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/battery_chargers.

                                       Table II-3--List of RFI Commenters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Organization                      Abbreviation            Organization type           Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM, CEA, PTI, TIA Joint Comments.....  AHAM, et al..............  Industry Trade                           203
                                                                     Association.
Alliance for Wireless Power............  ASAP.....................  Energy Efficiency                        196
                                                                     Advocates.
ASAP, NRDC, ACEEE, CFA, NCLC, NEEA,      ASAP, NRDC, ACEEE, CFA,    Energy Efficiency                        206
 NPCC Joint Comments.                     NCLC, NEEA, NPCC.          Advocates.
Association of Home Appliance            AHAM.....................  Industry Trade                           202
 Manufacturers.                                                      Association.
Brother International Corporation......  Brother International....  Manufacturer.............                204
California Energy Commission...........  California Energy          State Entity.............                199
                                          Commission.
California IOUs........................  CA IOUs..................  Utilities................                197
Consumer Electronics Association.......  CEA......................  Industry Trade                           208
                                                                     Association.
Dual-Lite, a division of Hubbell         Dual-Lite................  Manufacturer.............                189
 Lighting.
Energizer Holdings.....................  Energizer................  Manufacturer.............                213
Garmin International...................  Garmin...................  Manufacturer.............                194
Information Technology Industry Council  ITI......................  Industry Trade                           201
                                                                     Association.
Ingersoll Rand (Club Car)..............  Ingersoll Rand...........  Manufacturer.............                195
Jerome Industries, a subsidiary of       Jerome...................  Manufacturer.............                191
 Astrodyne.
Mercury Marine.........................  Mercury..................  Manufacturer.............                212
National Marine Manufacturers            NMMA.....................  Industry Trade                           190
 Association.                                                        Association.
NEEA and NPCC..........................  NEEA and NPCC............  Industry Trade                           200
                                                                     Association.
P&G (Duracell).........................  Duracell.................  Manufacturer.............                193
Panasonic..............................  Panasonic................  Manufacturer.............                210
Philips................................  Philips..................  Manufacturer.............                198
Power Tool Institute...................  PTI......................  Industry Trade                           207
                                                                     Association.
Schneider Electric.....................  Schneider Electric.......  Manufacturer.............                211
Schumacher Electric....................  Schumacher Electric......  Manufacturer.............                192
Telecommunications Industry Association  TIA......................  Industry Trade                           205
                                                                     Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of these RFI comments reiterated the points that commenters 
made in response to the NOPR. Additionally, many commenters listed in 
the table above indicated that there was evidence that the market had 
accepted the CEC standards and that technology improvements were made 
to meet the CEC standards at costs aligned with DOE's estimates in the 
March 2012 NOPR. (See AHAM et al., No. 203 at p. 5) Some manufacturers 
argued that while some of their units are CEC-compliant, they continue 
to sell non-compliant units in other parts of the U.S. for various 
reasons associated with cost. (See Schumacher Electric, No. 192 at p. 
2) DOE has addressed these comments by updating and revising its 
analysis in today's SNOPR by considering, among other things, the 
impacts attributable to the standards issued by CEC. Specifically, 
based on the responses to the RFI, DOE collected additional data on new 
battery chargers identified in the CEC database as being compliant with 
the CEC standards. These data supplemented DOE's earlier analysis from 
the March 2012 NOPR. DOE's analysis and testing of units within the CEC 
database showed that many battery chargers are CEC-compliant. The 
teardown and economic analysis incorporating these units has also shown 
that technically equivalent levels to the CEC standards are now

[[Page 52863]]

technologically feasible and economically justified for the U.S. as a 
whole. Therefore, this proposal outlines standards that are technically 
equivalent, or where justified, more stringent than the CEC standards. 
The revisions to the analysis, which address the comments received from 
stakeholders in response to DOE's RFI, are explained in the analysis 
sections below and summarized in Table II-4.
    In addition to updating the proposed standards to account for the 
impact of the CEC standards, several other significant changes were 
made while updating the proposed standards presented in the SNOPR. 
While much of the analysis has been updated, the significant changes 
since the NOPR are presented in Table II-4.

               Table II-4--Summary of Significant Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Item                       NOPR          Changes for SNOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Proposed Standard Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Standard for PC1.......  = 3.04............  No Change.
Proposed Standard for PC2.......  = 0.2095(Ebatt) +   0.1440(Ebatt) +
                                   5.87.               2.95.
Proposed Standard for PC3.......  For Ebatt < 9.74    For Ebatt < 10Wh,
                                   Wh, = 4.68 For      = 1.42; Ebatt >=
                                   Ebatt >= 9.74 Wh,   10 Wh,
                                   = 0.0933(Ebatt) +   0.0255(Ebatt) +
                                   3.77.               1.16.
Proposed Standard for PC4.......  For Ebatt < 9.71    0.11(Ebatt) +
                                   Wh, = 9.03 For      3.18.
                                   Ebatt >= 9.71 Wh,
                                   = 0.2411(Ebatt) +
                                   6.69.
Proposed Standard for PC5.......  For Ebatt < 355.18  For Ebatt < 19 Wh,
                                   Wh, = 20.06 For     1.32 kWh/yr; For
                                   Ebatt >= 355.18     Ebatt >= 19 Wh,
                                   Wh, =               0.0257(Ebatt) +
                                   0.0219(Ebatt) +     .815.
                                   12.28.
Proposed Standard for PC6.......  For Ebatt < 239.48  For Ebatt < 18 Wh,
                                   Wh, = 30.37 For     3.88 kWh/yr; For
                                   Ebatt >= 239.48     Ebatt >= 18 Wh,
                                   Wh, =               0.0778(Ebatt) +
                                   0.0495(Ebatt) +     2.4.
                                   18.51.
Proposed Standard for PC7.......  = 0.0502(Ebatt) +   No Change.
                                   4.53.
Proposed Standard for PC8.......  = 0.1140(Ebatt)+    Removed, covered
                                   0.42 For Ebatt <    under PC2
                                   1.17 Wh, = 0.55     proposed
                                   kWh/yr.             standards.
Proposed Standard for PC9.......  No Standard.......  No Change.
Proposed Standard for PC10a.....  For Ebatt < 37.2    Deferred to Future
                                   Wh, = 2.54 For      Rulemaking.
                                   Ebatt >= 37.2 Wh,
                                   = 0.0733(Ebatt)--
                                   0.18.
Proposed Standard for PC10b.....  For Ebatt < 37.2    Deferred to Future
                                   Wh, = 6.18 For      Rulemaking.
                                   Ebatt >= 37.2 Wh,
                                   = 0.0733(Ebatt) +
                                   3.45.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Changes in Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Analysis--            Combination of      Used new or
 Representative Units.             test data and       updated units in
                                   manufacturer        PC 2, PC 3, PC 4,
                                   inputs.             and PC 5, while
                                                       keeping the same
                                                       representative
                                                       units for PC 1,
                                                       PC 6, and PC 7
                                                       and same Max Tech
                                                       units for all
                                                       PCs.
Usage Profiles..................  Weighted average    PC 2, PC 3, PC 4,
                                   of application      PC 5, and PC 6
                                   specific usage.     usage profiles
                                                       updated based on
                                                       new shipment data
                                                       (See Section
                                                       IV.F.3).
Efficiency Distributions........  From Market         Obtained from the
                                   Assessment.         CEC's database of
                                                       Small Battery
                                                       Chargers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, DOE announced that it will investigate the potential 
benefits and burdens of Federal efficiency standards for Computers and 
Battery Backup Systems in a Framework Document \13\ published on July 
11, 2014. DOE will be including uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs) 
that meet the definition of a consumer product within the scope of 
coverage of that rulemaking effort. Therefore, DOE will no longer 
consider these products within the scope of the battery chargers 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-
STD-0025-0001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedure

    In analyzing the products covered under this rulemaking, DOE 
applied the battery charger test procedure in Appendix Y to 10 CFR part 
430 subpart B. Concurrently with the publication of this SNOPR, DOE is 
also publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to propose several 
revisions to the battery charger test procedure. A link to the test 
procedure NOPR is available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx?productid=84. DOE advises stakeholders 
to review the proposed changes to the test procedure and provide 
comments to DOE as part of that separate rulemaking.

B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that 
justifies a different standard. In making a determination whether a 
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must 
consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and 
other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q))Further discussion of products covered under this proposed rule 
and product classes can be found in Section IV.

C. Technological Feasibility

    The following sections address the manner in which DOE assessed the 
technological feasibility of the new and amended standards. Energy 
conservation standards promulgated by DOE must be technologically 
feasible.
1. General
    In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis 
based on information gathered on all current technology options and 
prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or 
equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in 
such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for 
consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and 
other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those

[[Page 52864]]

means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE 
generally considers technologies incorporated in commercially available 
products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. See, 
e.g. 10 CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i) (providing 
that ``technologies incorporated in commercially available products or 
in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.'').
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
Practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts 
on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health 
or safety. See10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4). 
Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its analysis any 
proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain 
efficiency level. Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of 
the screening analysis for battery chargers, particularly the designs 
DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for 
the trial standard levels (TSLs) analyzed in this rulemaking. For 
further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see 
chapter 4 of the SNOPR technical support document (TSD).
    Additionally, DOE notes that it has received no comments from 
interested parties regarding patented technologies and proprietary 
designs that would inhibit manufacturers from achieving the energy 
conservation standards contained in this proposal. At this time, DOE 
believes that the proposed standard for the products covered as part of 
this rulemaking will not mandate the use of any such technologies.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When proposing an amended standard for a type or class of covered 
product, DOE must ``determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible'' for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)). DOE determined the 
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency levels by 
interviewing manufacturers, vetting their data with subject matter 
experts, and presenting the results for public comment.
    In preparing this proposed rule, which includes max-tech levels for 
the seven product classes initially addressed in DOE's preliminary 
analysis, DOE developed a means to create max-tech levels for those 
classes that were previously not assigned max-tech levels. For the 
product classes that DOE was previously unable to generate max-tech 
efficiency levels, DOE used multiple approaches to develop levels for 
these classes. During the NOPR phase, DOE solicited manufacturers for 
information and extrapolated performance parameters from its best-in-
market efficiency levels. Extrapolating from the best-in-market 
performance efficiency levels required an examination of the devices. 
From this examination, DOE determined which design options could be 
applied and what effects they would likely have on the various battery 
charger performance parameters. (See Chapter 5, Section 5.4 of the 
accompanying SNOPR TSD) Table III-1 below shows the reduction in energy 
consumption when increasing efficiency from the baseline to the max-
tech efficiency level.

  Table III-1--Reduction in Energy Consumption at Max-Tech for Battery
                                Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Reduction of
                                      Max-tech  unit         energy
                                          energy          consumption
           Product class            consumption  (kWh/  relative to  the
                                           yr)              baseline
                                                          (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (Low-Energy, Inductive).........               1.29                 85
2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage).......               1.11                 79
3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage)....               0.70                 80
4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage)......               3.05                 75
5 (Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage)....               9.45                 89
6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage)...              16.79                 86
7 (High-Energy)...................             131.44                 48
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional discussion of DOE's max-tech efficiency levels and 
comments received in response to the NOPR analysis can be found in the 
discussion of candidate standard levels (CSLs) in section IV.C.4. 
Specific details regarding which design options were considered for the 
max-tech efficiency levels (and all other CSLs) can be found in Chapter 
5, Section 5.4 of the accompanying SNOPR TSD, which has been developed 
as a stand-alone document for this SNOPR and supports all of the 
standard levels proposed in this SNOPR.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the products that 
are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the year of compliance with any new standards (2018-2047). 
The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased 
in the 30-year period.\14\ DOE quantified the energy savings 
attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption 
between each standards case and the base case. The base case represents 
a projection of energy consumption in the absence of new energy 
conservation standards, and considers market forces and policies that 
may affect future demand for more efficient products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In the past DOE presented energy savings results for only 
the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the 
calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating 
cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased 
in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of 
national energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for 
its national economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from 
potential new standards for battery chargers. The NIA spreadsheet model 
(described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in 
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the 
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE calculates national 
energy savings on an annual basis in terms of primary energy savings, 
which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and 
transmit electricity to the site. To

[[Page 52865]]

calculate primary energy savings from site electricity savings, DOE 
derives annual conversion factors from data provided in the Energy 
Information Administration's (EIA) most recent Annual Energy Outlook 
(AEO).
    In addition to primary energy savings, DOE also calculates full-
fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. As discussed in DOE's statement of 
policy, the FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, 
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 
petroleum fuels), and presents a more complete picture of the impacts 
of energy conservation standards. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as 
amended by 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). DOE's approach is based on 
the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used 
by covered products or equipment. For more information, see section 
IV.H.6.
2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in ``significant'' energy 
savings. Although the term ``significant'' is not defined in the Act, 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 
indicated that Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings in this 
context to be savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' The energy 
savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking (presented in 
section V.B.3) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them 
``significant'' within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether 
a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has 
addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of a potential new standard on 
manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as 
discussed in section IV.J. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach 
to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-
term assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the 
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must 
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year 
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include: (1) Industry net 
present value (INPV), which values the industry on the basis of 
expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in 
revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. 
Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of 
manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE 
considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment 
and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to 
result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE 
takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and 
other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) associated 
with new standards. These measures are discussed further in the 
following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates 
the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a 
particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential 
standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and 
PBP)
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance 
and repair costs, product lifetime, and consumer discount rates. To 
account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as 
product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, 
with probabilities attached to each value. For its LCC and PBP 
analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products 
in the first year of compliance with amended standards. The LCC savings 
for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base 
case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of amended 
standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in 
section IV.F.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As 
discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project 
national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options 
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 
available to DOE, the standards proposed in this notice would not 
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration 
in this rulemaking. DOE received no comments that the proposed 
standards for battery chargers would increase their size and reduce 
their convenience, increase the length of time to charge a product, 
shorten the intervals between chargers, or cause any other significant 
adverse impacts on consumer utility.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition, as 
determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result 
from proposed standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also 
directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any 
lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to 
transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the 
publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature 
and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE followed 
this requirement after publication of the March 2012 NOPR. Although the 
Department of Justice had no comments regarding the proposal, DOE will 
transmit a courtesy copy of the supplemental notice and accompanying 
TSD to the Attorney General. DOE will

[[Page 52866]]

make public any comments or determination provided by DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    The energy savings from new standards are likely to provide 
improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy 
system. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the 
proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security 
and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand 
for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the 
reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility 
impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's 
needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M.
    The proposed new standards also are likely to result in 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production and 
use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential 
standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K; the 
emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6of this notice. DOE also 
estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the 
considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L.
g. Other Factors
    EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a 
standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that 
the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a 
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential new 
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for 
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year 
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In 
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers 
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and 
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The 
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the 
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation 
is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

    This section addresses the analyses DOE performed for this 
rulemaking with regard to battery chargers. Separate subsections 
address each component of DOE's analyses.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards proposed in this document. First, DOE used a spreadsheet that 
calculates the LCC and PBP of potential amended or new energy 
conservation standards. Second, the national impacts analysis uses a 
spreadsheet that provides shipments forecasts and calculates national 
energy savings and net present value resulting from potential energy 
conservation standards. Third, DOE uses the Government Regulatory 
Impact Model (GRIM) to assess manufacturer impacts of potential 
standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the docket: 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005. 
Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of EIA's Annual 
Energy Outlook (AEO), a widely known energy forecast for the United 
States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE 
develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for 
the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the 
industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes 
both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on 
publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market 
and technology assessment for this rulemaking include a determination 
of the scope of this rulemaking; product classes and manufacturers; 
quantities and types of products sold and offered for sale; retail 
market trends; regulatory and non-regulatory programs; and technologies 
or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of the 
product(s) under examination. See Chapter 3 of the SNOPR TSD for 
further detail.
1. Products Included in this Rulemaking
    This section addresses the scope of coverage for this proposed rule 
and details which products would be subject to the standards proposed 
in this notice. The numerous comments DOE received on the scope of 
these standards are also summarized and addressed in this section.
    A battery charger is a device that charges batteries for consumer 
products, including battery chargers embedded in other consumer 
products. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) Functionally, a battery charger is a 
power conversion device used to transform input voltage to a suitable 
voltage for the battery the charger is powering. Battery chargers are 
used in conjunction with other end-use consumer products, such as cell 
phones and digital cameras. However, the battery charger definition 
prescribed by Congress is not limited solely to products powered from 
AC mains--i.e. products that plug into a wall outlet. Further, the 
statutory definition encompasses battery chargers that may be wholly 
embedded in another consumer product, wholly separate from another 
consumer product, or partially inside and partially outside another 
consumer product. While devices that meet the statutory definition are 
within the scope of this rulemaking, DOE is not proposing to set 
standards for all battery chargers.
    With respect to the different kinds of battery chargers that are 
available, DOE received a number of comments. DOE received three 
comments related to battery chargers for backup batteries. ARRIS 
Broadband described a broadband modem/VoIP device that contains a 
backup battery that provides power to the telephone system, a primary 
function, in the event of power loss and sought guidance on whether 
this product would be required to comply with DOE's proposed standards. 
(ARRIS Broadband, No. 90 at p.1) Brother urged DOE to exclude from its 
scope those battery chargers that are used to charge batteries that 
power only secondary functions of the end-use product in the event of a 
power loss. Brother noted by way of example that some multifunction 
devices (MFD) contain a rechargeable battery that enables the MFD to 
maintain its memory and power an internal clock in the event of power 
loss. Brother added that regulating battery chargers of this type would 
``create significant regulatory burdens and produce insignificant 
energy savings.'' (Brother International, No. 111 at p.2) Motorola 
Mobility urged DOE to exclude continuous use products such as

[[Page 52867]]

answering machines, home security systems, modems, and LAN/WAN adapters 
from battery standards because battery charging represents a small 
fraction of the total energy use of the products. ARRIS Broadband and 
Motorola Mobility also claimed that the test procedure does not provide 
an adequate way to distinguish energy from battery charging from other 
functions. (ARRIS Broadband, No. 90 at p.1; Motorola Mobility, No. 121 
at pp. 5-6)
    After evaluating these comments and examining these devices 
further, particularly with respect to their test results, DOE has 
tentatively decided to refrain from proposing standards for battery 
chargers that are intended to charge batteries that provide backup 
power, or battery chargers considered to be continuous use devices at 
this time. DOE outlined several issues with testing these devices. 
Since battery chargers that are typically embedded within continuous 
use devices do not charge batteries as their primary function, it is 
often difficult, if not impossible, to use current techniques and 
technologies to consistently and reliably isolate the tested battery 
charger`s energy use during testing. As a result, the test procedure 
cannot be applied to these products to accurately measure the energy 
use of a battery charger embedded within the product. Because of these 
technical limitations, DOE has proposed that battery chargers that 
provide power from the battery to a continuous use device solely during 
a loss of main power would not be required to be tested under DOE's 
test procedure. Because the DOE procedure cannot adequately account for 
the energy usage of these kinds of devices, and DOE has been unable at 
this time to develop appropriate modifications that would remedy this 
limitation, battery chargers that fall into these categories cannot be 
evaluated using the procedure detailed in Appendix Y. See the Test 
Procedure NOPR at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx?productid=84.
    Ultimately, DOE recognizes that such battery chargers may be used 
in a different manner from other battery chargers, spending nearly all 
of their time in maintenance mode. Additionally, DOE believes that 
testing and regulating these devices as a system, which is being 
addressed in DOE's Computer and Battery Backup Systems rulemaking, is a 
more appropriate venue to aaddress these devices. See 79 FR 41656 (July 
17, 2014).
    Motorola Mobility also commented that in-vehicle battery chargers 
should not be included in the scope of this rulemaking because they do 
not consume energy from the utility grid. (Motorola Mobility, No. 121 
at p. 7) In examining the products identified by Motorola Mobility, DOE 
observed that these devices were designed to work not only as in-
vehicle devices, but could also be plugged into AC mains. Accordingly, 
in DOE's view, these devices are designed to use mains power. DOE 
further notes that 42 U.S.C 6292(a) provides in part, that covered 
consumer products exclude consumer products designed solely for use in 
recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment. Thus, a product 
designed to be exclusively used in recreational vehicles or other 
mobile equipment would be excluded from being considered a covered 
product while a device that is designed to be used in vehicles and on 
AC mains, may be considered a covered consumer product. As discussed in 
section V.B.2.f in the March 2012 NOPR, a battery charger is in Product 
Class 9 if it operates using a DC input source greater than 9V, it is 
unable to operate from a universal serial bus (USB) connector, and a 
manufacturer does not package, recommend, or sell a wall adapter for 
the device. If an in-vehicle battery charger is also capable of 
operating on AC mains (via a USB or a wall adapter), then it would be 
subject to the AC-DC standards based on its characteristics when 
charging a battery using AC mains. DOE found that new standards for 
battery charger Product Class 9 (those with DC input of greater than 
9V, including all in-vehicle battery chargers) were not cost effective 
for any of the evaluated standard levels. Because standards are not 
economically justified, DOE is not proposing standards for such 
products at this time.
a. Definition of Consumer Product
    DOE received comments from a number of stakeholders seeking 
clarification on the definition of a consumer product. Schneider 
Electric commented that the definition of consumer product is 
``virtually unbounded'' and ``provides no definitive methods to 
distinguish commercial or industrial products from consumer products.'' 
(Schneider Electric, No. 119 at p. 2) ITI commented that a narrower 
definition of a consumer product is needed to determine which state 
regulations are preempted by Federal standards. (ITI, No. 131 at p. 2) 
NEMA commented that the FAQ on the DOE Web site is insufficient to 
resolve its members' questions. See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/cce_faq.pdf.
    (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 2) These stakeholders suggested ways that DOE 
could clarify the definition of a consumer product:
     Adopt the ENERGY STAR battery charger definition.
     Limit the scope to products marketed as compliant with the 
FCC's Class B emissions limits.
     Define consumer products as ``pluggable Type A Equipment 
(as defined by IEC 60950-1), with an input rating of less than or equal 
to 16A.''
    EPCA defines a consumer product as any article of a type that 
consumes or is designed to consume energy and which, to any significant 
extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by 
individuals without regard to whether such article of such type is in 
fact distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by an 
individual. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). Manufacturers are advised to use 
this definition (in conjunction with the battery charger definition) to 
determine whether a given device shall be subject to battery charger 
standards. Consistent with these definitions, any battery charger that 
is of a type that is capable of charging batteries for a consumer 
product would be considered a covered product and possibly subject to 
DOE's energy conservation standards, without regard to whether that 
battery charger was in fact distributed in U.S. commerce to operate a 
consumer product. Only battery chargers that have identifiable design 
characteristics that would make them incapable of charging batteries of 
a consumer product would be considered to not meet EPCA's definition of 
a battery charger. DOE would consider the ability of a battery charger 
to operate using residential mains power--Standard 110-120 VAC, 60 Hz 
input--as an identifiable design characteristic when considering 
whether a battery charger is capable of charging the batteries of a 
consumer product.
b. Medical Products
    In the NOPR, DOE stated that standards for battery chargers used to 
power medical devices had the potential to yield energy savings. GE 
Healthcare, a manufacturer of battery chargers used in medical devices, 
responded to the NOPR. It gave several reasons why DOE should not apply 
standards to these products. It noted that the design, manufacture, 
maintenance, and post-market monitoring of medical devices are already 
highly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, and requiring 
these devices to comply with energy efficiency standards would only add 
to

[[Page 52868]]

these existing requirements. GE added that there are a large number of 
individual medical device models, each of which must be tested along 
with its component battery charger to ensure compliance with applicable 
standards; redesign of the battery charger to meet DOE standards would 
require that all of these models be retested and reapproved, at a 
significant per-unit cost, especially for those devices that are 
produced in limited quantities. (GE Healthcare, No. 142 at p. 2)
    Given these concerns, DOE has reevaluated its proposal to set 
energy conservation standards for medical device battery chargers. 
While setting standards for these devices may yield energy savings, DOE 
also wishes to avoid any action that could potentially impact their 
reliability and safety. In the absence of sufficient data on this 
issue, and consistent with DOE's obligation to consider such adverse 
impacts when identifying and screening design options for improving the 
efficiency of a product, DOE has decided to refrain from setting 
standards for medical device battery chargers at this time. Similar to 
the limitation already statutorily-prescribed for Class A EPSs, DOE is 
proposing at this time to refrain from setting standards for those 
device that require Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) listing 
and approval as a life-sustaining or life-supporting device in 
accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(21 U.S.C. 360(c)). See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(b)(i)(VII). See also 10 
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b)(4) 
(collectively setting out DOE's policy in evaluating potential energy 
conservation standards for a product).
2. Market Assessment
    To characterize the market for battery chargers, DOE gathered 
information on the products that use them. DOE refers to these products 
as end-use consumer products or battery charger ``applications.'' This 
method was chosen for two reasons. First, battery chargers are nearly 
always bundled with or otherwise intended to be used with a given 
application; therefore, the demand for applications drives the demand 
for battery chargers. Second, because most battery chargers are not 
stand-alone products, their shipments, lifetimes, usage profiles, and 
power requirements are all determined by the associated application.
    DOE analyzed the products offered by online and brick-and-mortar 
retail outlets to determine which applications use battery chargers and 
which battery charger technologies are most prevalent. The list of 
applications analyzed and a full explanation of the market assessment 
methodology can be found in chapter 3 of the accompanying SNOPR TSD.
    While DOE identified the majority of battery charger applications, 
some may not have been included in the NOPR analysis. This is due in 
part because the battery chargers market is dynamic and constantly 
evolving. As a result, some applications that use a battery charger 
were not initially found because they either made up an insignificant 
market share or were introduced to the market after the NOPR analysis 
was conducted. The battery chargers for any other applications not 
explicitly analyzed in the market assessment would still be subject to 
the proposed standards as long as they fall into one of the battery 
charger classes outlined in Section IV.A.1. That is, DOE's omission of 
any particular battery charger application from its analysis is not, by 
itself, an indication that the battery charger that powers that 
application would not be subject to the battery chargers standards.
    DOE relied on published market research to estimate base-year 
shipments for all applications. In the NOPR, DOE estimated that in 
2009, a total of 437 million battery chargers were shipped for final 
sale in the United States. For this SNOPR, DOE conducted additional 
research and updated its shipments estimates to provide shipments data 
for 2011. Where more recent data were available, DOE updated the 
shipments data based on the more recent shipments data collected. Where 
more recent information could not be found, DOE derived the 2011 
shipments value based on the 2009 estimates, and used its shipments 
model as described in section IV.G.1 to project the 2009 shipments to 
2011. In 2011, DOE estimated that a total of 506 million battery 
chargers units were shipped.
    DOE received comments from several stakeholders on the accuracy of 
its shipment estimates for certain applications in the NOPR. NRDC 
commented that DOE's estimate of 8 million units for toy ride-on 
vehicles seemed too high, citing the fact that it was four times higher 
than the estimate for remote control toy shipments. (NRDC, No. 114 at 
p. 7) DOE estimated toy ride-on vehicle shipments by dividing annual 
sales dollars ($1.8 billion) by the average retail price of surveyed 
toy ride-on vehicles ($222.50). DOE could not find data on remote 
control toys, but assumed in the NOPR that annual shipments would be 
roughly equivalent to its estimate for ride-on toys (see chapter 3 of 
the NOPR TSD). However, when conducting product surveys, DOE found that 
a large share of remote control toys used disposable batteries. 
Therefore, DOE altered its analysis and assumed that only 30% of remote 
control toys utilized a battery charger compared to 100% of ride-on 
toys. For the SNOPR, DOE retained the same approach and updated its 
shipment estimates for remote control toys and ride-on toys to 
approximately 2.2 million and 3.7 million units, respectively.
    Schumacher Electric commented that DOE's estimate of 500,000 annual 
auto/marine/RV battery charger shipments in 2009 was too low, stating 
that they alone shipped 2.6 million units in 2011. (Schumacher 
Electric, No. 143 at p. 6) DOE's estimate of 500,000 units was based on 
a PG&E study (PG&E, No. 16 at p.3). Schumacher's comment did not 
specify whether its 2.6 million shipments were global or domestic, or 
what their market share is for auto/marine/RV battery chargers. For the 
SNOPR, DOE retained the 2009 estimate based on PG&E study and used its 
shipments model to estimate shipments in 2011. DOE determined that a 
total of 507,427 units shipped in 2011.
    Delta-Q Technologies commented that the lifetime of a golf cart (or 
``golf car'') is typically 10-12 years and explained that the majority 
of new golf carts are sold to commercial customers for a 3- to 4-year 
lease and then sold to consumers. (Delta-Q Technologies, No. 113 at p. 
1) DOE believes the lifetime estimates for these products are similar 
to the 3.5 years and 6.5 years that DOE assumes for commercial and 
residential users, respectively. Therefore, DOE retained the same 
lifetime estimates as in NOPR.
3. Product Classes
    When necessary, DOE divides covered products into classes by the 
type of energy used, the capacity of the product, and any other 
performance-related feature that could justify different standard 
levels, such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)) DOE then conducts its analysis and considers establishing or 
amending standards to provide separate standard levels for each product 
class.
    DOE created 11 product classes for battery chargers based on 
various electrical characteristics shared by particular groups of 
products. As these electrical characteristics change, so does the 
utility and efficiency of the devices.
a. Battery Charger Product Classes
    As described in the NOPR analysis, DOE used five electrical 
characteristics to disaggregate battery charger product classes--
battery voltage, battery energy, input and output characteristics 
(e.g.,

[[Page 52869]]

inductive charging capabilities),\15\ input voltage type (line AC or 
low-voltage DC), and AC output. Further details on DOE's reasoning are 
outlined in Chapter 3 of the SNOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Inductive charging is a utility-related characteristic 
designed to promote cleanliness and guarantee uninterrupted 
operation of the battery charger in a wet environment. In wet 
environments, such as a bathroom where an electric toothbrush is 
used, these chargers ensure that the user is isolated from mains 
current by transferring power to the battery through magnetic 
induction rather than using a galvanic (i.e., current carrying) 
connection.

                                   Table IV-1--Battery Charger Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Battery energy   Special characteristic or
            Product class No.                  Input/output type           (Wh)             battery voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................  AC In, DC Out.............            <100  Inductive Connection.
2.......................................  ..........................  ..............  <4 V.
3.......................................  ..........................  ..............  4-10 V.
4.......................................  ..........................  ..............  >10 V.
5.......................................  ..........................        100-3000  <20 V.
6.......................................  ..........................  ..............  >=20 V.
7.......................................  ..........................           >3000  --
8.......................................  DC In, DC Out.............  ..............  <9 V Input.
9.......................................  ..........................  ..............  >=9 V Input.
10a.....................................  AC In, AC Out.............  ..............  Voltage and Frequency
                                                                                       Dependent.
10b.....................................  ..........................  ..............  Voltage Independent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the NOPR analysis, Energizer and Philips argued that 
the wide variety of battery charger usage patterns in Product Class 2 
warranted the creation of subcategories of battery chargers based on 
usage. (Energizer, No. 123 at p. 2; Philips, No. 128 at p. 5) Philips 
claimed that infrequently used products would not be able to save a 
significant amount of energy from improved efficiency measures. It 
argued that infrequent use is a performance-related feature that 
required DOE to set different standards. Neither party provided 
additional data in support of its respective views. Despite these 
claims, DOE has not received evidence that infrequently-used battery 
chargers have any technical differences from battery chargers that are 
used more often. Because there are no technical differences between 
these battery chargers and the units used to represent this product 
class, there is no rationale for establishing separate product classes 
based on frequency of use.
    DOE also received comments from Delta-Q Technologies, who observed 
that there has been a shift towards high-frequency switch-mode battery 
chargers in the golf cart segment, due to rising raw materials cost of 
older technology and some cost reductions available due to new high 
frequency switch-mode technologies. In the absence of standards, it 
asserted that this trend would continue and in the next few years all 
golf cart chargers would meet the proposed standards. (Delta-Q 
Technologies, No. 113 at p. 1) DOE's research suggests, and public 
comments submitted by Club Car responding to the March 2013 RFI express 
similar concerns, that while there is a clear trend in the direction of 
more efficient high-frequency switch-mode technologies, some 
manufacturers are holding back on adopting this technology due to 
reliability concerns. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 195 at p. 2) However, DOE 
has also found that U.S. manufacturers are now offering both linear and 
high-frequency switch-mode battery chargers. As a result, DOE believes 
its efficiency distribution estimate and representative units for 
Product Class 7 are accurate, reflecting that a portion of the market 
would be based on less efficient and legacy linear technology and the 
remainder would rely on switch-mode technology in 2015.
    DOE also received several comments regarding Product Class 9 in 
response to the NOPR analysis. NRDC and CEC argued that DOE should 
regulate Product Class 9 products using the proposed Product Class 8 
standards. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 8; California Energy Commission, No. 
117 at p. 28) Cobra and the Power Tool Institute (PTI) supported DOE's 
proposal not to regulate products intended only for in-vehicle use 
(i.e., Product Class 9). (Cobra Electronics, No. 130 at p. 9: PTI, No. 
133 at p. 6) See the March 2012 NOPR TSD, Chapter 5, Sec. 5.7.15, 
(explaining that Product Class 9 devices are overwhelmingly charged by 
12V DC output of an automotive cigarette lighter receptacle). These 
products are decidedly different than those in Product Class 2 and 
Product Class 8 because they can only be used in vehicles, which is a 
unique utility, and input voltage can impact battery charger 
performance. However, as described in the March 2012 NOPR LCC analysis, 
DOE determined that the legal requirements necessary for setting 
standards for product class 9 were not met, and thus, DOE is not 
proposing to regulating this product class under this proposed rule.
    Finally, DOE also received comments regarding Product Classes 10a 
and 10b, which are no longer within scope of this proposed rulemaking. 
See section IV.A.1 above. However, NEMA, Schneider, and ITI responded 
to the NOPR by suggesting that the definitions of 10a and 10b be 
harmonized with the IEC 62040-3 standard definitions for universal 
power supplies (``UPSs''). In this case, Product Class 10a would be 
reclassified from ``non-automatic voltage regulator'' (``non-AVR'') to 
``Voltage and Frequency Dependent'' (VFD) and Product Class 10a would 
be reclassified as ``Voltage Independent'' (VI). Stakeholders stated 
that these definitions are accepted industry wide. By making such 
changes, manufacturers asserted that the scope of those battery 
chargers defined as basic and AVR in the NOPR would be clarified and 
concerns over scope, particularly what determines consumer grade UPSs, 
would be eliminated. (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 7, 8: Schneider. Pub. Mtg. 
Tr, No. 104 at p. 253: Schneider, No. 119 at p. 2: ITI, No. 131 at p. 
3, 7) Schneider suggested that DOE define additional product classes 
10c and 10d, where Product Class 10c should be defined as Voltage 
Independent with Sinusoidal output (VI-SS) and Product Class 10d should 
be defined as Voltage and Frequency Independent (VFI). (Schneider, No. 
119 at p. 3)
    DOE has recently proposed to remove battery chargers that provide 
power

[[Page 52870]]

from a battery to a continuous use device solely during a loss of main 
power from the testing requirements for battery chargers. This would 
include battery chargers within Product Class 10 for which DOE had 
previously proposed standards in the NOPR. As discussed below in 
Section IV.A.3.b.ii., DOE is no longer proposing standards or 
definitions for these battery chargers.
b. Elimination of Product Classes 8, 9,10a, and 10b
    Since publishing the NOPR, DOE has conducted further market 
analysis, technical analysis, and testing. As a result, DOE has chosen 
to move forward with proposed standards for a smaller number of 
products classes. Specifically, DOE is no longer proposing standards 
for battery chargers falling into Product Classes 8, 9, 10a, and 10b in 
this SNOPR. As stated above and in the NOPR, DOE determined that no 
standards were warranted for Product Class 9 products and DOE received 
no additional information that would alter this determination.
i. Product Class 8
    DOE has determined that there are no products falling into Product 
Class 8 that do not also fall into Product Class 2. DOE has also 
determined that the battery chargers previously analyzed in Product 
Class 8 do not technically differ from those found in Product Class 2. 
Specifically, DOE analyzed battery chargers used with end use 
applications such as MP3 players and mobile phones. DOE found that 
these products can be used with AC to DC power supplies and are 
functionally identical products found in Product Class 2. For these 
reasons, DOE has combined all previously analyzed products, and related 
shipments in Product Class 8 into Product Class 2. Therefore, these 
products will be subject to Product Class 2 proposed standards.
ii. Product Classes 10a and 10b
    DOE is considering energy conservation standards for battery backup 
systems (including UPSs) and other continuous use products as part of 
the Computer and Backup Battery Systems rulemaking. 79 FR 41656 By 
including UPSs in the new rulemaking and analysis, DOE will no longer 
be considering standards for battery chargers embedded in UPSs as part 
of this rule and is not proposing standards for Product Classes 10a and 
10b in this SNOPR.
    DOE requests stakeholder comment on the elimination of Product 
Classes 8, 9, 10a, and 10b from this SNOPR.
4. Technology Assessment
    In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options 
that appear to be feasible to improve product efficiency. This 
assessment provides the technical background and structure on which DOE 
bases its screening and engineering analyses. The following discussion 
provides an overview of the technology assessment for battery chargers. 
Chapter 3 of the SNOPR TSD provides additional detail and descriptions 
of the basic construction and operation of battery chargers, followed 
by a discussion of technology options to improve their efficiency and 
power consumption in various modes.
a. Battery Charger Modes of Operation and Performance Parameters
    DOE found that there are five modes of operation in which a battery 
charger can operate at any given time--active (or charge) mode, 
maintenance mode, no-battery (or standby) mode, off mode, and unplugged 
mode. During active mode, a battery charger is charging a depleted 
battery, equalizing its cells, or performing functions necessary for 
bringing the battery to the fully charged state. In maintenance mode, 
the battery is plugged into the charger, has reached full charge, and 
the charger is performing functions intended to keep the battery fully 
charged while protecting it from overcharge. No-battery mode involves a 
battery charger plugged into AC mains but without a battery connected 
to the charger. Off mode is similar to no-battery mode but with all 
manual on-off switches turned off. Finally, during unplugged mode, the 
battery charger is disconnected from mains and not consuming any 
electrical power.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Active mode, maintenance mode, standby mode, and off mode 
are all explicitly defined by DOE in Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 
430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of 
Battery chargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each battery charger mode of operation, DOE's battery charger 
test procedure has a corresponding test that is performed that outputs 
a metric for energy consumption in that mode. The tests to obtain these 
metrics are described in greater detail in DOE's battery charger test 
procedure. When performing a test in accordance with this procedure, 
certain items play a key role in evaluating the efficiency performance 
of a given battery charger--24-hour energy, maintenance mode power, no-
battery mode power, off-mode power, and unplugged mode power . (10 CFR 
part 430 Appendix Y to Subpart B)
    First, there is the measured 24-hour energy of a given charger. 
This quantity is defined as the power consumption integrated with 
respect to time of a fully metered charge test that starts with a fully 
depleted battery. In other words, this is the energy consumed to fully 
charge and maintain at full charge a depleted battery over a period 
that lasts 24 hours or the length of time needed to charge the tested 
battery plus 5 hours, whichever is longer. Next, is maintenance mode 
power, which is a measurement of the average power consumed while a 
battery charger is known to be in maintenance mode. No-battery (or 
standby) mode power is the average power consumed while a battery 
charger is in no-battery or standby mode (only if applicable). \17\ 
Off-mode power is the average power consumed while an on-off switch-
equipped battery charger is in off mode (i.e., with the on-off switch 
set to the ``off'' position). Finally, unplugged mode power consists of 
the average power consumed while the battery charger is not physically 
connected to a power source. (This quantity is always 0.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ If the product contains integrated power conversion and 
charging circuitry, but is powered through a non-detachable AC power 
cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain 
connected to mains, and standby mode measurement is not applicable. 
(Section 5.11.d ``Standby Mode Energy Consumption Measurement, CFR 
part 430 Appendix Y to Subpart B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional discussion on how these parameters are derived and 
subsequently combined with assumptions about usage in each mode of 
operation to obtain a value for the UEC is discussed below in section 
IV.C.2.
b. Battery Charger Technology Options
    Since most consumer battery chargers contain an AC to DC power 
conversion stage, similar to that found in an EPS, DOE examined many of 
the same technology options for battery chargers as it did for EPSs in 
the EPS final rule. See 79 FR 7845 (Feb. 10, 2014). The technology 
options used to decrease EPS no-load power affect battery charger 
energy consumption in no-battery and maintenance modes (and off mode, 
if applicable), while those options used to increase EPS conversion 
efficiency will affect energy consumption in active and maintenance 
modes.
    DOE considered many technology options for improving the active-
mode charging efficiency as well as the no-battery and maintenance 
modes of battery chargers. The following list, organized by charger 
type, provides technology options that DOE evaluated

[[Page 52871]]

during the NOPR and again in today's SNOPR. Although many of these 
technology options could be used in both fast and slow chargers, doing 
so may be impractical due to the cost and benefits of each option for 
the two types of chargers. Therefore, in the list below, the options 
are grouped with the charger type where they would be most practical.
    Slow charger technology options include:
     Improved Cores: The efficiency of line-frequency 
transformers, which are a component of the power conversion circuitry 
of many slow chargers, can be improved by replacing their cores with 
ones made of lower-loss steel.
     Termination: Substantially decreasing the charge current 
to the battery after it has reached full charge, either by using a 
timer or sensor, can significantly decrease maintenance-mode power 
consumption.
     Elimination/Limitation of Maintenance Current: Constant 
maintenance current is not required to keep a battery fully charged. 
Instead, the battery charger can provide current pulses to ``top off'' 
the battery as needed.
     Elimination of No-Battery Current: A mechanical AC line 
switch inside the battery charger ``cup'' automatically disconnects the 
battery charger from the mains supply when the battery is removed from 
the charger.
     Switched-Mode Power Supply: To increase efficiency, line-
frequency (or linear) power supplies can be replaced with switched-mode 
EPSs, which greatly reduce the biggest sources of loss in a line-
frequency EPS: the transformer.
    Fast charger technology options include:
     Low-Power Integrated Circuits: The efficiency of the 
battery charger's switched-mode power supply can be further improved by 
substituting low-power integrated circuit (``IC'') controllers.
     Elimination/Limitation of Maintenance Current: See above.
     Schottky Diodes and Synchronous Rectification: Both line-
frequency and switched-mode EPSs use diodes to rectify output voltage. 
Schottky diodes and synchronous rectification can replace standard 
diodes to reduce rectification losses, which are increasingly 
significant at low voltage.
     Elimination of No-Battery Current: See above.
     Phase Control To Limit Input Power: Even when a typical 
battery charger is not delivering its maximum output current to the 
battery, its power conversion circuitry continues to draw significant 
power. A phase control circuit, like the one present in most common 
light dimmers, can be added to the primary side of the battery charger 
power supply circuitry to limit input current in lower-power modes.
    An in-depth discussion of these technology options can be found in 
Chapter 3 of the accompanying SNOPR TSD.

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which 
design options are suitable for further consideration in a standards 
rulemaking:
    1. Technological feasibility. DOE considers technologies 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible.
    2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If mass 
production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in 
commercial products could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve 
the relevant market at the time the standard comes into effect, then 
DOE considers that technology practicable to manufacture, install, and 
service.
    3. Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability. If 
DOE determines a technology would have a significantly adverse impact 
on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not 
consider this technology further.
    4. Adverse impacts on health or safety. If DOE determines that a 
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not consider this technology further.
    See generally 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and 
(5)(b).
    For battery chargers, after considering the four criteria, DOE 
screened out:
    1. Non-inductive chargers for use in wet environments because of 
potential adverse impacts on safety;
    2. Capacitive reactance because of potential adverse impacts on 
safety; and
    3. Lowering charging current or increasing battery voltage because 
of potential adverse impacts on product utility to consumers.
    For additional details, please see Chapter 4 of the SNOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

    In the engineering analysis (detailed in Chapter 5 of the SNOPR 
TSD), DOE presents a relationship between the manufacturer selling 
price (MSP) and increases in battery charger efficiency. The efficiency 
values range from that of an inefficient battery charger sold today 
(i.e., the baseline) to the maximum technologically feasible efficiency 
level. For each efficiency level examined, DOE determines the MSP; this 
relationship is referred to as a cost-efficiency curve.
    DOE structured its engineering analysis around two methodologies: 
(1) A ``test and teardown'' approach, which involves testing products 
for efficiency and determining cost from a detailed bill of materials 
(``BOM'') derived from tear-downs and (2) the efficiency-level 
approach, where the cost of achieving increases in energy efficiency at 
discrete levels of efficiency are estimated using information gathered 
in manufacturer interviews that was supplemented and verified through 
technology reviews and subject matter experts (``SMEs''). When 
analyzing the cost of each CSL--whether based on existing or 
theoretical designs--DOE differentiates the cost of the battery charger 
from the cost of the associated end-use product.
    When developing the engineering analysis for battery chargers, DOE 
selected representative units for each product class. For each 
representative unit, DOE tested a number of different products. After 
examining the test results, DOE selected CSLs that set discrete levels 
of improved battery charger performance in terms of energy consumption. 
Subsequently, for each CSL, DOE used either teardown data or 
information gained from manufacturer interviews to generate costs 
corresponding to each CSL for each representative unit. Finally, for 
each product class, DOE developed scaling relationships using 
additional test results and generated UEC equations based on battery 
energy.
1. Representative Units
    For each product class, DOE selected a representative unit upon 
which it conducted its engineering analysis and developed a cost-
efficiency curve. The representative unit is meant to be an idealized 
battery charger typical of those used with high-volume applications in 
its product class. Because results from the analysis of these 
representative units would later be extended, or applied to other units 
in each respective product class, DOE selected high-volume and/or high-
energy-consumption applications that use batteries that are typically 
found across battery chargers in the given product class. The analysis 
of these battery chargers is pertinent to all the applications in the 
product class under the assumption that all battery

[[Page 52872]]

chargers with the same battery voltage and energy provide similar 
utility to the user, regardless of the actual end-use product with 
which they work. Table IV-2 shows the representative units for each 
product class that DOE analyzed.

                     Table IV-2--Battery Charger Representative Units for Each Product Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Special
                                 Input/Output    Battery energy   characteristic     Rep. unit       Rep. unit
      Product class No.              type             (Wh)          or battery        battery     battery energy
                                                                     voltage        voltage (V)        (Wh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  AC In, DC Out...            <100  Inductive                   3.6             1.5
                                                                  Connection.
2............................  ................  ..............  <4 V...........             2.4               1
3............................  ................  ..............  4-10 V.........             7.2              10
4............................  ................  ..............  >10 V..........              12              20
5............................  ................        100-3000  <20 V..........              12             800
6............................  ................  ..............  >=20 V.........              24             400
7............................  ................           >3000  ...............              48           3,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional details on the battery charger representative units can 
be found in Chapter 5 of the accompanying SNOPR TSD.
2. Battery Charger Efficiency Metrics
    In the NOPR and this SNOPR, DOE used a single metric (i.e., UEC) to 
illustrate the improved performance of battery chargers. DOE designed 
the calculation of UEC to represent an annualized amount of the non-
useful energy consumed by a battery charger in all modes of operation. 
Non-useful energy is the total amount of energy consumed by a battery 
charger that is not transferred and stored in a battery as a result of 
charging (i.e., losses). In order to calculate UEC, DOE must have the 
performance data, which comes directly from its battery charger test 
procedure (see section III.A). DOE must also make assumptions about the 
amount of time spent in each mode of operation. The collective 
assumption about the amount of time spent in each mode of operation is 
referred to as a usage profile and is addressed in section IV.E and 
further detail in Chapter 7 of the accompanying SNOPR TSD. DOE 
recognizes that a wide range of consumers may use the same product in 
different ways, which may cause some uncertainty about usage profiles. 
Notwithstanding that possibility, DOE used the weighted average of 
usage profiles based on a distribution of user types and believes that 
its assumptions are appropriate gauges of product use to represent each 
product class. These assumptions also rely on a variety of sources 
including information from manufacturers and utilities. Details on 
DOE's usage profile assumptions can be found in section IV.E of this 
notice and Chapter 7 of the accompanying SNOPR TSD.
    Finally, DOE believes that by aggregating the performance 
parameters of battery chargers into one metric and applying a usage 
profile, it will allow manufacturers more flexibility to improve 
performance in the modes of operation that will be the most beneficial 
to their consumers rather than being required to improve the 
performance in each mode of operation, some of which may not provide 
any appreciable benefit. For example, a battery charger used with a 
mobile phone is likely to spend more time per day in no-battery mode 
than a battery charger used for a house phone, which is likely to spend 
a significant portion of every day in maintenance mode. Consequently, 
it would be more beneficial to consumers if mobile phone battery 
charger manufacturers improved no-battery mode and home phone battery 
charger manufacturers improved maintenance mode. Therefore, DOE is 
using the UEC as the single metric for battery chargers.
    DOE's proposed use of a single metric generated several comments. 
CEC, Arris, and the Republic of Korea stated that they believe DOE 
should alter the single metric compliance approach in favor of the 
approaches followed by the CEC or ENERGY STAR. (California Energy 
Commission, No. 117 at p. 17, 24; ARRIS Broadband 1, No. 90 at p. 2; 
Republic of Korea, No. 148 at p. 2) Conversely, PTI supported the use 
of a single metric based upon the usage factors associated with each 
product class. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 4) DOE's compliance equation and 
metrics give manufacturers the flexibility to re-design their products 
in any way that they choose. In this way, manufacturers can pursue 
improvements in any modes of operation, which would benefit their users 
in the manner that matters most to them. Furthermore, DOE cannot issue 
a standard with the two separate metrics found in the CEC rule. That 
rule uses two separate metrics, both of which incorporate maintenance 
mode as defined in the battery charger test procedure \18\ and used in 
this SNOPR. EPCA requires that DOE regulate standby and off mode into a 
single metric unless it is technically infeasible to do so. See 42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3). Standby mode, as defined by 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3), 
occurs when the energy-consuming product is connected to the mains and 
offers a user-oriented or protective function such as facilitating the 
activation or deactivation of other functions (including active mode) 
by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer. 
See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii). Because maintenance mode, as used in 
this SNOPR, meets the statutory definition of standby mode, DOE must 
incorporate maintenance mode into a single metric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ CFR part 430 Appendix Y to Subpart B, Section 2.8 ``Battery 
maintenance mode or maintenance mode is the mode of operation when 
the battery charger is connected to the main electricity supply and 
the battery is fully charged, but is still connected to the 
charger.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Calculation of Unit Energy Consumption
    UEC is based on a calculation designed to give the total annual 
amount of energy lost by a battery charger from the time spent in each 
mode of operation. For the preliminary analysis, the various 
performance parameters were combined with the usage profile parameters 
and used to calculate UEC with the following equation:

UEC = 365(n(E24-Pm(24-tc)-
Ebatt) + (Pm(ta&m-(tcn))) + 
(Psbtsb) + (Pofftoff))

Where

E24 = 24-hour energy
Ebatt = Measured battery energy
Pm = Maintenance mode power
Psb = Standby mode power
Poff = Off mode power
tc = Time to completely charge a fully discharged battery
n = Number of charges per day
ta&m = Time per day spent in active and maintenance mode
tsb = Time per day spent in standby mode
toff = Time per day spent in off mode \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Those values shown in italics are parameters assumed in the 
usage profile and change for each product class. Further discussion 
of them and their derivation is found in section IV.E. The other 
values should be determined according to section 5 of Appendix Y to 
Subpart B of Part 430.


[[Page 52873]]


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

    When separated and examined in segments, it becomes evident how 
this equation gives a value for energy consumed in each mode of 
operation per day and ultimately, energy consumption per year. These 
segments are discussed individually below.
Active (or Charge) Mode Energy per Day
n(E24-Pm(24-tc)-Ebatt) = 
EActive Mode/day

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

    In the second segment of DOE's equation, shown above, maintenance 
mode power, time spent in active and maintenance mode per day 
(ta&m), charge time, and the assumed number of charges per 
day are combined to obtain maintenance mode energy per day. Time spent 
in active and maintenance mode is subtracted from the product of the 
charge time multiplied by the number of charges per day. The resulting 
quantity is an estimate of time spent in maintenance mode per day, 
which, when multiplied by the measured value of maintenance mode power, 
yields the energy consumed per day in maintenance mode.
    The use of ta&m generated several comments from the CEC, 
who stated that the general use of assumptions for this metric would 
introduce errors into the calculation. (California Energy Commission, 
No. 117 at p. 17, 18, 20, 26) Though the energy usage tables 
disaggregate active and maintenance mode time assumptions 
(ta and tm) for each application, these values 
should not be used alone for determining compliance. DOE believes that 
it is inappropriate to use the individual assumptions for ta 
and tm for all the products within a single product class 
because of the variability in charge time. Variation in charge time has 
a direct effect on any product and how much time it spends in both 
active and maintenance mode. These variations are accounted for in the 
test procedure, by virtue of the charge and maintenance mode test and 
the output, E24. Therefore, DOE did not disaggregate active 
and maintenance mode in its compliance calculation of UEC; instead, the 
outputs of the test procedure would dictate that balance for each 
product. Therefore, DOE has determined that the usage profile 
assumptions outlined in Section E below are critical in determined real 
world energy use of battery chargers.
Standby (or No-Battery) Mode Energy per Day
(Psbtsb) = EStandby Mode/day

    In the third part of DOE's UEC equation, the measured value of 
standby mode power is multiplied by the estimated time in standby mode 
per day, which results in a value of energy consumed per day in standby 
mode.
Off-Mode Energy per Day
(Pofftoff) = ENo_Battery Mode/day

    In the final part of DOE's UEC equation, the measured value of off-
mode power is multiplied by the estimated time in off-mode per day, 
which results in a value of energy consumed per day in off-mode.
    To obtain UEC, the values found through the above calculations are 
added together. The resulting sum is equivalent to an estimate of the 
average amount of energy consumed by a battery charger per day. That 
value is then multiplied by 365, the number of days in a year, and the 
end result is a value of energy consumed per year.
Modifications to Equation for Unit Energy Consumption
    On April 2, 2010, DOE published a proposal to revise its test 
procedures for battery chargers and EPSs. (75 FR 16958) In that notice, 
DOE proposed to use a shorter version of the active mode test procedure 
in scenarios where a technician could determine that a battery charger 
had entered maintenance mode, 75 FR 16970. However, during its testing 
of battery chargers, DOE observed complications arising when attempting 
to determine the charge time for some devices, which, in turn, could 
affect the accuracy of the UEC calculation. DOE ultimately decided that 
the duration of the charge test must not be shortened and be a minimum 
of 24 hours. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix Y (``Uniform Test 
Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers''). The 
test that DOE adopted has a longer duration if it is known (e.g., 
because of an indicator light on the battery charger) or it can be 
determined from manufacturer information that fully charging the 
associated battery will take longer than 19 hours.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The charge mode test must include at least a five-hour 
period where the unit being tested is known to be in maintenance 
mode. Thus, if a device takes longer than 19 hours to charge, or is 
expected to take longer than 19 hours to charge, the entire duration 
of the charge mode test will exceed 24 hours in total time after the 
five-hour period of maintenance mode time is added. 76 FR 31750, 
31766-67, and 31780.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This revision to the test procedure is important because it 
underscores the potential issues with trying to determine exactly when 
a battery charger has entered maintenance mode, which creates 
difficulty in determining charge time. To address this situation, DOE 
modified its initial UEC equation. The new equation, which was 
presented to manufacturers during interviews, is mathematically 
equivalent to the equation presented in the preliminary analysis. When 
the terms in the preliminary analysis UEC equation are multiplied, 
those terms containing a factor of charge time cancel each other out 
and drop out of the equation. What is left can be factored and 
rewritten as done below. This means that even though the new equation 
looks different from the equation presented for the preliminary 
analysis, the value that is obtained is the same and represents the 
same value of unit energy consumption.
New Base UEC Equation
UEC = 365(n(E24-Ebatt) + 
(Pm(ta&m-(24n))) + (Psbtsb) 
+ (Pofftoff))

    In addition to initially considering a shortened battery charger 
active mode test procedure, DOE considered capping the measurement of 
24-hour energy at the 24-hour mark of the test. However, following this 
approach could result in inaccuracies because that measurement would 
exclude the full amount of

[[Page 52874]]

energy used to charge a battery if the charge time is longer than 24 
hours in duration. To account for this possibility, DOE altered this 
initial approach in its test procedure final rule by requiring the 
measurement of energy for the entire duration of the charge and 
maintenance mode test, which includes a minimum of 5 hours in 
maintenance mode. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y, Sec. 5.2.
    The modifications to the UEC calculation do not alter the value 
obtained when the charge and maintenance mode test is completed within 
24 hours. However, if the test exceeds 24 hours, the energy lost during 
charging is scaled back to a 24-hour, or per day, cycle by multiplying 
that energy by the ratio of 24 to the duration of the charge and 
maintenance mode test. In the equation below, tcd, 
represents the duration of the charge and maintenance mode test and is 
a value that the test procedure requires technicians to determine. DOE 
also modified the equation from the NOPR by inserting a provision to 
subtract 5 hours of maintenance mode energy from the 24-hour energy 
measurement. This change was made because the charge and maintenance 
mode test includes a minimum of 5 hours of maintenance mode time. 
Consequently, in the second portion of the equation below, DOE would 
reduce the amount of time subtracted from the assumed time in active 
and maintenance mode time per day.
    In other words, the second portion of the equation, which is an 
approximation of maintenance mode energy, is reduced by 5 hours. This 
alteration was needed to address instances when the charge and 
maintenance mode test exceeds 24 hours, because the duration of the 
test minus 5 hours is an approximation of charge time. This 
information, tcd, can then be used to approximate the 
portion of time that a device is assumed to spend in active and 
maintenance mode per day (ta&m) and is solely dedicated to 
maintenance mode.\21\ The primary equation (i) that manufacturers will 
use to determine their product's unit energy consumption and whether 
their device complies with DOE's standards is below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For a test exceeding 24 hours, the duration of the test 
less 5 hours is equal to the time it took the battery being tested 
to become fully charged (tcd - 5). That value, multiplied 
by the assumed number of charges per day, gives an estimate of 
charge (or active) time per day, which can then be subtracted from 
DOE's other assumption for ta&m. That difference is an 
approximation for maintenance mode time per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary Equation (i)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01SE15.000

Secondary Calculation of UEC
    For some battery chargers, the equation described above is not 
appropriate and an alternative calculation is necessary. Specifically, 
in those cases where the charge test duration (as determined according 
to section 5.2 of Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430) minus 5 hours is 
multiplied by the number of charges per day (n) is greater than the 
time assumed in active and maintenance mode (ta&m), an 
alternative equation must be used. A different equation must be used 
because if the number of charges per day multiplied by the time it 
takes to charge (charge test duration minus 5 hours--or the charge time 
per day) is longer than the assumption for the amount of time spent in 
charge mode and maintenance mode per day, that difference creates an 
inconsistency between the measurements for the test product and DOE's 
assumptions. This problem can be corrected by using an alternative 
equation, which is shown below.
Secondary Equation (ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01SE15.001

    This alternative equation (ii) resolves this inconsistency by 
prorating the energy used for charging the battery.
    The final UEC equations generated several comments from the CEC. It 
asserted that the UEC equation fails to incentivize manufacturers to 
improve maintenance mode power in their products (California Energy 
Commission, No. 117 at p. 17). Specifically, in its view, UEC equation 
(i) would reward manufacturers of battery chargers with higher 
maintenance mode power, since maintenance mode power is subtracted from 
the estimated annual energy consumption (California Energy Commission, 
No. 117 at p. 22). Additionally, it stated that UEC equation (ii) is 
also flawed, as it does not account for the energy consumed by the 
maintenance mode of a product (California Energy Commission, No. 117 at 
p. 21). The CEC also concluded that the usage assumptions contain 
flaws, thereby introducing errors into the UEC calculation (California 
Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 18). The CEC requested that DOE 
combine the alternative UEC equation with the main UEC equation, 
resulting in a single equation for calculating UEC. (California Energy 
Commission, No. 117 at p. 27).
    While the CEC accurately noted there is a negative term related to 
maintenance mode power in the UEC equation when combined with the 
Product Class 2 usage profile, the primary and secondary UEC equations 
are not flawed and are both necessary. The usage profile for this 
product class simply reflects that the consumer benefits more greatly 
from improved charge efficiency rather than improved maintenance mode. 
The CEC concluded that manufacturers are incentivized to increase their 
maintenance mode power to reduce their UEC, but the CEC's conclusion 
neglects the fact that if maintenance mode power is increased, so would 
the 24-hour energy consumption. The value of 24-hour energy will 
increase by an amount equivalent to the maintenance mode power 
increase, multiplied by the difference between 24 and the time to 
charge the battery. Furthermore, if two units have all of the same 
performance parameters except for maintenance mode power consumption 
(i.e., 24-hour

[[Page 52875]]

energy, standby mode power, and off mode power), it follows that the 
device with the higher maintenance mode power consumption is more 
efficient during charging. As mentioned, the usage profile for Product 
Class 2 suggests that, on average, users of these products will benefit 
more from an efficient charge rather than an efficient maintenance mode 
and, therefore, the unit with the higher maintenance mode power will 
have a lower UEC. More details on DOE's analysis for this conclusion 
can be found in Chapter 5 of the accompanying SNOPR TSD.
4. Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels
    After selecting its representative units for battery chargers, DOE 
examined the impacts on the cost of improving the efficiency of each of 
the representative units to evaluate the impact and assess the 
viability of potential energy efficiency standards. As described in the 
technology assessment and screening analysis, there are numerous design 
options available for improving efficiency and each incremental 
technology improvement increases the battery charger efficiency along a 
continuum. The engineering analysis develops cost estimates for several 
CSLs along that continuum.
    CSLs are often based on (1) efficiencies available in the market; 
(2) voluntary specifications or mandatory standards that cause 
manufacturers to develop products at particular efficiency levels; and 
(3) the maximum technologically feasible level.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The ``max-tech'' level represents the most efficient design 
that is commercialized or has been demonstrated in a prototype with 
materials or technologies available today. ``Max-tech'' is not 
constrained by economic justification, and is typically the most 
expensive design option considered in the engineering analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, there are no energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers. Therefore, DOE based the CSLs for its battery charger 
engineering analysis on the efficiencies obtainable through the design 
options presented previously (see section IV.A). These options are 
readily seen in various commercially available units. DOE selected 
commercially available battery chargers at the representative-unit 
battery voltage and energy levels from the high-volume applications 
identified in the market survey. DOE then tested these units in 
accordance with the DOE battery charger test procedure. For each 
representative unit, DOE then selected CSLs to correspond to the 
efficiency of battery charger models that were comparable to each other 
in most respects, but differed significantly in UEC (i.e. efficiency).
    In general, for each representative unit, DOE chose the baseline 
(CSL 0) unit to be the one with the highest calculated unit energy 
consumption, and the best-in-market (CSL 2) to be the one with the 
lowest. Where possible, the energy consumption of an intermediate model 
was selected as the basis for CSL 1 to provide additional resolution to 
the analysis.
    Unlike the previous three CSLs, CSL 3 was not based on an 
evaluation of the efficiency of individual battery charger units in the 
market, since battery chargers with maximum technologically feasible 
efficiency levels are not commercially available due to their high 
cost. Where possible, DOE analyzed manufacturer estimates of max-tech 
costs and efficiencies. In some cases, manufacturers were unable to 
offer any insight into efficiency level beyond the best ones currently 
available in the market. Therefore, DOE projected the efficiency of a 
max-tech unit by estimating the impacts of adding any remaining energy 
efficiency design options to the CSL unit analyzed.
    On January 12, 2012, California proposed standards for small 
battery chargers, which the State eventually adopted.\23\ The 
California standards are based on two metrics, one for 24-hour energy 
use, and one for the combined maintenance mode and standby mode power 
usage. DOE, using the usage profiles it developed to translate these 
standards into a value of UEC, compared its CSLs with the levels 
adopted by California. DOE found that, in most cases, the California 
proposed standards generally corresponded closely with one of DOE's 
CSLs for each product class when the standards were converted into a 
value of UEC (using DOE's usage profile assumptions). However, since 
the adoption of the CEC standards, DOE has attempted to adjust its CSLs 
to align with the CEC standards to the extent possible. For example if 
DOE's test and teardown approach resulted in a representative unit used 
to create CSL1 and the resulting CSL1 was slightly more stringent than 
DOE's translation of the CEC level, then DOE would shift CSL1 to be 
more stringent and to more closely align with the CEC's standard. This 
methodology is outlined in more detail in Chapter 5 of the accompanying 
SNOPR TSD. DOE seeks comment from stakeholders on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The term ``small battery charger system'' is defined by the 
CEC as a battery charger system ``with a rated input power of 2 kW 
or less, and includes golf cart battery charger systems regardless 
of the output power.'' 20 Cal. Code 1602(w) (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-3 below shows which CSL aligns most closely with the 
California standards for each product class.

          Table IV-3--CSLs Approximate to California Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               CSL approximate to CEC
               Product class                          standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (Low-Energy, Inductive).................  CSL 0
2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage)...............  CSL 1
3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage)............  CSL 1
4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage)..............  CSL 1
5 (Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage)............  CSL 2
6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage)...........  CSL 2
7 (High-Energy)...........................  CSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, DOE received comments on specific CSLs for specific 
product classes. For Product Class 2 (low-energy, low-voltage) and 
Product Class 3 (low-energy, medium voltage) since stakeholders 
believed that intermediate CSLs that more closely align with the CEC's 
levels could be shown to be cost effective based on specific units in 
the marketplace that meet intermediate levels. Specifically, these 
stakeholders suggested modifying Product Class 2 to include a ``CSL 
2.5'' and Product Class 3 to include a CSL ``1.8.'' (CA IOUs, No. 138 
at p. 5-8; ASAP, No. 162 at p. 4, 6; NRDC, No. 114 at p. 5) NRDC and 
the CEC also both urged DOE to reconsider the analysis for Product 
Class 3 and develop an intermediate CSL between CSL 1 and CSL 2. (NRDC, 
No. 114 at p. 6; California Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 12) 
Concerning Product Class 4, ARRIS asserted that setting the standard at 
TSL 1 (CSL 1) will have no major effect on energy savings since the 
majority of products already meet this level. (ARRIS Broadband 1, No. 
90 at p. 3)
    DOE also received comments regarding the specific limits chosen for 
Product Class 10. Schneider requested that DOE reconsider the proposed 
level set for CSL 2 and CSL 3, noting in particular that the product 
relied on by DOE to develop CSL2 was no longer on the market 
(Schneider, No. 119 at p. 4) Furthermore, Schneider requested that CSL 
0 or CSL 1 be selected, stating that CSL 3 is speculative, if not 
impossible, in terms of feasibility. (Schneider, No. 119 at p. 4) 
Schneider requested that if CSL 2 is chosen, a 3-year compliance window 
from the date of the published final rule be set. (Schneider, No. 119 
at p. 4) Regarding Product Class 10B,

[[Page 52876]]

Schneider requested that DOE recalculate higher levels for CSL 0 and 
CSL 1 and that one of these levels be chosen with a 5-year compliance 
window from the date of the published final rule. (Schneider, No. 119 
at p. 5, 6) NEMA argued that if the standards proposed in the NOPR were 
adopted, manufacturers would likely petition DOE for hardship 
exemptions. (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 5)
    With the exception of the max tech level, the CSLs presented in the 
March 2012 NOPR for all product classes (including CSLs 2, 3, and 4), 
were based on commercially available products and the costs to reach 
these levels were independently verified by manufacturers and subject 
matter experts. For the SNOPR, DOE attempted to align at least one CSL 
in each product class subject to this proposed rule as closely as 
possible to the CEC standards to address comments to the NOPR 
suggesting that DOE create a new CSL that more closely aligns with the 
CEC levels. Additionally, as previously stated, DOE is no longer 
proposing standards for product class 10 because these products are now 
being considered as part of the Computer and Backup Battery Systems 
rulemaking. See 79 FR 41656. As such, comments related to product class 
10 are no longer relevant to this rulemaking and DOE will not be 
addressing comments submitted in response to the NOPR for Product Class 
10 in this SNOPR.
5. Test and Teardowns
    The CSLs used in the battery charger engineering analysis were 
based on the efficiencies of battery chargers available in the market. 
Following testing, the units corresponding to each commercially 
available CSL were disassembled to (1) evaluate the presence of energy 
efficiency design options and (2) estimate the materials cost. The 
teardowns included an examination of the general design of the battery 
charger and helped confirm the presence of any of the technology 
options discussed in section IV.A
    After the battery charger units corresponding to the CSLs were 
evaluated, they were torn down by IHS Technology (formerly iSuppli), a 
DOE contractor and industry expert. An in-depth teardown and cost 
analysis was performed for each of these units. For some products, like 
camcorders and notebook computers, the battery charger constitutes a 
small portion of the circuitry. In evaluating the related costs, IHS 
Technology identified the subset of components in each product 
enclosure responsible for battery charging. The results of these 
teardowns were then used as the primary source for the MSPs.
    For this SNOPR engineering analysis, DOE continued to rely on its 
test and teardown data. Consequently, the test and teardown results 
reflected the current technologies on the market and did not attempt to 
predict which technological designs may become available in the future. 
Multiple interested parties criticized the test and teardown approach 
to the battery charger engineering because the market does not 
naturally push products to become just more efficient. Instead, 
improved efficiency is often a byproduct of other added utilities, such 
as making products smaller and lighter. These parties believed that DOE 
over-estimated its costs to achieve certain CSLs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 
1: ASAP, No. 162 at p. 1: CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 4)
    Additionally, responding to the NOPR analyses, NRDC, the CA IOUs, 
NEEP, and ASAP suggested that DOE's engineering analysis for battery 
chargers should reflect a baseline in which the EPS that accompanies 
the battery charger is compliant with DOE's (then) future regulations 
for EPSs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No. 138 at pp. 7, 8; ASAP, 
et al., No. 136 at p. 7; ASAP, No. 162 at p. 1, 5) One interested party 
also stated that DOE should ensure that the units it uses to represent 
higher battery charger CSLs should incorporate EPSs that meet future 
standards because those EPSs are cost-effective. (NEEP, No. 144 at p. 
2) Finally, one interested party suggested that DOE overstated the 
costs of complying with higher efficiency standards because it tore 
down units rather than explicitly making modifications to the EPSs of 
less efficient battery chargers, thereby failing to capture potentially 
cost-effective savings of EPS improvements. (ASAP, et al., No. 136 at 
p. 4)
    The first two points made by interested parties are similar and 
both points suggest that DOE modify CSLs to account for future EPS 
regulations. However, DOE notes that not all battery chargers will 
incorporate an EPS that is, or will be, subject to efficiency 
regulations. For that reason, the baseline efficiency and all higher 
efficiency levels that DOE analyzes are not required to reflect a 
combination of technologies that includes an EPS that meets the higher 
efficiency levels that will apply to certain classes of EPSs in 2016. 
Regarding the assertions that DOE has overstated its costs by using a 
test and teardown approach, as mentioned above, not all battery 
chargers will necessarily have to incorporate a more efficient EPS as a 
result of any new standards for those products. In fact, such an 
assumption would have the effect of steepening a cost-efficiency curve. 
If DOE were to assume that the EPS must be improved in all battery 
charger systems, then DOE would be removing a design path that battery 
charger manufacturers could potentially take. This would have the 
effect of making incremental improvements to performance more costly 
because it removes a degree of freedom from battery charger 
manufacturers. The test and teardown approach has the benefit of not 
eliminating any practicable design options from the analysis. This 
approach is technology neutral, and although DOE does provide an 
analysis of the technologies that were used in the products that it 
tore down, that does not mean that is the only design path to achieve 
that performance level. Instead, it is a reflection of the choices that 
various battery charger manufacturers are currently making to improve 
the performance of their products.
    Finally, DOE verified the accuracy of the IHS Technology results by 
reviewing aggregated results with individual manufacturers during 
interviews and subject matter experts. As discussed later, DOE 
performed additional manufacturer interviews for the NOPR and during 
these interviews, the initial IHS Technology results were again 
aggregated and reviewed with manufacturers. DOE believes that it has 
sufficiently verified the accuracy of its teardown results and believes 
that all of the engineering costs gleaned from IHS Technology are 
appropriate.
6. Manufacturer Interviews
    The engineering analysis also relies in part on information 
obtained through interviews with several battery charger manufacturers. 
These manufacturers consisted of companies that manufacture battery 
chargers and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of battery-
operated products who package (and sometimes design, manufacture, and 
package) battery chargers with their end-use products. DOE followed 
this interview approach to obtain data on the possible efficiencies and 
resultant costs of consumer battery chargers. Aggregated information 
from these interviews is provided in Chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD. The 
interviews also provided manufacturer inputs and comments in preparing 
the manufacturer impact analysis, which is discussed in detail in 
section IV.J.
    DOE attempted to obtain teardown results for all of its product 
classes, but encountered difficulties in obtaining useful and accurate 
teardown results for

[[Page 52877]]

one of its products classes--namely, Product Class 1 (e.g., electric 
toothbrushes). For this product class, DOE relied heavily on 
information obtained from manufacturer interviews. DOE found that when 
it attempted to teardown Product Class 1 devices, most contained 
potting (i.e., material used to waterproof internal electronics). 
Removal of the potting also removed the identifying markings that IHS 
Technology needed to estimate a cost for the components. As a result, 
manufacturer interview data helped furnish the necessary information to 
assist DOE in estimating these costs.
7. Design Options
    Design options are technology options that remain viable for use in 
the engineering analysis after applying the screening criteria as 
discussed above in section IV.B. DOE notes that all technology options 
that are not eliminated in the screening analysis, section IV.B, become 
design options that are considered in the engineering analysis. Most 
CSLs, except for those related to max-tech units and chargers falling 
in Product Class 1 and Product Class 6, where DOE did not tear down 
units, are based on actual teardowns of units manufactured and sold in 
today's battery charger market. Consequently, DOE did not control which 
design options were used at each CSL. No technology options were 
preemptively eliminated from use with a particular product class. 
Similarly, if products are being manufactured and sold, DOE believes 
that fact indicates the absence of any significant loss in utility, 
such as an extremely limited operating temperature range or shortened 
cycle-life. Therefore, DOE believes that all CSLs can be met with 
technologies that are feasible and that fit the intended application. 
Details on the technology associated with each CSL can be found in 
Chapter 5 of the accompanying SNOPR TSD.
    For the max-tech designs, which are not commercially available, DOE 
developed these levels in part with a focus on maintaining product 
utility as projected energy efficiency improved. Although some 
features, such as decreased charge time, were considered as added 
utilities, DOE did not assign any monetary value to such features. 
Additionally, DOE did not assume that such features were undesirable, 
particularly if the incremental improvement in performance causes a 
significant savings in energy costs. Finally, to the extent possible 
DOE considered durability, reliability, and other performance and 
utility-related features that affect consumer behavior. See SNOPR TSD, 
Chapter 5 for additional details.
    In response to the NOPR engineering analysis, DOE received multiple 
comments on design options that were not mentioned in DOE's analysis. 
ECOVAECOVA argued that more efficient nickel-based charger designs 
exist and should be considered for determining costs of standards. Its 
comments also noted, however, that no commercially available products 
use these more efficient designs. (ECOVAECOVA, No. 97 at p. 1) The CEC 
and ASAP suggested that DOE consider designs presented by ECOVAECOVA 
that demonstrated the higher efficiency levels that are possible when 
compared to what is currently available in the marketplace for nickel-
based designs. (California Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 2; 
Transcript, No. 104 at p. 256; ASAP, et al., No. 136 at p. 8) The 
California Investor-Owned Utilities (``CA IOUs'') made a similar 
comment, stating that a teardown and redesign of Product Class 4 shows 
the previously proposed CSL 2 to be cost effective. (CA IOUs, No. 138 
at p. 9) NRDC and NEEP also argued that DOE overestimated the costs to 
improve efficiency in Product Classes 2-6, stating that DOE's 
representative units do not use the most cost-effective designs to 
achieve proposed and that the previously proposed CSL 2 in Product 
Class 3 could be achieved with a battery chemistry other than lithium. 
(NRDC, No. 114 at p. 3; NEEP, No. 144 at pp. 1-2) Southern California 
Edison (SCE) similarly stated that the reason no nickel-based chargers 
that meet the previously proposed CSL 2 for Product Classes 2-4 have 
been found is that strong market forces discourage the development of 
efficient nickel chargers and, therefore, the current market is an 
ineffective place to identify high efficiency designs. (SCE, No. 164 at 
p. 1) Finally, SCE stated that current charge rates seen in the 
previously proposed CSL 1 for Product Classes 2-4 can be 3-12 times 
lower while still maintaining a full charge. (SCE, No. 164 at p. 2)
    In response to public comments made by ECOVAECOVA at the NOPR 
public meeting, PTI, AHAM and CEA, challenged the idea that lower 
maintenance mode power levels could be achieved. PTI noted that the CEC 
standards are not achievable for battery chargers that charge nickel-
cadmium (Ni-Cd) or nickel-metal-hydride (Ni-MH) cells and that 
ECOVAECOVA's claims fail to meet any possible criteria for technical 
feasibility. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 2) AHAM similarly noted that 
ECOVAECOVA's claims neglect the requirement of nickel-based chemistries 
that they be maintained at a high charge due to the secondary 
recombination reaction that occurs in sealed cells, which affects state 
of charge and the life of the battery cells. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 3) 
However, SCE separately noted that the recombination reaction is 
important to account for during the charge cycle (or active mode 
charging) but accounting for this reaction does not need to persist in 
maintenance mode. It added that the current calculated for the CEC 
standard level is sufficient. (SCE, No. 164 at p. 2) Finally, PTI, 
AHAM, and CEA jointly stated that ECOVA's suggested design 
modifications are technically infeasible, resulting in reduced battery 
lifetimes, and that adopting efficiency levels at the stringency 
suggested by ECOVA would effectively eliminate Ni-Cd products with 
battery energies above 20Wh. (PTI, AHAM, CEA, No. 161 at p. 3)
    DOE based its analysis on commercially available products when 
establishing candidate standard levels for Product Classes 2-6. Through 
extensive testing, discussion with SMEs, and market research, DOE found 
that manufacturers have already moved away from nickel-based systems, 
to lithium-based systems, partly as a means of improving efficiency 
(lithium also offers other benefits to consumers, such as higher energy 
density and cycle life). This shift away from nickel-based systems is 
due, in part, to the fact that these systems have to counteract 
secondary reactions within the battery cells, which result in self-
discharge--which, in turn, shortens battery life. To counteract this, 
nickel-based chargers must have a certain level of maintenance mode 
power to preserve a full (100%) charge and maintain consumer utility. 
(Lithium-based systems experience similar reactions, but with much 
lower levels of self-discharge and can reach much lower power levels in 
maintenance mode.) DOE has updated this analysis to focus on improved 
nickel-based battery chargers and through further testing and teardowns 
conducted as part of this SNOPR, found that designs similar to ECOVA's 
proposed design are being implemented and sold into the market. These 
already-available designs suggest that improvements to nickel-based 
designs may be a feasible option in certain cases for manufacturers to 
employ to meet their utility requirements and improve the energy 
efficiency of their battery chargers. Accordingly, DOE has updated the 
proposed CSLs and found that deploying solely lithium-based systems

[[Page 52878]]

would not necessarily be required to meet the proposed levels.
    DOE received further comments from stakeholders concerning the 
costs associated with moving from nickel to lithium designs rather than 
to more efficient nickel designs. NRDC and CEC commented that by using 
lithium designs, the actual costs of moving from the previously 
proposed CSL 1 to CSL 2 in Product Class 3 are over stated. (NRDC, Pub. 
Mtg. Tr., No. 104 at p. 57: NRDC, No. 114 at p. 5) NRDC and CEC claimed 
that this same argument applies to Product Classes 2-6 and that the 
costs for all of these product classes are overstated and inaccurate. 
(California Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 7, 12, 13: NRDC, No. 114 
at p. 5) When considering design solutions and paths, DOE relied 
heavily on information provided by manufacturers during interviews. 
However, DOE has conducted additional testing and market research in 
response to these comments. DOE found that while many lithium-based 
systems have been introduced into the market, there are also many 
products deploying nickel-based battery charging systems with minor 
updates that reduce maintenance mode and overall energy use at a lower 
cost than some lithium designs. The costs used in this SNOPR reasonably 
reflect real world design changes and the feasibility and cost of such 
changes have been corroborated by manufacturers and subject matter 
experts.
    Finally, DOE received comments from GE Healthcare and Schumacher 
noting that outside elements may prevent them from pursuing certain 
design pathways for their respective products. GE Healthcare commented 
that there are medical devices which are deployed in adverse 
conditions, extreme temperatures, or gaseous environments which may 
prevent certain types of battery chemistries from being used. (GE 
Healthcare, No. 142 at p. 2) Schumacher commented that certain design 
patents held by their competition prevent them from deploying switch 
mode designs in their engine-start automotive battery chargers. 
(Schumacher, No. 143 at p. 4) As noted earlier, DOE is not proposing to 
set standards that would affect medical battery chargers. More 
generally in response to both comments, DOE notes that if a 
manufacturer finds that meeting the standard for battery chargers would 
cause special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens, 
the manufacturer may petition the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) 
for exception relief or exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA's 
authority under section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 
7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the 
authority to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines 
that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would 
cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens.
8. Cost Model
    This proposed rule continues to apply the same approach used in the 
NOPR and preliminary analysis to generate the manufacturer selling 
prices (MSPs) for the engineering analysis. For those product classes 
other than Product Class 1, DOE's MSPs rely on the teardown results 
obtained from IHS Technology. The bills of materials provided by IHS 
Technology were multiplied by a markup based on product class. For 
those product classes for which DOE could not estimate MSPs using the 
IHS Technology teardowns-Product Class 1-DOE relied on aggregate 
manufacturer interview data. Additional details regarding the cost 
model and the markups assumed for each product class are presented in 
Chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD.
    DOE's cost estimates reflect real world costs and have been updated 
where necessary for this SNOPR. The CA IOUs asserted that the 
methodology used to derive costs was fundamentally flawed and 
overestimated BOM costs. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 11) DOE disagrees. The 
primary benefit to the teardown approach is that it relies on real-
world designs and reflects practices and approaches that manufacturers 
are currently using to improve product performance. As a result, DOE's 
estimates are based on actual pricing and cost data for the various 
components and manufacturing technologies employed by industry. 
Additionally, by applying this method, DOE can examine battery chargers 
used in multiple applications, which allows its estimated costs to 
reflect various constraints and manufacturer choices. All of these 
factors weigh in favor of the teardown approach, which is more likely 
to provide a reasonable approximation of the costs involved to produce 
a given battery charger with a particular set of features and 
efficiency level than other methods that do not account for these 
factors.
    DOE also received comments during the NOPR public meeting regarding 
the possible decline in the cost of lithium batteries and the effects 
that this decline could have on the cost model. NRDC asserted that DOE 
had not factored in the rapid decline in the cost of lithium batteries 
that DOE itself has shown in its own cost projections. (NRDC, Pub. Mtg. 
Tr, No. 104 at p. 58) DOE understands that commodity prices fluctuate 
for emerging technologies and they can decrease over time, perhaps even 
during the course of the analysis period. However, lithium-based 
battery chargers in consumer products have not experienced as sharp a 
decline as the cost for lithium batteries in other applications, such 
as those used for electric vehicles, mainly because of the scale and 
size of those systems. Without more substantive data that specifically 
addresses lithium batteries and lithium-based battery chargers for the 
consumer market, DOE chose to base its analysis on stable indicators 
rather than data prone to market fluctuations, such as lithium prices 
are. Furthermore, commodity prices can fluctuate for any number of 
reasons, potentially resulting in adverse effects on consumers.
9. Battery Charger Engineering Results
    The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-
efficiency data (or ``curves'') in the form of MSP (in dollars) versus 
unit energy consumption (in kWh/yr). These data form the basis for this 
SNOPR analyses. This section illustrates the results that DOE obtained 
for all seven product classes in its engineering analysis.
    DOE received several comments supporting the Product Class 1 
engineering results in the NOPR. (NRDC. No. 114 at p. 8; California 
Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 28) No changes were made to the 
engineering results for Product Class 1 and the results are shown below 
in Table IV-4.

                  Table IV-4--Product Class 1 (Inductive Chargers) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       CSL 0           CSL 1           CSL 2           CSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL Description.................................        Baseline    Intermediate  Best in Market        Max Tech
24-Hour Energy (Wh).............................            26.7            19.3            10.8             5.9
Maintenance Mode Power (W)......................             1.2             0.8             0.4             0.2
No-Battery Mode Power (W).......................             0.5             0.4             0.2             0.1

[[Page 52879]]

 
Off-Mode Power (W)..............................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)................            8.73            6.10            3.04            1.29
MSP [$].........................................           $2.05           $2.30           $2.80           $6.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received several comments regarding costs for Product Class 2 
in response to the NOPR. NRDC, CEC, and the CA IOUs all claimed that 
the projected costs for Product Class 2 were incorrect and did not 
reflect real world costs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 5; California Energy 
Commission, No. 117 at p. 10, 11; CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 4) DOE has 
updated its analysis and discussion for this product class. See Chapter 
5 of the accompanying Chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD.
    DOE also received specific comments about how it derived its costs 
for Product Classes 2, 3, and 4. ASAP and NEEP requested that DOE 
explain how these costs were derived and identify which units were 
used. (ASAP, No. 162 at p. 2-7; NEEP, No. 160 at p. 1) For the SNOPR 
analysis, DOE used the representative unit cost associated with a 
single unit with a BOM that can be found in Appendix 5B of the SNOPR 
TSD. For the instances where a representative unit was created to be 
approximate to the CEC standard, BOM costs were used as well. Further 
detail on these costs and representative units can be found in Chapter 
5 and Appendix 5B of the accompanying SNOPR TSD.
    Based on further analysis, DOE adjusted the results for Product 
Class 2. These adjusted results are shown in the Table IV-5. More 
details on these updates can be found in Chapter 5 of the accompanying 
SNOPR TSD.

               Table IV-5--Product Class 2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       CSL 0           CSL 1           CSL 2           CSL 3           CSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL Description.................        Baseline    Intermediate             2nd  Best in Market        Max Tech
                                                                    Intermediate
24-Hour Energy (Wh).............           25.79            13.6            8.33            8.94            6.90
Maintenance Mode Power (W)......             1.1             0.5            0.13             0.1            0.04
No-Battery Mode Power (W).......             0.3             0.3            0.03            0.02            0.10
Off-Mode Power (W)..............             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)            5.33            3.09            1.69            1.58            1.11
MSP [$].........................           $1.16           $1.20           $1.49           $2.43           $4.31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also received several comments regarding costs used in the 
engineering analysis for Product Class 3. The CA IOUs noted that DOE 
may have omitted a component in one of the BOMs used to derive this CSL 
that may have led to the projected increase in cost between nickel and 
lithium battery chargers in Product Class 3. They also noted that this 
projected cost increase could have been part of the reason why costs 
were overestimated. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 7) DOE revisited the IHS 
Technology data for these units and updated the cost data to include 
the missing component. However, this unit is no longer being used in 
the analysis. Additional testing and teardowns were completed for 
Product Class 3 to replace the analysis that previously relied on this 
no longer produced unit. Representative units and updated results for 
Product Class 3 are shown in the Table IV-6.

              Table IV-6--Product Class 3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       CSL 0           CSL 1           CSL 2           CSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL Description.................................        Baseline    Intermediate  Best in Market        Max Tech
24-Hour Energy (Wh).............................           42.60           28.00            17.0            15.9
Maintenance Mode Power (W)......................            1.70            0.50            0.26            0.26
No-Battery Mode Power (W).......................            0.30            0.30            0.20            0.20
Off-Mode Power (W)..............................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)................            3.65            1.42            0.74            0.70
MSP [$].........................................           $1.12           $1.20           $4.11           $5.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Product Class 4, NRDC, the CEC, ASAP, and the CA IOUs 
argued that DOE overestimated the costs for some CSLs. (NRDC, No. 114 
at p. 6; California Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 14; ASAP, No. 162 
at p. 7; CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 8-9) ASAP urged DOE to remove the 
results for the handheld vacuum unit from the test results, since the 
costs for that unit are higher than the other products in that product 
class and may not reflect the lowest cost design. (ASAP Et Al., No. 136 
at p. 8)
    DOE has conducted more tests and teardowns since the NOPR analysis 
and has chosen single units as representative units for this product 
class. DOE believes each CSL is representative of technology that can 
be widely applied to all applications in this product class. The 
updated costs can be seen in Table IV-7.

[[Page 52880]]



               Table IV--7 Product Class 4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       CSL 0           CSL 1           CSL 2           CSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL Description.................................        Baseline    Intermediate  Best in Market             Max
24-Hour Energy (Wh).............................           60.75           44.00           29.30            27.2
Maintenance Mode Power (W)......................            2.40            0.50            0.50             0.4
No-Battery Mode Power (W).......................            0.30            0.30            0.50             0.3
Off-Mode Power (W)..............................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)................           12.23            5.38            3.63            3.05
MSP [$].........................................           $1.79           $2.60           $5.72          $18.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Product Class 6, DOE performed additional product testing 
during the NOPR stage, but did not obtain a complete data set upon 
which to base its engineering analysis. This situation was due in large 
part to DOE's inability to locate products with sufficiently similar 
battery energies and the fact that the products tested did not span a 
significant range of performance. DOE's test data for this product 
class are available in Chapter 5 of the accompanying SNOPR TSD. To 
develop an engineering analysis for this product class, DOE relied on, 
among other things, the results gleaned from Product Class 5, 
interviews with manufacturers, and its limited test data from Product 
Class 6.
    The difference between Product Class 5 and Product Class 6 is the 
range of voltages that are covered. Product Class 5 covers low-voltage 
(less than 20 V) and medium energy (100 Wh to 3,000 Wh) products, while 
Product Class 6 covers high-voltage (greater than or equal to 20 V) and 
medium energy (100 Wh to 3,000 Wh) products. The representative unit 
examined for Product Class 5 is a 12 V, 800 Wh battery charger, while 
the representative unit analyzed for Product Class 6 is a 24 V, 400 Wh 
battery charger. Despite the change in voltage, DOE believes that 
similar technology options and battery charging strategies are 
available in both classes. Both chargers are used with relatively large 
sealed, lead-acid batteries in products like electric scooters and 
electric lawn mowers. However, since the battery chargers in Product 
Class 6 work with higher voltages, current can be reduced for the same 
output power, which creates the potential for making these devices 
slightly more efficient because I\2\R losses\24\ will be reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ At a basic level, I\2\R losses are the power losses caused 
by the flow of an electrical current through a component's 
electrical resistance. In electrical circuits, I\2\R losses manifest 
themselves as heat and are the result of high levels of current flow 
through a device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE examined as part of its NOPR and this SNOPR its Product Class 5 
results and analyzed how the performance may be impacted if similar 
technologies are used. The resulting performance parameters are shown 
in Table IV-8. To account for the projected variation in energy 
consumption, DOE used information on charge time and maintenance mode 
power to adjust the corresponding values for 24-hour energy use. 
Additionally, DOE discussed with manufacturers how costs may differ in 
manufacturing a 12 V (Product Class 5) charger versus a 24 V (Product 
Class 6) charger. Manufacturers indicated during manufacturer 
interviews that, holding constant all other factors, there would likely 
be minimal change, if any, in the cost. Therefore, because DOE scaled 
performance assuming that the designs for corresponding CSLs in each 
product class used the same design options and only differed in 
voltage, DOE did not scale costs from Product Class 5. Rather than 
scaling the Product Class 5 costs, DOE used the same MSPs for Product 
Class 6 that were developed from IHS Technology teardown data for 
Product Class 5. CEC and NRDC commented that while Product Classes 5 
and 6 share the same costs, DOE should use lower cost estimates for 
units that are less powerful. (California Energy Commission, No. 117 at 
p. 16; NRDC, No. 114 at p. 7) DOE is not persuaded that lower cost 
estimates for less powerful units would accurately reflect costs for 
Product Classes 5 and 6 because this assertion is contrary to 
statements made during interviews with manufacturers during the NOPR 
stage of this analysis. Additionally, many of the battery chargers in 
Product Classes 5 and 6 are multi-voltage, multi-capacity chargers, 
therefore, costs typically reflecting component costs required to 
achieve the higher power range. Consequently, varying cost by power 
levels in the manner suggested by these commenters would be 
inappropriate. DOE believes these costs are an accurate representation 
of the MSPs, but seeks comment on its methodology in scaling the 
results of Product Class 5 to Product Class 6, including the decision 
to hold MSPs constant.
    DOE received several comments in response to the NOPR regarding the 
engineering results for Product Classes 5 and 6. The CEC argued that 
manufacturers could meet CSL 3 without including a shut-off relay into 
the charger design and therefore the costs associated with CSL 3 are 
too high in DOE's analysis. (California Energy Commission, No. 117 at 
p. 16) CEC also commented that for these product classes, DOE's results 
show that units at the max tech levels, or CSL 3, perform worse in 
active mode efficiency levels in units lower than CSL 2. (California 
Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 16)
    For Product Classes 5 and 6, CSL 3 is the maximum technologically 
feasible level analyzed by DOE. By definition, these products were not 
found to be present in the market. The NOPR and Chapter 5 of the 
accompanying SNOPR TSD both indicate that manufacturers support non-
novel improvements in improving the efficiency of the SCR 
(semiconductor rectifier) and switch mode topologies. However, these 
improvements would not result in compliance with CSL 3 and that only by 
introducing a relay to bring the non-active and maintenance mode energy 
use to zero could this level be met. Manufacturers and subject matter 
experts were consulted to verify the costs with making these changes. 
Concerning the drop in active mode efficiency identified by CEC, DOE 
found a calculation error in E24 use for these products that caused 
this error in the representative UEC values. The errors have been 
corrected and updated results can be seen in Table IV-8 and Table IV-9.

[[Page 52881]]



              Table IV-8--Product Class 5 (Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       CSL 0           CSL 1           CSL 2           CSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL Description.................................        Baseline    Intermediate  Best in Market        Max Tech
24-Hour Energy (Wh).............................          2036.9          1647.3         1292.00         1025.64
Maintenance Mode Power (W)......................            21.2            11.9            0.50             0.0
No-Battery Mode Power (W).......................            20.1            11.6            0.30             0.0
Off-Mode Power (W)..............................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)................           84.60           56.09           21.39            9.11
Incremental MSP [$].............................          $18.48          $21.71          $26.81         $127.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


             Table IV-9--Product Class 6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       CSL 0           CSL 1           CSL 2           CSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL Description.................................        Baseline    Intermediate  Best in Market        Max Tech
24-Hour Energy (Wh).............................           891.6           786.1          652.00          466.20
Maintenance Mode Power (W)......................            10.6             6.0            0.50             0.0
No-Battery Mode Power (W).......................            10.0             5.8            0.30             0.0
Off-Mode Power (W)..............................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)................          120.60           81.72           33.53            8.15
Incremental MSP [$].............................          $18.48          $21.71          $26.81         $127.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received a comment from NRDC supporting the proposed standards 
for Product Class 7. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 8) No other comments specific 
to DOE's costs for Product Class 7 were received and no changes were 
made to its results, which are presented in Table IV-10.

                     Table IV-10--Product Class 7 (High-Energy) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       CSL 0           CSL 1           CSL 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL Description.................................................        Baseline    Intermediate        Max Tech
24-Hour Energy (Wh).............................................          5884.2          5311.1          4860.0
Maintenance Mode Power (W)......................................            10.0             3.3             2.6
No-Battery Mode Power (W).......................................             0.0             1.5             0.0
Off-Mode Power (W)..............................................             0.0             0.0             0.0
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)................................          255.05          191.74          131.44
Incremental MSP [$].............................................          $88.07          $60.86         $164.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests stakeholder comments on the updated engineering 
analysis results presented in this analysis for Products Classes 2-6.
10. Scaling of Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels
    In preparing its proposed standards for products within a product 
class (which would address all battery energies and voltages falling 
within that class), DOE used a UEC scaling approach. After developing 
the engineering analysis results for the representative units, DOE had 
to determine a methodology for extending the UEC at each CSL to all 
other ratings not directly analyzed for a given product class. In the 
NOPR, DOE proposed making UEC a function of battery energy. DOE also 
indicated that it based this proposed UEC function on the test data 
that had been obtained up through the NOPR.
    For Product Classes 2-7, DOE created equations for UEC that scale 
with battery energy. In contrast, for Product Class 1, each CSL was 
represented by one flat, nominal standard. For this product class, test 
data showed that battery energy appeared to have little impact on UEC. 
In response to these data, DOE received comment from several interested 
parties, ITI, CEA, and NRDC, who requested that Product Class 1 be 
scaled similarly to the other product classes by battery energy. (ITI, 
No. 134 at p. 6, 7; ITI. Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 104 at p. 46; CEA, No. 106 
at p. 5; NRDC, No. 114 at p. 8) Similarly, Duracell suggested that if 
DOE declined to update its usage profile assumptions, discussed later 
in section IV.F, then DOE should maintain its current use assumptions 
and adopt the formula for determining the maximum UEC limit that was 
proposed for Product Class 2. (Duracell, No. 109 at p. 1) DOE found in 
testing that UEC for Product Class 1 did not vary with battery energy 
or voltage, so DOE opted to maintain its approach proposed in the NOPR 
to adopt a constant standard across all battery energies. No changes 
were made to the updated SNOPR TSD for the reasons stated above 
regarding the impact of battery energy on UECs that were calculated for 
Product Class 1.
    Finally, when DOE was developing its CSL equations for UEC, it 
found during testing that the correlation between points at low battery 
energies was much worse than for the rest of the range of battery 
energy, which indicated that the initial equations DOE had initially 
planned to use did not match the test results. To address this 
situation, DOE generated a boundary condition for its CSL equations, 
which essentially flattens the UEC below a certain threshold of battery 
energy to recognize that below certain values, fixed power components 
of UEC, such as maintenance mode power, dominate UEC. Making this 
change helped DOE to create a better-fitting equation to account for 
these types of conditions to ensure that any standards that are set 
better reflect the particular characteristics of a given product.
    The CEC and the CA IOUs commented on the use of boundary conditions 
in certain product classes. CEC requested that DOE, where

[[Page 52882]]

possible, reduce the number of product classes by creating a single 
product class where the scaling and boundary condition transition 
seamlessly from one product class to the other. (California Energy 
Commission, No. 117 at p. 26, 29) While the CA IOUs were concerned that 
the boundary condition creates a scenario where voltage can be adjusted 
to exploit the standards for Product Classes 2-4, (CA IOUs, No. 138 at 
p. 20), DOE's approach separates product classes as described in 
Chapter 3 of the SNOPR TSD and section IV.A.3 of this SNOPR. When 
setting standards, this segregation of product classes should 
adequately address the natural groupings of products in the market. 
Accordingly, DOE made no changes to its proposed product class 
distinctions as part of its SNOPR analysis.
    Concerning the scaling of specific product classes, DOE received 
several comments. Duracell commented that the standards for Product 
Class 1, inductive chargers, seem to underlay stricter standards than 
comparable products that are galvanic-coupled, such as Product Class 2. 
(Duracell, No. 109 at p. 1) NRDC and CEC both support DOE's engineering 
results and proposed standard for Product Class 1. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 
8; California Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 28) DOE notes that 
Product Class 1, as stated above, is not scaled, which could give the 
mistaken impression that Product Class 1 has a stricter standard 
compared to other product class applications that allow for higher 
energy consumption as battery energy increased. However, as indicated 
in the NOPR, DOE determined that the UEC for this product class did not 
vary with battery energy or voltage, thereby eliminating the need to 
scale.
    For additional details and the exact CSL equations developed for 
each product class, please see Chapter 5 in the accompanying SNOPR TSD.

D. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the 
distribution chain to convert the MSP estimates derived in the 
engineering analysis to consumer prices. At each step in the 
distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to 
cover business costs and profit margin. Given the variety of products 
that use battery chargers, distribution varies depending on the product 
class and application. As such, similar to the approach used in the 
NOPR, DOE assumed that the dominant path to market establishes the 
retail price and, thus, the markup for a given application. The markups 
applied to end-use products that use battery chargers are 
approximations of the battery charger markups.
    In the case of battery chargers, the dominant path to market 
typically involves an end-use product manufacturer (i.e., an original 
equipment manufacturer or ``OEM'') and retailer. DOE developed OEM and 
retailer markups by examining annual financial filings, such as 
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports, from more than 
80 publicly traded OEMs, retailers, and distributors engaged in the 
manufacturing and/or sales of consumer applications that use battery 
chargers.
    DOE calculated two markups for each product in the markups 
analysis. A markup applied to the baseline component of a product's 
cost (referred to as a baseline markup) and a markup applied to the 
incremental cost increase that would result from energy conservation 
standards (referred to as an incremental markup). The incremental 
markup relates the change in the MSP of higher-efficiency models (the 
incremental cost increase) to the change in the retailer's selling 
price.
    Commenting on retail markups, Phillips, Schumacher, and Wahl 
Clipper stated that the concept of margins is very significant to 
retailers, and it is not realistic to predict that retailers will 
voluntarily reduce their profit margins. (Philips, No. 128 at p. 6; 
Schumacher, No. 182 at p. 6; Wahl Clipper, No 153 at p. 2) Motorola 
commented that retailers will not be willing to lower their markups 
because product efficiency has increased. (Motorola Mobility, No. 121 
at p. 4) In contrast, PTI stated that DOE's estimates of markups are 
sufficient for the purposes of the analysis. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 6)
    DOE recognizes that retailers may seek to preserve margins. 
However, DOE's approach assumes that appliance retail markets are 
reasonably competitive, so that an increase in the manufacturing cost 
of appliances is not likely to contribute to a proportionate rise in 
retail profits, as would be expected to happen if markups remained 
constant. DOE's methodology for estimating markups is based on a mix of 
economic theory, consultation with industry experts, and data from 
appliance retailers.\25\ In conducting research, DOE has found that 
empirical evidence is lacking with respect to appliance retailer markup 
practices when a product increases in cost (due to increased efficiency 
or other factors). DOE understands that real-world retailer markup 
practices vary depending on market conditions and on the magnitude of 
the change in cost of goods sold (CGS) associated with an increase in 
appliance efficiency. DOE acknowledges that detailed information on 
actual retail practices would be helpful in evaluating changes in 
markups on products after appliance standards take effect. For this 
rulemaking, DOE requested data from stakeholders in support of 
alternative approaches to markups, as well as any data that shed light 
on actual practices by retailers; however, no such data were provided. 
Thus, DOE's analysis continues using an approach that is consistent 
with the conventionally-accepted economic theory of firm behavior in 
competitive markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ An extensive discussion of the methodology and 
justification behind DOE's general approach to markups calculation 
is presented in Larry Dale, et al., ``An Analysis of Price 
Determination and Markups in the Air-Conditioning and Heating 
Equipment Industry.'' LBNL-52791 (2004). Available for download at 
http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/an_analysis_of_price_determiniation_and_markups_in_the_air_conditioning_and_heating_equipment_industry_lbnl-52791.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 6 of the SNOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of 
markups for battery chargers.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of 
battery chargers in the field, i.e., as they are actually used by 
consumers. The energy use analysis provides the basis for the other 
analyses DOE uses when assessing the costs and benefits of setting 
standards for a given product. Particularly dependent on the energy 
analysis are assessments of the energy savings and the savings in 
consumer operating costs that could result from the adoption of new or 
amended standards.
    Battery chargers are power conversion devices that transform input 
voltage to a suitable voltage for the battery they are powering. A 
portion of the energy that flows into a battery charger flows out to a 
battery and, thus, cannot be considered to be consumed by the battery 
charger. However, to provide the necessary output power, other factors 
contribute to the battery charger energy consumption, e.g., internal 
losses and overhead circuitry.\26\ Therefore, the traditional method 
for calculating energy consumption--by measuring the energy a product 
draws from mains while performing its intended function(s)--is not 
appropriate for a battery charger because that method would not factor 
in the energy delivered

[[Page 52883]]

by the battery charger to the battery, and thus would overstate the 
battery charger's energy consumption. Instead, DOE considered energy 
consumption to be the energy dissipated by the battery chargers 
(losses) and not delivered to the battery as a more accurate means to 
determine the energy consumption of these products. Once the energy and 
power requirements of those batteries were determined, DOE considered 
them fixed, and DOE focused its analysis on how standards would affect 
the energy consumption of battery chargers themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Internal losses are energy losses that occur during the 
power conversion process. Overhead circuitry refers to circuits and 
other components of the battery charger, such as monitoring 
circuits, logic circuits, and LED indicator lights, that consume 
power but do not directly contribute power to the end-use 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying a single usage profile to each application, DOE calculated 
the unit energy consumption for battery chargers. In addition, as a 
sensitivity analysis, DOE examined the usage profiles of multiple user 
types for applications where usage varies widely (for example, a light 
user and a heavy user).
    In response to the NOPR, stakeholders suggested alternative usage 
profiles for two applications. Delta-Q recommended alternate usage 
profiles for golf cart battery chargers used in the residential and 
commercial sectors. These suggested usage profiles assumed higher 
levels of time in active and maintenance modes and no time in unplugged 
mode. (Delta-Q, No. 113 at p. 1) For the NOPR, DOE based its estimate 
of the golf cart usage profile on responses from the manufacturer 
interviews. The usage profile suggested by Delta-Q is consistent with 
the stakeholder-provided data that currently underlie DOE's golf cart 
battery charger usage profile. Based on these estimates, the usage 
profiles developed for the NOPR have accurately described usage for 
golf cart battery charges and no changes to the updated analysis were 
required.
    Duracell recommended that DOE adopt one of three alternative 
approaches to capturing usage profiles and energy use for inductive 
battery chargers. (Duracell, No. 109 at p. 1) First, it requested that 
DOE allow each inductive battery charger manufacturer to apply use 
conditions based on the typical use of its products. However, DOE 
believes this approach to be infeasible, as it would be 
administratively burdensome for DOE with its limited resources to 
verify the individual usage profiles applied by each manufacturer for 
each product to determine compliance with the given standard. DOE notes 
that its proposed approach relies on usage profiles based on available 
data and provides a reasonable average usage approximation of the 
products falling within each proposed class. Second, Duracell asked DOE 
to adopt a revised usage profile that it believed would be more 
applicable to toothbrushes and shavers. DOE has based its estimate of 
the usage profile on responses from the manufacturer interviews and 
believes that it has accurately described usage for battery chargers in 
Product Classes 1 and 2, and did not make changes to these usage 
profiles for the SNOPR.
    PTI and AHAM both voiced support for the usage profiles presented 
by DOE in the NOPR. PTI commented that DOE accurately captured 
variations in the commercial and residential use of power tools in its 
product class average usage profiles. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 3) While AHAM 
commented that DOE could more accurately capture the usage of 
infrequently used product classes, AHAM supported DOE's efforts to 
consider the variation in usage for battery chargers and recommended 
that DOE reevaluate these usage profiles in the future to more 
accurately quantify the usage profiles for infrequently charged 
products. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 7) Based on these comments, DOE saw no 
need to alter its usage profiles.
    Responding to the NOPR, the CEC submitted comments stating that it 
found inconsistencies between the NOPR TSD, energy use spreadsheet, and 
the NIA spreadsheet. These errors were with the CSL 0 and CSL 1 24-hour 
energy assumption and the average unit energy consumption estimates, 
particularly for battery charger Product Class 2. (California Energy 
Commission, No. 117 at p. 9)
    In light of the CEC's observation, DOE reviewed its spreadsheet and 
confirmed that the energy use analysis contained an error in the 24-
hour energy values for CSLs 0 and 1 for Product Class 2. DOE has since 
rectified this error, and revised the engineering and energy use 
analyses in its updated SNOPR TSD. The corrected 24-hour energy values 
resulted in a small increase in UECs in the energy use analysis.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers from potential battery charger energy 
conservation standards. The effect of new or amended energy 
conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a 
reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used 
the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
     The LCC (life-cycle cost) is the total consumer expense of 
an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of 
total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain 
markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs 
(expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the 
operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of 
purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.
     The PBP (payback period) is the estimated amount of time 
(in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost 
(including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower 
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in 
purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual 
operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed 
to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to an estimate of the base-case product efficiency 
distribution. The base case distribution reflects the market in the 
absence of new or amended energy conservation standards, including 
market trends for products that exceed the current energy conservation 
standards. In contrast, the PBP is measured relative to the baseline 
product.
    For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of 
consumers. For each sampled consumer, DOE determined the energy 
consumption for the battery charger and the appropriate electricity 
price. By developing a representative sample of consumers, the analysis 
captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices 
associated with the use of battery chargers.
    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the product--which includes MSPs, manufacturer markups, retailer and 
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to 
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy 
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and 
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created 
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales 
taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their 
uncertainty and variability.
    The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP, which 
incorporates Crystal Ball\TM\ (a commercially-available software 
program), relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty 
and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly

[[Page 52884]]

sample input values from the probability distributions and battery 
charger user samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products 
at each efficiency level for 10,000 consumers per simulation run.
    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers as if each were to 
purchase a new product in the year that compliance with any amended 
standards is expected to be required. Any national standards would 
apply to battery chargers manufactured 2 years after the date on which 
any final amended standard is published. For this SNOPR, DOE estimates 
publication of a final rule in 2016. Therefore, for purposes of its 
analysis, DOE used 2018 as the first year of compliance with any 
amended standards.
    Table IV-11 summarizes the approach and data that DOE used to 
derive the inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations for the NOPR and the 
changes made for this SNOPR. The subsections that follow provide 
further discussion on these inputs and the comments DOE received 
regarding its presentation of the LCC and PBP analyses in the NOPR, as 
well as DOE's responses. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all 
the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 and 
its appendices of the SNOPR TSD.

  Table IV-11--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the NOPR and SNOPR LCC
                            and PBP Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Changes for the
           Inputs                  March 2012 NOPR            SNOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Selling Price..  Derived from the           Adjusted
                               Engineering Analysis       component
                               through manufacturer       breakdowns and
                               interviews and test/       prices based
                               teardown results.          on updated
                                                          cost data from
                                                          IHS Technology
                                                          and SME
                                                          feedback for
                                                          Product
                                                          Classes 2
                                                          through 6.
Markups.....................  Considered various         No change.
                               distribution channel
                               pathways for different
                               applications. Applied a
                               reduced ``incremental''
                               markup to the portion of
                               the product price
                               exceeding the baseline
                               price. See Chapter 6 of
                               the SNOPR TSD for
                               details.
Sales Tax...................  Derived weighted-average   Updated the
                               tax values for each        sales tax
                               Census division and        using the
                               large state from data      latest
                               provided by the Sales      information
                               Tax Clearinghouse.\1\      from the Sales
                                                          Tax
                                                          Clearinghouse.
                                                          \2\
Installation Costs..........  Assumed to be zero.......  No change.
Annual Energy Use...........  Determined for each        No change.
                               application based on
                               battery characteristics
                               and usage profiles..
Energy Prices...............  Price: Based on EIA's      Updated to
                               2008 Form EIA-861          EIA's 2012
                               data.\3\ Variability:      Form EIA-861
                               Regional energy prices     data.\4\
                               determined for 13          Separated top
                               regions. DOE also          tier and peak
                               considered subgroup        time-of-use
                               analyses using             consumers into
                               electricity prices for     separate
                               low-income consumers and   subgroup
                               top tier marginal price    analyses.
                               consumers.
Energy Price Trends.........  Forecasted with EIA's      Updated with
                               Annual Energy Outlook      EIA's Annual
                               2010 \5\.                  Energy Outlook
                                                          2014.\6\
Repair and Maintenance Costs  Assumed to be zero.......  No change.
Product Lifetime............  Determined for each        No change.
                               application based on
                               multiple data sources
                               See chapter 3 of the
                               SNOPR TSD for details..
Discount Rates..............  Residential: Approach      Residential:
                               based on the finance       DOE updated
                               cost of raising funds to   the
                               purchase and operate       calculations
                               battery chargers either    to consider
                               through the financial      the geometric
                               cost of any debt           means for all
                               incurred (based on the     time-series
                               Federal Reserve's Survey   data from 1984-
                               of Consumer Finances       2013. DOE
                               data \7\ for 1989, 1992,   added data
                               1995, 1998, 2001, 2004,    from the
                               and 2007) or the           Federal
                               opportunity cost of any    Reserve's
                               equity used. Time-series   Survey of
                               data was based on          Consumer
                               geometric means from       Finances for
                               1980-2009.                 2010.
                              Commercial: Derived        Commercial: DOE
                               discount rates using the   updated all
                               cost of capital of         sources to the
                               publicly-traded firms      most recent
                               based on data from         version
                               Damodaran Online,\8\ the   (Damodaran
                               Value Line Investment      Online and the
                               survey,\9\ and the         OMB Circular
                               Office of Management and   No. A-94).
                               Budget (OMB) Circular
                               No. A-94.\10\ DOE used a
                               40-year average return
                               on 10-year treasury
                               notes to derive the risk-
                               free rate. DOE updated
                               the equity risk premium
                               to use the geometric
                               average return on the
                               S&P 500 over a 40-year
                               time period.
Sectors Analyzed............  All reference case         No change.
                               results represent a
                               weighted average of the
                               residential and
                               commercial sectors.
Base Case Market Efficiency   Where possible, DOE        No change.
 Distribution.                 derived market
                               efficiency distributions
                               for specific
                               applications within a
                               product class.
Compliance Date.............  2013.....................  2018.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The four large States are New York, California, Texas, and Florida.
\2\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax Rates. Available at:
  https://thestc.com/STRates.stm.
\3\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Form
  EIA-861 Final Data File for 2008. May, 2014. Washington, D.C.
  Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html.
\4\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Form
  EIA-861 Final Data File for 2012. September, 2012. Washington, D.C.
  Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html.
\5\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual
  Energy Outlook 2010. November, 2010. Washington, D.C. Available at:
  http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/.
\6\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual
  Energy Outlook 2014. April, 2014. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
\7\ The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. Available
  at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
\8\ Damodaran Online Data Page, Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds and
  Bills--United States, 2010. Available at: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/
  ~adamodar.
\9\ Value Line. Value Line Investment Survey. Available at: http://www.valueline.com.
\10\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular No. A-94. Appendix
  C. 2009. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094_a94_appx-c/.


[[Page 52885]]

1. Product Cost
a. Manufacturer Selling Price
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE used a combination of test and 
teardown results and manufacturer interview results to develop MSPs. 
DOE conducted tests and teardowns on a large number of additional units 
and applications for the NOPR, and incorporated these findings into the 
MSP. For the SNOPR, DOE adjusted component breakdowns and prices based 
on updated cost data from IHS Technology (formerly i-Suppli) and SME 
feedback for Product Classes 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. DOE adjusted its MSPs 
based on these changes. Further detail on the MSPs can be found in 
chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD.
    Examination of historical price data for a number of appliances 
that have been subject to energy conservation standards indicates that 
an assumption of constant real prices and costs may overestimate long-
term trends in appliance prices. Economic literature and historical 
data suggest that the real costs of these products may in fact trend 
downward over time according to ``learning'' or ``experience'' curves. 
On February 22, 2011, DOE published a Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) stating that DOE may consider refining its analysis by 
addressing equipment price trends. (76 FR 9696) It also raised the 
possibility that once sufficient long-term data are available on the 
cost or price trends for a given product subject to energy conservation 
standards (such as battery chargers), DOE would consider these data to 
forecast future trends.
    To forecast a price trend for the NOPR, DOE considered the 
experience curve approach, in which an experience rate parameter is 
derived using two historical data series on price and cumulative 
production. But in the absence of historical shipments of battery 
chargers and sufficient historical Producer Price Index (PPI) data for 
small electrical appliance manufacturing from the U.S. Department of 
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS),\27\ DOE could not use this 
approach. This situation is partially due to the nature of battery 
charger designs. Battery chargers are made up of many electrical 
components whose size, cost, and performance rapidly change, which 
leads to relatively short design lifetimes. DOE also considered 
performing an exponential fit on the deflated AEO's Projected Price 
Indexes that most narrowly include battery chargers. However, DOE 
believes that these indexes are sufficiently broad that they may not 
accurately capture the trend for battery chargers. Furthermore, battery 
chargers are not typical consumer products; they more closely resemble 
commodities that OEMs purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Series ID PCU33521-33521; http://www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the uncertainty involved with these products, DOE did not 
incorporate product price changes into the NOPR analysis and is not 
including them in this SNOPR. For the NIA, DOE also analyzed the 
sensitivity of results to two alternative battery charger price 
forecasts. Appendix 10-B of the SNOPR TSD describes the derivation of 
alternative price forecasts.
b. Markups
    DOE applies a series of markups to the MSP to account for the 
various distribution chain markups applied to the analyzed product. 
These markups are evaluated for each application individually, 
depending on its path to market. Additionally, DOE splits its markups 
into ``baseline'' and ``incremental'' markups. The baseline markup is 
applied to the entire MSP of the baseline product. The incremental 
markups are then applied to the marginal increase in MSP over the 
baseline's MSP. Further detail on the markups can be found in chapter 6 
of the SNOPR TSD.
c. Sales Tax
    As in the NOPR, DOE obtained State and local sales tax data from 
the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. The data represented weighted averages 
that include county and city rates. DOE used the data to compute 
population-weighted average tax values for each Census division and 
four large States (New York, California, Texas, and Florida). For the 
SNOPR, DOE retained this methodology and used updated sales tax data 
from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\28\ DOE also obtained updated 
population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau for this SNOPR.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax Rates. https://thestc.com/STRates.stm.
    \29\ The U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Population 
for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 
2010 to July 1, 2013. http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/tables/NST-EST2013-01.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Product Price Forecast
    As noted in section IV.F, to derive its central estimates DOE 
assumed no change in battery charger prices over the 2018-2047 period. 
In addition, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis using two alternative 
price trends based on AEO price indexes. These price trends, and the 
NPV results from the associated sensitivity cases, are described in 
appendix 10-B of the SNOPR TSD.
2. Installation Cost
    As detailed in the NOPR, DOE considered installation costs to be 
zero for battery chargers because installation would typically entail a 
consumer simply unpacking the battery charger from the box in which it 
was sold and connecting the device to mains power and its associated 
battery. Because the cost of this ``installation'' (which may be 
considered temporary, as intermittently used devices might be unplugged 
for storage) is not quantifiable in dollar terms, DOE considered the 
installation cost to be zero.
    DOE received comments responding to its installation cost 
methodology. NEMA asserted that the results of the LCC cost and PBP 
analysis did not accurately reflect the impact to industry as the cost 
of implementation was consistently underestimated, resulting in an 
overestimation of savings. NEMA noted that the LCC and PBP calculations 
did not include installation costs and the cost of implementation 
failed to include safety and reliability regression testing. In its 
view, this testing ensures the long term intended efficiency gains 
resulting from changes made to address the limits. NEMA criticized the 
proposed scope as being too broad and the limits too severe, both of 
which would force manufacturers to withdraw systems from the 
marketplace until testing is concluded. NEMA asserted that shipping 
cycle times also impact the availability in the marketplace; some of 
these products are already sourced from Asia where a 90-day cycle time 
for shipping by ocean is a necessity due to the low margins associated 
with consumer products. (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 2) NEEA pointed out that 
the LCC focuses on incremental costs, rather than overall costs. It 
noted that it would be very difficult to find data supporting an 
installation cost that increases with increasing efficiency levels. 
(NEEA, Pub. Mtg. Transcript, No. 104 at p. 200)
    NEMA did not give examples of systems which may be removed from the 
market as a result of safety and reliability testing. In addition, LCC 
analysis calculations only take into account the cost to consumers 
across the lifetime of the product. Safety and reliability regression 
testing would not be a cost to the consumer, but rather a cost to the 
manufacturer. The MIA accounts for safety and reliability regression 
testing as it is already incorporated into their product conversion 
costs. Adding these costs to the LCC calculations would inaccurately

[[Page 52886]]

inflate the impact of these costs by effectively accounting for them 
twice in the analysis. DOE agrees with the comments made by NEEA, as 
any installation costs would likely be constant across all battery 
charger efficiency levels and would have no impact when comparing LCCs 
between CSLs in the analysis. Accordingly, DOE maintained its 
assumption that zero installation costs would continue to apply.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ DOE notes that ``installation costs'' are not the same as 
``installed costs.'' ``Installation costs'' refer to the costs 
incurred to install a given product--in this case, to plug the 
charger into the electrical outlet in order to use it. In contrast, 
``installed costs'' refer to the costs incurred to obtain and use 
the product. These costs, as noted earlier, include the cost of the 
product--which includes MSPs, manufacturer markups, retailer and 
distributor markups, and sales taxes--as well as any installation 
costs that might apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Annual Energy Consumption
    The SNOPR analysis uses the same approach for determining UECs as 
the approach used in the NOPR. The UEC was determined for each 
application based on battery characteristics and usage profiles. As a 
result of new testing and teardowns, described above, DOE updated some 
or all of the UEC values for battery charger Product Classes 2, 3, 4, 5 
and 6 for the SNOPR. The same approach and equations used to calculate 
the representative unit UECs remain consistent with the NOPR. Further 
detail on the UEC calculations can be found in section IV.E of this 
notice and in chapter 7 of the SNOPR TSD.
4. Energy Prices
    DOE determined energy prices by deriving regional average prices 
for 13 geographic areas consisting of the nine U.S. Census divisions, 
with four large States (New York, Florida, Texas, and California) 
treated separately. The derivation of prices was based on the latest 
available EIA data, covering 2012. In the NOPR analysis, DOE used data 
from EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2010 to project electricity 
prices to the end of the product lifetime.\31\ For this SNOPR, DOE used 
the final release of the AEO2014,\32\ which contained reference, high- 
and low-economic-growth scenarios. DOE received no comments on the 
electricity price forecasts it used in its NOPR analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2010. November, 2010. 
Washington, DC http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
    \32\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2014. May, 2014. Washington, 
DC http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE did not consider repair or maintenance 
costs for battery chargers. In making this decision, DOE recognized 
that in some cases the service life of a stand-alone battery charger 
typically exceeds that of the consumer product it powers. Furthermore, 
DOE noted that the cost to repair the battery charger might exceed the 
initial purchase cost, as these products are relatively low cost items. 
Thus, DOE estimated that it would be extremely unlikely that a consumer 
would incur repair or maintenance costs for a battery charger. Also, if 
a battery charger failed, DOE expects that consumers would typically 
discard the battery charger and purchase a replacement. DOE received no 
comments challenging this assumption and has continued relying on this 
assumption for purposes of calculating the SNOPR's potential costs and 
benefits.
    Although DOE did not assume any repair or maintenance costs would 
apply generally to battery chargers, DOE included a maintenance cost 
for the replacement of lithium ion batteries in certain battery charger 
applications in the NOPR analysis. Through conversations with 
manufacturers and subject matter experts, DOE learned that such 
batteries would need replacing within the service life of the battery 
charger for certain applications based on the battery lifetime and the 
usage profile assigned to the application. Lithium ion batteries are 
marginally more expensive than batteries with nickel chemistries (e.g. 
``Ni-MH''), as explained in chapter 5 of accompanying SNOPR TSD. The 
NOPR analysis accounted for this marginal cost increase of those 
applications at CSLs that require the use of lithium batteries. This 
maintenance cost only applied to applications where DOE believed the 
lifetime of the application would surpass the lifetime of the battery. 
DOE estimated the battery lifetime based on the total number of charges 
the battery could handle divided by the number of charges per year 
projected for the application. DOE relied on data provided by 
manufacturers to estimate the total number of charges the battery could 
undergo before expiring. See chapter 8, section 8.2.5 of the 
accompanying SNOPR TSD.
    For the SNOPR, DOE determined that the maintenance costs included 
in the NOPR LCC analysis were not comparable to the costs associated 
with those applications that had no maintenance costs. While the NOPR 
costs considered the increase in price between repurchasing a lithium 
battery instead of a nickel battery, the increase when purchasing the 
initial battery was not considered for the analysis. Thus, DOE 
determined that the maintenance cost did not apply to the battery 
charger unit subject to the proposed standard, and removed all 
maintenance costs from the SNOPR LCC analysis. Further detail on 
maintenance costs can be found in chapter 8, section 8.2.5 of the SNOPR 
TSD.
6. Product Lifetime
    For the NOPR analysis, DOE considered the lifetime of a battery 
charger to be from the moment it is purchased for end-use up until the 
time when it is permanently retired from service. Because the typical 
battery charger is purchased for use with a single associated 
application, DOE assumed that it would remain in service for as long as 
the application does. Even though many of the technology options to 
improve battery charger efficiencies may result in an increased useful 
life for the battery charger, the lifetime of the battery charger is 
still directly tied to the lifetime of its associated application. The 
typical consumer will not continue to use a battery charger once its 
application has been discarded. For this reason, DOE used the same 
lifetime estimate for the baseline and standard level designs of each 
application for the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Following the NOPR, Lester encouraged DOE to carefully consider 
differences in product longevity in their LCC and PBP model. They noted 
that in Product Class 7, CSL 0 and CSL 1 products employed 
significantly different technologies that have considerably different 
lifetimes; the difference in product longevity could result in major 
changes to the DOE LCC and PBP model. (Lester Electrical, No. 139 at p. 
3) DOE notes that because the lifetime of the battery charger is 
directly tied to the lifetime of its associated application, improved 
technologies affecting the lifetime of the battery charger will not 
change the effective lifetime for the typical consumer. In the absence 
of adverse comments to DOE's approach, DOE is continuing to use it in 
the SNOPR analysis. Further detail on product lifetimes and how they 
relate to applications can be found in chapter 3 of the SNOPR TSD.
7. Discount Rates
    The NOPR analysis derived residential discount rates by identifying 
all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase and 
operate products, including household assets that might be affected 
indirectly. DOE

[[Page 52887]]

estimated the average shares of the various debt and equity classes in 
the average U.S. household equity and debt portfolios using data from 
the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) from 1989 to 2007.\33\ DOE used 
the mean share of each class across the seven sample years as a basis 
for estimating the effective financing rate for products. DOE estimated 
interest or return rates associated with each type of equity using data 
from the U.S. Federal Reserve \34\ and Damodaran. The analysis 
calculates the risk-free rate using a 40-year average return on 10-year 
U.S. Treasury notes, as reported by the U.S. Federal Reserve, and the 
equity risk premium using the geometric average return on the S&P 500 
over a 40-year time period. The mean real effective rate across the 
classes of household debt and equity, weighted by the shares of each 
class, was 5.1 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. 
Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html
    \34\ The Federal Reserve Board, Statistical Releases and 
Historical Data, Selected Interest Rates (Daily)--H.15. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the commercial sector, DOE derived the discount rate from the 
cost of capital of publicly-traded firms that manufacture products that 
involve the purchase of battery chargers. To obtain an average discount 
rate value for the commercial sector, DOE used the share of each 
industry category in total paid employees provided by BLS,\35\ as well 
as employment data from both the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 
\36\ and the U.S. Census Bureau.\37\ By multiplying the discount rate 
for each industry category by its share of paid employees, DOE derived 
a commercial discount rate of 7.1 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force Statistics 
from the Current Population Survey. Table 17--Employed persons by 
Industry, Sex, Race, and Occupation. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat17.pdf.
    \36\ U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Federal Employment 
Reports. Historical Federal Workforce Tables. http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962.
    \37\ U.S. Census Bureau. Government Employment and Payroll. 2012 
State and Local Government. http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/12stlall.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the SNOPR, DOE used the same methodology as the NOPR with 
applicable updates to data sources. When deriving the residential 
discount rates, DOE added the 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances to their 
data set. For all time-series data, DOE evaluated rates over the 30-
year time period of 1984-2013. The new discount rates are estimated to 
be 5.2 percent and 5.1 percent in the residential and commercial 
sectors, respectively. For further details on discount rates, see 
chapter 8 and appendix 8D of the SNOPR TSD.
8. Sectors Analyzed
    The NOPR analysis included an examination of a weighted average of 
the residential and commercial sectors as the reference case scenario. 
Additionally, all application inputs were specified as either 
residential or commercial sector data. Using these inputs, DOE then 
sampled each application based on its shipment weighting and used the 
appropriate residential or commercial inputs based on the sector of the 
sampled application. This approach provided specificity as to the 
appropriate input values for each sector, and permitted an examination 
of the LCC results for a given product class in total. DOE maintained 
this approach in the SNOPR. For further details on sectors analyzed, 
see chapter 8 of the SNOPR TSD.
9. Base Case Market Efficiency Distribution
    For purposes of conducting the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed CSLs 
relative to a base case (i.e., a case without new Federal energy 
conservation standards). This analysis required an estimate of the 
distribution of product efficiencies in the base case (i.e., what 
consumers would have purchased in 2018 in the absence of new Federal 
standards). Rather than analyzing the impacts of a particular standard 
level assuming that all consumers will purchase products at the 
baseline efficiency level, DOE conducted the analysis by taking into 
account the breadth of product energy efficiencies that consumers are 
expected to purchase under the base case.
    In preparing the NOPR analysis, DOE derived base case market 
efficiency distributions that were specific to each application where 
it had sufficient data to do so. This approach helped to ensure that 
the market distribution for applications with fewer shipments was not 
disproportionately skewed by the market distribution of the 
applications with the majority of shipments. DOE factored into its 
efficiency distributions the current efficiency regulations in 
California. See section IV.G.3). For this SNOPR, DOE maintained the 
methodology for generating base case market efficiency distributions 
used in the NOPR analysis.
10. Compliance Date
    The compliance date is the date when a new standard becomes 
operative, i.e., the date by which battery charger manufacturers must 
manufacture products that comply with the standard. DOE's publication 
of a final rule in this standards rulemaking is scheduled for 
completion by 2016. There are no requirements for the compliance date 
for battery charger standards, but DOE has chosen a two-year time 
period between publication and compliance for two reasons. First, 
manufacturers are already complying with the current CEC standards, 
which suggests that a two-year time frame would be reasonable. Second, 
this time-frame is consistent with the one that DOE initially proposed 
to apply for external power supplies, which were previously bundled 
together with battery chargers as part of DOE's initial efforts to 
regulate both of these products. DOE calculated the LCCs for all 
consumers as if each would purchase a new product in the year that 
manufacturers would be required to meet the new standard (2018). 
However, DOE bases the cost of the equipment on the most recently 
available data, with all dollar values expressed in 2013$.
11. Payback Period Inputs
    The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the 
additional installed cost of more-efficient products, compared to 
baseline products, through energy cost savings. Payback periods are 
expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product 
mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in 
reduced operating expenses.
    The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the 
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the 
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The 
PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 
energy price trends and discount rates are not needed; only energy 
prices for the year the standard becomes required for compliance (2018 
in this case) are needed.
    EPCA, as amended, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a 
standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the 
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with 
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the 
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, 
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE 
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating 
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test 
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average

[[Page 52888]]

energy price forecast for the year in which compliance with the 
proposed standards would be required.
    DOE received a comment from ITI on its PBP analysis. ITI pointed 
out that the NOPR stated ``a standard is economically justified if the 
Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing 
a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be 
less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first 
year.'' (ITI, No. 131 at p. 6)
    DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values that calculate the PBP 
for consumers of products subject to potential energy conservation 
standards, which includes, but is not limited to, the three-year PBP 
contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE 
routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full 
range of impacts, including those to the consumer, manufacturer, 
Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) 
and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1). The results of this analysis serve as the 
basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a 
potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results 
of any preliminary determination of economic justification).

G. Shipments Analysis

    Projections of product shipments are needed to forecast the impacts 
that standards are likely to have on the Nation. DOE develops shipment 
projections based on an analysis of key market drivers for each 
considered product. In DOE's shipments model, shipments of products 
were calculated based on current shipments of product applications 
powered by battery chargers. The inventory model takes an accounting 
approach, tracking remaining shipments and the vintage of units in the 
existing stock for each year of the analysis period.
    Based on comments received on the Preliminary Analysis, DOE 
conducted a sensitivity analysis to examine how increases in end-use 
product prices resulting from standards might affect shipment volumes. 
To DOE's knowledge, elasticity estimates are not readily available in 
existing literature for battery chargers, or the end-use consumer 
products that DOE is analyzing in this rulemaking. Because some 
applications using battery chargers could be considered more 
discretionary than major home appliances, which have an estimated 
relative price elasticity of -0.34,\38\ DOE believed a higher 
elasticity of demand was possible. In its sensitivity analysis, DOE 
assumed a price elasticity of demand of -1, meaning a given percentage 
increase in the final product price would be accompanied by that same 
percentage decrease in shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See http://ees.ead.lbl.gov/publications/analysis-price-elasticity (last accessed January 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even under this relatively high assumption for price elasticity of 
demand, DOE's battery charger standards are unlikely to have a 
significant effect on the shipment volumes of those battery charger 
applications mentioned by stakeholders, with forecasted effects ranging 
from a decrease of 0.004 percent for electric shavers to a decrease of 
0.1 percent for do-it-yourself (``DIY'') power tools with detachable 
batteries. Results for all battery charger applications are contained 
in appendix 9A to the SNOPR TSD. The corresponding impacts on national 
energy savings (``NES'') and NPV are included in appendix 10A.
1. Shipment Growth Rate
    In the NOPR, DOE noted that the market for battery chargers grew 
tremendously in the previous ten years. Additionally, DOE found that 
many market reports had predicted enormous future growth for the 
applications that employ battery chargers. However, in projecting the 
size of these markets over the next 30 years, DOE considered the 
possibility that much of the market growth associated with battery 
chargers had already occurred. In many reports predicting the growth of 
applications that employ battery chargers, DOE noted that this growth 
was predicted for new applications, but older applications were 
generally not included. That is, battery charger demand did not grow, 
but the products using these devices have transitioned to a new product 
mix. For example, during its initial market assessment, DOE identified 
mobile phones, digital cameras, personal digital assistants, and MP3 
players as applications that use battery chargers. However, in the past 
several years, the use of smart phones, which can function as all four 
of these individual applications, has accelerated, and these individual 
products may no longer be sold in large volumes in the near future. A 
quantitative example of this is shown in Table IV-12. (See chapter 9 of 
the SNOPR TSD.)

                                                       Table IV-12--Example of Product Transition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Application                           2007 Shipments           2008 Shipments           2009 Shipments           2011 Shipments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Phones........................................               19,500,000               28,555,000               41,163,000              110,178,600
Mobile Phones.......................................              101,500,000              102,775,000               94,239,000               58,563,400
Personal Digital Assistants.........................                2,175,000                1,977,000                1,750,000                  800,000
MP3 Players.........................................               48,020,000               43,731,000               40,101,000               40,696,691
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................              171,195,000              177,038,000              177,253,000              210,238,691
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this in mind, DOE based its shipments projections such that 
the per-capita consumption of battery chargers will remain steady over 
time, and that the overall number of individual units that use battery 
chargers will grow at the same rate as the U.S. population.
    The NOPR analysis estimated future market size while assuming no 
change in the per-capita battery charger purchase rate by using the 
projected population growth rate as the compound annual market growth 
rate. Population growth rate values were obtained from the U.S. Census 
Bureau

[[Page 52889]]

2009 National Projections, which forecast U.S. resident population 
through 2050. DOE took the average annual population growth rate, 0.75 
percent, and applied this rate to all battery charger product classes.
    For the SNOPR, DOE retained the same approach and updated the 
growth rate from 0.75% to 0.62% using U.S. Census Bureau projections 
released December 2012.
    NRDC commented that battery chargers shipments had been growing 
significantly faster than the growth shown in the NOPR, driven in part 
by growth in consumer electronics and portable appliances over the 
previous few years. They suggested using a growth rate of 4% in 2011, 
gradually declining to 0.75% by 2028 (reduction of 0.2% per year). This 
would lead to shipment projections which are 32% higher in 2042 than 
what used in the NOPR analysis. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 19) The CA IOUs 
also asserted that battery chargers shipments would grow faster than 
the population. These faster growth rates would increase the energy 
savings attributable to the standards. The CA IOUs stated that they 
supported the conclusions of NRDC, but did not present additional data 
of their own. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 20)
    DOE recognizes that shipments for certain applications are 
increasing very rapidly. However, DOE researched product growth trends 
dating back to 2006 and found that other products, like digital 
cameras, have seen flat shipments. Some critical applications have even 
had shipments decline year-over-year. There is also significant 
convergence in the consumer electronics industry, in which one new 
device may replace multiple retired devices (such as a single smart 
phone replacing a mobile phone, digital camera, GPS device, and PDA). 
DOE seeks to forecast shipments for battery chargers as a whole, but 
given the complexity of these markets, any attempts to forecast 
behavior of the market will be inherently inexact. Therefore, in this 
SNOPR, DOE decided to maintain its approach to use population growth to 
project shipments, but updated the value to match the latest U.S. 
Census information: from 0.75% growth per year from the NOPR to 0.62% 
growth rate in this SNOPR. In its shipment forecasts, DOE projects that 
by 2018, shipments of battery chargers will be 4.4% percent greater 
than they were in 2011.
2. Product Class Lifetime
    For the NOPR, DOE calculated product class lifetime profiles using 
the percentage of shipments of applications within a given product 
class, and the lifetimes of those applications. These values were 
combined to estimate the percentage of units of a given vintage 
remaining in use in each year following the initial year in which those 
units were shipped and placed in service.
    DOE received no comments regarding this methodology and maintained 
this methodology for the SNOPR. For more information on the calculation 
of product class lifetime profiles, see chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD.
3. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
forecasted for the base case (without new and amended standards) and 
each of the standards cases. To project the trend in efficiency over 
the entire forecast period, DOE considered recent standards, voluntary 
programs such as ENERGY STAR, and other trends.
    For battery charger efficiency trends, DOE considered three key 
factors: European standards, the EPA's ENERGY STAR program, and the 
battery charger standards that took effect on February 1, 2013, in 
California.
    The EU included battery chargers in a preparatory study on eco-
design requirements that it published in January 2007.\39\ However, it 
has not yet announced plans to regulate battery chargers. Thus, DOE did 
not adjust the efficiency distributions that it calculated for battery 
chargers between the present-day and the compliance date in 2018 to 
account for European standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Available here: http://www.eceee.org/ecodesign/products/battery_chargers/Final_Report_Lot7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE examined the ENERGY STAR voluntary program for battery charging 
systems and found that as of October 19, 2012, less than 350 battery 
charging systems had been qualified.\40\ PTI commented that its 
members' products make up a significant portion of the ENERGY STAR 
Battery Charging Systems listings. PTI claimed that, to the extent that 
DOE's battery charger standard would impact future revisions to the 
ENERGY STAR criteria, then it is possible that there would be 
improvements in efficiency to some products in the market that already 
meet the DOE standard. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ EPA, ``Qualified Product (QP) List for ENERGY STAR 
Qualified Battery Charging Systems.'' Retrieved on October 18, 2012 
from http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/Battery_Charging_Systems_Product_List.xls?5728-8a42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that unforeseen new or revised energy efficiency 
specifications are a possibility and that these factors would impact 
the distribution of efficiency in the market. It is also possible that 
DOE's battery charger standards could cause other organizations to 
tighten their efficiency specifications as well. However, EPA's ENERGY 
STAR program for battery chargers ended on December 30, 2014, and the 
ENERGY STAR label is no longer available for this product category.\41\ 
Thus, DOE did not adjust its battery charger efficiency distributions 
to account for any potential market effects of a future ENERGY STAR 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/specs//BCS%20Final%20Decision%20Sunset%20Memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CEC battery charger standards that took effect in 2013, affect 
most, if not all, of the battery chargers within the scope of DOE's 
rulemaking. In the NOPR, DOE adjusted its base case efficiency 
distributions for battery chargers to account for these standards by 
assuming that, in the absence of Federal standards, all battery 
chargers sold in California would meet the CEC standards. In the 
absence of market share data, DOE assumed in the NOPR that California's 
share of the U.S. battery charger market would be equivalent to its 
share of U.S. GDP (13 percent).
    Also in the NOPR, DOE recognized that the CEC standards may also 
raise the efficiency of battery chargers sold outside of California. 
However, the magnitude of this effect could not be determined. 
Nevertheless, to explore the full range of possibilities, DOE also 
evaluated the potential impacts of Federal standards under the 
assumption that the CEC standards become the de facto standard for the 
nation, i.e., all battery chargers sold in the United States just 
before the Federal standard takes effect meet the CEC standards. This 
scenario represented an upper bound on the possible impacts of the CEC 
standards and a lower bound on the energy savings that could be 
achieved by Federal standards.
    Both during and after the NOPR public meeting, multiple 
stakeholders provided input on how the CEC standards may impact 
products in California and the rest of the Nation. The CEC commented 
that California's standards, in the absence of national standards, 
would become the ``de facto'' national standards. Thus, less stringent 
standards--such as those proposed in the NOPR--would lead to greater 
national energy consumption than if DOE took no action, which would 
``run afoul'' of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3), which mandates that DOE 
prescribe standards that results in the significant conservation of 
energy. The CEC further

[[Page 52890]]

argued that standards should be evaluated with a base case of no 
action, in which case the adoption of California's standards and the 
adoption of DOE's proposed standards would lead to an increase in 
national energy consumption. The CEC also advised that products sold in 
California that meet the CEC standards would regress to lower 
efficiency levels should DOE adopt standards lower than those set by 
the CEC because the CEC standards would be preempted. (California 
Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 2-6)
    Earthjustice concurred with the CEC's claims, stating that DOE's 
assumption that California's standards will not impact products sold 
outside of California was arbitrary and contrary to evidence presented 
for EPSs. With the CEC standards as the de facto national standards, 
the adoption by DOE of weaker requirements would not save significant 
energy and would be prohibited under EPCA. (Earthjustice, No. 118 at p. 
3) Panasonic also claimed that the CEC standards would become de facto 
national standards in the absence of Federal regulations. (Panasonic, 
No. 120 at p. 5) The Appliance Standards Awareness Project agreed that 
DOE's proposal risked increasing national energy consumption. They 
recommended that, to fully understand the potential impacts of 
California's standards, DOE should explore scenarios in which 100%, 
75%, and 50% of products sold outside of California comply with 
California's standard.
    AHAM suggested that DOE overestimated the amount of the market that 
would shift to comply with the CEC standards, because not all products 
will be able to meet those efficiency levels, even in California. 
However, AHAM suggested that DOE leave its analysis unchanged. (AHAM, 
No. 124 at p. 2) PTI commented that within the standard levels that DOE 
proposed, market elasticity is not an issue. However, it noted that at 
the CEC standard levels, there is a higher cost of compliance that 
would impact market elasticity. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 5)
    The CEC also approximated CSLs that would be equivalent to its 
standard levels and inputted those CSLs into DOE's NIA model. It 
concluded that doing so yielded an additional 1.06 quads of energy 
savings and $3.8 billion of net social benefits nationally, when 
compared to DOE's proposal. Given these additional potential savings, 
the CEC recommended that DOE revise its analyses and adopt standards at 
least as stringent as those adopted in California. (California Energy 
Commission, No. 117 at p. 32) Citing an analysis performed by the 
Berkeley Research Group, PTI agreed with DOE that the CEC's adopted 
standards for Product Classes 2-4 would not be cost effective for the 
nation. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 2)
    For this SNOPR, DOE has revised its base case efficiency 
distributions and now assumes that 95% of the market meets the CEC 
standards. DOE based this assumption on a review of the existing 
market, both online and via in-store visits, and found that retailers 
nationwide, and not just in California, are selling units complying 
with the CEC standards. DOE acknowledges, however, that units not 
complying with the current CEC standards can still be sold outside of 
California, but believes the percentage of such units is small. For 
this analysis, DOE assumed 5% of units sold do not meet the CEC 
standards. DOE's testing conducted for this SNOPR focused on improving 
baseline unit efficiency. In examining these units, DOE found that they 
complied with the CEC standards--including CEC-marked units purchased 
outside of California. While this resulted in assumptions of nearly all 
units sold nationally as meeting or exceeding the CEC standards, DOE 
recognizes that there are some units that could be sold outside of 
California and not through common channels and/or large retailers 
either online or in stores. DOE assumes that the volume of such non-
CEC-compliant units is small. Using all of these assumptions, DOE 
developed its revised base case efficiency distribution using the CEC 
database \42\ of battery charger models sold in California combined 
with DOE's usage profiles as described earlier in Section IV.C.4. See 
chapter 9 of the SNOPR TSD for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/AdvancedSearch.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate efficiency trends in the standards cases, DOE has used 
``roll-up'' and/or ``shift'' scenarios in its standards rulemakings. 
Under the ``roll-up'' scenario, DOE assumes: (1) Product efficiencies 
in the base case that do not meet the standard level under 
consideration would ``roll-up'' to meet the new standard level; and (2) 
product efficiencies above the standard level under consideration would 
not be affected. Under the ``shift'' scenario, DOE reorients the 
distribution above the new minimum energy conservation standard. For 
this rule, DOE proposed use of the ``roll-up'' scenario and has 
maintained this approach for the SNOPR. This approach was supported by 
Delta-Q Technologies in its public comments following publication of 
the NOPR. (Delta-Q Technologies, No. 113 at p. 1).
    For further details about the forecasted efficiency distributions, 
see chapter 9 of the SNOPR TSD. DOE seeks comments on its approach in 
updating the base case efficiency distributions for this rule using the 
CEC database.

H. National Impacts Analysis

    The NIA assesses the national energy savings (NES) and the NPV of 
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from 
new and amended standards at specific efficiency levels. DOE calculates 
the NES and NPV based on projections of annual unit shipments, along 
with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from 
the energy use and LCC analyses. DOE projected the energy savings, 
operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of net consumer benefits 
for products sold over a 30-year period--from 2018 through 2047.
    CEA commented that it is unreasonable for DOE to project shipments, 
energy savings, and emissions reductions over a 30-year period. Product 
lifecycles for many of the covered products are typically measured in 
months, so it can be difficult to make projections years out. (CEA, No. 
106 at p. 9) Although the 30-year analysis period is longer than the 
average lifetime of battery chargers, DOE estimates that the considered 
standard levels analyzed will transform the market to higher energy 
efficiencies than in the base-case, resulting in energy and emission 
savings throughout the analysis period. Further, DOE has conducted a 
sensitivity analysis that projects NIA results out over nine years of 
shipments instead of 30 years. Results of this sensitivity analysis are 
available in section V.B.3 of this notice.
    As in the LCC analysis, DOE evaluates the national impacts of new 
and amended standards by comparing base-case projections with 
standards-case projections. The base-case projections characterize 
energy use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of 
new and amended energy conservation standards. DOE compares these 
projections with projections characterizing the market for each product 
class if DOE adopted new and amended standards at specific energy 
efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class.
    To make the analysis more accessible and transparent to all 
interested parties, DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet model to calculate 
the energy savings and the national consumer costs and savings from 
each TSL. The SNOPR TSD, and other supplemental

[[Page 52891]]

documentation DOE releases, collectively explain the models and how to 
use them. Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing 
various input quantities within the spreadsheet models that DOE 
releases. The NIA spreadsheet model uses average values as inputs (as 
opposed to probability distributions).
    For this SNOPR, the NIA used projections of energy prices from the 
AEO2014 Reference case. In addition, DOE analyzed scenarios that used 
inputs from the AEO2014 High Economic Growth, and Low Economic Growth 
cases. These cases have higher or lower energy price trends compared to 
the Reference case. NIA results based on these cases are presented in 
appendix 10A to the SNOPR TSD.
    Table IV-13 summarizes the inputs and key assumptions DOE used in 
the NIA. Discussion of these inputs and changes follows the table. See 
chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD for further details.

   Table IV-13--Summary of Inputs, Sources and Key Assumptions for the
                        National Impact Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Changes for SNOPR
            Inputs               NOPR Description           rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year Shipments...........  Annual shipments   No change in
                                 from Market        methodology.
                                 Assessment.        Includes updated
                                                    data from 2011.
Shipment Growth Rate..........  0.75 percent       Updated to 0.62
                                 annually, equal    percent using
                                 to population      revised U.S. Census
                                 growth.            projections (2012).
Lifetimes.....................  Battery charger    No changes in
                                 lifetime is        methodology. Product
                                 equal to the       Class lifetimes were
                                 lifetime of the    revised based on
                                 end-use product    removal of medical
                                 it powers..        products.
Base Year Efficiencies........  From Market        Obtained from the
                                 Assessment.        CEC's database of
                                                    Small Battery
                                                    Chargers (2014)
Base-Case Forecasted            Efficiency         No change.
 Efficiencies.                   distributions
                                 remain unchanged
                                 throughout the
                                 forecast period.
Standards-Case Forecasted       ``Roll-up''        No change.
 Efficiencies.                   scenario.
Annual Energy Consumption per   Annual shipment    No change in the
 Unit.                           weighted-average   methodology. Inputs
                                 marginal energy    to the calculation
                                 consumption        were revised based
                                 values for each    on removal of
                                 product class.     medical products.
Improvement Cost per Unit.....  From the           No change.
                                 Engineering
                                 Analysis.
Markups.......................  From Markups       No change.
                                 Analysis.
Repair and Maintenance Cost     Assumed to be      No change.
 per Unit.                       zero.
Energy Prices.................  AEO2010            Updated to AEO2014.
                                 projections (to
                                 2035) and
                                 extrapolation
                                 for 2044 and
                                 beyond.
Electricity Site-to-Source      Based on AEO 2010  Updated to AEO2014.
 Conversion Factor.
Present Year..................  2011.............  2015
Discount Rate.................  3% and 7% real...  No change.
Compliance Date of Standard     2013.............  2018
 (Start of Analysis Period).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Product Price Trends
    As noted in section IV.F.1, DOE assumed no change in battery 
charger pricing over the 2018-2047 period in the reference case. AHAM 
commented that it opposes the use of price trends and agreed that DOE 
should not use that approach. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 9) In contrast, PG&E 
and SDG&E supported the consideration of price trends as an NIA 
sensitivity and recommended that price trends be incorporated into the 
reference case, given past declines in the costs of electronic 
products. (PG&E and SDG&E, No. 163 at pp. 1-2) The Power Sources 
Manufacturers Association (PSMA) agreed, stating that while 
improvements to overall battery charger efficiency do entail cost 
premiums, these premiums are often reduced as volumes increase and 
manufacturing technologies improve. (PSMA, No. 147 at p. 2)
    As discussed in section IV.G.1, it is difficult to predict the 
consumer electronics market far in advance. To derive a price trend for 
battery chargers, DOE did not have any historical shipments data or 
sufficient historical Producer Price Index (PPI) data for the small 
electrical appliance manufacturing industry from BLS.\43\ Therefore, 
DOE examined a projection based on the price indexes that were 
projected for AEO2014. DOE performed an exponential fit on two deflated 
projected price indexes that may include the products that battery 
chargers are components of: information equipment (Chained price 
index--investment in non-residential equipment and software--
information equipment), and consumer durables (Chained price index--
other durable goods). However, DOE believes that these indexes are too 
broad to accurately capture the trend for battery chargers. 
Furthermore, most battery chargers are unlike typical consumer products 
in that they are typically not purchased independently by consumers. 
Instead, they are similar to other commodities and typically bundled 
with end-use products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Series ID PCU33521-33521; http://www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the above considerations, DOE decided to use a constant price 
assumption as the default price factor index to project future battery 
charger prices in 2018 and out to 2047. While a more conservative 
method, following this approach helped ensure that DOE did not 
understate the incremental impact of standards on the consumer purchase 
price. Thus, DOE's product prices forecast for the LCC, PBP, and NIA 
analyses for the SNOPR were held constant for each efficiency level in 
each product class. DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis using 
alternative price trends based on AEO indexes. These price trends, and 
the NPV results from the associated sensitivity cases, are described in 
Appendix 10B of the SNOPR TSD.
2. Unit Energy Consumption and Savings
    DOE uses the efficiency distributions for the base case along with 
the annual unit energy consumption values to estimate shipment-weighted 
average unit energy consumption under the base and standards cases, 
which are then

[[Page 52892]]

compared against one another to yield unit energy savings values for 
each considered efficiency level.
    As discussed in section IV.G.3, DOE assumes that energy efficiency 
will not improve after 2018 in the base case. Therefore, the projected 
UEC values in the analysis, as well as the unit energy savings values, 
do not vary over time. Consistent with the roll-up scenario, the 
analysis assumes that manufacturers would respond to a standard by 
improving the efficiency of underperforming products but not those that 
already meet or exceed the standard.
    DOE received no comments on its methodology for calculating unit 
energy consumption and savings in the NOPR and maintained its 
methodology in the SNOPR. For further details on the calculation of 
unit energy savings for the NIA, see chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD.
3. Unit Costs
    DOE uses the efficiency distributions for the base case along with 
the unit cost values to estimate shipment-weighted average unit costs 
under the base and standards cases, which are then compared against one 
another to give incremental unit cost values for each TSL. DOE received 
no comments on its methodology for calculating unit costs in the NOPR 
and maintained its methodology in the SNOPR. For further details on the 
calculation of unit costs for the NIA, see chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD.
4. Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit
    In the NOPR, DOE considered the incremental maintenance cost for 
the replacement of lithium ion batteries in certain applications. After 
examining the possible impact of this cost in the LCC and PBP analyses, 
DOE determined that the actual impact at the product class level would 
most likely be negligible. Thus, DOE opted not to retool its NIA model 
to account for this cost. For further discussion of this issue, see 
section IV.F.3 above. DOE received no comments on this approach, and 
maintained this assumption for the SNOPR.
5. Energy Prices
    While the focus of this rulemaking is on consumer products found in 
the residential sector, DOE is aware that many products that employ 
battery chargers are located within commercial buildings. Given this 
fact, the NOPR analysis relied on calculated energy cost savings from 
such products using commercial sector electricity rates, which are 
lower in value than residential sector rates. DOE used this approach so 
as to not overstate energy cost savings in calculating the NIA.
    In order to determine the energy usage split between the 
residential and commercial sector, DOE first separated products into 
residential-use and commercial-use categories. Then, for each product 
class, using shipment values for 2018, average lifetimes, and base-case 
unit energy consumption values, DOE calculated the approximate annual 
energy use split between the two sectors. DOE applied the resulting 
ratio to the electricity pricing to obtain a sector-weighted energy 
price for each product class. This ratio was held constant throughout 
the period of analysis.
    DOE received no comments on its methodology for calculating energy 
costs in the NOPR and maintained its approach for the SNOPR. For 
further details on the determination of energy prices for the NIA, see 
chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD.
6. National Energy Savings
    The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of 
national energy consumption of the considered products in each 
potential standards case with consumption in the base case with no new 
or amended energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national 
energy consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each 
product (by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by 
vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national 
energy consumption for the base case (without amended efficiency 
standards) and for each higher efficiency standard. DOE estimated 
energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the 
electricity consumption and savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy 
consumed by power plants to generate site electricity) using annual 
conversion factors derived from AEO2014. Cumulative energy savings are 
the sum of the NES for each year over the timeframe of the analysis.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
DOE announced its intention to use full fuel cycle (``FFC'') measures 
of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national 
impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy 
conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After 
evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE 
published a statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its 
determination that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is the 
most appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use 
NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public 
domain, multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 
sector. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook.
    For further details about the calculation of national energy 
savings, see chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD. The approach used for 
deriving FFC measures of energy use and emissions is described in 
appendix 10B of the SNOPR TSD.
7. Discount Rates
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers of battery chargers are: (1) total increased 
product cost, (2) total annual savings in operating costs, and (3) a 
discount factor. For each standards case, DOE calculated net savings 
each year as total savings in operating costs, less total increases in 
product costs, relative to the base case. DOE calculated operating cost 
savings over the life of each product shipped from 2018 through 2047.
    DOE multiplied the net savings in future years by a discount factor 
to determine their present value. DOE estimated the NPV of consumer 
benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE 
uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the 
development of regulatory analysis.\44\ The 7-percent real value is an 
estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in 
the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the ``societal 
rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society discounts 
future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ OMB Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, ``Identifying 
and Measuring Benefits and Costs. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further details about the calculation of net present value, see 
chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD.

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impacts of new or amended standards, DOE 
evaluates the impacts on the LCC of identifiable subgroups of consumers 
that may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. In the 
NOPR,

[[Page 52893]]

DOE analyzed four consumer subgroups of interest--low-income consumers, 
small businesses, top marginal electricity price tier consumers, and 
consumers of specific applications within a product class. In this 
SNOPR, DOE maintains the same subgroups; however, DOE separates the top 
marginal electricity price tier consumers into two subgroups because 
further analysis showed that these consumers were two distinct groups. 
The two new subgroups are top tier electricity price consumers and peak 
time-of-use electricity price consumers. For each subgroup, DOE 
considered variations on the standard inputs to the general LCC model.
    DOE defined low-income consumers as residential consumers with 
incomes at or below the poverty line, as defined by the U.S. Census 
Bureau. In the NOPR stage, DOE found from 2005 Residential Energy 
Consumption Survey (RECS) data \45\ that these consumers face 
electricity prices that are 0.2 cents per kWh lower, on average, than 
the prices faced by consumers above the poverty line. In the SNOPR 
stage, DOE found that the updated 2009 RECS data \46\ no longer showed 
a significant difference in electricity price between low-income and 
general consumers. Instead, DOE used the same source to identify 
population distributions of low-income consumers among regions of the 
U.S. to distinguish low-income consumers from the general population. 
DOE requests comment on the new methodology of filtering RECS data to 
obtain a population distribution of low-income consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration. RECS Public Use Microdata Files, calendar year 2005. 
2009. Washington, DC. http://205.254.135.7/consumption/residential/data/2005/index.cfm?view=microdata
    \46\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration. RECS Public Use Microdata Files, calendar year 2009. 
2013. Washington, DC. http://205.254.135.7/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.cfm?view=microdata
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For small businesses, DOE analyzed the potential impacts of 
standards by conducting the analysis with a different discount rate 
applicable to this subgroup, as small businesses do not have the same 
access to capital as larger businesses. DOE estimated that for 
businesses purchasing battery chargers, small companies have an average 
discount rate that is 4.16 percent higher than the industry average.
    In the NOPR, DOE identified the highest rates for top tier marginal 
electricity price consumers using both tiered rates and time of usage. 
DOE found that top tier marginal rates for general usage in the 
residential and commercial sectors were $0.310 and $0.225, 
respectively. In the SNOPR stage, DOE divided this subgroup into two 
new subgroups because further analysis showed that these consumers were 
two distinct groups. For top tier electricity price consumers, DOE 
researched tiered electricity rates for general usage in the 
residential sector, and found the highest price to be $0.359. For peak 
time-of-use electricity price consumers, DOE researched prices that 
varied with the time of day for both the residential and commercial 
sectors, obtaining peak values of $0.514 and $.494, respectively.
    Lastly, for the application-specific subgroup, DOE used the inputs 
from each application for lifetime, markups, market efficiency 
distribution, and UEC to calculate LCC and PBP results.
    In response to the NOPR, Nokia noted that DOE should consider life-
cycle costs when deciding standards. In the case of mobile phones, it 
argued that standards could not be justified on the basis of life-cycle 
costs (Nokia, No. 132 at p. 1).
    Mobile phone battery chargers fall into Product Class 2. The 
selected CSL for Product Class 2 exhibits a positive LCC savings of 
$0.06 over the lifetime of a given mobile phone battery charger. DOE 
notes that the standards and life-cycle costs are for the battery 
chargers, and not for end-use products. Looking across all of Product 
Class 2, the standards proposed will be beneficial to consumers, on 
average. For this reason, DOE believes that standards are justified at 
the current proposed levels for mobile phones on the basis of life-
cycle costs.
    DOE's subgroup analysis for consumers of specific applications 
considered the LCC impacts of each application within a product class. 
This approach allowed DOE to consider the LCC impacts of individual 
applications when choosing the proposed standard level, regardless of 
the application's weighting in the calculation of average impacts. The 
impacts of the standard on the cost of the battery charger as a 
percentage of the application's total purchase price are not relevant 
to DOE's LCC analysis. DOE used the cost of the battery charger 
component, not the final price of the application, in the LCC. 
Therefore, a $2,000 and $20 product are assumed to have the same cost 
for a battery charger (e.g., $5) if they are within the same CSL of the 
same product class. The application-specific subgroup analyses 
represent an estimate of the marginal impacts of standards on consumers 
of each application within a product class.
    DOE maintained its approach to the application specific consumer 
subgroup in the SNOPR. Chapter 11 of the SNOPR TSD contains further 
information on the LCC analyses for all subgroups.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    DOE conducted a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) on battery 
chargers to estimate the financial impact of new energy conservation 
standards on this industry. The MIA is both a quantitative and 
qualitative analysis. The quantitative part of the MIA relies on the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cash flow model 
customized for applications that include battery chargers covered in 
this rulemaking. The key MIA output is industry net present value 
(INPV). DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash flows using standard 
accounting principles and to compare the changes in INPV resulting from 
the base case and various TSLs (the standards case). The difference in 
INPV between the base and standards cases represents the financial 
impact of the new standards on manufacturers. Different sets of 
assumptions (scenarios) produce different results.
    DOE calculated the MIA impacts of new energy conservation standards 
by creating a GRIM for battery charger application manufacturers. In 
the GRIM, DOE grouped similarly impacted products to better analyze the 
effects new standards will have on the industry. DOE presented the 
battery charger application impacts by product class groups (Product 
Class 1; Product Classes 2, 3, and 4; Product Classes 5 and 6; and 
Product Class 7) and by TSL. DOE also presented the results for Product 
Classes 2, 3, and 4 by manufacturer industry (consumer electronics, 
small appliance, and power tool manufacturers). This is necessary 
because the impacts in this product class group vary significantly by 
industry type. Therefore, grouping all industries together could 
overlook the potential negative impacts that manufacturers of a 
specific industry face. By segmenting the results into these 
industries, DOE is also able to discuss how each subgroup of battery 
charger application manufacturers will be impacted by new energy 
conservation standards.
    DOE outlined its complete methodology for the MIA in the NOPR. 77 
FR 18478, 18549-59 (March 27, 2012). The complete MIA is presented in 
chapter 12 of the accompanying SNOPR TSD.
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Through the MIA, DOE attempts to model how changes in efficiency 
impact manufacturer production costs

[[Page 52894]]

(``MPCs''). DOE used two critical inputs to calculate manufacturer 
impacts at the OEM level. The first input is the price that the 
application OEM charges for its finished product, used to calculate 
revenue. The second input is the portion of that price represented by 
its battery charger, used to calculate costs, at each CSL.
    For the first component, DOE determined representative retail 
prices for each application by surveying popular online retailer Web 
sites to sample a number of price points of the most commonly sold 
products for each application. The price of each application can vary 
greatly depending on many factors (such as the features of each 
individual product). For each application, DOE used the average 
application price found in the product survey. DOE then discounted this 
representative retail price back to the application MSP using the 
retail markups derived from annual SEC 10-K reports in the Markups 
Analysis, as discussed in section IV.D.
    DOE calculated the second figure--the price of the battery charger 
itself at each CSL--in the engineering analysis. In this analysis, DOE 
calculated a separate cost efficiency curve for each of the seven 
battery charger product classes. Based on product testing data, tear-
down data and manufacturer feedback, DOE created a BOM at the original 
device manufacturer (ODM) level to which markups were applied to 
calculate the MSP of the battery charger at each CSL. DOE then 
allocated the battery charger MSPs of each product class to all the 
applications within each product class. In this way, DOE arrived at the 
cost to the application OEM of the battery charger for each 
application.
    NRDC commented that DOE overestimated the incremental MPCs in the 
NOPR analysis for battery chargers, which caused DOE to overstate the 
negative financial impacts reported in the NOPR MIA. (NRDC, No. 114 at 
p. 21) NRDC did not give any specific data to support their claim that 
DOE overestimated the incremental MPCs in the NOPR analysis. As part of 
the SNOPR analysis, DOE did conduct another round of product 
purchasing, testing, and tear downs to update the MPCs for the SNOPR 
analysis to account for the most recent pricing trends for each 
product. For some products, the incremental MPCs increased and for 
others the incremental MPCs decreased compared to the NOPR analysis 
incremental MPCs. DOE used a similar methodology for tear downs in the 
SNOPR as it did in the NOPR; however, the changes in incremental MPC 
from the NOPR to the SNOPR reflect the most recent battery charger 
pricing trends and changes in material costs from the previous 
analysis.
2. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    New energy conservation standards will cause manufacturers to incur 
one-time conversion costs to bring their production facilities and 
product designs into compliance with the new standards. For the MIA, 
DOE classified these one-time conversion costs into two major groups: 
(1) Product conversion costs and (2) capital conversion costs. Product 
conversion costs are one-time investments in research, development, 
testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs focused on making 
product designs comply with the new energy conservation standards. 
Capital conversion costs are one-time investments in property, plant, 
and equipment to adapt or change existing production facilities so that 
new product designs can be fabricated and assembled.
    NRDC commented that DOE overestimated the conversion costs 
associated with battery charger standards and caused the MIA results to 
overstate the negative financial impacts on battery charger 
manufacturers. NRDC believes the changes required by the selected 
standards for battery chargers are simple and will only require limited 
capital conversion costs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 21) After reviewing the 
battery charger conversion costs, DOE believes that the values listed 
in the NOPR are accurate based on the available data and is declining 
to alter the battery charger conversion cost methodology for this 
SNOPR.
3. Comments From Interested Parties Related to Battery Chargers
    Several stakeholders commented on DOE's NOPR MIA. These comments 
centered on compliance-related issues, employment impacts, and the 
MIA's scope.
a. Compliance Date and Implementation Period
    Interested parties expressed concern regarding the proposed 
timeline for an appropriate compliance date to DOE's battery charger 
standard. They supported DOE's proposal to set a compliance date as 
soon as possible but not later than July 1, 2013 for battery charger 
products classes 2, 3, and 4. The industry also argued that since the 
CEC battery charger standards for these product classes are more 
stringent and would be effective in February 2013, setting an earlier 
compliance date for the standard would enable manufacturers to avoid 
performing two rounds of testing, labeling, and compliance with two 
different standards in a very short period of time. (AHAM, No. 124 at 
p. 5) (CEA, No. 106 at p. 3) (Motorola, No. 121 at p. 11) (Nintendo of 
America, No. 135 at p. 2) (Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 5) (Philips, No. 
128 at p. 7) (PTI, No. 133 at p. 2 & 6) (Wahl, No. 153 at p. 1) (Pub. 
Mtg. Tr., No. 104 at p. 251-254) Additionally, ITI supported a 
compliance period of less than two years for Product Class 5 in 
addition to Product Classes 2, 3, and 4. It also asserted that 
manufacturers will be ready to meet DOE's proposed battery charger 
standards for all these product classes in the very near term and will 
not require the full two-year compliance period. (ITI, No. 131 at p. 2 
& 6)
    Other commenters urged DOE to adopt at least a two-year compliance 
period for all battery charger product classes. These commenters stated 
manufacturers must be allowed sufficient time to redesign and conduct 
thorough testing on their products in order to manufacture adequately 
safe and reliable products that comply with DOE's battery charger 
standards. (Flextronics, No. 145 at p.1) (Microsoft, No. p. 110) 
(Nebraska Energy Office, No. 98 at p. 2) (Nokia, No. 132 at p. 2) 
(Salcomp Plc, No. 73 at p. 2) (Schneider, No. 119 at p. 6) 
Additionally, some manufacturers supported a compliance date of at 
least 18 months or two years just for Product Classes 5, 6, and/or 7. 
(Actuant Electric, No. 146 at p. 2) (Lester Electrical, No. 139 at p. 
2) (Lester Electrical, No. 87 at p. 1) (Schumacher, No. 143 at p. 2) 
(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 104 at p. 30)
    Since the CEC battery charger standard has already been implemented 
at the time of this SNOPR publication and available data indicate that 
manufacturers are already complying with that standard, DOE is 
proposing to use a compliance date of two years after the publication 
of the final rule for this rulemaking.
b. Employment Impacts
    Some manufacturers expressed concern that this rulemaking could 
lead to a loss of domestic jobs. Lester Electrical stated that the 
proposed standard level for Product Class 7 will lead to job losses in 
its domestic manufacturing plant. (Lester Electrical, No. 139 at p. 2) 
(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 104 at p. 31) The Nebraska Energy Office also 
commented that the proposed standard is not economically justified and 
would contribute an unacceptable level of regulatory burden. (Nebraska 
Energy Office, No. 98 at p. 2) DOE estimates that Lester Electrical 
employs

[[Page 52895]]

approximately 100 domestic production workers that produce a wide 
variety of covered and non-covered battery chargers. The direct 
employment analysis indicates that a maximum of 100 domestic jobs could 
be lost as a result of DOE's proposed battery charger standards due to 
the projected impacts on Lester Electrical. This estimate of 100 
domestic jobs lost represents the upper-bound of potential job loss, 
since it is likely that Lester Electrical will at least continue to 
produce the battery chargers not covered by this proposed standard 
domestically. Relocating a company's manufacturing facility is a 
complex business decision and not a decision mandated by any government 
action. Since one path to compliance is as likely as the next, it is 
difficult to accurately predict how Lester Electrical would respond to 
the proposed battery charger standards.
c. Scope of the MIA
    A few manufacturers stated that they believe the MIA did not 
include all parties affected by DOE's battery charger standard. 
Duracell commented that DOE should specifically account for the impacts 
on battery manufacturers, especially those who design battery chargers 
around the batteries they manufacture. (Duracell, No. 109 at p. 4) The 
MIA focused on battery charger and battery charger application 
manufacturers only. DOE believes the MIA should only focus on 
businesses that are directly impacted by DOE's standards and does not 
believe that battery manufacturers fall into this category. While DOE 
acknowledges that battery manufacturers could be indirectly affected by 
the proposed standard, those impacts fall outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
4. Manufacturer Interviews
    DOE conducted additional interviews with manufacturers following 
the preliminary analysis in preparation for the NOPR analysis. These 
interviews were separate from those DOE conducted as part of the 
engineering analysis. DOE did not conduct additional interviews between 
the publication of the NOPR and this SNOPR. DOE outlined the key issues 
for this rulemaking for manufacturers in the NOPR. See 77 FR at 18558-
18559. DOE did not receive any further comments on the key issues 
listed in the NOPR.

K. Emissions Analysis

    In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power 
sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and mercury (Hg) 
from potential energy conservation standards for battery chargers. In 
addition, DOE estimated emissions impacts in production activities 
(extracting, processing, and transporting fuels) that provide the 
energy inputs to power plants. These are referred to as ``upstream'' 
emissions. Together, these emissions account for the full-fuel-cycle 
(FFC). In accordance with DOE's FFC Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282 
(Aug. 18, 2011)), the FFC analysis includes impacts on emissions of 
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of 
which are recognized as greenhouse gases.
    DOE primarily conducted the emissions analysis using emissions 
factors for CO2 and most of the other gases derived from 
data in AEO2014. Combustion emissions of CH4 and 
N2O were estimated using emissions intensity factors 
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), GHG Emissions 
Factors Hub.\47\ DOE developed separate emissions factors for power 
sector emissions and upstream emissions. The method that DOE used to 
derive emissions factors is described in chapter 13 of the SNOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/inventory/ghg-emissions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated emissions 
reduction in tons and also in terms of units of carbon dioxide 
equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted to CO2eq 
by multiplying the physical units (i.e., tons) by the gas' global 
warming potential (GWP) over a 100-year time horizon. Based on the 
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change,\48\ DOE used GWP values of 28 for CH4 and 265 for 
N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, 
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 
Chapter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EIA prepares the Annual Energy Outlook using the National Energy 
Modeling System (NEMS). Each annual version of NEMS incorporates the 
projected impacts of existing air quality regulations on emissions. 
AEO2014 generally represents current legislation and environmental 
regulations, including recent government actions, for which 
implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2013.
    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade 
programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on 
SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and the 
District of Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern 
states and DC were also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an allowance-based 
trading program that operates along with the Title IV program. CAIR was 
remanded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit but it remained 
in effect.\49\ In 2011 EPA issued a replacement for CAIR, the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). On 
April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the 
D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent 
with the Supreme Court's opinion.\50\ On October 23, 2014, the D.C. 
Circuit lifted the stay of CSAPR.\51\ Pursuant to this action, CSAPR 
went into effect (and CAIR ceased to be in effect) as of January 1, 
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \50\ See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1610 
(U.S. 2014). The Supreme Court held in part that EPA's methodology 
for quantifying emissions that must be eliminated in certain States 
due to their impacts in other downwind States was based on a 
permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Clean Air 
Act provision that provides statutory authority for CSAPR.
    \51\ See Georgia v. EPA, Order (D.C. Cir. filed October 23, 
2014) (No. 11-1302),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because AEO2014 was prepared prior to the Supreme Court's opinion, 
it assumed that CAIR remains a binding regulation through 2040. Thus, 
DOE's analysis used emissions factors that assume that CAIR, not CSAPR, 
is the regulation in force. However, the difference between CAIR and 
CSAPR is not relevant for the purpose of DOE's analysis of emissions 
impacts from energy conservation standards.
    The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs 
and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable 
permits. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 
emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused 
by the adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit 
offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. 
In past rulemakings, DOE recognized that there was uncertainty about 
the effects of efficiency standards on SO2 emissions covered 
by the existing cap-and-trade system, but it concluded that negligible 
reductions in power sector SO2 emissions would occur as a 
result of standards.

[[Page 52896]]

    Beginning in 2016, however, SO2 emissions will fall as a 
result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants. 
77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the final MATS rule, EPA established a 
standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gas hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP), and also established a standard for 
SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent 
surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are used to 
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions will be 
reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on coal-fired 
power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid gas. AEO2014 
assumes that, in order to continue operating, coal plants must have 
either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems 
installed by 2016. Both technologies are used to reduce acid gas 
emissions, and they also reduce SO2 emissions. Under the 
MATS, emissions will be far below the cap established by CAIR, so it is 
unlikely that excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from 
the lower electricity demand would be needed or used to permit 
offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. 
Therefore, DOE believes that efficiency standards will generally reduce 
SO2 emissions in 2016 and beyond.
    CAIR established a cap on NOX emissions in 28 eastern 
States and the District of Columbia.\52\ Energy conservation standards 
are expected to have little effect on NOX emissions in those 
States covered by CAIR because excess NOX emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to 
permit offsetting increases in NOX emissions. However, 
standards would be expected to reduce NOX emissions in the 
States not affected by the caps, so DOE estimated NOX 
emissions reductions from the standards considered in this SNOPR for 
these States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ CSAPR also applies to NOx and it would supersede the 
regulation of NOX under CAIR. As stated previously, the 
current analysis assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in 
force. The difference between CAIR and CSAPR with regard to DOE's 
analysis of NOX emissions is slight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE estimated mercury 
emissions reduction using emissions factors based on AEO2014, which 
incorporates the MATS.
    For this SNOPR, DOE did not receive any comments on this section of 
the analysis and retained the same approach as in the NOPR.

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of the proposed rule, DOE considered the 
estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of 
CO2 and NOX that are expected to result from each 
of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to 
the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefits, DOE considered the 
reduced emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products 
shipped in the forecast period for each TSL. This section summarizes 
the basis for the monetary values used for each of these emissions 
reduction estimates and presents the values considered in this SNOPR.
    For this SNOPR, DOE did not receive any comments on this section of 
the analysis and retained the same approach as in the NOPR. DOE relied 
on a set of values for the social cost of carbon (SCC) that was 
developed by a Federal interagency process. The basis for these values 
is summarized below, and a more detailed description of the 
methodologies used is provided as an appendix to chapter 14 of the 
SNOPR TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an 
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is 
intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural 
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, 
and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided 
in dollars per metric ton of CO2. A domestic SCC value is 
meant to reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting 
from a unit change in CO2 emissions, while a global SCC 
value is meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.
    Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, agencies must, to the 
extent permitted by law, ``assess both the costs and the benefits of 
the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits 
are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs.'' The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is 
to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of 
reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of 
regulatory actions. The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement 
of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that 
they should be updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the 
science and economics of climate impacts.
    As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC 
estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular 
basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in 
relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main 
objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a 
defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific 
and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model 
differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC 
estimates used in the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of 
CO2 emissions, the analyst faces a number of challenges. A 
report from the National Research Council \53\ points out that any 
assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 
information about: (1) Future emissions of GHGs; (2) the effects of 
past and future emissions on the climate system; (3) the impact of 
changes in climate on the physical and biological environment; and (4) 
the translation of these environmental impacts into economic damages. 
As a result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated 
with climate change will raise questions of science, economics, and 
ethics and should be viewed as provisional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced 
Consequences of Energy Production and Use (2009). National Academies 
Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC 
estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing 
CO2 emissions. The agency can estimate the benefits from 
reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by 
multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC values 
appropriate for that year. The NPV of the benefits can then be 
calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an 
appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years.
    It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is 
committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic 
understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves 
over time. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to 
explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments 
as part of the ongoing interagency process.

[[Page 52897]]

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values
    In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a 
preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how 
benefits are evaluated across Federal agencies, the Administration 
sought to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically 
designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change 
damages from reduced CO2 emissions. The interagency group 
did not undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC 
estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a 
more comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the 
preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five 
interim values: global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, $33, 
$19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of CO2. These interim values 
represented the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. 
government to develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The 
results of this preliminary effort were presented in several proposed 
and final rules.
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    After the release of the interim values, the interagency group 
reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates. 
Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored 
the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group 
relied on three integrated assessment models commonly used to estimate 
the SCC: The FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently 
cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last 
assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 
Each model was given equal weight in the SCC values that were 
developed.
    Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes 
in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of 
the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the 
three models, while respecting the different approaches to quantifying 
damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of 
the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 
for these models: Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions 
trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for 
climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In 
addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the 
socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. 
All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model 
developers' best estimates and judgments.
    The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in 
regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC 
from three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, 
and 5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile SCC 
estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is 
included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from climate change 
further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values grow in 
real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined 
that a range of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to 
adjust the global SCC to calculate domestic effects,\54\ although 
preference is given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing 
CO2 emissions. Table IV-14 presents the values in the 2010 
interagency group report,\55\ which is reproduced in appendix 14-A of 
the SNOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values 
is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There is no a 
priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 
net global damages over time.
    \55\ Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Carbon, United States Government (February 2010) (Available at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf).

                     TABLE IV-14--Annual SCC Values From 2010 Interagency Report, 2010-2050
                                           [2007$ per Metric Ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Discount rate
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................             4.7            21.4            35.1            64.9
2015............................................             5.7            23.8            38.4            72.8
2020............................................             6.8            26.3            41.7            80.7
2025............................................             8.2            29.6            45.9            90.4
2030............................................             9.7            32.8            50.0           100.0
2035............................................            11.2            36.0            54.2           109.7
2040............................................            12.7            39.2            58.4           119.3
2045............................................            14.2            42.1            61.7           127.8
2050............................................            15.7            44.9            65.0           136.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SCC values used for this notice were generated using the most 
recent versions of the three integrated assessment models that have 
been published in the peer-reviewed literature.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency 
Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government 
(May 2013; revised November 2013) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-15 shows the updated sets of SCC estimates in 5-year 
increments from 2010 to 2050. The full set of annual SCC estimates 
between 2010 and 2050 is reported in appendix 14B of the SNOPR TSD. The 
central value that emerges is the average SCC across models at the 3-
percent discount rate. However, for purposes of capturing the 
uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, the interagency 
group emphasizes the importance of including all four sets of SCC 
values.

[[Page 52898]]



                     Table IV-15--Annual SCC Values From 2013 Interagency Report, 2010-2050
                                           [2007$ per Metric Ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Discount rate
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................              11              32              51              89
2015............................................              11              37              57             109
2020............................................              12              43              64             128
2025............................................              14              47              69             143
2030............................................              16              52              75             159
2035............................................              19              56              80             175
2040............................................              21              61              86             191
2045............................................              24              66              92             206
2050............................................              26              71              97             220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties 
remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional 
and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and 
economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the 
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The 2009 National 
Research Council report mentioned above points out that there is 
tension between the goal of producing quantified estimates of the 
economic damages from an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of 
existing efforts to model these effects. There are a number of 
analytical challenges that are being addressed by the research 
community, including research programs housed in many of the Federal 
agencies participating in the interagency process to estimate the SCC. 
The interagency group intends to periodically review and reconsider 
those estimates to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and 
economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling.
    In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting 
from reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the values from the 
2013 interagency report, adjusted to 2013$ using the implicit price 
deflator for GDP from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. For each of the 
four sets of SCC values, the values for emissions in 2015 were $12.0, 
$40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton avoided (values expressed in 
2013$). DOE derived values after 2050 using the relevant growth rate 
for the 2040-2050 period in the interagency update.
    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SCC value for that year in each of the four cases. To 
calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.
2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants
    As noted above, DOE has taken into account how amended energy 
conservation standards would reduce site NOX emissions 
nationwide and decrease power sector NOX emissions in those 
22 States not affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the monetized value 
of NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the TSLs 
considered for this SNOPR based on estimates found in the relevant 
scientific literature. Estimates of the monetary value for reducing 
NOX from stationary sources range from $476 to $4,893 per 
ton (in 2013$).\57\ DOE calculated monetary benefits using an average 
value for NOX emissions of $2,684 per short ton (in 2013$), 
and real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and 
Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 
Local, and Tribal Entities (2006) (Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_final_report.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of avoided 
SO2 and Hg emissions in energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. DOE has not included monetization of those emissions in 
the current analysis.
    The CA IOUs and ECOVA asked that DOE take into account the 
decreased cost of complying with sulfur dioxide emission regulations as 
a result of standards. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 19; ECOVA, Pub. pp. 292-
293) As discussed in section IV.K, under the MATS, SO2 
emissions are expected to be well below the cap established by CAIR. 
Thus, it is unlikely that the reduction in electricity demand resulting 
from energy efficiency standards would have an impact on the cost of 
complying with the regulations.
    For the SNOPR, DOE retained the same approach as in the NOPR for 
monetizing the emissions reductions from the proposed standards.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the 
electric power industry that would result from the adoption of new and 
amended energy conservation standards. In the utility impact analysis, 
DOE analyzes the changes in installed electrical capacity and 
generation that would result for each trial standard level. The 
analysis is based on published output from NEMS, which is updated 
annually to produce the AEO Reference case as well as a number of side 
cases that estimate the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy 
supply and demand. DOE uses those published side cases that incorporate 
efficiency-related policies to estimate the marginal impacts of reduced 
energy demand on the utility sector. The output of this analysis is a 
set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in 
electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity 
and power sector emissions due to a unit reduction in demand for a 
given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of 
electricity savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of 
selected utility impacts of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. Chapter 15 of the SNOPR TSD describes the utility impact 
analysis in further detail.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts include 
both direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment impacts are any 
changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of the products 
subject to standards, their suppliers, and related

[[Page 52899]]

service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment 
impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in 
the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being 
regulated, caused by: (1) Reduced spending by end users on energy; (2) 
reduced spending on new energy supplies by the utility industry; (3) 
increased spending on new products to which the new standards apply; 
and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by BLS.\58\ Data from BLS indicate that 
expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both 
directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the 
economy.\59\ There are many reasons for these differences, including 
wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-
intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, based 
on the BLS data alone, DOE believes net national employment may 
increase due to shifts in economic activity resulting from energy 
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Data on industry employment, hours, labor compensation, 
value of production, and the implicit price deflator for output for 
these industries are available upon request by calling the Division 
of Industry Productivity Studies (202-691-5618) or by sending a 
request by email to [email protected]. Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.nr0.htm.
    \59\ See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A 
User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS 
II). Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this SNOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. 
economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 3.1.1 
(ImSET).\60\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. Benchmark 
National Input-Output'' (I-O) model, which was designed to estimate the 
national employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. 
The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model having 
structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 187 
sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ J.M. Roop, M.J. Scott, and R.W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: Impact 
of Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL-18412, Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory, 2009. Available at: www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and understands the uncertainties involved in projecting 
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the 
analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the 
employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job 
impacts over the long run for this rule. Therefore, DOE generated 
results for near-term timeframes, where these uncertainties are 
reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see 
chapter 16 of the SNOPR TSD.
    The CEC disagreed with DOE's NOPR employment impact analysis, 
which, in its view, shows that increasing energy efficiency causes U.S. 
job losses. (California Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 33) It based 
its view on an assumed ratio of jobs in the consumer goods sector 
versus the utility sector. The CEC did not provide independent data 
sources or references to support the assumption. Nevertheless, DOE 
reviewed its inputs to estimate employment impacts. Because nearly all 
battery chargers are imported, DOE reports the employment impacts as a 
range, with the low end assuming all equipment cost increases remain in 
the manufacturing country and the high end assuming all equipment cost 
increases are returned to the United States economy via trade. DOE 
assumed 50%-75% of increased costs to return to the United States so 
the employment impacts fall near the middle of the reported range. The 
results of DOE's revised analysis are presented in section V.B.3.c.

O. Marking Requirements

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5), Congress granted DOE with the authority 
to establish labeling or marking requirements for a number of consumer 
products. Among these products are battery chargers.
    In this SNOPR, DOE is not proposing to establish marking 
requirements for battery chargers. DOE arrived at this decision after 
considering all of the public comments it received on this subject and 
weighing the expected benefits and burdens of marking requirements for 
battery chargers. These public comments are summarized here.
    DOE received comments requesting that it not extend marking 
requirements to products for which such requirements do not already 
exist. AHAM opposed any marking requirement, noting that these types of 
requirements are used to (1) inform consumers who can then make 
educated choices, (2) differentiate between products where there are 
two standards (e.g., UL/CSA); and/or (3) differentiate products that 
use a voluntary standard. According to AHAM, none of these purposes 
would be served in the context of a mandatory standard with which 
manufacturers will need to demonstrate compliance to DOE through its 
certification requirements. In AHAM's view, a marking requirement would 
add cost and burden without a corresponding benefit. (AHAM, No. 124 at 
p. 8) ITI made similar arguments and noted that consumers are likely to 
ignore these marks. (ITI, No. 131 at p. 8) Panasonic commented that 
efficiency marking requirements for battery chargers and EPSs are 
unnecessary and superfluous as the covered products must comply with 
standards as a condition of sale in the United States. (Panasonic, No. 
120 at pp. 3, 4)
    DOE acknowledges that manufacturers are required to certify 
compliance with standards using the Compliance Certification Management 
System (``CCMS'') database. Under these requirements, battery charger 
manufacturers, like other manufacturers of regulated products, would 
need to follow the CCMS submission requirements as well if DOE adopts 
standards for these products. While DOE also acknowledges that the use 
of general markings may have certain limitations in ensuring 
compliance, DOE also recognizes that manufacturers and retailers could 
use efficiency markings or labels to help ensure that the end-use 
consumer products they sell comply with all applicable standards. 
However, DOE has not received requests from such parties requesting 
additional marking requirements for such purposes.
    AHAM, ITI, and Panasonic further requested that if DOE were to 
require an efficiency marking for battery chargers, that marking should 
be the ``BC'' mark already required by the CEC rather than a Roman 
numeral, as proposed by DOE. Brother International also commented in 
support of the ``BC'' mark already required by the CEC. The commenters 
asserted that the transition from the CEC's scheme to DOE's [Roman 
numeral] scheme would be very difficult and costly and could 
necessitate the wasteful scrapping of improperly marked devices. They 
also asserted that adopting the ``BC'' mark would avoid any potential 
confusion created by products bearing two

[[Page 52900]]

markings during the transition period. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 8; Brother 
International, No. 111 at p. 2; ITI, No. 131 at p. 8; Panasonic, No. 
120 at p. 3, 4)
    NRDC, CEC, CA IOUs, and Delta-Q Technologies all supported a multi-
level, national or international marking protocol for battery chargers 
like the scheme proposed by DOE. NRDC strongly encouraged DOE to adopt 
its own marking requirements for battery chargers, rather than adopting 
the CEC's, and commented that doing so would (1) create a simple 
vocabulary for all stakeholders, especially between manufacturers, 
retailers and government enforcement agents; (2) facilitate 
enforcement, as it drives accountability from the retailer to its 
supply-chain; (3) facilitate international adoption by offering a 
flexible multi-level scheme that allows adoption of different levels; 
(4) facilitate market transformation by encouraging voluntary programs 
such as ENERGY STAR to require higher efficiency levels; and (5) create 
a longer lived policy with more opportunity for differentiation and 
future improvement. NRDC further encouraged DOE to initiate discussions 
with the CEC regarding marking as early as possible in order to give 
parties enough time to plan and implement any potential changes before 
CEC's marking requirement goes into effect on February 1, 2013. (NRDC, 
No. 114 at pp. 16-17) The CEC supported DOE's labeling proposal and 
suggested that if DOE finalizes a rule that differs in stringency and 
construction from the California standards, DOE should include a mark 
to represent the California standard levels or set an effective date 
for marking that is equivalent to DOE's earliest effective date for 
battery charger standards. (California Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 
30) The California IOUs commented that they contributed to and support 
the conclusions in the CEC and NRDC comments, including specifically 
that ``battery charger and EPS marking should [be] harmonize[d] 
internationally.'' (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 20) Finally, Delta-Q 
Technologies commented that any markings DOE decides to require should 
be consolidated with California so products do not have to be labeled 
twice and incur double the cost. (Delta-Q Technologies, No. 113 at p. 
2)
    After considering all of these comments and weighing the expected 
benefits and burdens of marking requirements for battery chargers, DOE 
is declining to propose marking requirements for battery chargers in 
this SNOPR.
    DOE received comments from two interested parties requesting that 
it not view the CEC-mandated ``BC '' mark as a violation of Federal 
law. AHAM commented that DOE should ``address how it will view products 
that contain marks indicating compliance with CEC standards. DOE should 
minimize burden on manufacturers who decide to sell product in 
California after the California standard goes into effect, but are not 
yet preempted by DOE's standards by not considering it a violation to 
bear the California mark on a product for a reasonable time after DOE's 
standard becomes mandatory.'' (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 9) Panasonic also 
expressed its concern that a product bearing the California marking 
would not comply with Federal requirements once the DOE's regulation 
became effective. It sought DOE's guidance on how to treat ``BC''-
marked products and suggested that a grace period to be provided to 
manufacturers to adjust to whatever new requirements DOE establishes. 
(Panasonic, No. 120 at pp. 3, 4)
    In light of DOE's decision not to propose battery charger marking 
requirements, manufacturers need not be concerned that marking devices 
in accordance with the CEC's present requirements will be a violation 
of Federal law. The battery charger standards being proposed in this 
notice will become effective two years after the publication of a final 
rule, at which time the CEC will no longer be able to compel a 
manufacturer to mark its product with a ``BC'' to signal that product's 
compliance with the applicable CEC standard. (42 U.S.C. 6297) However, 
DOE is not aware of any provisions in law that would prohibit a 
manufacturer from voluntarily marking its battery charger with a ``BC'' 
before or after this time.

P. Reporting Requirements

    Upon request from Panasonic, DOE confirms that the CCMS online 
compliance process will be required for this rulemaking. (Panasonic, 
No. 120 at p. 6)

V. Analytical Results

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to potential energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE and the projected 
impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers. Additional details regarding DOE's 
analyses are contained in the SNOPR TSD supporting this notice.

A. Trial Standards Levels

    DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of four TSLs for battery 
chargers. These TSLs were developed using combinations of efficiency 
levels for the product classes analyzed by DOE. DOE presents the 
results for those TSLs in this proposed rule. The results for all 
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the SNOPR TSD. Table V-1 
presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels for battery 
chargers. TSL 4 represents the maximum technologically feasible (``max-
tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for all product classes. 
While DOE examined most product classes individually, there were two 
groups of product classes that use generally similar technology options 
and cover the exact same range of battery energies. Because of this 
situation, DOE grouped all three low-energy, non-inductive, product 
classes (i.e., 2, 3, and 4) together and examined the results. 
Similarly, DOE grouped the two medium energy product classes, Product 
Classes 5 and 6, together when it examined those results.

          Table V-1--Trial Standard Levels for Battery Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Trial standard level
            Product Class            -----------------------------------
                                       TSL 1    TSL 2    TSL 3    TSL 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1--Low E, Inductive...............    CSL 1    CSL 2    CSL 2    CSL 3
PC2--Low E, Low Voltage.............    CSL 1    CSL 1    CSL 2    CSL 4
PC3--Low E, Medium Voltage..........    CSL 1    CSL 1    CSL 2    CSL 3
PC4--Low E, High Voltage............    CSL 1    CSL 1    CSL 2    CSL 3
PC5--Medium E, Low Voltage..........    CSL 1    CSL 2    CSL 3    CSL 3
PC6--Medium E, High Voltage.........    CSL 1    CSL 2    CSL 3    CSL 3

[[Page 52901]]

 
PC7--High E.........................    CSL 1    CSL 1    CSL 2    CSL 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For battery charger Product Class 1 (low-energy, inductive), DOE 
examined trial standard levels corresponding to each of three CSLs 
developed in the engineering analysis. TSL 1 is an intermediate level 
of performance above the baseline. TSLs 2 and 3 are equivalent to the 
best-in-market and corresponds to the maximum consumer NPV. TSL 4 is 
the max-tech level and corresponds to the greatest NES.
    For its second set of TSLs, which covers Product Classes 2 (low-
energy, low-voltage), 3 (low-energy, medium-voltage), and 4 (low-
energy, high-voltage), DOE examined four TSLs of different combinations 
of the various efficiency levels found for each product class in the 
engineering analysis. In this grouping, TSLs 1 and 2 are intermediate 
efficiency levels above the baseline for each product class and 
corresponds to the maximum consumer NPV. TSL 3 corresponds to an 
incremental efficiency level below best-in-market for Product Class 2, 
and the best-in-market efficiency level for Product Classes 3 and 4. 
Finally, TSL 4 corresponds to the max-tech efficiency level for all 
product classes and therefore, the maximum NES. Note that for Product 
Class 2 only, CSL 3 (corresponding to a best-in-market efficiency 
level) was not analyzed in a given TSL due to the negative LCC savings 
results for this product class at CSL 3 and the fact that only four 
TSLs were analyzed.
    DOE's third set of TSLs corresponds to the grouping of Product 
Classes 5 (medium-energy, low-voltage) and 6 (medium-energy, high-
voltage). For both product classes, TSL 1 is an intermediate efficiency 
level above the baseline. TSL 2 corresponds to the best-in-market 
efficiency level for both product classes and is the level with the 
highest consumer NPV. Finally, TSLs 3 and 4 correspond to the max-tech 
efficiency level for both product classes and the maximum NES.
    For Product Class 7 (high-energy), DOE examined only two CSLs 
because of the paucity of products available on the market. TSLs 1 and 
2 correspond to an efficiency level equivalent to the best-in-market 
and maximizes consumer NPV. TSLs 3 and 4 comprise the max-tech level 
corresponding to the level with the maximum NES.

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on battery charger consumers by 
looking at the effects potential national standards at each TSL would 
have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential 
standards on consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed below.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) Purchase price increases, and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also 
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the SNOPR TSD 
provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    The key outputs of the LCC analysis are average LCC savings for 
each product class for each TSL, relative to the base case, as well as 
the percentage of consumers for which the LCC will increase relative to 
the base case. Battery chargers are used in applications that can have 
a wide range of operating hours. Battery chargers that are used more 
frequently will tend to have a larger net LCC benefit than those that 
are used less frequently because of the large operating cost savings.
    The key output of the PBP analysis is the median PBP at each TSL. 
DOE presents the median PBP rather than the mean PBP because it is more 
robust in the presence of outliers in the data.\61\ These outliers can 
skew the mean PBP calculation but have little effect on the median PBP 
calculation. A small change in operating costs, which derive the 
denominator of the PBP calculation, can sometimes result in a very 
large PBP, which would skew the mean PBP calculation. For example, 
consider a sample of PBPs of 2, 2, 2, and 20 years, where 20 years is 
an outlier. The mean PBP would return a value of 6.5 years, whereas the 
median PBP would return a value of 2 years. Therefore, DOE considers 
the median PBP, which is not susceptible to skewing by occasional 
outliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ DOE notes that it uses the median payback period to reduce 
the effect of outliers on the data. This method, however, does not 
eliminate the outliers from the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V-2 through Table V-15 show the LCC and PBP results for the 
TSL efficiency levels considered for each product class. In the first 
of each pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the 
baseline product. In the second table, the LCC savings are measured 
relative to the base-case efficiency distribution in the compliance 
year (see section IV.F.9 of this notice).

                                            Table V-2--Average LCC and PBP Results by TSL for Product Class 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average costs  (2013$)
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------     Simple          Average
                   TSL                          CSL                        First year's      Lifetime                     payback  years     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                            years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.......................................               0            4.39            1.08            4.71            9.10               -             5.0
1.......................................               1            4.72            0.76            3.29            8.01             1.1             5.0
2.......................................               2            5.37            0.38            1.64            7.01             1.5             5.0
3.......................................               2            5.37            0.38            1.64            7.01             1.5             5.0

[[Page 52902]]

 
4.......................................               3           10.62            0.16            0.69           11.32             7.4             5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V-3--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for Product Class 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                               ---------------------------------
                              TSL                                     CSL        % of consumers       Average
                                                                                 that experience     savings *
                                                                                    net cost           2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................               1               0.0            0.08
2.............................................................               2               0.0            0.71
3.............................................................               2               0.0            0.71
4.............................................................               3              96.3           -3.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact).


                                            Table V-4--Average LCC and PBP Results by TSL for Product Class 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average costs  (2013$)
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------     Simple          Average
                   TSL                          CSL                        First year's      Lifetime                     payback  years     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                            years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.......................................               0            2.62            0.43            1.43            4.05               -             4.0
1.......................................               1            2.68            0.27            0.86            3.54             0.6             4.0
2.......................................               1            2.68            0.27            0.86            3.54             0.6             4.0
3.......................................               2            3.11            0.16            0.45            3.57             2.5             4.0
4.......................................               4            7.31            0.11            0.31            7.62            19.5             4.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table V-5--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for Product Class 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                               ---------------------------------
                              TSL                                     CSL        % of consumers       Average
                                                                                 that experience     savings *
                                                                                    net cost           2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................               1               1.2            0.07
2.............................................................               1               1.2            0.07
3.............................................................               2              33.1            0.06
4.............................................................               4              73.8           -2.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                            Table V-6--Average LCC and PBP Results by TSL for Product Class 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average costs  (2013$)
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------     Simple          Average
                   TSL                          CSL                        First year's      Lifetime                     payback  years     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                            years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.......................................               0            2.59            0.52            2.30            4.89               -             4.9
1.......................................               1            2.70            0.18            0.82            3.52             0.8             4.9
2.......................................               1            2.70            0.18            0.82            3.52             0.8             4.9
3.......................................               2            6.84            0.10            0.43            7.27            21.6             4.9
4.......................................               3            8.83            0.09            0.41            9.24            31.2             4.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52903]]


      Table V-7--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for Product Class 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                               ---------------------------------
                              TSL                                     CSL        % of consumers       Average
                                                                                 that experience     savings *
                                                                                    net cost           2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................               1               0.6            0.08
2.............................................................               1               0.6            0.08
3.............................................................               2              39.0           -1.36
4.............................................................               3              40.8           -2.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                            Table V-8--Average LCC and PBP Results by TSL for Product Class 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average costs  (2013$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                   TSL                          CSL                        First year's      Lifetime                          years      lifetime years
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.......................................               0            3.75            1.61            5.62            9.37  ..............             3.7
1.......................................               1            4.89            0.67            2.28            7.17             1.4             3.7
2.......................................               1            4.89            0.67            2.28            7.17             1.4             3.7
3.......................................               2            9.29            0.45            1.55           10.84             5.2             3.7
4.......................................               3           27.06            0.38            1.30           28.36            20.7             3.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table V-9--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for Product Class 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                               ---------------------------------
                              TSL                                     CSL        % of consumers       Average
                                                                                 that experience     savings *
                                                                                    net cost           2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................               1               1.3            0.11
2.............................................................               1               1.3            0.11
3.............................................................               2              12.6           -0.38
4.............................................................               3              25.8           -4.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                           Table V-10--Average LCC and PBP Results by TSL for Product Class 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average costs  (2013$)
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------     Simple          Average
                   TSL                          CSL                        First year's      Lifetime                     payback  years  lifetime years
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.......................................               0           46.58           11.68           68.85          115.43  ..............             4.0
1.......................................               1           51.37            7.74           45.38           96.75             2.3             4.0
2.......................................               2           58.94            2.87           16.36           75.30             2.7             4.0
3.......................................               3          207.68            1.26            7.10          214.77            29.1             4.0
4.......................................               3          207.68            1.26            7.10          214.77            29.1             4.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table V-11--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for Product Class 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                               ---------------------------------
                              TSL                                     CSL        % of consumers       Average
                                                                                 that experience     savings *
                                                                                    net cost           2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................               1               0.0            0.00
2.............................................................               2               0.6            0.84
3.............................................................               3              99.7         -138.63
4.............................................................               3              99.7         -138.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52904]]


                                           Table V-12--Average LCC and PBP Results by TSL for Product Class 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average costs  (2013$)
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------     Simple          Average
                   TSL                          CSL                        First year's      Lifetime                     payback  years     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                            years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.......................................               0           45.39           15.93          113.08          158.47  ..............             9.7
1.......................................               1           50.14           10.81           77.60          127.74             1.0             9.7
2.......................................               2           57.64            4.45           33.33           90.98             1.1             9.7
3.......................................               3          205.07            2.24           16.94          222.01            12.5             9.7
4.......................................               3          205.07            2.24           16.94          222.01            12.5             9.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table V-13--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for Product Class 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                               ---------------------------------
                              TSL                                     CSL        % of consumers       Average
                                                                                 that experience     savings *
                                                                                    net cost           2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................               1               0.0            0.00
2.............................................................               2               0.0            1.89
3.............................................................               3             100.0         -129.15
4.............................................................               3             100.0         -129.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                           Table V-14--Average LCC and PBP Results by TSL for Product Class 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2013$)
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------     Simple          Average
                   TSL                          CSL                        First year's      Lifetime                     payback  years     lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                            years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.......................................               0          221.94           29.42           95.03          316.97  ..............             3.5
1.......................................               1          181.55           22.09           70.81          252.36             0.0             3.5
2.......................................               1          181.55           22.09           70.81          252.36             0.0             3.5
3.......................................               2          334.87           15.14           48.60          383.47             8.1             3.5
4.......................................               2          334.87           15.14           48.60          383.47             8.1             3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table V-15--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for Product Class 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                               ---------------------------------
                              TSL                                     CSL        % of consumers       Average
                                                                                 that experience     savings *
                                                                                    net cost           2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................               1               0.0           51.06
2.............................................................               1               0.0           51.06
3.............................................................               2             100.0          -80.05
4.............................................................               2             100.0          -80.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LCC results for battery chargers depend on the product class 
being considered. See Table V-2 through Table V-15. LCC savings results 
for Product Class 1 are positive through TSL 3. For the low-energy 
product classes (Product Classes 2, 3, and 4), LCC results are positive 
through TSL 2 and become negative at TSL 3, with Product Class 2 
becoming negative at TSL 4. The medium-energy product classes (Product 
Classes 5 and 6) are positive through TSL 2 but become negative at TSL 
3. The high-energy product class (Product Class 7) has positive LCC 
savings through TSL 2, and then becomes negative at TSL 3.
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    Certain consumer subgroups may be disproportionately affected by 
standards. DOE performed LCC subgroup analyses in this SNOPR for low-
income consumers, small businesses, residential top tier electricity 
price consumers, time-of-use peak electricity price consumers, and 
consumers of specific applications. See section IV.F of this SNOPR for 
a review of the inputs to the LCC analysis. LCC and PBP results for 
consumer subgroups are presented in Table V-16 through Table V-22. The 
abbreviations are described after Table V-22. The ensuing discussion 
presents the most significant results from the LCC subgroup analysis.

[[Page 52905]]



                       Table V-16--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for Product Class 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average life-cycle cost savings (2013$)                     Simple payback period (years)
                    TSL                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All         LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................       0.08       0.00       0.26       0.39       0.08        1.1        0.0        0.3        0.2        1.1
2.........................................       0.71       0.00       2.88       4.31       0.71        1.5        0.0        0.5        0.3        1.5
3.........................................       0.71       0.00       2.88       4.31       0.71        1.5        0.0        0.5        0.3        1.5
4.........................................     (3.46)       0.00       0.44       3.00     (3.44)        7.4        0.0        2.3        1.6        7.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Table V-17--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for Product Class 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average life-cycle cost savings (2013$)                     Simple payback period (years)
                    TSL                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All         LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................       0.06       0.08       0.17       0.29       0.07        0.5        0.6        0.2        0.1        0.6
2.........................................       0.06       0.08       0.17       0.29       0.07        0.5        0.6        0.2        0.1        0.6
3.........................................       0.05     (0.01)       0.58       0.96       0.06        2.4        3.8        0.9        0.6        2.5
4.........................................     (2.76)     (3.29)     (2.05)     (1.56)     (2.79)       18.6       25.2        6.9        4.8       19.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Table V-18--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for Product Class 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average life-cycle cost savings (2013$)                     Simple payback period (years)
                    TSL                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All         LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................       0.07       0.14       0.23       0.36       0.08        0.8        0.2        0.2        0.2        0.8
2.........................................       0.07       0.14       0.23       0.36       0.08        0.8        0.2        0.2        0.2        0.8
3.........................................     (1.38)     (1.10)     (0.86)     (0.43)     (1.36)       22.0        4.8        6.9        4.8       21.6
4.........................................     (2.19)     (1.85)     (1.65)     (1.20)     (2.17)       31.3        6.6       10.0        7.0       31.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Table V-19--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for Product Class 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average life-cycle cost savings (2013$)                     Simple payback period (years)
                    TSL                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All         LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................       0.15       0.06       0.57       0.68       0.11        0.9        1.5        0.3        0.3        1.4
2.........................................       0.15       0.06       0.57       0.68       0.11        0.9        1.5        0.3        0.3        1.4
3.........................................     (0.49)     (0.27)       0.07       0.53     (0.38)        4.0        5.5        1.2        1.1        5.2
4.........................................     (5.80)     (3.83)     (5.07)     (3.79)     (4.91)       15.6       21.7        4.7        4.3       20.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Table V-20--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for Product Class 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average life-cycle cost savings (2013$)                     Simple payback period (years)
                    TSL                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All         LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        2.3        0.0        0.8        0.5        2.3
2.........................................       0.84       0.00       3.14       4.64       0.84        2.7        0.0        0.9        0.6        2.7
3.........................................   (138.81)       0.00   (118.82)   (105.75)   (138.63)       29.1        0.0        9.8        6.8       29.1
4.........................................   (138.81)       0.00   (118.82)   (105.75)   (138.63)       29.1        0.0        9.8        6.8       29.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52906]]


                       Table V-21--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for Product Class 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average life-cycle cost savings  (2013$)                    Simple payback period  (years)
                    TSL                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All         LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        1.0        0.0        0.3        0.2        1.0
2.........................................       1.87       0.00       6.24       9.10       1.89        1.1        0.0        0.4        0.3        1.1
3.........................................   (129.38)       0.00    (93.98)    (70.73)   (129.15)       12.6        0.0        4.0        2.8       12.5
4.........................................   (129.38)       0.00    (93.98)    (70.73)   (129.15)       12.6        0.0        4.0        2.8       12.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Table V-22--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for Product Class 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average life-cycle cost savings  (2013$)                    Simple payback period  (years)
                    TSL                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All         LI         SB         TT       P-TOU       All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................      51.88      49.36      89.56     116.93      51.06        0.0        0.0        0.0        0.0        0.0
2.........................................      51.88      49.36      89.56     116.93      51.06        0.0        0.0        0.0        0.0        0.0
3.........................................    (93.28)    (82.08)    (39.75)      62.98    (80.05)       20.1        8.0        6.4        1.6        8.1
4.........................................    (93.28)    (82.08)    (39.75)      62.98    (80.05)       20.1        8.0        6.4        1.6        8.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where:

LI = Low-income consumers
SB = Small businesses
TT = Top tier electricity price consumers
P-TOU = Peak time-of-use electricity price consumers
All = Entire population
Low-Income Consumers
    For low-income consumers, the LCC impacts and PBPs are different 
from the general population. This subgroup considers only the 
residential sector, and uses an adjusted population distribution from 
the reference case scenario. Using 2009 RECS data, DOE determined that 
low-income consumers have a different population distribution than the 
general population. To account for this difference, DOE adjusted 
population distributions for each region analyzed according to the 
shift between general and low-income populations.
    The LCC savings and PBPs of low-income consumers are similar to 
that of the total population of consumers. In general, low-income 
consumers experience slightly reduced LCC savings, with the exceptions 
of TSL 4 of Product Class 2 and TSLs 1 and 2 of Product Classes 4 and 
7. None of the changes in LCC savings move a TSL from positive to 
negative LCC savings, or vice versa.
Small Businesses
    For small business customers, the LCC impacts and PBPs are 
different from the general population. This subgroup analysis considers 
only the commercial sector, and uses an adjusted discount rate from the 
reference case scenario. DOE found that small businesses typically have 
a cost of capital that is 4.16 percent higher than the industry 
average, which was applied to the discount rate for the small business 
consumer subgroup analysis.
    The small business consumer subgroup LCC results are not directly 
comparable to the reference case LCC results because this subgroup only 
considers commercial applications. In the reference case scenario, the 
LCC results are strongly influenced by the presence of residential 
applications, which typically comprise the majority of application 
shipments. Note that Product Classes 1, 5, and 6 have no results for 
small businesses because there are no commercial applications for these 
product classes. No LCC results that were positive for all consumers 
become negative in the small business subgroup analysis, with the 
exception of Product Class 2, which became -$0.01 at TSL 3. No negative 
LCC results for all consumers became positive for small businesses. 
These observations indicate that small business consumers would 
experience similar LCC impacts as the general population.
Top Tier Electricity Price Consumers
    For top tier electricity price consumers, the LCC impacts and PBPs 
are different from the general population. Tiered pricing is generally 
only used for residential electricity rates, so the analysis for this 
subgroup only considers the residential sector. DOE researched upper 
tier inclined marginal block rates for the electricity, resulting in a 
price of $0.359 per kWh.
    Consumers in the top tier electricity price bracket generally 
experience greater LCC savings than those in the reference case 
scenario. This result occurs because these consumers pay more for their 
electricity than other consumers, and, therefore, experience greater 
savings when using products that are more energy efficient. This 
subgroup analysis changed the negative LCC savings for Product Class 1 
at TSL 4 and Product Class 4 at TSL 3 to positive LCC savings.
Peak Time-of-Use Electricity Price Consumers
    For peak time-of-use electricity price consumers, the LCC impacts 
and PBPs are different from the general population. Time-of-use pricing 
is available for both residential and commercial electricity rates, so 
both sectors were considered. DOE researched upper tier inclined 
marginal block rates for electricity, resulting in adjusted electricity 
prices of $0.514 per kWh for residential and $0.494 for commercial 
consumers.
    This subgroup analysis increased the LCC savings of most of the 
representative units significantly. This subgroup analysis changed the 
following negative LCC results to positive savings: Product Class 1 at 
TSL 4, Product Class 4 at TSL 3, and Product Class 7 at TSLs 3 and 4. 
Some product classes would still have negative LCC savings, which 
indicates that these product classes have increasing installed costs 
(purchase price plus installation costs, the latter of which are 
assumed to be zero) at higher TSLs that cannot be overcome through 
operating cost savings using peak time-of-use electricity prices.

[[Page 52907]]

Consumers of Specific Applications
    DOE performed an LCC and PBP analysis on every application within 
each product class. This subgroup analysis used each application's 
specific inputs for lifetime costs, markups, base case market 
efficiency distribution, and UEC. Many applications in each product 
class experienced LCC impacts and PBPs that were different from the 
average results across the product class. Because of the large number 
of applications considered in the analysis, some of which span multiple 
product classes, DOE did not present application-specific LCC results 
here. Detailed results on each application are available in chapter 11 
of the SNOPR TSD.
    DOE noted a few trends highlighted by the application-specific 
subgroup. For Product Class 2, the top two application LCC savings 
representing 46 percent of shipments are negative beyond TSL 1, but 
frequently used applications within that class--e.g., answering 
machines, cordless phones, and home security systems--experience 
positive LCC savings. Because these applications have significantly 
positive LCC savings, they balance out the negative savings from the 
top two applications. Some Product Class 4 applications at TSLs 1 
through 3 featured results that were positive where the shipment-
weighted results were negative, or vice versa. However, shipments and 
magnitude of the LCC savings were not enough to change the overall 
direction (positive or negative) of the weighted average. In the other 
battery charger product classes, the individual application results 
reflected the same trend as the overall results for the product class. 
See chapter 11 of the SNOPR TSD for further detail.
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section III.E.2, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 
presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically 
justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the 
standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 
savings resulting from the standard. As required by EPCA, DOE based the 
energy use calculation on the DOE test procedures for battery chargers. 
Table V-23 presents the rebuttable-presumption PBPs for the considered 
TSLs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it 
considered whether the standard levels considered for this rule are 
economically justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic 
impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that 
considers the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, 
Nation, and environment. The results of that analysis serve as the 
basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a 
potential standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results 
of any preliminary determination of economic justification. Table V-23 
shows considered TSLs for the battery charger product classes where the 
rebuttable presumption PBPs show they are economically justified. 
Because a PBP of less than three years indicates that the increased 
purchase cost is less than three times the value of the first-year 
energy savings for that efficiency level, this table highlights product 
class TSLs where the PBP is less than three years.

             Table V-23--Trial Standard Levels With Rebuttable Payback Period Less Than Three Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial         Candidate      Rebuttable
             Product class                     Description           standard        standard       presumption
                                                                       level           level        PBP  years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................  Low-Energy, Inductive...               1               1             1.1
                                                                               2               2             1.5
                                                                               3               2             1.5
2.....................................  Low-Energy, Low-Voltage.               1               1             0.6
                                                                               2               1             0.6
                                                                               3               2             2.5
3.....................................  Low-Energy, Medium-                    1               1             0.8
                                         Voltage.
                                                                               2               1             0.8
4.....................................  Low-Energy, High-Voltage               1               1             1.4
                                                                               2               1             1.4
5.....................................  Medium-Energy, Low-                    1               1             2.3
                                         Voltage.
                                                                               2               2             2.7
6.....................................  Medium-Energy, High-                   1               1             1.0
                                         Voltage.
                                                                               2               2             1.1
7.....................................  High-Energy.............               1               1             0.0
                                                                               2               1             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new energy 
conservation standards on battery charger application manufacturers. 
The following sections describe the expected impacts on battery charger 
application manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 of this SNOPR TSD 
explains the MIA in further detail.
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    The INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between 
the base case and the standards case, which DOE calculated by summing 
the discounted industry cash flows from the base year (2015) through 
the end of the analysis period. The discussion also notes the 
difference in the annual cash flow between the base case and the 
standards case in the year before the compliance date of new energy 
conservation standards. This figure provides a proxy for the magnitude 
of the required conversion costs, relative to the cash flow generated 
by the industry in the base case.
    DOE reports INPV impacts at each TSL for the four product class 
groupings. When appropriate, DOE also discusses the results for groups 
of related applications that would experience impacts significantly 
different from the overall product class group to which they belong.
    In general, two major factors drive the INPV results: (1) the 
relative difference between a given applications' MSP and the 
incremental cost of improving its battery charger; and (2) the dominant 
base case battery charger technology that a given application uses, 
which is approximated by the application's efficiency distribution.

[[Page 52908]]

    With respect to the first factor, the higher the MSP of the 
application relative to the battery charger cost, the lower the impacts 
of battery charger standards on OEMs of the application. For example, 
an industry that sells an application for $500 would be less affected 
by a $2 increase in battery charger costs than one that sells its 
application for $10. On the second factor regarding base case 
efficiency distribution, some industries, such as producers of laptop 
computers, already incorporate highly efficient battery chargers. 
Therefore, a higher standard would be unlikely to impact the laptop 
industry as it would other applications using baseline technology in 
the same product class.
    DOE analyzed three markup scenarios--constant price, pass-through, 
and flat markup. The constant price scenario analyzes the situation in 
which application manufacturers are unable to pass on any incremental 
costs of more efficient battery chargers to their customers. This 
scenario generally results in the most significant negative impacts 
because no incremental costs added to the application--whether driven 
by higher battery charger component costs or depreciation of required 
capital investments--can be recouped.
    In the pass-through scenario, DOE assumes that manufacturers are 
able to pass the incremental costs of more efficient battery chargers 
through to their customers, but not with any markup to cover overhead 
and profit. Therefore, though less severe than the constant price 
scenario in which manufacturers absorb all incremental costs, this 
scenario results in negative cash flow impacts due to margin 
compression and greater working capital requirements.
    Finally, DOE considers a flat markup scenario to analyze the upper 
bound (most positive) of profitability impacts. In this scenario, 
manufacturers are able to maintain their base case gross margin, as a 
percentage of revenue, at higher CSLs, despite the higher product costs 
associated with more efficient battery chargers. In other words, 
manufacturers can fully pass on--and markup--the higher incremental 
product costs associated with more efficient battery chargers.
Product Class 1
    Table V-24 through Table V-27 summarize information related to the 
analysis performed to project the potential impacts on Product Class 1 
battery charger application manufacturers.

               Table V-24--Applications in Product Class 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Product class 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rechargeable Toothbrushes
Rechargeable Water Jets
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table V-25--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 1 Battery Charger Applications--Flat Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............             497             497             496             496             519
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............               0             (1)             (1)              22
                                            (%).........................  ..............             0.0           (0.1)           (0.1)             4.5
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.1             1.7             1.7             5.1
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             1.5             1.5             2.3
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.1             3.2             3.2             7.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table V-26--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 1 Battery Charger Applications--Pass Through Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............             497             491             470             470             348
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             (6)            (27)            (27)           (149)
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (1.1)           (5.4)           (5.4)          (29.9)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.1             1.7             1.7             5.1
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             1.5             1.5             2.3
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.1             3.2             3.2             7.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Table V-27--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 1 Battery Charger Applications--Constant Price Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............             497             478             412             412             122
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            (18)            (84)            (84)           (375)
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (3.7)          (16.9)          (16.9)          (75.5)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.1             1.7             1.7             5.1
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             1.5             1.5             2.3
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.1             3.2             3.2             7.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52909]]

    Product Class 1 has only two applications: rechargeable 
toothbrushes and water jets. Rechargeable toothbrushes represent over 
99 percent of the Product Class 1 shipments. DOE found the majority of 
these models include Ni-Cd battery chemistries, although products with 
NiMH and Li-ion chemistries exist in the market. During interviews, 
manufacturers indicated that energy efficiency was not a primary 
selling point in this market. As a consequence, manufacturers expect 
that stringent standards would likely impact the low-end of the market, 
where price competition is most fierce and retail selling prices are 
lowest.
    TSL 1 sets the efficiency level at CSL 1 for Product Class 1. At 
TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on the change in INPV to range from -$18 
million to less than one million dollars, or a change in INPV of -3.7 
percent to less than 0.1 percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash flow 
(operating cash flow minus capital expenditures) is estimated to 
decrease by less than one million dollars, which corresponds to less 
than one percent in 2017, the year leading up to new energy 
conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly negative at TSL 1. DOE does 
not anticipate that Product Class 1 battery charger application 
manufacturers would lose a significant portion of their INPV at this 
TSL. DOE projects that in the expected year of compliance, 2018, 93 
percent of all Product Class 1 battery charger applications would meet 
or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 1. Consequently, DOE 
expects conversion costs to be small at TSL 1, since so many 
applications already meet or exceed this requirement.
    TSL 2 and TSL 3 set the efficiency level at CSL 2 for Product Class 
1. At TSL 2 and TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on the change in INPV to 
range from -$84 million to -$1 million, or a change in INPV of -16.9 
percent to -0.1 percent. At TSL 2 and TSL 3, industry free cash flow is 
estimated to decrease to $38 million, or a drop of 4 percent, compared 
to the base-case value of $39 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from slightly negative to 
moderately negative at these TSLs. DOE does not anticipate that Product 
Class 1 battery charger application manufacturers would lose a 
significant portion of their INPV at these TSLs. DOE projects that in 
the expected year of compliance, 2018, 37 percent of all Product Class 
1 battery charger applications would meet or exceed the efficiency 
levels required at TSL 2 and TSL 3. DOE expects conversion costs to 
increase from $0.1 million at TSL 1 to $3.2 million at TSL 2 and TSL 3. 
This is still a relatively modest amount compared to the base case INPV 
of $497 million and annual cash flow of $39 million for Product Class 1 
battery charger applications.
    TSL 4 sets the efficiency level at CSL 3 for Product Class 1. This 
represents max tech for Product Class 1. At TSL 4, DOE estimates 
impacts on the change in INPV to range from -$375 million to $22 
million, or a change in INPV of -75.5 percent to 4.5 percent. At TSL 4, 
industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $36 million, or a 
drop of 8 percent, compared to the base-case value of $39 million in 
2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from significantly negative to 
slightly positive at TSL 4. DOE anticipates that some Product Class 1 
battery charger application manufacturers could lose a significant 
portion of their INPV at TSL 4. DOE projects that in the expected year 
of compliance, 2018, 4 percent of all Product Class 1 battery charger 
applications would meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 4. DOE 
expects conversion costs to increase from $3.2 million at TSL 2 and TSL 
3 to $7.4 million at TSL 4. This is still relatively a modest amount 
compared to the base case INPV of $497 million and annual cash flow of 
$39 million for Product Class 1 battery charger applications. At TSL 4, 
the battery charger MPC increases to $6.80 compared to the baseline MPC 
value of $2.05. This represents a moderate increase in the application 
price when compared to the shipment-weighted average application MPC of 
$40.06.
Product Classes 2, 3, and 4
    The following tables (Table V-28 through Table V-34) summarize 
information related to the analysis performed to project the potential 
impacts on manufacturers of devices falling into Product Classes 2, 3, 
and 4.

         Table V-28--Applications in Product Classes 2, 3, and 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Product class 2          Product class 3          Product class 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering Machines       Air Mattress Pumps       DIY Power Tools
                                                   (External)
Baby Monitors            Blenders                 Flashlights/Lanterns
Beard and Moustache      Camcorders               Handheld Vacuums
 Trimmers
Bluetooth Headsets       DIY Power Tools          Netbooks
                          (External)
Can Openers              DIY Power Tools          Notebooks
                          (Integral)
Consumer Two-Way Radios  Handheld Vacuums         Portable Printers
Cordless Phones          LAN Equipment            Professional Power
                                                   Tools
Digital Cameras          Mixers                   Rechargeable Garden
                                                   Care Products
DIY Power Tools          Portable DVD Players     Robotic Vacuums
 (Integral)
E-Books                  Portable Printers        Stick Vacuums
Hair Clippers            RC Toys                  Universal Battery
                                                   Chargers
Handheld GPS             Stick Vacuums
Home Security Systems    Toy Ride-On Vehicles
In-Vehicle GPS           Universal Battery
                          Chargers
Media Tablets            Wireless Speakers
Mobile Internet
 Hotspots
Mobile Phones
MP3 Players
MP3 Speaker Docks
Personal Digital
 Assistants
Portable Video Game
 Systems
Shavers
Smartphone
Universal Battery
 Chargers
Video Game Consoles
Wireless Headphones
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52910]]


               Table V-29--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Flat Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............          76,791          76,782          76,782          76,774          77,290
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            (10)            (10)            (17)             499
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (0.0)           (0.0)           (0.0)             0.6
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            11.5            11.5            90.1           280.5
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.8             1.8            25.6            67.3
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            13.4            13.4           115.7           347.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table V-30--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Pass Through Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............          76,791          76,740          76,740          76,322          71,407
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            (51)            (51)           (469)         (5,384)
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (0.1)           (0.1)           (0.6)           (7.0)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            11.5            11.5            90.1           280.5
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.8             1.8            25.6            67.3
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            13.4            13.4           115.7           347.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


             Table V-31--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Constant Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............          76,791          76,650          76,650          75,392          62,307
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............           (141)           (141)         (1,400)        (14,484)
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (0.2)           (0.2)           (1.8)          (18.9)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            11.5            11.5            90.1           280.5
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.8             1.8            25.6            67.3
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            13.4            13.4           115.7           347.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taken together, Product Classes 2, 3, and 4 include the greatest 
number of applications and account for approximately 96 percent of all 
battery charger application shipments in 2018, the anticipated 
compliance year for new energy conservation standards.
    TSL 1 and TSL 2 set the efficiency level at CSL 1 for all product 
classes in this grouping. At TSL 1 and TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on 
the change in INPV to range from -$141 million to -$10 million, or a 
change in INPV of -0.2 percent to less than -0.1 percent. At TSL 1 and 
TSL 2, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $6,018 
million, or a drop of less than one percent, compared to the base-case 
value of $6,024 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly negative at TSL 1 and TSL 
2. DOE does not anticipate that most Product Class 2, 3, and 4 battery 
charger application manufacturers would lose a significant portion of 
their INPV at TSL 1 or TSL 2. DOE projects that in the expected year of 
compliance, 2018, 91 percent of all Product Class 2 battery charger 
applications, 94 percent of all Product Class 3 battery charger 
applications, and 94 percent of all Product Class 4 battery charger 
applications would meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 
1 and TSL 2. Consequently, DOE expects conversion costs to be small at 
TSL 1 and TSL 2, approximately $13.4 million since so many applications 
already meet or exceed this requirement.
    TSL 3 sets the efficiency level at CSL 2 for all product classes in 
this grouping. At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on the change in INPV to 
range from -$1,400 million to $17 million, or a change in INPV of -1.8 
percent to less than -0.1 percent. At TSL 3, industry free cash flow is 
estimated to decrease to $5,973 million, or a drop of 1 percent, 
compared to the base-case value of $6,024 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly negative at this TSL. DOE 
does not anticipate that Product Class 2, 3, and 4 battery charger 
application manufacturers would lose a significant portion of their 
INPV at this TSL. DOE projects that in the expected year of compliance, 
2018, 49 percent of all Product Class 2 battery charger applications, 
60 percent of all Product Class 3 battery charger applications, and 86 
percent of all Product Class 4 battery charger applications would meet 
or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 3. DOE expects 
conversion costs to increase from $13.4 million at TSL 1 and TSL 2 to 
$115.7 million at TSL 3. This represents a relatively modest amount 
compared to the base case INPV of $76.8 billion and annual cash flow of 
$6,02 billion for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 battery charger 
applications.
    TSL 4 sets the efficiency level at CSL 3 for Product Classes 3 and 
4 and CSL 4 for Product Class 2. These efficiency levels represent max 
tech for all the product classes in this grouping. At TSL 4, DOE 
estimates impacts on the change in INPV to range from -$14.48 billion 
to $499 million, or a change in INPV of -18.9 percent to 0.6 percent. 
At TSL 4,

[[Page 52911]]

industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $5.87 billion, or a 
drop of 3 percent, compared to the base-case value of $6.02 billion in 
2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from moderately negative to 
slightly positive at TSL 4. DOE anticipates that some Product Class 2, 
3, and 4 battery charger application manufacturers could lose a 
significant portion of their INPV at TSL 4. DOE projects that in the 
expected year of compliance, 2018, 25 percent of all Product Class 2 
battery charger applications, 58 percent of all Product Class 3 battery 
charger applications, and 74 percent of all Product Class 4 battery 
charger applications would meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 
4. DOE expects conversion costs to significantly increase from $115.7 
million at TSL 3 to $347.8 million at TSL 4. At TSL 4, the Product 
Class 2 battery charger MPC increases to $4.31 compared to the baseline 
MPC value of $1.16. This represents a small application price increase 
considering that the shipment-weighted average Product Class 2 battery 
charger application MPC is $127.73. For Product Class 3, the MPC 
increases to $5.51 compared to the baseline MPC value of $1.12. This 
estimate also represents a small application price increase since the 
shipment-weighted average Product Class 3 battery charger application 
MPC is $61.11. For Product Class 4, the battery charger MPC increases 
to $18.34 compared to the baseline battery charger MPC of $1.79. While 
DOE recognizes that this projected increase of $16.55 in the battery 
charger MPC from the baseline to the max tech may seem significant, its 
impact is modest when compared to the shipment-weighted average Product 
Class 4 battery charger application MPC of $192.40--in essence, it 
represents a 8.6 percent increase in the average battery charger 
application MPC.
    These product classes also include a wide variety of applications, 
characterized by differing shipment volumes, base case efficiency 
distributions, and MSPs. Because of this variety, this product class 
grouping, more than any other, requires a greater level of 
disaggregation to evaluate specific industry impacts. Presented only on 
a product class basis, industry impacts are effectively shipment-
weighted and mask impacts on certain industry applications that vary 
substantially from the aggregate results. Therefore, in addition to the 
overall product class group results, DOE also presents results by 
industry subgroups--consumer electronics, power tools, and small 
appliances--in the pass-through scenario, which approximates the mid-
point of the potential range of INPV impacts. These results highlight 
impacts at various TSLs.
    As discussed in the previous section, these aggregated results can 
mask differentially impacted industries and manufacturer subgroups. 
Nearly 90 percent of shipments in Product Classes 2, 3 and 4 fall under 
the broader consumer electronics category, with the remaining share 
split between small appliances and power tools. Consumer electronics 
applications have a much higher shipment-weighted average MPC ($147.29) 
than the other product categories ($58.32 for power tools and $43.63 
for small appliances). Consequently, consumer electronics manufacturers 
are better able to absorb higher battery charger costs than small 
appliance and power tool manufacturers. Further, consumer electronics 
typically incorporate higher efficiency battery chargers already, while 
small appliances and power tool applications tend to cluster around 
baseline and CSL 1 efficiencies. These factors lead to proportionally 
greater impacts on small appliance and power tool manufacturers in the 
event they are not able to pass on and markup higher battery charger 
costs.
    Table V-32 through Table V-34 present INPV impacts in the pass-
through markup scenario for consumer electronic, power tool, and small 
appliance applications, respectively (for only those applications 
incorporating battery chargers in Product Classes 2, 3 or 4). The 
results indicate manufacturers of power tools and small appliances 
would face disproportionately adverse impacts, especially at the higher 
TSLs, as compared to consumer electronics manufacturers and the overall 
product group's results (shown in Table V-29 through Table V-31), if 
they are not able to mark up the incremental product costs.

Table V-32--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Pass Through Markup Scenario--Consumer Electronics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............          73,840          73,805          73,805          73,511          69,568
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            (36)            (36)           (329)         (4,272)
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (0.0)           (0.0)           (0.4)           (5.8)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            10.2            10.2            77.6           242.2
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.7             1.7            20.0            56.3
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            11.9            11.9            97.6           298.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table V-33--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Pass Through Markup Scenario--Power Tools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............           2,190           2,179           2,179           2,102           1,351
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............            (11)            (11)            (88)           (839)
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (0.5)           (0.5)           (4.0)          (38.3)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.9             0.9             7.3            22.3
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             0.0             3.3             5.5
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.0             1.0            10.6            27.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52912]]


  Table V-34--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Pass Through Markup Scenario--Small Appliances
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............             761             756             756             709             487
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             (5)             (5)            (52)           (273)
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (0.6)           (0.6)           (6.8)          (35.9)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.4             0.4             5.1            16.0
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.1             0.1             2.4             5.5
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.5             0.5             7.5            21.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Classes 5 and 6
    The following tables (Table V-35 through Table V-38) summarize 
information related to the analysis performed to project the potential 
impacts on manufacturers of devices falling into Product Classes 5 and 
6.

           Table V-35--Applications in Product Classes 5 and 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Product class 5                      Product class 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine/Automotive/RV Chargers         Electric Scooters
Mobility Scooters                     Lawn Mowers
Toy Ride-On Vehicles                  Motorized Bicycles
Wheelchairs                           Wheelchairs
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Table V-36--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 5 and 6 Battery Charger Applications--Flat Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............           1,493           1,493           1,493           2,065           2,065
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............               0               0             572             572
                                            (%).........................  ..............             0.0             0.0            38.3            38.3
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             1.1            33.1            33.1
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             0.2             6.4             6.4
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             1.3            39.6            39.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


             Table V-37--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 5 and 6 Battery Charger Applications--Pass Through Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............           1,493           1,491           1,370             878             878
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             (2)           (123)           (615)           (615)
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (0.2)           (8.2)          (41.2)          (41.2)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             1.1            33.1            33.1
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             0.2             6.4             6.4
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             1.3            39.6            39.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Table V-38--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 5 and 6 Battery Charger Applications--Constant Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............           1,493           1,486           1,145             586             586
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             (7)           (348)           (907)           (907)
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (0.5)          (23.3)          (60.8)          (60.8)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             1.1            33.1            33.1
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             0.2             6.4             6.4
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.0             1.3            39.6            39.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Product Classes 5 and 6 together comprise seven unique 
applications. Toy ride-on vehicles represent over 70 percent of the 
Product Class 5 and 6 shipments. DOE found that all Product Class 5 and 
6 shipments are at either CSL 1 or CSL 2. The battery charger cost 
associated with each CSL is the same for Product Class 5 and 6 
applications, but the energy usage profiles are different.
    TSL 1 sets the efficiency level at CSL 1 for Product Classes 5 and 
6. At TSL

[[Page 52913]]

1, DOE estimates impacts on the change in INPV to range from -$7 
million to no change at all, or a change in INPV of -0.5 percent to no 
change at all. At TSL 1, industry free cash flow is estimated to remain 
at $117 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from slightly negative to 
unchanged at TSL 1. DOE does not anticipate that Product Class 5 and 6 
battery charger application manufacturers would lose a significant 
portion of their INPV at TSL 1. DOE projects that in the expected year 
of compliance, 2018, all Product Class 5 and 6 battery charger 
applications would meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 
1. Consequently, DOE does not expect there to be any conversion costs 
at TSL 1.
    TSL 2 sets the efficiency level at CSL 2 for Product Classes 5 and 
6. At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on the change in INPV to range from 
-$348 million to less than one million dollars, or a change in INPV of 
-23.3 percent to less than 0.1 percent. At TSL 2, industry free cash 
flow is estimated to decrease to $117 million, or a drop of less than 
one percent, compared to the base-case value of $117 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from moderately negative to 
slightly positive at TSL 2. DOE projects that in the expected year of 
compliance, 2018, 95 percent of all Product Class 5 battery charger 
applications and 95 percent of all Product Class 6 battery charger 
applications would meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 
2. DOE expects conversion costs to slightly increase to $1.3 million at 
TSL 2.
    TSL 3 and TSL 4 set the efficiency level at CSL 3 for Product 
Classes 5 and 6. This efficiency level represents max tech for Product 
Classes 5 and 6. At TSL 3 and TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on the 
change in INPV to range from -$907 million to $572 million, or a change 
in INPV of -60.8 percent to 38.3 percent. At TSL 3 and TSL 4, industry 
free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $100 million, or a drop of 
15 percent, compared to the base-case value of $117 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from significantly negative to 
significantly positive at TSL 3 and TSL 4. This large INPV range is 
related to the significant increase in battery charger MPC required at 
TSL 3 and TSL 4. DOE believes that it is unlikely battery charger 
application manufacturers would be able to pass on this larger increase 
in the MPC of the battery charger, which would imply that the negative 
INPV impact is a more realistic scenario than the positive INPV impact 
scenario. DOE anticipates that most Product Class 5 and 6 battery 
charger application manufacturers could lose a significant portion of 
their INPV at TSL 3 and TSL 4. DOE projects that in the expected year 
of compliance, 2018, no Product Class 5 or 6 battery charger 
applications would meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 and TSL 
4. DOE expects conversion costs to significantly increase from $1.3 
million at TSL 2 to $39.6 million at TSL 3 and TSL 4. At TSL 3 and TSL 
4, the Product Class 5 and 6 battery charger MPC increases to $127.00 
compared to the baseline battery charger MPC value of $18.48. This 
represents a huge application price increase considering that the 
shipment-weighted average Product Class 5 and 6 battery charger 
application MPC, with no standards, is $131.14 and $262.21 
respectively.
Product Class 7
    The following tables (Table V-39 through Table V-42) summarize 
information related to the analysis performed to project the potential 
impacts on manufacturers of devices falling into Product Class 7.

               Table V-39--Applications in Product Class 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Product class 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golf Cars
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table V-40--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 7 Battery Charger Applications--Flat Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............           1,124           1,116           1,116           1,143           1,143
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             (8)             (8)              20              20
                                            (%).........................  ..............           (0.7)           (0.7)             1.7             1.7
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.3             1.3             3.3             3.3
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.4             0.4             1.8             1.8
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.7             1.7             5.1             5.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table V-41--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 7 Battery Charger Applications--Pass Through Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............           1,124           1,134           1,134           1,091           1,091
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............              11              11            (32)            (32)
                                            (%).........................  ..............             0.9             0.9           (2.9)           (2.9)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.3             1.3             3.3             3.3
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.4             0.4             1.8             1.8
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.7             1.7             5.1             5.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52914]]


                  Table V-42--Manufacturers Impact Analysis for Product Class 7 Battery Charger Applications--Constant Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2013$ Millions..............           1,124           1,168           1,168             998             998
Change in INPV............................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............              44              44           (126)           (126)
                                            (%).........................  ..............             3.9             3.9          (11.2)          (11.2)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.3             1.3             3.3             3.3
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             0.4             0.4             1.8             1.8
Total Investment Required.................  2013$ Millions..............  ..............             1.7             1.7             5.1             5.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Golf cars are the only application in Product Class 7. 
Approximately 80 percent of the market incorporates baseline battery 
charger technology--the remaining 20 percent employs technology that 
meets the efficiency requirements at CSL 1. The cost of a battery 
charger in Product Class 7, though higher relative to other product 
classes, remains a small portion of the overall selling price of a golf 
cart. This analysis, however, focuses on the application manufacturer 
(OEM). DOE identified one small U.S. manufacturer of golf cart battery 
chargers. The impacts of standards on these small businesses is 
addressed in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (see section VI.B for 
the results of that analysis).
    TSL 1 and TSL 2 set the efficiency level at CSL 1 for Product Class 
7. At TSL 1 and TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on the change in INPV to 
range from -$8 million to $44 million, or a change in INPV of -0.7 
percent to 3.9 percent. At TSL 1 and TSL 2, industry free cash flow is 
estimated to decrease to $87 million, or a drop of 1 percent, compared 
to the base-case value of $88 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from slightly negative to slightly 
positive at TSL 1 and TSL 2. DOE does not anticipate that Product Class 
7 battery charger application manufacturers, the golf car 
manufacturers, would lose a significant portion of their INPV at this 
TSL. DOE projects that in the expected year of compliance, 2018, 20 
percent of all Product Class 7 battery charger applications would meet 
or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 1 and TSL 2. DOE 
expects conversion costs to be $1.7 million at TSL 1 and TSL 2.
    TSL 3 and TSL 4 set the efficiency level at CSL 2 for Product Class 
7. This represents max tech for Product Class 7. At TSL 3 and TSL 4, 
DOE estimates impacts on the change in INPV to range from -$126 million 
to $20 million, or a change in INPV of -11.2 percent to 1.7 percent. At 
TSL 3 and TSL 4, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease to 
$86 million, or a drop of 3 percent, compared to the base-case value of 
$88 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from moderately negative to 
slightly positive at TSL 3 and TSL 4. DOE projects that in the expected 
year of compliance, 2018, no Product Class 7 battery charger 
applications would meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 and TSL 
4. DOE expects conversion costs to increase from $1.7 million at TSL 1 
and TSL 2 to $5.1 million at TSL 3 and TSL 4. This represents a 
relatively modest amount compared to the base case INPV of $1,124 
million and annual cash flow of $88 million for Product Class 7 battery 
charger applications. At TSL 3 and TSL 4 the battery charger MPC 
increases to $164.14 compared to the baseline battery charger MPC value 
of $88.07. This change represents only a moderate increase in the 
application price since the shipment-weighted average application MPC 
is $2,608.09.
b. Impacts on Employment
    DOE attempted to quantify the number of domestic workers involved 
in battery charger production. Based on manufacturer interviews and 
reports from vendors such as Hoovers, Dun and Bradstreet, and Manta, 
the vast majority of all small appliance and consumer electronic 
applications are manufactured abroad. When looking specifically at the 
battery charger component, which is typically designed by the 
application manufacturer but sourced for production, the same dynamic 
holds to an even greater extent. That is, in the rare instance when an 
application's production occurs domestically, it is very likely that 
the battery charger component is still produced and sourced overseas. 
For example, DOE identified several power tool applications with some 
level of domestic manufacturing. However, based on more detailed 
information obtained during interviews, DOE believes the battery 
charger components for these applications are sourced from abroad.
    Also, DOE was able to find a few manufacturers of medium and high 
power applications with facilities in the U.S. However, only a limited 
number of these companies produce battery chargers domestically for 
these applications. Therefore, based on manufacturer interviews and 
DOE's research, DOE believes that golf cars are the only application 
with U.S.-based battery charger manufacturing. Any change in U.S. 
production employment due to new battery charger energy conservation 
standards is likely to come from changes involving these particular 
products. DOE seeks comment on the presence of any domestic battery 
charger manufacturing outside of the golf car industry and beyond 
prototyping for R&D purposes.
    At the proposed efficiency levels, domestic golf car manufacturers 
will need to decide whether to attempt to manufacture more efficient 
battery chargers in-house and try to compete with a greater level of 
vertical integration than their competitors, move production to lower-
wage regions abroad, or outsource their battery charger manufacturing. 
DOE believes one of the latter two strategies would be more likely for 
domestic golf car manufacturers. DOE describes the major implications 
for golf car employment in the regulatory flexibility act section, 
VI.B, because the major domestic manufacturer is also a small business 
manufacturer. DOE does not anticipate any major negative changes in the 
domestic employment of the design, technical support, or other 
departments of battery charger application manufacturers located in the 
U.S. in response to new energy conservation standards. Standards may 
require some companies to redesign their battery chargers, change 
marketing literature, and train some technical and sales support staff. 
However, during interviews, manufacturers generally agreed these 
changes would not lead to positive or negative changes in employment, 
outside of the golf car battery charger industry.

[[Page 52915]]

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    DOE does not anticipate that the standards proposed in this SNOPR 
would adversely impact manufacturer capacity. The battery charger 
application industry is characterized by rapid product development 
lifecycles. While there is no specific statutory compliance date for 
battery charger standards, DOE believes a compliance date of two years 
after the publication of the final rule would provide sufficient time 
for manufacturers to ramp up capacity to meet the proposed standards 
for battery chargers. DOE requests comment on the appropriate 
compliance date for battery charger.
d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers
    Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow 
estimate is not adequate for assessing differential impacts among 
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche equipment 
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure 
substantially different from the industry average could be affected 
disproportionately. DOE addressed manufacturer subgroups in the battery 
charger MIA, by breaking out manufacturers by application grouping 
(consumer electronics, small appliances, power tools, and high energy 
application). Because certain application groups are disproportionately 
impacted compared to the overall product class groupings, DOE reports 
those manufacturer application group results individually so they can 
be considered as part of the overall MIA. For the results of this 
manufacturer subgroup, see section V.B.2.a.
    DOE also identified small businesses as a manufacturer subgroup 
that could potentially be disproportionally impacted. DOE discusses the 
impacts on the small business subgroup in the regulatory flexibility 
analysis, section VI.B.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the regulatory actions 
of other Federal agencies and States that affect the manufacturers of a 
covered product or equipment. DOE believes that a standard level is not 
economically justified if it contributes to an unacceptable cumulative 
regulatory burden. While any one regulation may not impose a 
significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of recent or 
impending regulations may have serious consequences for some 
manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. 
Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this 
cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation 
standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' 
financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same 
manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product 
lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing 
products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative 
regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to product 
efficiency.
    For the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE looks at other 
regulations that could affect battery charger application manufacturers 
that will take effect approximately three years before or after the 
compliance date of new energy conservation standards for these 
products. The compliance years and expected industry conversion costs 
of relevant new energy conservation standards are indicated in Table V-
43.

Table V-43--Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal Energy Conservation Standards Affecting
                                    Battery Charger Application Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Approximate
    Federal energy conservation standards        compliance       Estimated total industry conversion expense
                                                    date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Power Supplies 79 FR 7846 (February             2016  $43.4 million (2012$)
 10, 2014).
Computer and Battery Backup Systems..........          * 2019  N/A [dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The dates listed are an approximation. The exact dates are pending final DOE action.
[dagger] For energy conservation standards for rulemakings awaiting DOE final action, DOE does not have a
  finalized estimated total industry conversion cost.

    DOE is aware that the CEC already has energy conservation standards 
in place for battery chargers. DOE assumes that this rulemaking will 
preempt the CEC battery charger standards when finalized. Therefore, 
DOE did not consider the CEC standards as contributing to the 
cumulative regulatory burden of this rulemaking. DOE seeks comment on 
the compliance costs of any other regulations battery charger and 
battery charger application manufacturers must make.
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings for battery chargers 
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance 
with amended standards (2018-2047). The savings are measured over the 
entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE 
quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the 
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the 
base case. Table V-44 and Table V-45 present the estimated primary and 
full-fuel cycle energy savings, respectively, for each considered TSL. 
The approach used is further described in section IV.H.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD presents tables that show the 
magnitude of the energy savings discounted at rates of 3 percent and 
7 percent. Discounted energy savings represent a policy perspective 
in which energy savings realized farther in the future are less 
significant than energy savings realized in the nearer term.

[[Page 52916]]



   Table V-44--Battery Chargers: Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for Products Shipped in 2018-2047
                                                     (quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial standard level
                  Product class                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................           0.004           0.047           0.047           0.084
2, 3, 4.........................................           0.087           0.087           0.307           0.423
5, 6............................................           0.000           0.017           0.130           0.130
7...............................................           0.012           0.012           0.026           0.026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V-45--Battery Chargers: Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings for Products Shipped in 2018-2047 (quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial standard level
                  Product class                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................           0.004           0.049           0.049           0.088
2, 3, 4.........................................           0.091           0.091           0.321           0.442
5, 6............................................           0.000           0.018           0.136           0.136
7...............................................           0.013           0.013           0.028           0.028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 requires agencies to present analytical results, 
including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that 
show the type and timing of benefits and costs. \63\ Circular A-4 also 
directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements underlying 
the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, DOE undertook 
a sensitivity analysis using nine, rather than 30, years of product 
shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy for the general 
timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of, and compliance with, such revised 
standards.\64\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing 
cycles, or other factors specific to battery chargers. Thus, such 
results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES 
sensitivity analysis results based on a nine-year analytical period are 
presented in Table V-46. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of 
products purchased in 2018-2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/).
    \64\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards 
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before 
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards 
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous 
standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews 
at any time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year compliance 
date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may 
not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing 
of standards reviews and the fact that for some consumer products, 
the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

 Table V-46--Battery Chargers: Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings for Products Shipped in 2018-2026 (quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial standard level
                  Product class                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................           0.001           0.015           0.015           0.027
2, 3, 4.........................................           0.028           0.028           0.097           0.134
5, 6............................................           0.000           0.005           0.041           0.041
7...............................................           0.004           0.004           0.008           0.008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
customers that would result from the TSLs considered for battery 
chargers. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory 
analysis,\65\ DOE calculated the NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-
percent real discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the 
average before-tax rate of return on private capital in the U.S. 
economy, and reflects the returns on real estate and small business 
capital as well as corporate capital. This discount rate approximates 
the opportunity cost of capital in the private sector. (OMB analysis 
has found the average rate of return on capital to be near this rate.) 
The 3-percent rate reflects the potential effects of standards on 
private consumption (e.g., through higher prices for products and 
reduced purchases of energy). This rate represents the rate at which 
society discounts future consumption flows to their present value. It 
can be approximated by the real rate of return on long-term government 
debt (i.e., yield on United States Treasury Notes), which has averaged 
about 3 percent for the past 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). Available at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V-47 shows the customer NPV results for each TSL considered 
for battery chargers. The impacts cover the

[[Page 52917]]

lifetime of products purchased in 2018-2047.

  Table V-47--Battery Chargers: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Products Shipped in 2018-
                                                      2047
                                                [2013$ billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Trial standard level (billion 2013$)
                  Discount rate                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................             0.9             1.2           -16.2           -47.9
7 percent.......................................             0.5             0.6            -9.5           -27.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in Table V-48. The impacts are counted over the 
lifetime of products purchased in 2018-2026. As mentioned previously, 
this information is presented for informational purposes only and is 
not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or 
decision criteria.

  Table V-48--Battery Chargers: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Products Shipped in 2018-
                                                      2026
                                                [2013$ billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Trial standard level (billion 2013$)
                  Discount rate                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................             0.3             0.4            -6.2           -18.1
7 percent.......................................             0.2             0.3            -4.8           -14.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Indirect Impact on Employment
    DOE expects energy conservation standards for battery chargers to 
reduce energy bills for consumers of these products, and the resulting 
net savings to be redirected to other forms of economic activity. These 
expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the 
demand for labor. As described in section IV.N, DOE used an input/
output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment 
impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking. DOE 
understands that there are uncertainties involved in projecting 
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the 
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes, 
where these uncertainties are reduced.
    DOE reviewed its inputs and determined that the indirect employment 
impacts will be positive at TSL 1 (in 2018 and 2023) and TSL 2 (in 2023 
only), while at TSL 3 and TSL 4, the increased equipment costs are far 
larger than the operating cost savings. The magnitude of the estimated 
effect is very small, however. The results suggest that the proposed 
standards are likely to have negligible impact on the net demand for 
labor in the economy. The net change in jobs is so small that it would 
be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by 
other, unanticipated effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the SNOPR TSD 
presents more detailed results.
4. Impact on Utility and Performance of the Products
    Based on testing conducted in support of this proposed rule, 
discussed in section IV.C.5 of this notice, DOE concluded that the 
standards proposed in this SNOPR would not reduce the utility or 
performance of the battery chargers under consideration in this 
rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that 
meet or exceed these proposed standards. DOE has also declined to 
propose battery charger marking requirements as part of today's SNOPR, 
providing manufacturers with more flexibility in the way that they 
design, label, and market their products.
5. Impact on Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely 
to result from the proposed standards. The Attorney General determines 
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 
from a proposed standard, and transmits such determination to DOE, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))
    To keep the Attorney General informed of DOE's rulemaking efforts 
with respect to battery chargers, DOE will transmit a copy of this 
SNOPR and the accompanying SNOPR TSD to the Attorney General. DOE will 
consider DOJ's comments, if any, on this supplemental proposal in 
determining whether to proceed with the proposed energy conservation 
standards. DOE will also publish and respond to DOJ's comments in the 
Federal Register.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts of energy production. Reduced electricity demand 
due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost 
of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, particularly 
during peak-load periods. As a measure of this reduced demand, chapter 
15 in the SNOPR TSD presents the estimated reduction in generating 
capacity for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
    Energy savings from standards for battery chargers are expected to 
yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V-49 provides DOE's estimate of 
cumulative emissions reductions to result from the TSLs considered in 
this rulemaking. The table

[[Page 52918]]

includes both power sector emissions and upstream emissions. DOE 
reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the 
SNOPR TSD.

         Table V-49--Battery Chargers: Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Products Shipped in 2018-2047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial standard level
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................            6.29            9.92           31.03           40.41
SO2 (thousand tons).............................            5.62            8.82           27.56           35.92
NOX (thousand tons).............................            5.01            7.88           24.64           32.10
Hg (tons).......................................           0.017           0.027           0.085           0.111
CH4 (thousand tons).............................           0.583           0.922           2.886           3.757
N2O (thousand tons).............................           0.084           0.132           0.413           0.538
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................           0.335           0.530           1.659           2.159
SO2 (thousand tons).............................           0.060           0.095           0.296           0.385
NOX (thousand tons).............................            4.75            7.52           23.57           30.67
Hg (tons).......................................           0.000           0.000           0.001           0.001
CH4 (thousand tons).............................            27.7            43.8           137.3           178.7
N2O (thousand tons).............................           0.003           0.005           0.015           0.019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................            6.63           10.45           32.69           42.57
SO2 (thousand tons).............................            5.68            8.92           27.86           36.30
NOX (thousand tons).............................            9.76           15.41           48.21           62.77
Hg (tons).......................................           0.017           0.027           0.086           0.112
CH4 (thousand tons).............................            28.3            44.8           140.2           182.4
CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq) *.....................             791            1253            3925            5108
N2O (thousand tons).............................           0.086           0.137           0.428           0.557
N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) *.....................            22.9            36.2           113.4           147.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.

    As part of the analysis for this proposed rule, DOE estimated 
monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of 
CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for each of the 
considered TSLs. As discussed in section IV.L of this notice, for 
CO2, DOE used the most recent values for the SCC developed 
by an interagency process. The four sets of SCC values for 
CO2 emissions reductions in 2015 resulting from that process 
(expressed in 2013$) are represented by $12.0/metric ton (the average 
value from a distribution that uses a 5-percent discount rate), $40.5/
metric ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 
discount rate), $62.4/metric ton (the average value from a distribution 
that uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and $119/metric ton (the 95th-
percentile value from a distribution that uses a 3-percent discount 
rate). The values for later years are higher due to increasing damages 
(emissions-related costs) as the projected magnitude of climate change 
increases.
    Table V-50 presents the global value of CO2 emissions 
reductions at each TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE calculated a 
present value of the stream of annual values using the same discount 
rate as was used in the studies upon which the dollar-per-ton values 
are based. DOE calculated domestic values as a range from 7 percent to 
23 percent of the global values; these results are presented in chapter 
14 of the SNOPR TSD.

 Table V-50--Battery Chargers: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Products Shipped
                                                  in 2018-2047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    SCC Case * (million 2013$)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                                                                          3% Discount
                                                    5% Discount     3% Discount    2.5% Discount    rate, 95th
                                                   rate, average   rate, average   rate, average    percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            50.7           218.6           342.7           673.1
2...............................................            79.4           343.5           538.7          1058.1
3...............................................           247.7          1072.5          1682.4          3304.0
4...............................................           322.9          1397.6          2192.3          4305.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................             2.6            11.4            18.0            35.3

[[Page 52919]]

 
2...............................................             4.1            18.1            28.4            55.8
3...............................................            12.9            56.5            88.8           174.4
4...............................................            16.8            73.6           115.7           227.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            53.3           230.1           360.7           708.5
2...............................................            83.5           361.6           567.1          1113.8
3...............................................           260.5          1129.0          1771.3          3478.4
4...............................................           339.7          1471.2          2307.9          4532.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119
  per metric ton (2013$).

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed on 
reducing CO2 emissions in this rulemaking is subject to 
change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will continue to 
review various methodologies for estimating the monetary value of 
reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 
review will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the 
public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other 
methodological assumptions and issues. However, consistent with DOE's 
legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved 
with this particular issue, DOE has included in this proposed rule the 
most recent values and analyses resulting from the ongoing interagency 
review process.
    DOE also estimated the cumulative monetary value of the economic 
benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for battery chargers. 
The dollar-per-ton value that DOE used is discussed in section IV.L of 
this notice. Table V-51 presents the cumulative present values for each 
TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates.

     Table V-51--Battery Chargers: Estimates of Present Value of NOX
          Emissions Reduction for Products Shipped in 2018-2047
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Million 2013$
                                         -------------------------------
                   TSL                      3% Discount     7% Discount
                                               rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Power Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................             8.2             4.8
2.......................................            12.8             7.4
3.......................................            39.9            22.9
4.......................................            52.1            29.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................             7.4             4.0
2.......................................            11.6             6.3
3.......................................            36.3            19.5
4.......................................            47.3            25.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total FFC Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................            15.6             8.8
2.......................................            24.4            13.6
3.......................................            76.2            42.4
4.......................................            99.3            55.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) DOE 
did not consider any other factors with respect to the specific 
standards proposed in this SNOPR. As for those particular battery 
chargers that DOE is declining to regulate at this time, the reasons 
underlying that decision are discussed above.
8. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions 
reductions

[[Page 52920]]

can be viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer savings 
calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. Table V-52 
presents the NPV values that result from adding the estimates of the 
potential economic benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and 
NOX emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the NPV 
of consumer savings calculated for each TSL considered for battery 
chargers, at both a 7-percent and a 3-percent discount rate. The 
CO2 values used in the columns of each table correspond to 
the four sets of SCC values discussed above.

  Table V-52--Battery Chargers: Net Present Value of Consumer Savings Combined With Present Value of Monetized
                                 Benefits From CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Billion 2013$
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                        SCC Case $12.0/ SCC Case $40.5/ SCC Case $62.4/ SCC Case $119/
                                                   t and medium    t and medium    t and medium    t and medium
                                                     NOX value       NOX value       NOX value       NOX value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................             0.9             1.1             1.2             1.6
2...............................................             1.3             1.6             1.8             2.3
3...............................................           -15.9           -15.0           -14.4           -12.6
4...............................................           -47.5           -46.4           -45.5           -43.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................             0.5             0.7             0.8             1.2
2...............................................             0.7             1.0             1.2             1.8
3...............................................            -9.2            -8.4            -7.7            -6.0
4...............................................           -27.5           -26.4           -25.5           -23.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of 
emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should 
be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic 
U.S. monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, 
while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global 
value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and the SCC 
are performed with different methods that use different time frames for 
analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the 
lifetime of products shipped in 2018 to 2047. Because CO2 
emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere,\66\ the 
SCC values in future years reflect future climate-related impacts 
resulting from the emission of CO2 that continue well beyond 
2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of 
the order of 30-95 years. Jacobson, MZ (2005). ``Correction to 
`Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, 
possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming.' '' J. 
Geophys. Res. 110. pp. D14105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conclusions

    When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy 
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of 
covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 
determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary 
must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, 
considering to the greatest extent practicable the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in a significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    The Department considered the impacts of standards at each TSL, 
beginning with a maximum technologically feasible level, to determine 
whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level 
was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level 
and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest 
efficiency level that would be both technologically feasible and 
economically justified and save a significant amount of energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, DOE has included a series of tables presenting a summary of 
the results of DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to 
the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers 
other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. Those 
include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section V.B.1.b of 
this notice presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these 
subgroups.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. This undervaluation suggests that 
regulation that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net 
private gains (as well as producing social gains by, for example, 
reducing pollution). There is evidence that consumers undervalue future 
energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a lack of 
sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack 
of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases; (4) 
excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent 
weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns 
on other investments; (5) computational or other difficulties 
associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a 
divergence in incentives (between renters and owners, or builders and 
purchasers). Having less than perfect foresight and a high degree of 
uncertainty about the future, consumers may trade off these types of 
investments at a higher than expected rate between current consumption 
and uncertain future energy cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego a 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this

[[Page 52921]]

decreases sales for product manufacturers, and the impact on 
manufacturers attributed to lost revenue is included in the MIA. 
Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products 
actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a regulatory 
option decreases the number of products used by consumers, this 
decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation 
standard. DOE provides estimates of shipments and changes in the volume 
of product purchases in chapter 9 and appendix 9A of the SNOPR TSD. 
However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly control for 
heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across subcategories 
of products or specific features, or consumer price sensitivity 
variation according to household income.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies (2005) 72, 853-883.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy efficiency 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\68\ DOE 
welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of 
energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify 
this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. 2010. Available online at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Battery Chargers
    Table V-53 and Table V-54 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for battery chargers. The efficiency levels 
contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of this notice.

                            Table V-53--Battery Chargers: Summary of National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                           TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Cumulative FFC Energy Savings (quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           0.108           0.170           0.534           0.695
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               NPV of Consumer Costs and Benefits (2013$ billion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate................................             0.9             1.2           -16.2           -47.9
7% discount rate................................             0.5             0.6            -9.5           -27.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 million metric tons.........................            6.63           10.45           32.69           42.57
SO2 thousand tons...............................            5.68            8.92           27.86           36.30
NOX thousand tons...............................            9.76           15.41           48.21           62.77
Hg tons.........................................           0.017           0.027           0.086           0.112
CH4 thousand tons...............................            28.3            44.8           140.2           182.4
CH4 thousand tons CO 2eq*.......................             791            1253            3925            5108
N2O thousand tons...............................           0.086           0.137           0.428           0.557
N2O thousand tons CO2eq*........................            22.9            36.2           113.4           147.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Value of Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 2013$ billion**.............................  0.053 to 0.708  0.084 to 1.114  0.261 to 3.478  0.340 to 4.532
NOX--3% discount rate 2013$ million.............           15.60           24.43           76.19           99.34
NOX--7% discount rate 2013$ million.............            8.80           13.65           42.41           55.38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.
** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2
  emissions.


                   Table V-54--Battery Chargers: Summary of Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         TSL 1\*\        TSL 2\*\        TSL 3\*\        TSL 4\*\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2013$ million) (Base Case INPV =     79,782-79,887   79,375-79,887   77,387-80,479   64,012-81,017
 79,904)........................................
Industry NPV (% change).........................     (0.2)-(0.0)     (0.7)-(0.0)       (3.2)-0.7      (19.9)-1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Consumer Average LCC Savings (2013$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1--Low E, Inductive*..........................            0.08            0.71            0.71          (3.44)
PC2--Low E, Low-Voltage.........................            0.07            0.07            0.06          (2.79)
PC3--Low E, Medium-Voltage......................            0.08            0.08          (1.36)          (2.17)
PC4--Low E, High-Voltage........................            0.11            0.11          (0.38)          (4.91)
PC5--Medium E, Low-Voltage*.....................            0.00            0.84        (138.63)        (138.63)
PC6--Medium E, High-Voltage*....................            0.00            1.89        (129.15)        (129.15)

[[Page 52922]]

 
PC7--High E.....................................           51.06           51.06         (80.05)         (80.05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1--Low E, Inductive*..........................             1.1             1.5             1.5             7.4
PC2--Low E, Low-Voltage.........................             0.6             0.6             2.5            19.5
PC3--Low E, Medium-Voltage......................             0.8             0.8            21.6            31.2
PC4--Low E, High-Voltage........................             1.4             1.4             5.2            20.7
PC5--Medium E, Low-Voltage*.....................             2.3             2.7            29.1            29.1
PC6--Medium E, High-Voltage*....................             1.0             1.1            12.5            12.5
PC7--High E.....................................             0.0             0.0             8.1             8.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1--Low E, Inductive*..........................             0.0             0.0             0.0            96.3
PC2--Low E, Low-Voltage.........................             1.2             1.2            33.1            73.8
PC3--Low E, Medium-Voltage......................             0.6             0.6            39.0            40.8
PC4--Low E, High-Voltage........................             1.3             1.3            12.6            25.8
PC5--Medium E, Low-Voltage*.....................             0.0             0.6            99.7            99.7
PC6--Medium E, High-Voltage*....................             0.0             0.0           100.0           100.0
PC7--High E.....................................             0.0             0.0           100.0           100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

    DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 4 would save 0.695 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit 
would be -$27.9 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$47.9 
billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 42.57 Mt of 
CO2, 62.77 thousand tons of NOX, 36.30 thousand 
tons of SO2, 0.112 ton of Hg, 182.4 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.557 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at 
TSL 4 ranges from $0.340 billion to $4.532 billion.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a cost of $3.44 for PC1, $2.79 
for PC2, $2.17 for PC3, $4.91 for PC4, $138.63 for PC5, $129.15 for 
PC6, and $80.05 for PC7. The simple payback period is 7.4 years for 
PC1, 19.5 years for PC2, 31.2 years for PC3, 20.7 years for PC4, 29.1 
years for PC5, 12.5 years for PC6, and 8.1 years for PC7. The fraction 
of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 96.3 percent for PC1, 73.8 
percent for PC2, 40.8 percent for PC3, 25.8 percent for PC4, 99.7 
percent for PC5, 100 percent for PC6, and 100 percent for PC7.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$15,892 million to an increase of $1,113 million, equivalent to -19.9 
percent and 1.4 percent, respectively.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for battery 
chargers, the benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 
would be outweighed by the economic burden on consumers (demonstrated 
by a negative NPV and LCC for all product classes), and the impacts on 
manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit margin impacts 
that could result in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, the 
Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 0.534 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be -$9.5 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
-$16.2 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 32.69 Mt of 
CO2, 48.21 thousand tons of NOX, 27.86 thousand 
tons of SO2, 0.086 ton of Hg, 140.2 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.428 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at 
TSL 3 ranges from $0.261 billion to $3.478 billion.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $0.71 for PC1 and 
$0.06 for PC2, and a cost of $1.36 for PC3, $0.38 for PC4, $138.63 for 
PC5, $129.15 for PC6, and $80.05 for PC7. The simple payback period is 
1.5 years for PC1, 2.5 years for PC2, 21.6 years for PC3, 5.2 years for 
PC4, 29.1 years for PC5, 12.5 years for PC6, and 8.1 years for PC7. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 0.0 percent for 
PC1, 33.1 percent for PC2, 39.0 percent for PC3, 12.6 percent for PC4, 
99.7 percent for PC5, 100 percent for PC6, and 100 percent for PC7.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$2,517 million to an increase of $574 million, equivalent to -3.2 
percent and 0.7 percent, respectively.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for battery 
chargers, the benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 
would be outweighed by the economic burden on consumers (demonstrated 
by a negative NPV and LCC for most product classes), and the impacts on 
manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit margin impacts 
that could result in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, the 
Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.170 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $0.6 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$1.2 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 10.45 Mt of 
CO2, 15.41 thousand tons of NOX, 8.92 thousand 
tons of SO2, 0.027 ton of Hg, 44.8 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.137 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at 
TSL 2 ranges from $0.084 billion to $1.114 billion.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $0.71 for PC1, 
$0.07 for PC2, $0.08 for PC3, $0.11 for PC4, $0.84 for PC5, $1.89 for 
PC6, and $51.06 for PC7. The simple payback period is 1.5 years for 
PC1, 0.6 years for PC2, 0.8

[[Page 52923]]

years for PC3, 1.4 years for PC4, 2.7 years for PC5, 1.1 years for PC6, 
and 0.0 years for PC7. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC 
cost is 0.0 percent for PC1, 1.2 percent for PC2, 0.6 percent for PC3, 
1.3 percent for PC4, 0.6 percent for PC5, 0.0 percent for PC6, and 0.0 
percent for PC7.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$529 million to a decrease of $18 million, equivalent to -0.7 percent 
and less than -0.1 percent, respectively.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for battery 
chargers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings 
would outweigh the negative impacts on some consumers and on 
manufacturers, including the conversion costs that could result in a 
reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
    After considering the analysis and the benefits and burdens of TSL 
2, the Secretary tentatively concludes that this TSL will offer the 
maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and will result in the significant conservation 
of energy. Therefore, DOE proposes TSL 2 for battery chargers. The 
proposed amended energy conservation standards for battery chargers are 
shown in Table V-55.

                                         Table V-55--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Product class                                     Description                                Maximum unit energy consumption (kWh/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................  Low-Energy, Inductive....................................  3.04
2.....................................  Low-Energy, Low-Voltage..................................  0.1440 * Ebatt + 2.95
3.....................................  Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage...............................  For Ebatt < 10Wh,
                                                                                                   UEC = 1.42 kWh/y
                                                                                                   Ebatt >= 10 Wh,
                                                                                                   = 0.0255 * Ebatt + 1.16
4.....................................  Low-Energy, High-Voltage.................................  = 0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18
5.....................................  Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage...............................  For Ebatt < 19 Wh,
                                                                                                   = 1.32 kWh/yr
                                                                                                   For Ebatt >= 19 Wh,
                                                                                                   = 0.0257 * Ebatt + .815
6.....................................  Medium-Energy, High-Voltage..............................  For Ebatt < 18 Wh
                                                                                                   = 3.88 kWh/yr
                                                                                                   For Ebatt >= 18 Wh
                                                                                                   = 0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4
7.....................................  High-Energy..............................................  = 0.0502(Ebatt) + 4.53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values 
are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus 
increases in product purchase costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits 
of CO2 and NOX emission reductions.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2014, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(2020, 2030, etc.), and then discounted the present value from each 
year to 2015. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent 
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates. Using 
the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over 
a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year that yields the 
same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V-56 shows the annualized values for battery chargers under 
TSL 2, expressed in 2013$. The results under the primary estimate are 
as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs 
other than CO2 reductions, for which DOE used a 3-percent 
discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of 
$40.5/ton in 2015 (in 2013$), the cost of the standards for battery 
chargers in the proposed rule is $9 million per year in increased 
equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are $68 million per year 
in reduced equipment operating costs, $20 million in CO2 
reductions, and $1.26 million in reduced NOX emissions. In 
this case, the net benefit amounts to $80 million per year. Using a 3-
percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series 
corresponding to a value of $40.5/ton in 2015 (in 2013$), the cost of 
the standards for battery chargers in the proposed rule is $10 million 
per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $75 
million per year in reduced operating costs, $20 million in 
CO2 reductions, and $1.32 million in reduced NOX 
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $86 million per 
year.

           Table V-56--Annualized Benefits and Costs of New and Amended Standards for Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         (Million 2013$/year)
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                     Discount rate                         Low net benefits    High net benefits
                                                      Primary estimate *      estimate *          estimate *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings..........  7%................  68................  68................  69
                                  3%................  75................  74................  76

[[Page 52924]]

 
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     5%................  6.................  6.................  6
 ($12.0/t case)*.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     3%................  20................  20................  20
 ($40.5/t case)*.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     2.5%..............  28................  28................  28
 ($62.4/t case)*.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     3%................  60................  60................  60
 ($119/t case)*.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value     7%................  1.26..............  1.26..............  1.26
 (at $2,684/ton)**.
                                  3%................  1.32..............  1.32..............  1.32
    Total Benefits [dagger].....  7% plus CO2 range.  76 to 130.........  75 to 130.........  76 to 131
                                  7%................  89................  89................  90
                                  3% plus CO2 range.  82 to 136.........  82 to 136.........  83 to 138
                                  3%................  96................  95................  97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product      7%................  9.................  9.................  6
 Costs.
                                  3%................  10................  10................  6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total [dagger]..............  7% plus CO2 range.  66 to 120.........  66 to 120.........  70 to 124
                                  7%................  80................  79................  84
                                  3% plus CO2 range.  73 to 127.........  72 to 126.........  77 to 132
                                  3%................  86................  86................  91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2018-2047.
  These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018-2047.
  The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the
  standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High
  Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2014 Reference case, Low Estimate, and
  High Estimate, respectively. Additionally, the High Benefits Estimates include a price trend on the
  incremental product costs.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the
  updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and
  2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution
  calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX
  is the average of high and low values found in the literature.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average
  SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t case). In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2
  range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values
  are added to the full range of CO2 values.

3. Stakeholder Comments on Standards Proposed in NOPR
    In addition to the issues addressed above, DOE received a number of 
general comments on the appropriateness of the battery charger 
standards proposed in the NOPR. The CEC, CBIA, ASAP, and NRDC, NEEP, 
and PSMA--along with a number of representatives from a variety of 
State legislatures \70\ and the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts--all 
supported DOE's proposed levels for Product Classes 1, 7, 8, and 10 but 
urged DOE to adopt the more stringent levels proposed in California for 
Product Classes 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. These interested parties provided a 
number of justifications for harmonizing with California that are 
addressed in detail elsewhere. The CEC and ASAP urged DOE to take the 
time to fully analyze the more stringent levels, even if it means a 
later effective date for the standards, while both the City of 
Cambridge and the various State legislators urged DOE to adopt levels 
similar to those already in place in California. (CEC, No. 117 at p. 6; 
CBIA, No. 126 at p. 2; ASAP Et Al., No. 136 at p. 2; NEEP, No. 160 at 
p.1; States, No. 159 at p. 1; City of Cambridge, MA, No. 155 at p. 1; 
PSMA, No. 147 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Comments were received in the form of a letter from Senator 
Jackie Dingfelder of the Oregon State Senate. Representatives of the 
following States also signed onto that letter: Alaska, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, 
Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, manufacturers, including AHAM, PTI, CEA, Motorola, and 
Philips, generally opposed harmonization with California for Product 
Classes 2 through 6, arguing that DOE's proposed levels are 
technologically feasible and economically justified while California's 
are not. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 4; PTI, No. 133 at p. 3; CEA, No. 106 at 
p. 2; Motorola Mobility, No. 121 at p. 6; Philips, No. 128 at p. 6) For 
Product Class 7, Delta-Q Technologies found that the proposed standard 
was acceptable, while Lester Electrical opposed the proposed level. 
(Delta-Q Technologies, No. 113 at p. 2; Lester Electrical, No. 139 at 
p. 2). Panasonic commented that the proposed standard for Product Class 
1 was too stringent. (Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 2)
    DOE has addressed the specific points underpinning these general 
comments in the preceding sections of this SNOPR. The proposed standard 
levels would, if adopted, save a significant amount of energy, are 
technologically feasible, and are economically justified.

[[Page 52925]]

    The CEC commented that failing to set standards for Product Class 9 
would create a category of unregulated products that could lead to 
compliance and enforcement loopholes in the future. It stated that 
battery chargers with DC input greater than 9V are regulated under the 
California standards and will remain so if the DOE does not adopt 
standards, but expressed concern that this may lead to industry 
confusion. (California Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 7) While it is 
technically possible that a product that is not an in-vehicle charger 
could meet the parameters of Product Class 9, no such products existed 
when DOE conducted its analysis. DOE can only evaluate whether 
standards are justified based on the products currently on the market. 
If new products come on the market in the future, DOE can revisit 
whether to set standards for Product Class 9 as part of a future 
rulemaking.
    Regarding California's assertions related to preemption, DOE notes 
that under 42 U.S.C. 6297, which lays out the process by which State 
and local energy conservation standards are preempted, once DOE sets 
standards for a product any State or local standards for that product 
are preempted. In the case of battery chargers, preemption does not 
apply until the Federal standards are required for compliance. See 42 
U.S.C. 6295(ii)(1). In particular, under this provision, any State or 
local standard prescribed or enacted for battery chargers before the 
date on which the final rule is issued shall not be preempted ``until 
the energy conservation standard that has been established [under the 
appropriate statutory provision] for the product takes effect.'' While 
this provision has clear implications regarding the timing of 
preemption, it does not alter the scope of its application by narrowing 
the range of products that would be affected by preemption once DOE has 
set standards for ``the product'' at issue. Accordingly, in DOE's view, 
once the Agency sets standards for battery chargers and the compliance 
date for those standards has been reached, all State and local energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers would be preempted. With 
respect to any labeling requirements, DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 6297 
already prescribes that States and local jurisdictions may not require 
the disclosure of information other than that required by DOE or FTC. 
Since DOE is not proposing to require that manufacturers label their 
battery chargers, those labeling requirements would also be preempted. 
See 42 U.S.C. 6297(a). An individual manufacturer would be free, 
however, to voluntarily use the ``BC'' mark if it chose to do so.
    Cobra Electronics commented that the ENERGY STAR program is an 
effective means for encouraging the development of more efficient 
technologies. Furthermore, the use of a voluntary program would allow 
DOE to comply with Executive Order 13563, which directed Federal 
agencies to ``identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation.'' (Cobra Electronics, No. 130 at p. 8) DOE notes that 
Executive Order 13563 also stated that regulations should be adopted 
``only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its 
costs.'' Because the selected standard levels are technologically 
feasible and economically justified, DOE has fulfilled its statutory 
obligations as well as the directives in Executive Order 13563. In 
addition, DOE considered the impacts of a voluntary program as part of 
the Regulatory Impact Analysis and found that such a program would save 
less energy than the proposed standards, especially since the ENERGY 
STAR program for battery chargers has already ended. See Chapter 17 of 
the SNOPR TSD.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify 
the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable, 
the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new 
agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. 
The problems that the proposed standards address are as follows:
    (1) Insufficient information and the high costs of gathering and 
analyzing relevant information leads some consumers to miss 
opportunities to make cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.
    (2) In some cases the benefits of more efficient equipment are not 
realized due to misaligned incentives between purchasers and users. An 
example of such a case is when the equipment purchase decision is made 
by a building contractor or building owner who does not pay the energy 
costs.
    (3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy 
efficiency of appliances and equipment that are not captured by the 
users of such products. These benefits include externalities related to 
public health, environmental protection, and national security that are 
not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases that impact human health and global 
warming.
    In addition, DOE has determined that this proposed regulatory 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866. Therefore, DOE did not present for review to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB the draft rule and 
other documents prepared for this rulemaking, including a regulatory 
impact analysis (RIA).
    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 
13563. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is 
supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, 
and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive 
Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by 
Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing 
that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with 
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative 
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent 
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; 
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present 
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its 
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
DOE believes that this proposed rule is consistent with these 
principles, including the

[[Page 52926]]

requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify 
costs and that net benefits are maximized.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE 
has prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject 
of this rulemaking.
    As a result of this review, DOE has prepared an IRFA addressing the 
impacts on small manufacturers. DOE will transmit a copy of the IRFA to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) for review under 5 U.S.C 605(b). As presented and discussed in 
the following sections, the IFRA describes potential impacts on small 
business manufacturers of battery chargers associated with the required 
capital and product conversion costs at each TSL and discusses 
alternatives that could minimize these impacts.
    A statement of the reasons and objectives of the proposed rule, 
along with its legal basis, are set forth elsewhere in the preamble and 
not repeated here.
1. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    For manufacturers of battery chargers, the 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/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Battery charger manufacturing is classified 
under NAICS 335999, ``All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and 
Component Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or 
less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this 
category.
    To estimate the number of companies that could be small business 
manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a 
market survey using all available public information to identify 
potential small battery charger manufacturers. DOE's research involved 
industry trade association membership directories, product databases, 
individual company Web sites, and the SBA's Small Business Database to 
create a list of every company that could potentially manufacture 
products covered by this rulemaking. DOE also asked stakeholders and 
industry representatives if they were aware of any other small 
manufacturers during manufacturer interviews and at previous DOE public 
meetings. DOE contacted companies on its list, as necessary, to 
determine whether they met the SBA's definition of a small business 
manufacturer of covered battery chargers. DOE screened out companies 
that did not offer products covered by this rulemaking, did not meet 
the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and 
operated.
    Based on this screening, DOE identified 30 companies that could 
potentially manufacture battery chargers. DOE eliminated most of these 
companies from consideration as small business manufacturers based on a 
review of product literature and Web sites. When those steps yielded 
inconclusive information, DOE contacted the companies directly. As part 
of these efforts, DOE identified Lester Electrical, Inc. (Lincoln, 
Nebraska), a manufacturer of golf car battery chargers, as the only 
small business that appears to produce covered battery chargers 
domestically.
b. Manufacturer Participations
    Before issuing this proposed rule, DOE contacted the potential 
small business manufacturers of battery chargers it had identified. One 
small business consented to being interviewed during the MIA interviews 
conducted prior to the publication of the NOPR. DOE also obtained 
information about small business impacts while interviewing large 
manufacturers.
c. Industry Structure
    With respect to battery chargers, industry structure is typically 
defined by the characteristics of the industry of the application(s) 
for which the battery chargers are produced. In the case of the small 
business DOE identified, however, the battery charger itself is the 
product the small business produces. That is, the company does not also 
produce the applications with which the battery charger is intended to 
be used--in this case, battery chargers predominantly intended for golf 
cars (Product Class 7).
    A high level of concentration exists in both battery charger 
markets. Two golf car battery charger manufacturers account for the 
vast majority of the golf car battery charger market and each have a 
similar share. Both competitors in the golf car battery charger market 
are, in terms of the number of their employees, small entities: one is 
foreign-owned and operated, while the other is a domestic small 
business, as defined by SBA. Despite this concentration, there is 
considerable competition for three main reasons. First, each golf car 
battery charger manufacturer sells into a market that is almost as 
equally concentrated: three golf car manufacturers supply the majority 
of the golf cars sold domestically and none of them manufactures golf 
car battery chargers. Second, while there are currently only two major 
suppliers of golf car battery chargers to the domestic market, the 
constant prospect of potential entry from other foreign countries has 
ceded substantial buying power to the three golf car OEMs. Third, golf 
car manufacturers can choose not to build electric golf cars 
(eliminating the need for the battery charger) by opting to build gas-
powered products. DOE examines a price elasticity sensitivity scenario 
for this in chapter 12 of the SNOPR TSD to assess this possibility. 
Currently, roughly three-quarters of the golf car market is electric-
based, with the remainder gas-powered.
    The majority of industry shipments flow to the ``fleet'' segment--
i.e. battery chargers sold to golf car manufacturers who then lease the 
cars to golf courses. Most cars are leased for the first few years 
before being sold to smaller golf courses or other individuals for 
personal use. A smaller portion of golf cars are sold as new through 
dealer distribution.
    Further upstream, approximately half of the battery chargers 
intended for golf car use is manufactured domestically, while the other 
half is foreign-sourced. During the design cycle of the golf car, the 
battery charger supplier and OEM

[[Page 52927]]

typically work closely together when designing the battery charger.
    The small business manufacturer is also a relatively smaller player 
in the markets for wheelchair and industrial lift battery chargers. 
Most wheelchair battery chargers and the wheelchairs themselves are 
manufactured overseas. Three wheelchair manufacturers supply the 
majority of the U.S. market, but do not have domestic manufacturing.
d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
    As discussed in the previous section, there are two major suppliers 
in the golf car battery charger market. Both are small entities, 
although one is foreign-owned and operated and does not qualify as a 
small business per the SBA definition. These two small entities have a 
similar market share and sales volumes. DOE did not identify any large 
businesses with which to compare the projected impacts on small 
businesses.
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    The U.S.-owned small business DOE identified manufacturers of 
battery chargers for golf cars (Product Class 7). DOE anticipates the 
proposed rule will require both capital and product conversion costs to 
achieve compliance. The CSLs proposed for Product Classes 5, 6, and 7 
will drive different levels of small business impacts. The compliance 
costs associated with the proposed TSLs are present in Table VI-1 
through Table VI-3.
    DOE does not expect the proposed TSL to require significant capital 
expenditures. Although some replacement of fixtures, new assembly 
equipment and tooling would be required, the magnitude of these 
expenditures would be unlikely to cause significant adverse financial 
impacts. Product Class 7 drives the majority of these costs. See Table 
VI-1 for the estimated capital conversion costs for a typical small 
business.

                       Table VI-1--Estimated Capital Conversion Costs for a Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Product class and estimated capital
               conversion cost                     TSL 1           TSL 2 *           TSL 3            TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Classes 5 and 6.....................                CSL 1            CSL 2            CSL 3            CSL 3
Product Class 7.............................                CSL 1            CSL 1            CSL 2            CSL 2
Estimated Capital Conversion Costs (2013$)..            $0.1             $0.1             $0.2             $0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the TSL proposed in this SNOPR rulemaking.

    The product conversion costs associated with standards are more 
significant for the small business manufacturer at issue than the 
projected capital conversion costs. TSL 2 for Product Class 7 reflects 
a technology change from a linear battery charger or less efficient 
high-frequency design battery charger at the baseline to a more 
efficient switch-mode or high-frequency design battery charger. This 
change would require manufacturers that produce linear or less 
efficient high-frequency design battery chargers to invest in the 
development of a new product design, which would require investments in 
engineering resources for R&D, testing and certification, and marketing 
and training changes. Again, the level of expenditure at each TSL is 
driven almost entirely by the changes required for Product Class 7 at 
each TSL. Additionally, based on market research conducted during the 
analysis period of this SNOPR, DOE has found that manufacturers 
(including those based domestically) who previously sold exclusively, 
or primarily, linear battery chargers, are now selling switch-mode 
battery chargers, which are capable of charging batteries equal to 
similar batteries charged by linear battery chargers offered by the 
same manufacturer. See Table VI-2 for the estimated product conversion 
costs for a typical small business.

                       Table VI-2--Estimated Product Conversion Costs for a Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Product class and estimated product
               conversion cost                     TSL 1           TSL 2 *           TSL 3            TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Classes 5 and 6.....................                CSL 1            CSL 2            CSL 3            CSL 3
Product Class 7.............................                CSL 1            CSL 1            CSL 2            CSL 2
Estimated Product Conversion Costs (2013$)..            $1.8             $2.0             $5.1             $5.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the TSL proposed in this SNOPR rulemaking.

    Table VI-3 displays the total capital and product conversion costs 
associated with each TSL.

                        Table VI-3--Estimated Total Conversion Costs for a Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class and estimated total conversion
                    cost                           TSL 1           TSL 2 *           TSL 3            TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Classes 5 and 6.....................                CSL 1            CSL 2            CSL 3            CSL 3
Product Class 7.............................                CSL 1            CSL 1            CSL 2            CSL 2
Estimated Total Conversion Costs (2013$)....            $1.9             $2.1             $4.3             $4.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the TSL proposed in this SNOPR rulemaking.


[[Page 52928]]

    Based on its engineering analysis, manufacturer interviews and 
public comments, DOE believes TSL 2 for Product Class 7 would establish 
an efficiency level that standard linear battery chargers could not 
cost-effectively achieve. Not only would the size and weight of such 
chargers potentially conflict with end-user preferences, but the 
additional steel and copper requirements would make such chargers cost-
prohibitive in the marketplace. Baseline linear designs are already 
significantly more costly to manufacture than the more-efficient 
switch-mode designs, as DOE's cost efficiency curve shows in the 
engineering section (see Table IV-10). While the majority of the 
battery chargers manufactured by the one small business DOE identified, 
that would be affected by the proposed battery charger standards, would 
need to be modified to meet the proposed standards for Product Class 7, 
this manufacturer has the capability to manufacture switch-mode battery 
chargers. Therefore, DOE anticipates that this manufacturer could 
comply with the proposal by modifying their existing switch-mode 
battery charger specifications. This would require significantly fewer 
R&D resources than completely redesigning all of their production line. 
Additionally, DOE acknowledges that some or all existing domestic 
linear battery charger manufacturing could be lost due to the proposed 
standards, since it is likely that switch-mode battery charger 
manufacturing would likely be manufactured abroad.
3. Duplication, Overlap and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    Since the CEC battery charger standards would be preempted by a 
battery charger energy conservation standard set by DOE, DOE is not 
aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 
with the rule being considered in this notice.
4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    The discussion in the previous sections analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from the other TSLs DOE considered. Though 
TSLs lower than the proposed TSL are expected to reduce the impacts on 
small entities, DOE is required by EPCA to establish standards that 
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that are 
technically feasible and economically justified, and result in a 
significant conservation of energy. Once DOE determines that a 
particular TSL meets those requirements, DOE adopts that TSL in 
satisfaction of its obligations under EPCA.
    In addition to the other TSLs being considered, the SNOPR TSD for 
this proposed rule includes an analysis of non-regulatory alternatives 
in chapter 17. For battery chargers, these policy alternatives 
included: (1) No standard, (2) consumer rebates, (3) consumer tax 
credits, (4) manufacturer tax credits, and (5) early replacement. While 
these alternatives may mitigate to some varying extent the economic 
impacts on small entities compared to the proposed standards, DOE does 
not intend to consider these alternatives further because in several 
cases, they would not be feasible to implement without authority and 
funding from Congress, and in all cases, DOE has determined that the 
energy savings of these alternatives are significantly smaller than 
those that would be expected to result from adoption of the proposed 
standard levels. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt any of these 
alternatives and is proposing the standards set forth in this 
rulemaking. (See chapter 17 of the SNOPR TSD for further detail on the 
policy alternatives DOE considered.)
    DOE continues to seek input from businesses that would be affected 
by this rulemaking and will consider comments received in the 
development of any final rule.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    If DOE adopts standards for battery chargers, manufacturers of 
these products would need to certify to DOE that their products comply 
with the applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying 
compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE 
test procedures for battery chargers, including any amendments adopted 
for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the 
certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer 
products and commercial equipment, including battery chargers. (76 FR 
12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). 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

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 
DOE has determined that this proposal would fit within the category of 
actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets 
the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, 
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B1-B5. This proposal fits within 
this category of actions because it would establish energy conservation 
standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which 
none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE 
has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need 
to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact 
Statement for this rule. DOE's CX determination for this rule is 
available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this 
proposed rule and has tentatively determined that it would 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

[[Page 52929]]

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 proposed rule. States can petition DOE for 
exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, 
set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is 
required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at 
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million 
or more by the private sector. Specifically, the proposed rule would 
likely result in a final rule that could require expenditures of $100 
million or more. Such expenditures may include: (1) Investment in 
research and development and in capital expenditures by battery charger 
manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance 
date for the new standards, and (2) incremental additional expenditures 
by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency battery chargers, starting 
at the compliance date for the applicable standard.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)). The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the proposed rule and the 
``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the SNOPR TSD for this 
proposed rule respond to those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)). DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes 
an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 
this proposed rule would establish energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement 
in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically 
feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the 
alternatives considered by DOE is presented in the ``Regulatory Impact 
Analysis'' section of the SNOPR TSD for this proposed rule.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would 
not result in any takings that might require compensation under the 
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to 
review most disseminations of information to the public under 
information quality 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 proposed 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

[[Page 52930]]

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for 
any proposed significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' 
is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected 
to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; 
and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the 
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed 
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the 
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action 
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which 
proposes energy conservation standards for battery chargers, is not a 
significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator 
at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects on this proposed rule.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

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

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

    The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in 
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this notice. If 
you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at (202) 586-2945 or [email protected].
    Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 
subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance 
notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national 
wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this 
fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 
586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the 
necessary procedures can be completed.
    DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as 
tablets, checked upon entry into the building. Any person wishing to 
bring these devices into the Forrestal Building will be required to 
obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices, 
or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the 
visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through 
security.
    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID 
requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from 
specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the 
following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry 
and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required. DHS 
has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the 
following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE 
facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. 
Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or 
Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued 
by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses 
issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's 
License); a military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID 
card.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx?productid=84. Participants are 
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar 
software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

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

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

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

[[Page 52931]]

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

D. Submission of Comments

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

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    1. DOE requests stakeholder comment on the proposed elimination of 
Product Classes 8, 9, 10a, and 10b from the analysis. (See section 
IV.A.3.b)

[[Page 52932]]

    2. DOE requests stakeholder comments on the updated engineering 
analysis results presented in this analysis for products classes 2-6. 
(See section IV.C.9)
    3. DOE requests comment on the new methodology of shifting CSLs in 
Product Classes 2-6 to more closely align with the CEC standards. (See 
section IV.C.4)
    4. DOE seeks comment on its methodology in scaling the results of 
Product Class 5 to Product Class 6, including the decision to hold MSPs 
constant. (See section IV.C.9)
    5. DOE requests comment on the new methodology for determining the 
base case efficiency distributions using the CEC database of battery 
charger models sold in California combined with DOE's usage profiles. 
(See section IV.G.3)
    6. DOE requests comment on the methodology of filtering RECS data 
to obtain a population distribution of low-income consumers that was 
used for the low-income consumers LCC subgroup analysis. (See section 
V.B.1)
    7. DOE seeks comments on its approach in updating the base case 
efficiency distributions for this rule using the CEC database. (See 
section IV.G.3)
    8. DOE seeks comment on the potential domestic employment impacts 
to battery charger manufacturers at the proposed efficiency levels. 
(See section V.B.2.b and section VI.B).
    9. DOE seeks comment on the compliance costs of any other 
regulations battery charger and battery charger application 
manufacturers must make, especially if compliance with those other 
regulations is required three years before or after the estimated 
compliance date of this proposed standard (2018) (see section V.B.2.e).
    10. DOE seeks comments on the existence of any small business 
battery charger or battery charger application manufacturers other than 
the one identified by DOE. DOE also requests comments on the impacts of 
the proposed efficiency levels on any small businesses manufacturing 
battery chargers that would be subject to the proposed standards or 
applications that would use these chargers. (See section VI.B).

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2015.
David T. Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. 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
2. Section 430.32 is amended by adding paragraph (z) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (z) Battery Chargers. (1) Battery chargers manufactured starting on 
the date corresponding to two years after the publication of the final 
rule for this rulemaking, shall have a unit energy consumption (UEC) 
less than or equal to the prescribed ``Maximum UEC'' standard when 
using the equations for the appropriate product class and corresponding 
measured battery energy as shown in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Special
        Product class No.          Input/Output type    Battery energy     characteristic or   Maximum UEC (kWh/
                                                             (Wh)           battery voltage           yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................  AC In, DC Out.....  < 100.............  Inductive           3.04.
                                                                           Connection *.
2...............................  ..................  ..................  < 4 V.............  0.1440 * Ebatt +
                                                                                               2.95.
3...............................  ..................  ..................  4-10 V............  For Ebatt < 10Wh,
                                                                                               1.42 kWh/yr;
                                                                                               Ebatt >= 10 Wh,
                                                                                               0.0255 * Ebatt +
                                                                                               1.16.
4...............................  ..................  ..................  > 10 V............  0.11 * Ebatt +
                                                                                               3.18.
5...............................  ..................  100-3000..........  < 20 V............  For Ebatt < 19 Wh,
                                                                                               1.32 kWh/yr; For
                                                                                               Ebatt >= 19 Wh,
                                                                                               0.0257 * Ebatt +
                                                                                               .815.
6...............................  ..................  ..................  >= 20 V...........  For Ebatt < 18 Wh,
                                                                                               3.88 kWh/yr; For
                                                                                               Ebatt >= 18 Wh,
                                                                                               0.0778 * Ebatt +
                                                                                               2.4.
7...............................  ..................  > 3000............  ..................  0.0502 * Ebatt +
                                                                                               4.53.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Inductive connection and designed for use in a wet environment (e.g. electric toothbrushes).
** Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in section 5.6 of appendix Y to subpart B of this part.

    (2) Unit energy consumption shall be calculated for a device 
seeking certification as being compliant with the relevant standard 
using one of the two equations (equation (i) or equation (ii)) listed 
below. If a device is tested and its charge test duration as determined 
in section 5.2 of appendix Y to subpart B of this part minus 5 hours 
exceeds the threshold charge time listed in the table below, equation 
(ii) shall be used to calculate UEC; otherwise a device's UEC shall be 
calculated using equation (i).

[[Page 52933]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01SE15.002


Where:
E24 = 24-hour energy as determined in Sec.  429.39(a) of 
this chapter,
Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in Sec.  
429.39(a) of this chapter,
Pm = Maintenance mode power as determined in Sec.  
429.39(a) of this chapter,
Psb = Standby mode power as determined in Sec.  429.39(a) 
of this chapter,
Poff = Off mode power as determined in Sec.  429.39(a) of 
this chapter,
tcd = Charge test duration as determined in Sec.  
429.39(a) of this chapter,
    and
ta&m, n, tsb, and toff, are 
constants used depending upon a device's product class and found in 
the following table:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Active +
          Product class             maintenance   Standby  (tsb)    Off  (toff)    Charges  (n)      Threshold
                                      (ta&m)                                                       charge time *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Hours per Day **                 Number per Day           Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................           20.66            0.10            0.00            0.15          135.41
2...............................            7.82            5.29            0.00            0.54           19.00
3...............................            6.42            0.30            0.00            0.10           67.21
4...............................           16.84            0.91            0.00            0.50           33.04
5...............................            6.52            1.16            0.00            0.11           56.83
6...............................           17.15            6.85            0.00            0.34           50.89
7...............................            8.14            7.30            0.00            0.32           25.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If the duration of the charge test (minus 5 hours) as determined in section 5.2 of appendix Y to subpart B of
  this part exceeds the threshold charge time, use equation (ii) to calculate UEC otherwise use equation (i).
** If the total time does not sum to 24 hours per day, the remaining time is allocated to unplugged time, which
  means there is 0 power consumption and no changes to the UEC calculation is needed.

    (3) A battery charger shall not be subject to the standards in 
paragraph (z)(1) of this section if it is a device that requires 
Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) listing and approval as a 
life-sustaining or life-supporting device in accordance with section 
513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360(c)).

[FR Doc. 2015-20218 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P