[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38266-38336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12835]



[[Page 38265]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 113

June 13, 2016

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 430





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





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 113 / Monday, June 13, 2016 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 38266]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

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 would 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. Responding to stakeholder comments, DOE 
updated its analysis and revised its proposed approach, resulting in a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR'') published on 
September 1, 2015. After considering all the stakeholder comments 
responding to the SNOPR, DOE is adopting the proposed energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers in this final rule. DOE has 
determined that these standards will result in the significant 
conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and 
economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is August 12, 2016. Compliance 
with the adopted standards established for battery chargers in this 
final rule is required starting on June 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those 
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not 
be publicly available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005. The 
www.regulations.gov Web page will contain instructions on how to access 
all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected].

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
    A. Efficiency Distributions
    B. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    C. Impact on Manufacturers
    D. National Benefits and Costs
    E. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    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. Federal Preemption and Compliance Date
    D. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    E. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    F. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC 
and PBP)
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
    G. General Comments
    1. Proposed Standard Levels
IV. Methodology and Discussion
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Products Included in This Rulemaking
    a. Consumer Products
    b. Basic Model of Battery Charger
    c. Wireless Power
    d. USB-Charged Devices
    e. Spare and Replacement Parts for Battery Chargers
    f. Medical Products
    2. Market Assessment
    3. Product Classes
    a. Product Class 1
    b. Product Classes 5 and 6
    c. Product Classes 8, 9, 10a, and 10b
    4. Technology Assessment
    a. Battery Charger Modes of Operation and Performance Parameters
    b. Battery Charger Technology Options
    B. Screening Analysis
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Representative Units
    2. Battery Charger Efficiency Metric
    3. Calculation of Unit Energy Consumption
    4. Battery Charger Efficiency Levels
    5. Test and Teardowns
    6. Manufacturer Interviews
    7. Design Options
    8. Cost Model
    9. Battery Charger Engineering Results
    a. Product Class 1
    b. Product Class 2
    c. Product Class 3
    d. Product Class 4
    e. Product Class 5 and 6
    f. Product Class 7
    10. Scaling of Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels
    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Product Cost
    a. Manufacturer Selling Price
    b. Markups
    c. Sales Tax
    d. Product Price Forecast
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    6. Product Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Sectors Analyzed
    9. Efficiency Distribution in the No-Standards Case
    10. Compliance Date
    11. Payback Period Analysis
    G. Shipments Analysis
    1. Shipment Growth Rate
    2. Product Class Lifetime
    3. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. Product Efficiency 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. Net Present Value Analysis
    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Manufacturer Production Costs
    2. Shipment Projections
    3. Markup Scenarios
    4. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
    5. Comments From Interested Parties
    a. Manufacturer Interviews

[[Page 38267]]

    b. TSL to EL Mapping
    K. Emissions Analysis
    L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values
    c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
    O. Marking Requirements
    P. Reporting Requirements
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    b. Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Battery Charger 
Standards
    2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted 
Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of the Need for and Objectives of, the Rule
    2. Description of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comment
    3. Description of Comments Submitted by the Small Business 
Administration
    4. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    b. Manufacturer Participants
    c. Industry Structure
    d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
    5. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    6. Description of Steps Taken To Minimize Impacts to Small 
Businesses
    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
    M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    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 Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new 
or amended standard must result in the 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 (1) a notice of determination that 
standards for the product do not need to be amended or (2) 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. 
Consequently, DOE proposed new energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers in September 2015. See 80 FR 52850. (September 1, 
2015). After evaluating the comments it received, DOE is adopting the 
energy conservation standards for battery chargers proposed in the 
SNOPR. These standards will apply to all products listed in Table I-1 
and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on 
June 13, 2018. This lead-in period, which is consistent with DOE's 
proposal, is based on information provided by commenters as well as 
research conducted by DOE with respect to the efforts made by battery 
charger manufacturers in response to the CEC energy conservation 
standards--both of which suggest that a two-year period would be 
sufficient to enable manufacturers to readily meet the standards 
adopted in this rule.

                          Table I-1--Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers
                                       [Compliance starting June 13, 2018]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Adopted standard as
                       Product class                                         Special            a function of
  Product  class        description             Battery energy          characteristic or   battery energy (kWh/
                                                                         battery voltage             yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  Low-Energy...........  <=5 Wh....................  Inductive Connection  3.04
                                                                       in Wet Environments.
2................  Low-Energy, Low-       <100 Wh...................  <4 V................  0.1440 * Ebatt +
                    Voltage.                                                                 2.95
3................  Low-Energy, Medium-    ..........................  4-10 V..............  For Ebatt <10Wh, UEC
                    Voltage.                                                                 = 1.42 kWh/y
                                                                                            Ebatt >=10 Wh, UEC =
                                                                                             0.0255 * Ebatt +
                                                                                             1.16
4................  Low-Energy, High-      ..........................  >10 V...............  0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18
                    Voltage.
5................  Medium-Energy, Low-    100-3000 Wh...............  <20 V...............  0.0257 * Ebatt +
                    Voltage.                                                                 .815
6................  Medium-Energy, High-   ..........................  >=20 V..............  0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4
                    Voltage.
7................  High-Energy..........  >3000 Wh..................  ....................  0.0502 * Ebatt +
                                                                                             4.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38268]]

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I-2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
adopted 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 (``PC'') (see section IV.F.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The average LCC savings are measured relative to the 
efficiency distribution in the no-standards case, which depicts the 
market in the compliance year in the absence of standards (see 
section IV.F.10). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare 
specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline 
model (see section IV.C.1).

          Table I-2--Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Average LCC                       Average
                          Product class                               savings     Simple payback     lifetime
                                                                      (2013$)     period (years)      (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC 1--Low E, Inductive..........................................            0.71             1.5             5.0
PC 2--Low E, Low Voltage........................................            0.07             0.6             4.0
PC 3--Low E, Medium Voltage.....................................            0.08             0.8             4.9
PC 4--Low E, High Voltage.......................................            0.11             1.4             3.7
PC 5--Medium E, Low Voltage.....................................            0.84             2.7             4.0
PC 6--Medium E, High Voltage....................................            1.89             1.1             9.7
PC 7--High E....................................................           51.06             0.0             3.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the 
discounted cash flows to the industry from the reference 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 no-standards case is $79.9 billion in 2013$. 
Under the adopted standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up 
to 0.7 percent of this INPV, which is approximately $529 million. 
Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the domestic manufacturers 
of battery chargers, DOE does not expect significant impacts on 
manufacturing capacity or loss of employment for the industry as a 
whole to result from the standards for battery chargers.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on 
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document.

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

    \4\ All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2013 
dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2015 unless 
explicitly stated otherwise. Energy savings in this section refer to 
the full-fuel-cycle savings (see section IV.H for discussion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers would save a significant amount of 
energy. Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy 
savings for battery chargers purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2018-
2047), amount to 0.173 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or 
``quads.'' \5\ This represents a savings of 11.2 percent relative to 
the energy use of these products in the case without adopted standards 
(referred to as the ``no-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A quad is equal to 10\15\ Btu. The quantity refers to full-
fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 
energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary 
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, 
presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 
standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer costs 
and savings of the standards for battery chargers 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 standards for battery chargers are projected to 
yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the 
standards would result in cumulative greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emission 
reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 10.79 
million metric tons (Mt) \6\ of carbon dioxide (CO2), 6.58 
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 18.83 thousand tons 
of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 43.6 thousand tons of methane 
(CH4), 0.136 thousand tons of nitrous oxide 
(N2O), and 0.024 tons of mercury (Hg).\7\ The cumulative 
reduction in CO2 emissions through 2030 amounts to 4.4 Mt, 
which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual 
electricity use of approximately 600,000 homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy 
Outlook 2015 (AEO 2015) Reference case, which generally represents 
current legislation and environmental regulations for which 
implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 working group.\8\ The derivation of the SCC values is 
discussed in section IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate for each 
set of SCC values (see Table I-3), DOE estimates that the net present 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction (not including 
CO2-equivalent emissions of other gases with global warming 
potential) is between $0.086 billion and $1.121 billion, with a value 
of $0.370 billion using the central SCC case represented by $40.0/t in 
2015. DOE also estimates that the net present monetary value of the 
NOX emissions reduction to be $20.84 million at a 7-percent 
discount rate, and $41.55 million at a 3-percent discount rate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ United States Government-Interagency Working Group on Social 
Cost of Carbon. Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the 
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 
Order 12866. May 2013. Revised July 2015. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf.
    \9\ DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX 
emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using 
benefit per ton estimates from the Regulatory Impact Analysis for 
the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA's 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available at 
www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis. See section IV.L.2 for further discussion. The U.S. 
Supreme Court has stayed the rule implementing the Clean Power Plan 
until the current litigation against it concludes. Chamber of 
Commerce, et al. v. EPA, et al., Order in Pending Case, 136 S.Ct. 
999 (2016). However, the benefit-per-ton estimates established in 
the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan are based on 
scientific studies that remain valid irrespective of the legal 
status of the Clean Power Plan. DOE is primarily using a national 
benefit-per-ton estimate for NOX emitted from the 
Electricity Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature 
mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al. 2009). If the 
benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study 
(Lepuele et al. 2011), the values would be nearly two-and-a-half 
times larger.

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

[[Page 38269]]

    Table I-3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to 
result from the adopted standards for battery chargers.

   Table I-3--Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Adopted 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 ($12.2/t               0.1               5
 case) **...............................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.0/t               0.4               3
 case) **...............................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.3/t               0.6             2.5
 case) **...............................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t                1.1               3
 case) **...............................
NOX Reduction Monetized Value [dagger]..            0.02               7
                                                    0.04               3
Total Benefits [dagger][dagger].........             1.1               7
                                                     1.8               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Installed Costs....             0.1               7
                                                     0.2               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including Emissions Reduction Monetized              1.0               7
 Value [dagger][dagger].................
                                                     1.6               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with battery
  chargers shipped in 2018-2047. These results include benefits to
  consumers which accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018-
  2047. The costs account for the incremental variable and fixed costs
  incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be
  incurred in preparation for the rule.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in
  2013$, 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] DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions reductions
  associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates
  from the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final
  Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
  and Standards. (Available at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.) See section IV.L.2
  for further discussion. DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-
  ton estimate for NOX emitted from the Electricity Generating Unit
  sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the
  ACS study (Krewski et al., 2009). If the benefit-per-ton estimates
  were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al., 2011), the values
  would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger.
[dagger][dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived
  using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount
  rate ($40.0/t case).

    The benefits and costs of the adopted standards for battery 
chargers 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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,\11\ the SCC values in future years 
reflect future

[[Page 38270]]

CO2-emissions impacts that continue beyond 2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 adopted standards 
are shown in Table I-4. 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 that has a value of $40.0/t in 2015, the 
estimated 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 $1.92 million in reduced NOX 
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $81 million per 
year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and 
the SCC series has a value of $40.5/t in 2015, the estimated cost of 
the standards is $10 million per year in increased equipment costs, 
while the estimated annual benefits are $75 million per year in reduced 
operating costs, $20 million in CO2 reductions, and $2.25 
million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net 
benefit amounts to $88 million per year.

                                   Table I-4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Standards for Battery Chargers (TSL 2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Million 2013$/year
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Discount rate                                        Low net benefits estimate  High net benefits estimate
                                                                          Primary estimate *                   *                           *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...  7%..............................  68........................  68........................  69.
                                    3...............................  75........................  74........................  76.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value       5...............................  6.........................  6.........................  6.
 ($12.2/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value       3...............................  20........................  20........................  20.
 ($40.0/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value       2.5.............................  29........................  29........................  29.
 ($62.3/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value       3...............................  61........................  61........................  61.
 ($117/t case) **.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value       7...............................  1.92......................  1.92......................  4.34.
 [dagger].
                                    3...............................  2.25......................  2.25......................  5.13.
Total Benefits [dagger][dagger]...  7 plus CO2 range................  76 to 131.................  76 to 131.................  80 to 134.
                                    7...............................  90........................  90........................  94.
                                    3 plus CO2 range................  82 to 136.................  82 to 136.................  83 to 138.
                                    3...............................  97........................  97........................  101.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs  7%..............................  9.........................  9.........................  6.
                                    3...............................  10........................  10........................  6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger][dagger]............  7% plus CO2 range...............  67 to 122.................  67 to 121.................  73 to 128.
                                    7...............................  81........................  81........................  87.
                                    3 plus CO2 range................  74 to 128.................  73 to 128.................  81 to 136.
                                    3...............................  88........................  87........................  95.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 2015 (``AEO 2015'') 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$ per metric ton (t), 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] DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the
  Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
  (Available at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.) See section IV.L.2 for further discussion.
  For the Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NOX emitted from the Electric Generating Unit
  sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al., 2009). For DOE's High Net Benefits Estimate, the
  benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al., 2011), which are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the
  ACS study.
[dagger][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 ($40.0/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.

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

D. Conclusion

    Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the 
benefits to the Nation of the standards (energy savings, consumer LCC 
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions) 
outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC increases for some users of 
these products). DOE has concluded that the standards in this final 
rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result 
in significant conservation of energy.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical

[[Page 38271]]

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 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 EPCA established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,\12\ a program 
covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as 
``covered products''). Battery chargers are among the products affected 
by these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated as 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 procedures 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 Y.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including battery chargers. 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 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))
    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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe 
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States in 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))
    Additionally, EPCA 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) C onsume 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 the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards 
promulgated after July 1,

[[Page 38272]]

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, 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 new standards adopted in this final rule for battery 
chargers address standby mode and off mode energy use.
    Section 135 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (``EPACT 2005''), 
Public Law 109-58 (Aug. 8, 2005), amended sections 321 (42 U.S.C. 6291) 
and 325 (42 U.S.C. 6295) 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))

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    Currently, there are no Federal energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers
    On December 8, 2006, consistent with EPACT 2005, DOE published 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 CFR, included a definition and test procedures for 
battery chargers. The test procedures for these products are found in 
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix Y (``Uniform Test Method for 
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers'').
    On December 19, 2007, Congress enacted EISA 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))
    EISA 2007 (section 310) also 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 procedures for battery 
chargers. 74 FR 13318, 13334-13336 (March 27, 2009). Additionally, DOE 
amended the test procedures 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, after 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 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 and 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 technical support document (``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 establishing energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers according to the following classes:

   Table II-1--NOPR Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Battery
                                Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Proposed standard as a
      Product class            Product class        function of battery
                                description           energy (kWh/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................  Low-Energy, Inductive.  3.04.
2.......................  Low-Energy, Low-        0.2095 * (Ebatt) +
                           Voltage.                5.87.
3.......................  Low-Energy, Medium-     For Ebatt < 9.74 Wh,
                           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.

[[Page 38273]]

 
5.......................  Medium-Energy, Low-     For Ebatt < 355.18 Wh,
                           Voltage.                20.06;
                                                  For Ebatt >= 355.18
                                                   Wh, = 0.0219 *
                                                   (Ebatt) + 12.28.
6.......................  Medium-Energy, High-    For Ebatt < 239.48 Wh,
                           Voltage.                30.37;
                                                  For Ebatt >= 239.48
                                                   Wh, = 0.0495 *
                                                   (Ebatt) + 18.51.
7.......................  High-Energy...........  0.0502 * (Ebatt) +
                                                   4.53.
8.......................  Low-Voltage DC Input..  0.1140 * (Ebatt) +
                                                   0.42;
                                                  For Ebatt < 1.17 Wh,
                                                   0.55 kWh/yr.
9.......................  High-Voltage DC Input.  No Standard.
10a.....................  AC Output, VFD          For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh,
                           (Voltage and            2.54;
                           Frequency Dependent).  For Ebatt >= 37.2 Wh,
                                                   0.0733 * (Ebatt) -
                                                   0.18.
10b.....................  AC Output, VI (Voltage  For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh,
                           Independent).           6.18;
                                                  For Ebatt >= 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. All 
commenters, along with their corresponding abbreviations and 
organization type, are listed in Table II-2 of this section.

                                       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 Association             124
 Manufacturers.
Brother International Corporation.......  Brother International.....  Manufacturer..............             111
California Building Industry Association  CBIA......................  Industry Trade Association             126
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 Association             106
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 Association             131
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 Association             134
 Association.
Natural Resources Defense Council.......  NRDC......................  Energy Efficiency Advocate             114
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 Partnerships  NEEP......................  Energy Efficiency Advocate        144, 160
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 Association             147
Power Tool Institute, Inc...............  PTI.......................  Industry Trade Association             133
Power Tool Institute, Inc., Association   PTI, AHAM, CEA............  Industry Trade Association             161
 of Home Appliance Manufacturers,
 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
Southern California Edison..............  SCE.......................  Utility...................             164
Telecommunications Industry Association.  TIA.......................  Industry Trade Association             127

[[Page 38274]]

 
Wahl Clipper Corporation................  Wahl Clipper..............  Manufacturer..............             153
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of particular interest to commenters was the potential interplay 
between DOE's proposal and a competing battery charger energy 
efficiency requirement that had been approved 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 
took effect on February 1, 2013,\13\ 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 from 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 
the CEC 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 Association.         203
Alliance for Wireless Power..............  A4WP........................  Standard Development                196
                                                                          Organization.
ASAP, NRDC, ACEEE, CFA, NCLC, NEEA, NPCC   ASAP, NRDC, ACEEE, CFA,       Energy Efficiency Advocates         206
 Joint Comments.                            NCLC, NEEA, NPCC.
Association of Home Appliance              AHAM........................  Industry Trade Association.         202
 Manufacturers.
Brother International Corporation........  Brother International.......  Manufacturer...............         204
California Energy Commission.............  California Energy Commission  State Entity...............         199
California IOUs..........................  CA IOUs.....................  Utilities..................         197
Consumer Electronics Association.........  CEA.........................  Industry Trade Association.         208
Dual-Lite, a division of Hubbell Lighting  Dual-Lite...................  Manufacturer...............         189
Energizer Holdings.......................  Energizer...................  Manufacturer...............         213
Garmin International.....................  Garmin......................  Manufacturer...............         194
Information Technology Industry Council..  ITI.........................  Industry Trade Association.         201
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 Association  NMMA........................  Industry Trade Association.         190
NEEA and NPCC............................  NEEA and NPCC...............  Industry Trade Association.         200
P&G (Duracell)...........................  Duracell....................  Manufacturer...............         193
Panasonic................................  Panasonic...................  Manufacturer...............         210
Philips..................................  Philips.....................  Manufacturer...............         198
Power Tool Institute.....................  PTI.........................  Industry Trade Association.         207
Schneider Electric.......................  Schneider Electric..........  Manufacturer...............         211
Schumacher Electric......................  Schumacher Electric.........  Manufacturer...............         192
Telecommunications Industry Association..  TIA.........................  Industry Trade Association.         205
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 addressed these comments by updating and revising its analysis 
in the September 2015 SNOPR by considering, among other things, the 
impacts attributable to the standards issued by the 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 also showed 
that setting standards that approximated the CEC standards were 
technologically feasible and economically justified for the U.S. as a 
whole. Therefore, the SNOPR outlined standards that were approximately 
equivalent, or where justified, more stringent than the CEC standards. 
The revisions to the analysis, which addressed 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 its proposal to account for the impact of 
the CEC standards, DOE made several other changes in preparing these 
revised standards--including adjusting its analyses in line with 
updated information and data. These post-NOPR changes are presented in 
Table II-4.

[[Page 38275]]



    Table II-4--Summary of Significant Changes Between NOPR and SNOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Item                      NOPR           Changes for SNOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Proposed Standard Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Standard for PC 1...  = 3.04..............  No Change.
Proposed Standard for PC 2...  = 0.2095(Ebatt) +     0.1440(Ebatt) +
                                5.87.                 2.95.
Proposed Standard for PC 3...  For Ebatt < 9.74 Wh,  For Ebatt < 10Wh, =
                                = 4.68 For Ebatt >=   1.42; Ebatt >= 10
                                9.74 Wh, =            Wh, 0.0255(Ebatt)
                                0.0933(Ebatt) +       + 1.16.
                                3.77.
Proposed Standard for PC 4...  For Ebatt < 9.71 Wh,  0.11(Ebatt) + 3.18.
                                = 9.03 For Ebatt >=
                                9.71 Wh, =
                                0.2411(Ebatt) +
                                6.69.
Proposed Standard for PC 5...  For Ebatt < 355.18    For Ebatt < 19 Wh,
                                Wh, = 20.06 For       1.32 kWh/yr; For
                                Ebatt >= 355.18 Wh,   Ebatt >= 19 Wh,
                                = 0.0219(Ebatt) +     0.0257(Ebatt) +
                                12.28.                .815.
Proposed Standard for PC 6...  For Ebatt < 239.48    For Ebatt < 18 Wh,
                                Wh, = 30.37 For       3.88 kWh/yr; For
                                Ebatt >= 239.48 Wh,   Ebatt >= 18 Wh,
                                = 0.0495(Ebatt) +     0.0778(Ebatt) +
                                18.51.                2.4.
Proposed Standard for PC 7...  = 0.0502(Ebatt) +     No Change.
                                4.53.
Proposed Standard for PC 8...  = 0.1140(Ebatt)+      Removed, covered
                                0.42 For Ebatt <      under PC 2
                                1.17 Wh, = 0.55 kWh/  proposed
                                yr.                   standards.
Proposed Standard for PC 9...  No Standard.........  No Change.
Proposed Standard for PC 10a.  For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh,  Deferred to Future
                                = 2.54 For Ebatt >=   Rulemaking.
                                37.2 Wh, =
                                0.0733(Ebatt)--0.18.
Proposed Standard for PC 10b.  For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh,  Deferred to Future
                                = 6.18 For Ebatt >=   Rulemaking.
                                37.2 Wh, =
                                0.0733(Ebatt) +
                                3.45.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Changes in Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Analysis--         Combination of test   Used new or updated
 Representative Units.          data and              units in PC 2, PC
                                manufacturer inputs.  3, PC 4, 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 of   PC 2, PC 3, PC 4,
                                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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \14\ published on July 11, 2014. 
DOE had planned to include uninterruptible power supplies (``UPSs'') 
within the scope of coverage of that rulemaking effort and as a result, 
DOE did not consider these products within the scope of the battery 
chargers rulemaking. However, since the publication of the SNOPR and 
Computer and Battery Backup Systems Framework document, DOE, after 
consideration of stakeholder comments, is now considering including 
UPSs within the scope of its battery charger regulations. Accordingly, 
DOE published a Notice of Proposed Test Procedure for Battery Chargers 
proposing specific testing requirements for UPSs on May 19, 2016. See 
81 FR 31542. DOE is not finalizing standards for UPSs at this time, but 
will continue to conduct rulemaking activities to consider test 
procedures and energy conservation standards for UPSs as part of 
ongoing and future battery charger rulemaking proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-
STD-0025-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, in the September 2015 SNOPR, DOE identified 10 specific 
issues on which it sought comments and views of interested parties. Id. 
at 52931-52932. DOE also held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on 
September 15, 2015, to receive public comments on its revised proposal. 
DOE also received written comments responding to the September 2015 
SNOPR, which are further presented and addressed throughout this 
document. All commenters, along with their corresponding abbreviations 
and organization type, are listed in Table II-5 of this Preamble.

                                      Table II-5--List of SNOPR Commenters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Organization                        Abbreviation                Organization type        Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARRIS Group, Inc. and Cisco Systems, Inc.  ARRIS and Cisco.............  Manufacturer................        250
Association of Home Appliance              AHAM........................  Standard Development                246
 Manufacturers.                                                           Organization.
California Energy Commission.............  CEC.........................  State Agency................        241
California Investor Owned Utilities......  CA IOUs.....................  Utility Association.........        251
Delta-Q Technologies Corp................  Delta-Q Technologies........  Manufacturer................        238
Environmental Defense Fund, Institute for  EDF, Institute for Policy     Energy Efficiency Advocacy          239
 Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law,     Integrity, NRDC, UCS.         Group.
 Natural Resources Defense Council, Union
 of Concerned Scientists.
Information Technology Industry Council..  ITI.........................  Trade Association...........        248
Ingersoll Rand...........................  Ingersoll Rand..............  Manufacturer................        240

[[Page 38276]]

 
iRobot Corporation.......................  iRobot......................  Manufacturer................        237
National Electrical Manufacturers          NEMA........................  Trade Association...........        246
 Association.
Natural Resources Defense Council,         NRDC, ASAP, NEEA............  Energy Efficiency Advocate          252
 Appliance Standards Awareness Project,                                   Group.
 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Philips Electronics North America          Philips.....................  Manufacturer................        245
 Corporation.
People's Republic of China...............  P. R. China.................  Foreign Government..........        254
Power MergerCo, Inc......................  Power MergerCo..............  Standard Development                247
                                                                          Organization.
Power Tool Institute, Inc................  PTI.........................  Trade Association...........        244
Schneider Electric.......................  Schneider...................  Manufacturer................        253
SNOPR Public Meeting Transcript, various   Pub. Mtg. Tr................  Public Meeting..............        234
 parties.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ACC, ACCCI,      U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et  Trade Association...........        242
 AF&PA, AFPM, API, BIA, CIBO, NAM, NMA,     al.
 NOPA, PCA.
Wahl Clipper Corporation.................  Wahl Clipper................  Manufacturer................        243
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering and responding to all comments submitted by these 
stakeholders, DOE is adopting the proposed standards for battery 
chargers from the SNOPR in this final rule. Table II-6 of this Preamble 
presents major changes between the SNOPR and the final rule.

 Table II-6--Summary of Significant Changes Between SNOPR and Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Changes for final
            Item                      SNOPR                 rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard for PC 1...........  = 3.04..............  No Change.
Standard for PC 2...........  0.1440(Ebatt) + 2.95  No Change.
Standard for PC 3...........  For Ebatt < 10Wh, =   No Change.
                               1.42; Ebatt >= 10
                               Wh, 0.0255(Ebatt) +
                               1.16.
Standard for PC 4...........  0.11(Ebatt) + 3.18..  No Change.
Standard for PC 5...........  For Ebatt < 19 Wh,    0.0257(Ebatt) + .815
                               1.32 kWh/yr; For      (Removed Boundary
                               Ebatt >= 19 Wh,       Condition).
                               0.0257(Ebatt) +
                               .815.
Standard for PC 6...........  For Ebatt < 18 Wh,    0.0778(Ebatt) + 2.4
                               3.88 kWh/yr; For      (Removed Boundary
                               Ebatt >= 18 Wh,       Condition).
                               0.0778(Ebatt) + 2.4.
Standard for PC 7...........  = 0.0502(Ebatt) +     No Change.
                               4.53.
Standard for PC 8...........  Removed, covered      No Change.
                               under PC 2 proposed
                               standards.
Standard for PC 9...........  No Standard.........  No Change.
Standard for PC 10a.........  No Standard.........  No Change.
Standard for PC 10b.........  No Standard.........  No Change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

    DOE developed this final rule after considering verbal and written 
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent 
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues 
raised by these commenters.

A. Test Procedure

    Prior to the publication of the SNOPR regarding energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers, DOE also published a NOPR proposing to 
clarify certain aspects related to the battery charger test procedure. 
These revisions include harmonizing with the instrumentation resolution 
and uncertainty requirements of the second edition of the International 
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') 62301 standard for standby power 
measurements, updates to the battery selection criteria for multi-
voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers to eliminate ambiguity, 
exclusion of back-up battery chargers from scope, a provision for the 
conditioning of lead acid batteries prior to testing and updates to the 
requirements for certification and enforcement testing of battery 
chargers. DOE has since finalized the proposed revisions and has 
updated the test procedures for battery chargers in Appendix Y to 10 
CFR part 430 subpart B. DOE notes that none of the amendments to the 
battery charger test procedure will have an impact on the standards 
adopted in this document and advises stakeholders to review them in 
Appendix Y to 10 CFR part 430 subpart B.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ DOE notes that its procedures found at 10 part CFR 430, 
subpart C, appendix A provide general procedures, interpretations, 
and policies to guide DOE in the consideration and promulgation of 
new or revised efficiency standards under EPCA for consumer 
products. While these procedures are a general guide to the steps 
DOE typically follows in promulgating energy conservation standards, 
appendix A recognizes that DOE can and will, on occasion deviate 
from the typical process. Accordingly, to the extent that such 
deviation may occur, such as with the publication timing of the 
relevant test procedure and standards final rule notices, DOE has 
concluded that there is no basis to delay the final rule adopting 
standards for battery chargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
often divides covered products into product classes by the type of 
energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that 
justify 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))

C. Federal Preemption and Compliance Date

    Since the publication of its SNOPR regarding energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers, DOE has received several stakeholder 
comments related to Federal preemption of the CEC's

[[Page 38277]]

standards for battery chargers and the compliance date of any new 
Federal energy conservation standards that DOE may adopt for these 
products. First, NRDC argued that DOE's adoption of the SNOPR standards 
as a final rule will preempt CEC's standard for UPSs, which, in its 
view, will result in a loss of potential energy savings. NRDC 
specifically requested either the removal of UPSs from covered products 
under this rulemaking or the adoption of standards proposed in the NOPR 
for UPSs. NRDC also requested that any final rule issued by DOE clarify 
the application of Federal preemption in such a way to ensure that UPSs 
will remain covered under the CEC standards until DOE sets standards 
for these devices. (NRDC, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 234, p. 22-24) 
Additionally, NEEA inquired if State standards for battery chargers are 
preempted at the publication of Federal final rule or when the Federal 
final rule becomes effective. (NEEA, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 234, p. 24-25) 
ITI submitted comments emphasizing the need for clarity in the scope of 
both the test procedures and energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers in terms of Federal preemption. (ITI, No. 248, p. 1) 
Similarly, iRobot recommended that DOE add clarifying language in this 
rulemaking stating that all battery chargers will be covered regardless 
of connectivity or use except where explicitly exempted. In iRobot's 
view, if a category of battery charger is not covered, preemption would 
not apply and States could then develop their own efficiency standards. 
(iRobot, No. 237, p. 1) PTI inquired whether Product Class 9 is still 
subject to Federal preemption even if DOE is proposing a no-standard 
standard for it. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 234, p. 19).
    DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(ii), the preemption of any 
State or local energy conservation standard that has already been 
prescribed or enacted for battery chargers prior to DOE's issuance of 
energy conservation standards for these products shall not apply until 
the DOE standards take effect. In DOE's view, the standards for these 
products do not take effect until the compliance date has been reached. 
Accordingly, the CEC standards, along with any other State or local 
standards, including for back-up battery chargers and UPSs, prescribed 
or enacted before publication of this final rule, will not be preempted 
until the compliance date of Federal energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers--in this case, 2018. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ii)(1)).
    DOE also received stakeholder comments on the compliance date of 
energy conservation standards for battery chargers. AHAM supported a 
compliance date of two (2) years after the publication of any final 
rule establishing energy conservation standards for battery chargers 
provided that the adopted levels do not exceed EL 1 for PC 1, and EL 2 
for PCs 2,3, and 4. If DOE adopts anything more stringent than these 
levels, AHAM requested that a second SNOPR be issued seeking comments 
on the newly proposed levels and accompanying compliance date. Lastly, 
in the absence of an opportunity to comment on levels other than EL 2 
for PCs 2, 3, 4 and EL 0 or EL 1 for PC 1, AHAM opposed a compliance 
date lead-time of only two years but offered no alternative and 
accompanying rationale for DOE to consider. (AHAM, No. 249, p. 4)
    DOE has made an effort to consider candidate standards levels for 
battery chargers that closely approximate the CEC standards and as a 
result, for PCs 2 through 6, the standards DOE is adopting for these 
classes are approximately equivalent to the corresponding CEC 
standards. DOE's efficiency distribution analysis for the SNOPR also 
shows that 95 percent of battery chargers sold in the United States 
already meet the CEC standards. Therefore, for PCs 2 through 6, a vast 
majority (95 percent) of the battery chargers sold in the United States 
will already comply with the standards DOE is adopting for these 
battery charger classes.
    For PCs 1 and 7, DOE is adopting standards more stringent than the 
comparable CEC standards. These more stringent levels were determined 
to be both technically feasible and economically justified under DOE's 
detailed analysis. This analysis also indicates that the battery 
charger industry is characterized by rapid product development 
lifecycles. These rapid development lifecycles have led DOE to conclude 
that a two-year lead-time is sufficient to enable manufacturers of 
battery chargers that do not currently comply with the standards that 
DOE is adopting in this rule (i.e. PCs 1 and 7 and the remaining 5 
percent of battery chargers falling under PCs 2 through 6 that do not 
meet the current CEC standards) to satisfy these new standards by the 
time the 2018 compliance date is reached.

D. Technological Feasibility

    The following sections address the manner in which DOE assessed the 
technological feasibility of the new standards adopted in this final 
rule. Energy conservation standards promulgated by DOE must be 
technologically feasible.
1. General
    In each energy conservation 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 means for improving efficiency are 
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in 
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible. See, e.g. 10 CFR part 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, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety. See 10 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 (``EL''). Section I.B of this final rule 
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 standards considered in this 
rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this 
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final rule 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 its September 2015 supplemental 
proposal, which this rule adopts. At this time, based on the 
information analyzed and relied on in support of this rulemaking, DOE 
believes that the standards adopted in this rule will not require the 
use of any such technologies.

[[Page 38278]]

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it 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)) Accordingly, in the 
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for battery 
chargers by examining a variety of relevant sources of information, 
including the design parameters used by the most efficient products 
available on the market, conducting interviews with manufacturers, 
vetting available manufacturer data with subject matter experts, and 
obtaining public feedback on DOE's analytical results.
    In preparing this final rule, which incorporates into its analysis 
the 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 had previously not generated 
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 final rule TSD.) Table III-1 of this Preamble shows 
the reduction in energy consumption when increasing efficiency from the 
no-standards to the max-tech efficiency level.

                  Table III-1--Reduction in Energy Consumption at Max-Tech for Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Reduction of  energy
                                                          Max-tech unit  energy     consumption relative to  the
                    Product class                         consumption  (kWh/yr)           no-standards case
                                                                                            (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 can be 
found in the discussion of efficiency levels (``ELs'') in Section 
IV.C.4. Specific details regarding which design options were considered 
for the max-tech efficiency levels (and all other ELs) can be found in 
Chapter 5, Section 5.4 of the accompanying final rule TSD, which has 
been developed as a stand-alone document for this final rule and 
supports all of the standard levels adopted.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy 
savings from application of the TSL to battery chargers purchased in 
the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with any 
adopted standards (2018-2047). The savings are measured over the entire 
lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year analysis period.\16\ DOE 
quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the 
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the 
no-standards case. The no-standards 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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 national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models 
to estimate energy savings from potential new standards for battery 
chargers. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section I.H of this 
final rule) calculates 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 the site electricity. To 
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 and notice of policy amendment, the FFC metric includes the 
energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary 
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a 
more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 
76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 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 standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that 
such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term ``significant'' is not defined in the 
Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia 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 the context of EPCA to be savings that are not 
``genuinely trivial.'' The energy savings for all the TSLs considered 
in this rulemaking, including the adopted standards, are nontrivial, 
and, therefore, DOE considers them ``significant'' within the meaning 
of section 325 of EPCA.

[[Page 38279]]

F. 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 an 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 
(i.e. 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 LCC and PBP (i.e. the payback period) 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 LCC impacts of potential 
standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 
disproportionately by a national 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 cost (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 discount rates appropriate for 
consumers. 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.
    The PBP 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 
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with the 
new standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are 
calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends 
in the absence of new standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is 
discussed in further detail in section I.F.
c. Energy Savings
    Although the significant conservation of energy is a separate 
statutory requirement for adopting 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 I.H, DOE uses the NIA 
spreadsheet models 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 adopted in this final rule would not 
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration 
in this rulemaking. DOE received no comments that these standards would 
increase battery charger 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 the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from DOE's adoption of a given standard. (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. DOE transmitted a copy of its proposed rule to the 
Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
provide its determination on this issue. DOE also provided DOJ with a 
copy of its supplemental proposal in September 2015. DOE received no 
adverse comments from DOJ regarding either proposal.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    In general, 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)) Consistent with this 
result, the energy savings from the adopted standards are also 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 M.
    Additionally, apart from the savings described above, the adopted 
standards 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

[[Page 38280]]

potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section 
I.K; the emissions impacts are reported in section 6 of this final 
rule. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions 
resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section I.L.
g. Other Factors
    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To 
the extent interested parties submit any relevant information regarding 
economic justification that does not fit into the other categories 
described above, DOE could consider such information under ``other 
factors.''
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 (or 
amended) 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 final rule.

G. General Comments

    During the September 15, 2015, public meeting, and in subsequent 
written comments responding to the SNOPR, stakeholders provided input 
regarding general issues pertinent to the rulemaking, such as issues 
regarding the proposed standard levels. These issues are discussed in 
this section.
1. Proposed Standard Levels
    In response to the standard level proposed for product class 
(``PC'') 1, AHAM suggested that DOE update its analysis by further 
interviewing manufacturers and conducting more testing. AHAM suggested 
setting a standard at CSL 0. (AHAM, No. 249, p. 4) Philips did not 
support DOE's proposed standard for PC 1 and asserted that the standard 
for inductive chargers in PC 1 should be less stringent than for direct 
connect chargers in PC 2. (Philips, No. 245, p. 2) DOE notes that its 
analysis is based on the latest available data, which includes 
manufacturer interviews, testing, and product tear downs. DOE's 
analysis shows that the standard levels adopted for each product class 
are economically justified. PC 1 has only two applications, whereas PC 
2 has many applications with a variety of usage profiles. The standard 
for PC 1 that DOE is adopting in this final rule specifically targets 
the two analyzed applications of PC 1 to capture maximum energy savings 
while being technically feasible and economically justified for both 
applications. The standard for PC 2 that DOE is adopting in this final 
rule covers numerous applications and captures maximum energy savings 
while being technically feasible and economically justified for all 
applications, which have varying levels of fixed energy loss. 
Stakeholders did not provide DOE with any additional data that could be 
used to update the analysis.
    In response to the standard level proposed for PC 2, the CEC, CA 
IOUs, NRDC, ASAP, and NEEA urged DOE to consider setting a standard at 
CSL 2 instead of CSL 1, based on the LCC results for PC 2. (CEC, No. 
241, p. 2-3; CA IOUs, No. 251, p. 2-4; NRDC, ASAP, NEEA, No. 252, p. 4-
6) In contrast, AHAM, PTI, and ITI supported DOE's proposal of CSL 1 
for PC 2. (AHAM, No. 249, p. 2-3; PTI, No. 244, p. 2; ITI, No. 248, p. 
5)
    In response to the standard levels proposed for PCs 4, 5, and 6, 
Ingersoll Rand supported DOE's proposed standard levels. (Ingersoll 
Rand, No. 240, p. 2)
    The Department appreciates the stakeholder comments with regard to 
its proposed standards. In selecting a given standard, DOE must choose 
the level that achieves the maximum energy savings that is determined 
to be technologically feasible and economically justified. In making 
such a determination, DOE must consider, to the extent practicable, the 
benefits and burdens based on the seven criteria described in EPCA (see 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)). DOE's weighing of the benefits 
and burdens based on the final rule analysis and rationale for the 
standard selection is discussed in section V.
    With regard to PC 2 specifically, DOE notes that the SNOPR analysis 
showed that the distribution of impacts at CSL 2 is such that a small 
proportion of consumers experience a very positive LCC result, skewing 
the average to appear nearly as favorable as CSL 1, despite 
significantly more consumers being negatively impacted. Additionally, 
the application-specific LCC results for PC 2 show that half of all 
applications analyzed, including the two applications with the largest 
shipments (smartphones and mobile phones), have negative average LCC 
results. At CSL 1, no application in PC 2 has a negative average LCC. 
Finally, in the SNOPR consumer subgroup analysis, DOE identified the 
small business subgroup as being negatively impacted by a standard set 
at CSL 2 for PC 2, whereas no subgroup is negatively impacted by a 
standard set at CSL 1. For these reasons, DOE determined that CSL 2 for 
PC 2 was not economically justified in the SNOPR. DOE's analysis and 
determination have not changed for the final rule. Results are 
discussed further in section V of this document and in Chapter 11 of 
the final rule TSD.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has 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 considered in this document. First, DOE used a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC and PBP of the new energy conservation 
standards. Second, the NIA uses a second spreadsheet that provides 
shipments forecasts and calculates national energy savings and net 
present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result 
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 in the docket for this rulemaking: 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.

[[Page 38281]]

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE 
develops information in the market and technology assessment that 
provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, 
including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, 
manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the 
products. 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: (1) A determination of the scope of the rulemaking 
and product classes; (2) manufacturers and industry structure; (3) 
existing efficiency programs; (4) shipments information; (5) market and 
industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could 
improve the energy efficiency of battery chargers. See chapter 3 of the 
final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology 
assessment.
1. Products Included in This Rulemaking
    This section addresses the scope of coverage for this final rule 
and details which products are subject to the standards adopted in this 
document. The 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 charging the battery. 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 that are only powered 
from AC mains (or ``mains'')--i.e. products that plug into a wall 
outlet. Further, battery chargers may be wholly embedded in another 
consumer product, wholly separate from another consumer product, or 
partially inside and partially outside another consumer product. While 
devices that meet the statutory definition are within the scope of this 
rulemaking, DOE is not setting standards for all battery chargers. The 
following subsections summarize and address stakeholder comments 
received on the SNOPR regarding the scope of this rulemaking.
a. Consumer Products
    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 of battery chargers 
are advised to use this definition (in conjunction with the battery 
charger definition) to determine whether a given device is subject to 
the battery charger standards adopted in this final rule. Consistent 
with these definitions, any battery charger that is of a type that is 
capable of charging batteries for a consumer product is 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 those 
battery chargers that have identifiable design characteristics that 
would make them incapable of charging batteries for a consumer product 
would be considered to not meet EPCA's definition of a battery charger. 
DOE considers the inability 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 not capable of charging the batteries of a consumer product.
    DOE received comments on the SNOPR from Delta Q requesting that DOE 
follow the CEC's lead in setting energy conservation standards for non-
consumer and high-power (above 2 kW input power or with higher input 
voltages) battery chargers. Delta Q also suggested that DOE explicitly 
specify that the CEC's standards for non-consumer and high-power 
battery chargers will not be preempted in case DOE decides not to 
regulate these battery chargers. (Delta Q, No. 238, p. 2) DOE's 
authority to establish energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers comes from Title III, Part B of EPCA, which empowers DOE to 
establish energy conservation standards for consumer products other 
than automobiles. As such, DOE does not have the statutory authority to 
establish energy conservation standards for battery chargers that do 
not meet the definition prescribed by EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). 
Furthermore, this final rule does not set, nor does it rely on, minimum 
or maximum input power restrictions for its scope of covered consumer 
products. A product that meets the definition of a battery charger as 
stated in 10 CFR 430.2 (and that charges a product that is consistent 
with EPCA's consumer product definition) is a covered product under the 
scope of this rulemaking and subject to Federal preemption in a manner 
consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(ii) and 6297. DOE notes that some of the 
products that meet these conditions can also be employed in commercial 
applications and as such, DOE's analysis has taken into consideration 
the impact of this regulation on commercial entities that are affected 
by it.
b. Basic Model of Battery Charger
    This rule requires manufacturers to certify compliance of the basic 
models of their battery chargers to the energy conservation standards 
DOE is adopting. In response to the SNOPR, DOE received comments from 
AHAM highlighting that the definition of basic model in 10 CFR 430.2 
indicates that manufacturers may group into one basic model products 
having ``essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional . . 
. characteristics that affect . . . energy efficiency''. AHAM requested 
DOE to expressly indicate in this rulemaking or in the definition of 
basic model that in determining whether a product has the same 
electrical or physical characteristics that affect energy efficiency, 
the battery charging phase is the relevant phase, not the usage phase. 
(AHAM. No. 249, p. 7)
    DOE believes it is sufficiently unambiguous that a basic model as 
defined in 10 CFR 430.2 applies solely to the covered product, 
regardless of whether or not that product is embedded in another end-
use product. Since the energy conservation standards set forth in this 
final rule pertains only to battery chargers, it is the charging 
components that must meet the criteria of a basic model as defined in 
10 CFR 430.2.
c. Wireless Power
    Although DOE's May 15, 2014 NODA (79 FR 27774) sought input on 
wireless charging stations that are specifically designed to operate in 
dry environments, DOE did not explicitly consider these products when 
first developing the battery charger test procedures. In the battery 
charger test procedure NOPR, DOE stated that it planned to address 
wireless chargers designed for dry environments in a separate 
rulemaking. See 80 FR 46855 (August 6, 2015). DOE received comments on 
the SNOPR from ITI and Power MergerCo requesting that DOE

[[Page 38282]]

promptly issue a determination for wireless charging systems such that, 
under section 6295(o)(3)(B), establishment of energy conservation 
standards for wireless charging systems designed to operate in dry 
environments will not result in significant conservation of energy or 
that the establishment of such a standard is not technologically 
feasible or economically justified at this time. (ITI, No. 248, p. 3, 
Power MergerCo, No. 247, p. 4) Similarly, DOE received comments from 
iRobot recommending that DOE expressly state that PCs 2 through 7 are 
specific to galvanic coupled battery chargers. (iRobot, No. 237, p. 1)
    DOE reiterates that only battery chargers with inductive 
connections that are designed to operate in wet conditions are 
addressed by the standards laid out for PC 1 devices in this final 
rule. In making this determination, DOE considered the loss of utility 
and performance likely to result from the promulgation of a standard 
for a nascent technology such as wireless charging. This approach 
allows DOE to set standards for the mature technology found in electric 
toothbrushes while avoiding unintentional restrictions on the 
development of new inductively-charged products. In response to 
iRobot's comment, DOE interprets `Non-galvanic coupled' chargers to be 
wireless battery chargers. As such, wireless battery chargers that do 
not meet the scope of PC 1 will not be subject to any other standard 
adopted in this final rule.
d. USB-Charged Devices
    DOE received comments on the SNOPR from ITI claiming there are a 
number of USB-charged devices peripheral to computers, televisions and 
other consumer products where the burden of testing and certifying the 
products exceeds any possible energy efficiency benefits. ITI argued 
these USB-charged devices are not dependent on AC mains input and will 
have significant margins when compared to battery chargers covered 
under the regulation with alternating current/direct current (``AC/
DC'') power supplies. In its view, regulation of these products at 
either the federal or state level would not be economically justified. 
(ITI, No. 248, p. 4)
    The peripheral USB-charged devices mentioned by ITI fall both into 
Product Classes 2 and 8. While PC 8 covers products that require a DC 
input, these devices can also be operated using an EPS, which 
reclassifies these products as having an AC input and DC output and 
essentially also places them into PC 2. As described in the SNOPR, DOE 
has determined that there are no products falling into PC 8 that do not 
also fall into PC 2 and that the battery chargers previously analyzed 
in PC 8 do not technically or functionally differ from those found in 
PC 2. ITI's claim that these USB-charged devices are not dependent on 
mains input is true but it does not refute DOE's determination that 
these devices can be operated using an EPS. Furthermore, DOE's battery 
charger test procedure requires that all battery chargers be tested 
using an external power supply, and provides sufficient instructions in 
section 3.4(c) of Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430 in the event the 
required external power supply is either not packaged with the battery 
charger or a suitable one is not recommended by the manufacturer. The 
test procedure indicates that in such an event, the battery charger 
shall be tested with either 5.0V DC for products drawing power from a 
computer USB port or the mid-point of the rated input voltage range for 
all other products. Hence, the peripheral devices in ITI's comment will 
be tested using an EPS, which makes them comparable to all other 
battery chargers using an EPS, and subject to the standard adopted for 
PC 2. Furthermore, DOE's engineering, manufacturer impact and national 
impact analyses show that the adopted standard for PC 2 is 
technologically feasible and economically justified.
e. Spare and Replacement Parts for Battery Chargers
    ITI asked that DOE provide a 7-year exemption for spare and 
replacement parts for battery chargers once the final rule is issued. 
ITI argued that the requested exemption will allow manufacturer 
compliance with State parts retention laws and avoid premature disposal 
of functional equipment already in the marketplace. (ITI, No. 248, p. 
4) Congress has not provided any exemptions for spare and replacement 
parts for battery chargers nor has Congress given DOE the authority to 
do so as it did with EPSs. See EPS Service Parts Act of 2014, Public 
Law 113-263 (December 18, 2014) (codified in relevant part at 42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(5)). Furthermore, in the case of battery chargers embedded in 
end-use products, it is not clear which applications would be involved. 
Therefore, DOE is unable to provide any exemptions for spare and 
replacement parts for battery chargers.
f. Medical Products
    In the SNOPR, DOE decided to refrain from setting standards for 
medical devices 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)). 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 and stakeholder comments 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 is finalizing its decision of refraining from setting 
standards for medical device battery chargers that require FDA listing 
and approval as a life-sustaining or life-supporting device at this 
time.
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 final rule 
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 Table I-1. That is, DOE's omission of any 
particular battery charger application

[[Page 38283]]

from its analysis is not, by itself, an indication that the battery 
charger that powers that application is not 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 the final rule, 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. The complete shipment analysis can be 
found in Chapter 9 of the final rule TSD.
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. Product Class 1
    DOE has received stakeholder comments on the SNOPR from PTI, OPEI 
and iRobot expressing concerns regarding the range of PC 1. PTI, OPEI 
and iRobot noted that all the products evaluated for the establishment 
of an energy conservation standard for PC 1 fell in the low range of 
battery energy (0.5Wh to 1.8Wh); yet, the proposed standard based upon 
the evaluation of these low battery energy products extends to 100Wh, 
which, in their view, raised questions regarding the proposed standard. 
These stakeholders expressed further concern that the proposed standard 
for PC 1 can potentially undermine the development of new inductively-
charged products with battery energies greater than those of electric 
toothbrushes. (PTI and OPEI, No. 244, p. 3, iRobot, No. 237, p. 2)
    PC 1 covers battery chargers with low battery energy and inductive 
charging capability, which is a utility-related characteristic designed 
to promote safe and clean operation of a battery charger in a wet 
environment. In a wet environment, these inductive battery chargers 
ensure that the user is isolated from AC mains by transferring power to 
the battery through induction rather than conduction. When developing 
the energy conservation standard for PC 1, DOE considered two 
applications--electric toothbrushes and water jets. DOE believes that 
the technology deployed in these two applications are sufficiently 
mature, such that establishing an energy conservation standard for them 
would not hinder their further technological development. DOE was not 
able to identify any other battery charger application specifically 
designed for wet environments. While DOE primarily found devices in 
these two applications with battery energies ranging from 0.5 to 1.8 
Wh, the CEC database of compliant small battery chargers includes 
electric toothbrushes with battery energies up to 3.84 Wh. An overall 
analysis of the electric toothbrush marketplace and existing battery 
technology leads DOE to believe that the battery energy of electric 
toothbrushes will not exceed 5 Wh. Therefore, DOE agrees with the 
stakeholder concern that the proposed range for the PC 1 standard may 
unintentionally undermine the development of new 1:1 inductively-
charged products with battery energies greater than those of electric 
toothbrushes. To mitigate this risk, DOE is limiting the range of PC 1 
to less than and equal to 5 Wh. This approach allows DOE to focus its 
efforts on setting standards for the mature technology already found in 
electric toothbrushes and water jets without unintentionally imposing 
restrictions on the development of new inductively-charged products.
b. Product Classes 5 and 6
    DOE received comments during the SNOPR public meeting held on 
September 15, 2015 as well as written comments from the People's 
Republic of China seeking to clarify the boundary conditions for the 
proposed standards for PCs 5 and 6. Specifically, the SNOPR proposed 
boundary conditions at 19Wh and 18Wh (so that a different unit energy 
consumption (``UEC'') equation was used for battery chargers above and 
below the respected boundary condition) for PCs 5 and 6, respectively, 
while the product classes themselves only cover products having battery 
energies greater than 100Wh. (Philips Chloride, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 234, 
p. 12-13; P. R. China, No. 254, p. 3)
    DOE generated boundary conditions for its conservation standards to 
fix the UEC requirement below a certain threshold of battery energy and 
recognized that below these thresholds the fixed components of the UEC 
equation, such as maintenance mode power, become an increasingly bigger 
percentage of the device's overall power consumption that may not 
diminish with decreasing battery energy. Including these boundary 
conditions allows DOE to account for the fact that even if the battery 
energy approaches zero, the device will continue to consume a finite 
amount of non-zero power. Accordingly, these boundary conditions help 
create better fitting equations and enable DOE to promulgate standards 
that more accurately reflect the characteristics of a given product 
class.
    For PCs 5 and 6, the derived boundary conditions begin at 19 Wh and 
18 Wh respectively. However, in response to the comments received, DOE 
recognizes that PCs 5 and 6 cover battery chargers with battery 
energies ranging from 100-3000 Wh and that the boundary conditions at 
19 Wh and 18 Wh for these two classes become unnecessary and will never 
be used. While the presence of these boundary conditions does not 
affect covered products in PC 5 and 6, DOE realizes that it may lead to 
misinterpretation and ambiguity. Therefore, DOE is removing these 
boundary conditions from the final rule.
c. Product Classes 8, 9, 10a, and 10b
    Compared to the NOPR, DOE reduced the number of product classes for 
which it is adopting energy conservation standards in this final rule. 
Specifically, DOE is not adopting standards for battery chargers 
falling into PCs 8, 9, 10a, and 10b as initially proposed in its NOPR. 
DOE chose to reduce the number of affected classes in response to 
comments on the SNOPR from ITI, Schneider, NRDC, ASAP and NEEA opposing 
the exclusion of PCs 8, 9 and 10 from the scope of this rulemaking. ITI 
expressed concern regarding DOE's unknown future plans for regulating 
products in these classes and about the potential loss of energy 
savings resulting from the exclusion of PCs 8, 9 and 10. (ITI, No. 248, 
p. 1) Schneider requested that DOE adopt the energy conservation 
standards set by the CEC for PCs 10a and 10b, and in particular, a no-
standards standard for PC 10b. (Schneider, No. 253, p. 1) Additionally, 
the CEC, NRDC, ASAP and NEEA

[[Page 38284]]

requested DOE to explicitly exclude PCs 10a and 10b from the scope of 
this rulemaking rather than setting a no-standards standard for these 
product classes. These stakeholders argued that this approach will 
prevent confusion regarding coverage of PCs 10a and 10b, and avoid 
potential backsliding on energy savings from standards set by the CEC. 
(CEC, No. 241, p. 4-5, NRDC, ASAP, NEEA, No, 252, p. 3-4)
    DOE notes that products falling into PC 8 from the NOPR are still 
covered under the scope of this rulemaking and subject to the standards 
adopted in this rule. DOE has determined that the battery chargers 
previously analyzed in PC 8 do not technically differ from those found 
in PC 2 and that there are no products falling into PC 8 that do not 
also fall into PC 2. For this reason, DOE has combined all previously 
analyzed products, and related shipments in PC 8 with PC 2. 
Consequently, what were previously PC 8 devices are now subject only to 
the energy conservation standard of PC 2.
    Regarding the absence of a standard for PC 9, DOE directs the 
reader to the March 2012 NOPR LCC results where DOE ran a number of 
analyses in an attempt to ascertain whether an appropriate efficiency 
level could be created for PC 9. The engineering and LCC analyses found 
no efficiency level to exhibit positive LCC savings and DOE has not 
received any evidence since that time suggesting otherwise. This fact, 
combined with the minimal UECs found for products in this category 
indicated that setting a standard for PC 9 at this time would not be 
economically justifiable under the framework set out by EPCA. As such, 
DOE has determined that the legal requirements necessary for setting 
standards for PC 9 could not be met. While products falling into this 
category are still covered under the scope of this rulemaking and are 
subject to federal preemption, DOE is not promulgating a standard for 
chargers that would have fallen into PC 9 at this time.
    Lastly, DOE has determined that the current battery charger test 
procedure does not adequately capture the energy consumption of 
products in PCs 10a and 10b, which include UPSs. DOE has proposed to 
amend the test procedure for battery chargers to include a specific 
test for UPSs to capture their energy consumption. Issued April 29, 
2016 UPS TP NOPR. DOE will not establish a standard for Product Class 
10a and 10b until a test procedure for these products has been 
prescribed.
    DOE received further comments on the SNOPR from Emerson, ITI, NEMA 
and Schneider requesting DOE to ensure that direct current UPSs are not 
unintentionally regulated under PC 7 if UPSs are excluded from the 
scope of this rulemaking. (Emerson, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 234, p. 24; ITI, 
No. 248, p. 4; NEMA, No. 246 p. 2; Schneider, No. 253, p. 1) Direct 
current (``DC'') UPSs meet the definition of uninterruptible power 
supplies proposed in the battery charger test procedure NOPR, which 
proposed a specific test for UPSs. Under that proposal, the existing 
testing requirements for battery chargers would apply to battery 
chargers other than UPSs, and separate testing requirements would apply 
to UPSs. Issued April 29, 2016 UPS TP NOPR DOE will not establish 
standards for UPSs until a test procedure for these products has been 
prescribed.
4. Technology Assessment
    In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options 
that appear to be feasible for improving 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 final rule 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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 procedures have 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 procedures. When performing a test in accordance with 
these procedures, 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, and off-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 the 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 in duration. Next, is 
maintenance mode power, which is a measurement of the average power 
consumed while a battery charger is 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).\18\ 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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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, 10 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.

[[Page 38285]]

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 can decrease battery charger 
energy consumption in no-battery and maintenance modes (and off mode, 
if applicable), while those options used to increase EPS conversion 
efficiency can decrease battery charger 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, describes technology options that DOE evaluated during the NOPR, 
the SNOPR and again in this final rule. 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.\19\ Therefore, in the list below, the 
options are grouped with the charger type where they would be most 
practical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The distinction between the two types of battery chargers 
is based on the charge rate (also referred to as C-rate). DOE 
considers battery chargers with charge rates less than 0.2C to be 
slow chargers and anything above that rate to be fast chargers. 
Please refer to Chapter 3 of the accompanying Technical Support 
Document for further detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 for 
traditional 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 final rule TSD.

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which 
design options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation 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 
commercially-available consumer 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. Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is 
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered 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 final rule TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

    In the engineering analysis (detailed in Chapter 5 of the final 
rule TSD), DOE establishes the 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 no-standards case) 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 EL--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

[[Page 38286]]

results, DOE selected ELs that set discrete levels of improved battery 
charger performance in terms of energy consumption. Subsequently, for 
each EL, DOE used either teardown data or information gained from 
manufacturer interviews to generate costs corresponding to each EL 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.
    The following sections discuss the engineering analysis in detail. 
Submitted comments regarding the various aspects of the analysis are 
noted in each section.
1. Representative Units
    For each product class, DOE selected a representative unit on 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 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-1 shows the representative units for each product class that DOE 
analyzed.

                     Table IV-1--Battery Charger Representative Units for Each Product Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Special
                                 Input/output    Battery energy   characteristic     Rep. unit       Rep. unit
       Product class #               type              (Wh)        or  battery        battery     battery energy
                                                                     voltage        voltage (V)        (Wh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  AC In, DC Out...            <=10  Inductive                   3.6             1.5
                                                                  Connection.
2............................  ................            <100  <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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the public meeting for the SNOPR, Dell inquired whether DOE 
looked at multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers when selecting 
representative units. (Dell, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 234, p. 50-51) DOE 
confirms that in the course of the engineering analysis, several 
lithium and nickel multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers were 
tested, torn down and compared against similar single-voltage units. 
The recently amended battery charger test procedure prescribes that a 
multi-voltage charger be tested at its highest output power, which is 
also its most efficient operating point. Issued May 6, 2016. At this 
level, DOE could not find any appreciable difference in efficiency 
between the multi-voltage, multi-capacity units versus single-voltage 
devices operating at similar output powers and employing similar power 
conversion and charge termination technology. Additional details on the 
battery charger representative units can be found in Chapter 5 of the 
accompanying final rule TSD.
2. Battery Charger Efficiency Metric
    In the NOPR and SNOPR regarding energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers, DOE introduced and used the UEC metric to represent 
the efficiency of battery chargers. AHAM supported the use of UEC as a 
single metric to represent the energy consumption of battery chargers, 
(AHAM, No. 249, p. 4-5), but Ingersoll Rand opposed it. In particular, 
Ingersoll Rand argued that the usage of battery chargers is highly 
dependent on the target market for a given product and varies across 
segments, which makes the determination of product efficiency levels, 
and possibly even class definitions, unnecessarily difficult. Ingersoll 
Rand recommended that DOE adopt the metrics used by the CEC, as 
manufacturers are already familiar with the CEC metrics and it would, 
in its view, be easier to implement and enforce standards based on 
those metrics. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 240, p. 2-3)
    EPCA requires DOE to regulate standby and off modes in 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 
user-oriented or protective functions such as facilitating the 
activation or deactivation of other functions (including active mode) 
by a remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or 
timer. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii). Maintenance mode, as used in 
this final rule, meets the statutory definition of standby mode and DOE 
must incorporate maintenance and off mode into a single metric. The CEC 
standards for small battery charger systems use two standards for 
regulation. The first standard collectively regulates the maximum 24-
hour charge and maintenance energy and the second standard collectively 
regulates the maximum maintenance mode and standby mode power. Hence, 
adopting the CEC approach would be inconsistent with the single metric 
approach laid out by Congress, as the CEC uses two standards that both 
separately incorporate maintenance mode.
    Further, DOE notes that aggregating the performance parameters of 
battery chargers into one metric and applying a usage profile will 
allow manufacturers more flexibility in terms of improving performance 
during 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, in certain cases, a power tool battery charger 
may be in standby mode, also referred to as the no-battery mode in this 
final rule, for longer periods of time during the day than a battery 
charger used for a cordless house phone, which is likely to spend a 
significant portion of every day in maintenance mode. Consequently, in 
light of these differences, consumers would see greater energy savings 
if power tool battery charger manufacturers improved standby mode 
efficiency and home phone battery charger manufacturers improved 
maintenance mode efficiency. Because the UEC metric is indifferent to

[[Page 38287]]

how a manufacturer implements changes to improve efficiency, a 
manufacturer can tailor its battery chargers to better fit the 
individual conditions that its particular charger is likely to face. 
For these reasons, DOE is adopting the UEC metric in this final rule to 
help ensure that manufacturers have sufficient flexibility in improving 
the energy efficiency performance of their battery chargers.
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. The UEC of a battery charger basic model is 
calculated using one of the following equations:
Primary Equation
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JN16.000

Secondary Equation
    For some battery chargers, the equation described above is not 
appropriate and an alternative calculation is necessary. Specifically, 
in 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 
multiplied by the number of charges per day (n) is greater than the 
time assumed in active and maintenance mode (ta&m), an 
inconsistency is seen between the measurements for the test product and 
DOE's usage profile assumptions. To avoid this inconsistency, DOE 
requires that the following secondary equation be used to calculate UEC 
for such devices at the threshold:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JN16.001

    The threshold criteria to determine when to use the secondary 
equation itself can be summarized as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JN16.002

    In the battery charger NOPR from 2012, DOE calculated and published 
the threshold Charge Time (ta&m/n) for each product class. 
These values were brought forward unchanged from the NOPR to the 
September 2015 SNOPR. DOE has since revisited these published numbers 
and discovered calculation and rounding errors in computing the 
threshold value (ta&m/n). While the final presented values 
for Threshold Charge Time (ta&m/n) were calculated using 
unrounded numbers, the values for ta&m and n were shown in 
rounded form. This left the reader unable to replicate the final values 
themselves using the above equation. Therefore, DOE has updated the 
table to present final values that are properly calculated according to 
the threshold equation without any rounding errors. For PC 2, there was 
a typographical error which has also been corrected. The difference 
between the previously published values and what the values should have 
been is shown in Table IV-2 below. It is important to note that neither 
the criteria used nor the values for ta&m or n has changed. 
DOE has corrected the tables in this final rule.

                                       Table IV-2--Threshold Charge Times
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Incorrectly      Correctly
                                                    Ta&m (time                      calculated      calculated
                                                     spent in      n (number of        SNOPR        final rule
                  Product class                     active and     full charges      threshold       threshold
                                                    maintenance      per day)       charge time     charge time
                                                       mode                            (hr)            (hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................           20.66            0.15          135.41          137.73
2...............................................            7.82            0.54           19.00           14.48
3...............................................            6.42             0.1           67.21           64.20
4...............................................           16.84             0.5           33.04           33.68
5...............................................            6.52            0.11           56.83           59.27
6...............................................           17.15            0.34           50.89           50.44
7...............................................            8.14            0.32           25.15           25.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the battery charger energy conservation standards SNOPR, DOE 
proposed to add the above mentioned UEC equations and the associated 
battery charger usage profiles in 10 CFR 430.32(z). See 80 FR 52932. 
However, as explained in the recent battery charger test procedure 
final rulemaking, DOE is instead including the above mentioned UEC 
equations and the associated battery charger usage profiles in the 
battery charger test procedure codified at appendix Y to subpart B of 
10 CFR part 430. Issued May 6, 2016.
4. Battery Charger Efficiency Levels
    After selecting its representative units for battery chargers, DOE 
examined the cost-efficiency relationship of each representative unit 
to evaluate 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

[[Page 38288]]

develops cost estimates for several ELs along that continuum.
    ELs are often based on (1) efficiencies already 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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 federal energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers. Therefore, DOE based the ELs 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. See 71 FR 31750 
(June 1, 2011). For each representative unit, DOE then selected ELs 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 no-
standards case (EL 0) unit to be the one with the highest calculated 
unit energy consumption, and the best-in-market (EL 2) to be the one 
with the lowest. Where possible, the energy consumption of an 
intermediate model was selected as the basis for EL 1 to provide 
additional resolution to the analysis.
    Unlike the previous three ELs, EL 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 levels 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 EL unit analyzed.
    In analyzing potential efficiency levels, DOE examined, among other 
things, the California standards for small battery chargers,\21\ which 
are based on two metrics--one for 24-hour energy use and one for the 
combined maintenance mode and standby mode power usage. Using the usage 
profiles it developed to translate these standards into a UEC value, 
DOE compared its ELs with the California levels and found that, in most 
cases, the California standards generally corresponded closely with one 
of DOE's ELs for each product class when the standards were converted 
into a UEC value (using DOE's usage profile assumptions). However, once 
compliance with the CEC standards was required, DOE again analyzed the 
market and found new technology options that have been widely adopted 
by battery charger manufacturers to meet the CEC standards. DOE 
accounted for these results and the changes in technology within the 
marketplace when developing ELs for each product class. This 
methodology is outlined in more detail in Chapter 5 of the accompanying 
TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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 car battery charger systems regardless of 
the output power.'' 20 Cal. Code 1602(w) (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    `With the exception of the max tech level, the ELs presented in the 
March 2012 NOPR for all product classes 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 and this final rule, DOE attempted to align at least one EL 
in each product class subject to this final rule as closely as possible 
to the CEC standards to address comments to the NOPR suggesting that 
DOE create a new EL that more closely aligns with the CEC levels.
    DOE has also received stakeholder comments from PTI and OPEI 
expressing concern that multi-port battery chargers are not treated any 
differently than single-port battery chargers under the proposed 
standard levels, which according to these commenters, creates 
disincentive for more efficient multi-port battery chargers. PTI and 
OPEI recommended that DOE provide an allowance of 0.25W per additional 
port in standby power for multi-port battery chargers. PTI and OPEI 
further noted that the above requested allowance in standby power for 
multi-port battery chargers equates to 0.08 kWh/yr increase in the 
proposed standard levels for PC 4. (PTI and OPEI, No. 244, p. 3) In 
DOE's engineering analysis, DOE evaluated, tested and performed tear 
downs on numerous multi-port battery chargers but did not find 
sufficient reason to treat multi-port battery chargers differently from 
single-port battery chargers. The adopted standards for these products 
already accommodate multi-port battery chargers because they scale with 
the battery energy of the additional batteries that may be charged with 
multi-port battery chargers. Further, the increase in UEC resulting 
from the recommended allowance in standby power is minute and will not 
have a significant impact on the represented value of UEC for multi-
port battery chargers. As such, DOE is not adopting the additional 
allowance suggested by PTI and OPEI.
5. 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 final rule 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

[[Page 38289]]

useful and accurate teardown results for one of its products classes--
namely, PC 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 PC 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 (formerly i-Suppli)--DOE's technical 
consultant--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.
6. 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 (see section IV.B) 
become design options that are considered in the engineering analysis. 
Most ELs, except for those related to max-tech units and chargers 
falling into product classes for which DOE did not tear down units 
(i.e. PC 1 and PC 6), 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 EL. No 
technology options were preemptively eliminated from use with a 
particular product class. Similarly, if products are being manufactured 
and sold using these technology options, that fact indicates that the 
use of these options is unlikely to cause any significant loss in 
utility, such as an extremely limited operating temperature range or 
shortened cycle-life. Accordingly, the available facts indicate that 
all ELs can be met with technologies that are technologically feasible 
and that fit the intended application. Details on the technology 
associated with each EL can be found in Chapter 5 of the accompanying 
final rule 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 final rule 
TSD, Chapter 5 for additional details.
7. Cost Model
    This final rule continues to apply the same approach used in the 
SNOPR, NOPR and preliminary analysis to generate the MSPs for the 
engineering analysis. For those product classes other than PC 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--i.e. PC 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 final rule TSD. DOE's cost estimates 
reflect real world costs and have been updated where necessary for the 
final rule. The Department did not receive any further stakeholder 
comments on this aspect of its analysis.
8. 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 
final rule's analyses and this section illustrates the results that DOE 
obtained for all seven product classes in its engineering analysis. The 
Department did not receive any stakeholder comments on this aspect of 
its analysis.
a. Product Class 1
    No changes were made to the engineering results for PC 1 since the 
publication of the SNOPR. These results are shown below in Table IV-4. 
More details on these engineering analysis results can be found in 
Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

                  Table IV-4--Product Class 1 (Inductive Chargers) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       EL 0            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3
                 EL 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
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Product Class 2
    No changes were made to the engineering results for PC 2 since the 
publication of the SNOPR. These results are shown below in Table IV-5. 
More details on these engineering analysis results can be found in 
Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

               Table IV-5--Product Class 2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       EL 0            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3            EL 4
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         EL description                                                 2nd
                                     Baseline      Intermediate    intermediate   Best in market     Max tech
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 38290]]

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

c. Product Class 3
    No changes were made to the engineering results for PC 3 since the 
publication of the SNOPR. These results are shown below in Table IV-6. 
More details on these engineering analysis results can be found in 
Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

              Table IV-6--Product Class 3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       EL 0            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3
                 EL 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Product Class 4
    No changes were made to the engineering results for PC 4 since the 
publication of the SNOPR. These results are shown below in Table IV-7. 
More details on these engineering analysis results can be found in 
Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

               Table IV-7--Product Class 4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       EL 0            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3
                 EL description                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Baseline      Intermediate   Best in market     Max tech
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Product Class 5
    No changes were made to the engineering results for PC 5 since the 
publication of the SNOPR. These results are shown below in Table IV-8. 
More details on these engineering analysis results can be found in 
Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

              Table IV-6--Product Class 5 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       EL 0            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3
                 EL 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Product Class 6
    No changes were made to the engineering results for PC 6 since the 
publication of the SNOPR. These results are shown below in Table IV-9. 
More details on these engineering analysis results can be found in 
Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

[[Page 38291]]



             Table IV-9--Product Class 6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       EL 0            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3
                 EL 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Product Class 7
    For PC 7, DOE's SNOPR contained a typographical error that 
presented the proposed standard for PC 7 as ``0.502 * EBatt 
+ 4.53'' rather than ``0.0502 * EBatt + 4.53.'' The SNOPR 
TSD, along with the earlier NOPR and SNOPR public meeting 
presentations, all contained the correct standard. DOE's analyses were 
all based on the correct standard. DOE acknowledges this typographical 
error and reiterates that the adopted standard for PC 7 is ``0.0502 * 
EBatt + 4.53''. The engineering results for PC 7 are shown 
below in Table IV-10.

                     Table IV-10--Product Class 7 (High-Energy) Engineering Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       EL 0            EL 1            EL 2
                         EL 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Scaling of Battery Charger Efficiency Levels
    In preparing its standards for products within a product class 
(which would address all battery energies and voltages falling within 
that class), DOE used a UEC-based scaling approach. After developing 
the engineering analysis results for the representative units, DOE had 
to determine a methodology for extending the UEC at each EL 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. See 77 FR 18478.
    For PCs 2-7, DOE created equations for UEC that scale with battery 
energy. Specifically, as explained in the recent battery charger test 
procedure final rulemaking, the maximum allowed UEC for PCs 2-7 scales 
with the rated battery discharge energy, as determined by the 
statistical requirements outlined in 10 CFR 429.39(a). See Issued May 
6, 2016. In contrast, for PC 1, each EL was represented by one flat, 
nominal standard. For this product class, DOE found in testing that the 
UEC did not vary with battery energy or voltage. As a result, while DOE 
opted to maintain its approach from the NOPR to adopt a constant 
standard across all battery energies for PC 1, the analysis limited the 
scope of the product class to battery energies of less than or equal to 
5 Wh.
    DOE generated boundary conditions for its efficiency levels to make 
the UEC requirement constant below a certain threshold of battery 
energy. Including these boundary conditions allows DOE to account for 
the fact that even if the battery energy approaches zero, the battery 
charger will continue to consume a finite amount of non-zero power. As 
explained in section IV.A.3.b, DOE notes that PCs 5 and 6 cover battery 
chargers with battery energies ranging from 100-3000 Wh and that the 
boundary conditions at 19 Wh and 18 Wh for these two PCs become 
unnecessary and will never be used. While the presence of these 
boundary conditions does not affect covered products in PCs 5 and 6, 
DOE realizes that it may lead to misinterpretation and ambiguity. 
Therefore, DOE is removing these boundary conditions from the final 
rule.
    For additional details and the exact EL equations developed for 
each product class, please see Chapter 5 in the accompanying final rule 
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 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

[[Page 38292]]

of higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase) to the 
change in the retailer's selling price.
    In response to the SNOPR, AHAM objected to DOE's use of incremental 
markups in its analysis. (AHAM, No. 249, 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.\22\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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 final rule 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 
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.\23\ 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 by the battery charger to the battery, and 
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 the battery 
chargers themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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 SNOPR, AHAM noted that as efficiency levels 
increase, infrequently used products such as shavers, trimmers, and 
toothbrushes may only be charged once per month or less. (AHAM, No. 
249, p. 5) DOE has based its estimate of usage profiles and efficiency 
distributions on responses from the manufacturer interviews, as well as 
on best available data, for each application and product class. Based 
on this information, the usage profiles used in the analysis provide a 
reasonable average usage approximation of the products falling within 
each product class and application. As a result, DOE did not change 
these usage profiles for the final rule.
    Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD provides details on DOE's energy 
use analysis for battery chargers.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of 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 the LCC in the no-standards case, which reflects the 
estimated efficiency distribution of battery chargers in the absence of 
new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for 
a given efficiency level 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.

[[Page 38293]]

    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 BallTM (a commercially-available 
software program), relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate 
uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo 
simulations randomly 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 expected year of compliance with new 
standards. Any national standards would apply to battery chargers 
manufactured two years after the publication of the final standard. 
Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2018 as the first 
year of compliance with new standards.
    Table IV-11 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model and the 
inputs made to the LCC and PBP analyses are contained in chapter 8 of 
the final rule TSD and its appendices.

 Table IV-11--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
                                    *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Inputs                            Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost......................  Derived from the Engineering
                                     Analysis through manufacturer
                                     interviews and test/teardown
                                     results. Adjusted component
                                     breakdowns and prices based on
                                     updated cost data from IHS
                                     Technology and SME feedback for
                                     Product Classes 2 through 6.
Markups...........................  Considered various distribution
                                     channel pathways for different
                                     applications. Applied a reduced
                                     ``incremental'' markup to the
                                     portion of the product price
                                     exceeding the baseline price.
Sales Tax.........................  Derived weighted-average tax values
                                     for each Census division and large
                                     State using data provided by the
                                     Sales Tax Clearinghouse.
Installation Costs................  Assumed to be zero.
Annual Energy Use.................  Determined for each application
                                     based on battery characteristics
                                     and usage profiles.
Energy Prices.....................  Price: Based on EIA's 2012 Form EIA-
                                     861 data. Separated top tier and
                                     peak time-of-use consumers into
                                     separate subgroup analyses.
                                    Variability: Regional energy prices
                                     determined for 13 regions. DOE also
                                     considered subgroup analyses using
                                     electricity prices for low-income
                                     consumers and top tier marginal
                                     price consumers.
Energy Price Trends...............  Based on AEO 2015 price forecasts.
Repair and Maintenance Costs......  Assumed to be zero.
Product Lifetime..................  Determined for each application
                                     based on multiple data sources.
Discount Rates....................  Approach involves identifying all
                                     possible debt or asset classes that
                                     might be used to purchase the
                                     considered appliances, or might be
                                     affected indirectly. Primary data
                                     source was the Federal Reserve
                                     Board's Survey of Consumer
                                     Finances.
Sectors Analyzed..................  All reference case results represent
                                     a weighted average of the
                                     residential and commercial sectors.
Base Case Market Efficiency         Where possible, DOE derived market
 Distribution.                       efficiency distributions for
                                     specific applications within a
                                     product class.
Compliance Date...................  2018.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
  in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the final rule
  TSD.

    The following sections discuss the LCC and PBP analyses in detail. 
Submitted comments regarding the various aspects of the analyses are 
noted in each section.
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. DOE retained the SNOPR prices in the final 
rule. Further detail on the MSPs can be found in chapter 5 of the final 
rule 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 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''),\24\ 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,

[[Page 38294]]

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 Indices that most narrowly include 
battery chargers. However, DOE believes that these indices are too 
broad to accurately capture the trend for battery chargers. 
Furthermore, battery chargers are not typical consumer products; they 
more closely resemble commodities that OEMs purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Series ID PCU33521-33521; http://www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the uncertainty involved with these products, DOE did not 
incorporate product price changes into either the NOPR or SNOPR 
analyses and is not including them in the final rule. For the NIA, DOE 
also analyzed the sensitivity of results to two alternative battery 
charger price forecasts. Appendix 10-B of the final rule TSD describes 
the derivation of alternative price forecasts.
    In response to the SNOPR, AHAM supported DOE's use of a constant 
price index to project future battery charger prices. (AHAM, No. 249, 
p. 6) No other comments were received.
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 final rule 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 
final rule, DOE retained this methodology and used sales tax data from 
the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\25\ As in the SNOPR, DOE also obtained 
population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau for the final 
rule.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax Rates. https://thestc.com/STRates.stm.
    \26\ 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.1, 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 indices. These price trends, and the 
NPV results from the associated sensitivity cases, are described in 
appendix 10-B of the final rule TSD.
2. Installation Cost
    As detailed in the SNOPR, 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. See 80 FR at 52885. 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.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    The final rule analysis uses the same approach for determining UECs 
as the approach used in the SNOPR. The UEC was determined for each 
application based on battery characteristics and usage profiles. 
Further detail on the UEC calculations can be found in section IV.E of 
this final rule and in chapter 7 of the final rule 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 then-
latest available EIA data (2012). For the final rule analysis, DOE used 
updated data from EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015 to project 
electricity prices to the end of the product lifetime,\27\ which 
contained reference, high- and low-economic-growth scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2015. May, 2015. Washington, 
DC. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product 
components that have failed in an appliance while maintenance costs are 
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically, 
small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or only 
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline 
efficiency products. In the final rule analysis, DOE did not include 
repair or maintenance costs for battery chargers. 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--the 
charger would more likely be discarded and a new one purchased to 
replace it. Further discussion on repair and maintenance costs can be 
found in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.
6. Product Lifetime
    For the final rule analysis, DOE considered the lifetime of a 
battery charger to start 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. Further detail on product 
lifetimes and how they relate to applications can be found in chapter 3 
of the final rule TSD.
7. Discount Rates
    The final rule 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 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 from 1989 to

[[Page 38295]]

2010.\28\ 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 \29\ 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 5.2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. 
Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
    \29\ 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,\30\ as well 
as employment data from both the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 
\31\ and the U.S. Census Bureau.\32\ By multiplying the discount rate 
for each industry category by its share of paid employees, DOE derived 
a commercial discount rate of 5.1 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 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.
    \31\ 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.
    \32\ U.S. Census Bureau. Government Employment and Payroll. 2012 
State and Local Government. http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/12stlall.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further details on discount rates, see chapter 8 and appendix 
8D of the final rule TSD.
8. Sectors Analyzed
    The final rule 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. For further 
details on sectors analyzed, see chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.
9. Efficiency Distribution in the No-Standards Case
    For purposes of conducting the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed ELs 
relative to a no-standards case (i.e., a case without Federal energy 
conservation standards). This analysis required an estimate of the 
distribution of product efficiencies in the no-standards case (i.e., 
what consumers would have purchased in 2018 in the absence of 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 no-standards case.
    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. See chapter 8 
of the final rule TSD for further information on the derivation of the 
efficiency distributions.
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. There are no 
requirements for the compliance date for battery charger standards, but 
DOE has chosen to provide a two-year lead-time period for manufacturers 
to comply with these standards for two reasons. First, manufacturers 
are already complying with the current CEC standards, which serve as 
the basis for a majority of the standards being adopted in this rule. 
As a result, because affected manufacturers are already meeting these 
levels, that fact 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$.
    As discussed in Section III.C, DOE received one comment from AHAM 
regarding the proposed compliance date. AHAM supported a compliance 
date of two (2) years after the publication of any final rule 
establishing energy conservation standards for battery chargers 
provided that the adopted levels do not exceed EL 1 for PC 1, and EL 2 
for PCs 2, 3, and 4. As discussed in Section III.C, DOE's analysis 
shows that the battery charger industry is characterized by rapid 
product development lifecycles. These rapid development lifecycles have 
led DOE to conclude that a two-year lead-time is sufficient to enable 
manufacturers of battery chargers that do not currently comply with the 
standards that DOE is adopting in this rule to satisfy these new 
standards by the time the 2018 compliance date is reached.
11. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period 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 from 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.
    As noted above, EPCA 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))

[[Page 38296]]

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 energy price forecast for the year in 
which compliance with the new standards would be required.

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,\33\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Dale, L. and S. Fujita. (2008) ``An Analysis of the Price 
Elasticity of Demand for Household Appliances''. Lawrence Berkeley 
National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-326E. Available 
at: https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/analysis-price-elasticity-demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 final rule TSD. The corresponding impacts on 
national energy savings (``NES'') and NPV are included in appendix 10A. 
The following sections discuss the shipments analysis in detail. 
Submitted comments regarding the various aspects of the analysis are 
noted in each section.
1. Shipment Growth Rate
    As in the SNOPR, 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 final rule 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 2012 National Projections. DOE took the average annual 
population growth rate, 0.62 percent, and applied this rate to all 
battery charger product classes. In its shipment forecasts, DOE 
projects that by 2018, shipments of battery chargers will be 4.4% 
percent greater than they were in 2011. For more information on 
shipment projections, see chapter 9 of the final rule TSD.
    In response to the SNOPR, NRDC, ASAP, and NEEA commented that DOE's 
shipments projections based on population growth are unrealistically 
low, and that DOE should reconsider its approach and assumptions. 
(NRDC, ASAP, NEEA, No. 252, p. 6-7) DOE disagrees that its shipment 
projections are unrealistic. While some applications that use battery 
chargers are experiencing higher than average growth, the product 
classes are very broad and include many applications that are not 
experiencing the same level of growth or are declining. To avoid 
overstating the benefits of standards on battery chargers, DOE retained 
the more measured approach used in the SNOPR for the final rule.
2. Product Class Lifetime
    For the final rule, 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.
    For more information on the calculation of product class lifetime 
profiles, see chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.
3. Forecasted Efficiency in the No-Standards Case and Standards Cases
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
forecasted for the no-standards case (without new 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.\34\ However, it 
has still 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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 as ENERGY STAR-rated products.\35\ 
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.\36\ 
Thus, DOE did not adjust its battery charger efficiency distributions 
to account for any potential market effects of a future ENERGY STAR 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 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.
    \36\ https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/specs//BCS%20Final%20Decision%20Sunset%20Memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the no-standards case efficiency distributions for 
the base year 2013 in the original battery charger March 2012 NOPR and 
updated the distributions based on new market conditions for the base 
year 2018 in the September 2015 SNOPR. The SNOPR

[[Page 38297]]

efficiency distribution remains unchanged for this final rule.
    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 SNOPR analysis, 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. See 78 FR 18253. 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 
already being incorporated 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, each of which 
also displayed the accompanying CEC mark. 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 \37\ of certified small battery 
chargers (downloaded in November 2014 and containing 12652 unique 
models). Each model was assigned an appropriate product class and 
application based on 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 the CEC and DOE metrics, products were conservatively assigned 
to the higher efficiency level (EL) (in order to not overstate savings) 
when their UECs were within 5% of the next highest EL compliance line 
compared to the distance between the compliance lines of the higher and 
lower ELs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/AdvancedSearch.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analysis acknowledges, however, that units not complying with 
CEC standards can still be sold outside of California, but assumes the 
percentage of such units is small. For this analysis, DOE 
conservatively assumed 5% of units sold nationally do not meet CEC 
standards. Without this assumption, DOE's analysis would likely 
significantly overestimate the energy savings resulting from the 
adoption of energy conservation standards for battery chargers by not 
sufficiently accounting for the fraction of the market that is already 
utilizing more efficient technology. This assumption is further 
motivated by manufacturers' input that the majority of products sold in 
California are sold nationally as well. To implement this assumption, 
each application's efficiency distribution, derived from CEC data, was 
multiplied by 95%, and then 5% was added to the EL below the CEC 
approximate EL. These became the no-standards case efficiency 
distributions shown in the table below. DOE did not find or receive any 
data showing consistent long-term efficiency improvement trends for 
battery chargers, in the absence of regulatory actions. As a result, no 
further changes in the base-case efficiency distributions were assumed 
to occur after the first year of the analysis. For reference, Table IV-
12 below also lists the tested UECs defining each EL from the final 
rule engineering analysis and the estimated shipments in 2018 from the 
final rule shipments analysis.

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

    To support the assumption that 95% of the national market meets the 
CEC standard levels, DOE examined the top-selling products for various 
battery charger applications at several national online and brick & 
mortar retailers (with an online portal). These data 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

[[Page 38298]]

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. 
Table IV-13 below summarizes the results of DOE's market examination.

                   Table IV-13--Summary of DOE Market Examination of CEC Units by Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Percentage  of
                                                        Percentage  of                                models
                                                           total BC                                 examined in
              Application                Product class   shipments in     Retailers examined *     CEC database
                                                          application                               or sold in
                                                                                                    California
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smartphones...........................               2              21  Amazon, Best Buy, Sears.             100
Media Tablets.........................               2               8  Amazon, Best Buy, Sears.              93
MP3 Players...........................               2               8  Amazon, Best Buy, Sears.              93
Notebook Computers....................               4               8  Amazon, Best Buy, Sears.              93
Digital Cameras.......................               2               6  Amazon, Best Buy, Sears.              97
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See chapter 9 of the final rule TSD for more details on the 
development of no-standards case efficiency distributions.
    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 used the ``roll-up'' scenario.
    For further details about the forecasted efficiency distributions, 
see chapter 9 of the final rule TSD.

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the national energy savings (NES) and the national 
net present value (NPV) from a national perspective of total consumer 
costs and savings that would be expected to result from new standards 
at specific efficiency levels.\38\ (``Consumer'' in this context refers 
to consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE calculates the NES 
and NPV for the potential standard levels considered based on 
projections of annual product shipments, along with the annual energy 
consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC 
analyses. For the present analysis, DOE forecasted the energy savings, 
operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 
over the lifetime of battery chargers sold from 2018 through 2047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new standards by comparing a case 
without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each 
product class in the absence of new energy conservation standards. For 
this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and 
various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over 
time. DOE compares the no-standards case with projections 
characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted new 
standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 
standards cases) for that class. For the standards cases, DOE considers 
how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of products 
with efficiencies greater than the standard.
    DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and 
the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested 
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities 
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values 
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
    Table IV-14 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the final rule. Discussion of these inputs and methods 
follows the table. See chapter 10 of the final rule TSD for further 
details.
    The following sections discuss the national impacts analysis in 
detail. Submitted comments regarding the various aspects of the 
analysis are noted in each section.

   Table IV-14--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.........................  Annual shipments from shipments
                                     model. Shipment growth rate is 0.62
                                     percent annually using population
                                     growth projections from U.S.
                                     Census.
Compliance Date of Standard.......  2018.
Efficiency Trends.................  No-Standards case: Efficiency
                                     distributions remain unchanged
                                     throughout the forecast period.
                                     Standard cases: ``Roll-up''
                                     scenario.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit  Annual shipment weighted-average
                                     marginal energy consumption values
                                     for each product class.
Total Installed Cost per Unit.....  Annual weighted-average values are a
                                     function of cost at each TSL.

[[Page 38299]]

 
Annual Energy Cost per Unit.......  Annual weighted-average values as a
                                     function of the annual energy
                                     consumption per unit and energy
                                     prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per     Assumed to be zero.
 Unit.
Energy Prices.....................  AEO 2015 forecasts (to 2040) and
                                     extrapolation beyond.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC      A time-series conversion factor
 Conversion.                         based on AEO 2015.
Discount Rate.....................  3% and 7%.
Present Year......................  2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. DOE 
acknowledges that 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.\39\ Therefore, DOE examined a 
projection based on the price indices that were projected for AEO 2015. 
DOE performed an exponential fit on two deflated projected price 
indices that may include the products of which battery chargers are 
components: 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 indices 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 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 final rule were held constant for each efficiency 
level in each product class. DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis 
using alternative price trends based on AEO indices. These price 
trends, and the NPV results from the associated sensitivity cases, are 
described in Appendix 10B of the final rule TSD.
2. Unit Energy Consumption and Savings
    DOE uses the efficiency distributions for the no-standards case 
along with the annual unit energy consumption values to estimate 
shipment-weighted average unit energy consumption under the no-
standards and standards cases, which are then compared against one 
another to yield unit energy savings values for each considered 
efficiency level.
    As discussed in section IV.G.3, DOE assumed 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.
    For further details on the calculation of unit energy savings for 
the NIA, see chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.
3. Unit Costs
    DOE uses the efficiency distributions for the no-standards case 
along with the unit cost values to estimate shipment-weighted average 
unit costs under the no-standards and standards cases, which are then 
compared against one another to give incremental unit cost values for 
each TSL. For further details on the calculation of unit costs for the 
NIA, see chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.
4. Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit
    DOE assumed repair and maintenance costs to be zero. For further 
discussion of this issue, see section IV.F.5 above.
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 final rule 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 to 
avoid overstating energy cost savings in calculating the NPV.
    In order to determine the energy usage split between the 
residential and commercial sectors, 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.
    To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 
average regional energy prices by the forecast of annual national-
average residential energy price changes in the Reference case from 
AEO, which has an end year of 2040. To estimate price trends after 
2040, DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2020 to 
2040. As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that used inputs 
from the AEO Low Economic Growth and High Economic Growth cases. Those 
cases have higher and lower energy price trends compared to the 
Reference case. NIA results based on these cases are presented in 
appendix 10A of the final rule TSD.
    For further details on the determination of energy prices for the 
NIA, see chapter 10 of the final rule 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 (TSL) with consumption in the case with no new 
energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy 
consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product

[[Page 38300]]

(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 no-standards case and for each higher efficiency 
standard case. 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 AEO 
2015. 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 FFC--i.e. full-fuel-cycle--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 (August 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 (August 17, 2012). 
NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the 
U.S. energy sector \40\ that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy 
Outlook. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use and 
emissions is described in appendix 10B of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA-0581 (98) (Feb. 1998) 
(Available at: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are: (1) Total annual installed cost; (2) 
total annual savings in operating costs; and (3) a discount factor to 
calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE calculates net 
savings each year as the difference between the no-standards case and 
each standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus 
total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost 
savings over the lifetime of each product shipped during the forecast 
period. The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are 
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the 
projected price of the appropriate form of energy.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
final rule, 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.\41\ The discount rates for the determination of 
NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, 
which are designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. 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 ``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at 
which society discounts future consumption flows to their present 
value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis,'' (Sept. 17, 2003), section E (Available at: 
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy 
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately 
affected by a new national standard. DOE evaluates impacts on 
particular subgroups of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP 
for those particular consumers from alternative standard levels. For 
this final rule, DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard 
levels on the following consumer subgroups of interest--low-income 
consumers, small businesses, top tier electricity price consumers, peak 
time-of-use electricity price consumers, and consumers of specific 
applications within a product class. For each subgroup, DOE considered 
variations on the standard inputs to the general LCC model.
    For further details on the consumer subgroup analysis, see chapter 
11 of the final rule TSD.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    DOE conducted an MIA on battery charger applications to estimate 
the financial impact of new energy conservation standards on this 
industry. The MIA is both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. As 
noted earlier, the quantitative part of the MIA relies on the GRIM, an 
industry cash flow model customized for battery charger applications 
covered in this rulemaking. The key MIA output is industry net present 
value, or INPV. DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash flows using 
standard accounting principles and to compare the difference in INPV 
between the no-standards case and various TSLs (the standards cases). 
The difference in INPV between the no-standards and standards cases 
represents the financial impact of the new standards on battery 
chargers application 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 that the new standards will have on the industry. DOE presented 
the battery charger application impacts by the major product class 
groupings for which TSLs were selected (PC 1; PCs 2, 3, and 4; PCs 5 
and 6; and PC 7). When appropriate, DOE also presented the results for 
differentially-impacted industries within and across those groupings. 
This is necessary because a given industry, depending upon how narrowly 
it is defined, may span several product classes. By segmenting the 
results into these similar industries, DOE can discuss how subgroups of 
battery charger application manufacturers will be impacted by new 
energy conservation standards.
    DOE outlined its complete methodology for the MIA in the SNOPR. 80 
FR at 52893-96 DOE did not receive any comments on the MIA methodology 
from the SNOPR and did not change the methodology used in the SNOPR in 
this final rule. The complete MIA is also presented in chapter 12 of 
the final rule TSD.
    The following sections discuss the manufacturer impacts analysis in 
detail. Submitted comments regarding the various aspects of the 
analysis are noted in each section.
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
    The engineering analysis analyzes how changes in battery charger 
efficiency impact the manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') of a 
battery charger application. DOE used two critical inputs to calculate 
the impacts of battery charger standards on battery charger application 
manufacturers. The first input is the price a battery charger

[[Page 38301]]

application manufacturer charges to sell its application to its first 
customer. This is called the MSP of the battery charger application and 
is used to calculate battery charger application manufacturers' 
revenue. The second input is the cost battery charger application 
manufacturers incur for the range of analyzed battery chargers used in 
their applications. This input impacts the MPC of the battery charger 
application.
    For the first input, the battery charger application MSP, 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 I.D.
    DOE calculated the second input, the price of the battery charger 
itself at each EL, 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-level to which markups were applied to calculate 
the MSP of the battery charger at each EL. 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.
    DOE used the same MPCs in this final rule analysis that were used 
in the SNOPR analysis.
2. Shipment Projections
    DOE estimated total domestic shipments of each analyzed application 
for 2015 that is sold with a battery charger. DOE then distributed the 
associated shipments among the seven product classes. See chapter 12 of 
the final rule TSD for a complete list of the applications DOE included 
in each of the seven product classes. In the GRIM, DOE used the battery 
charger shipment projections from 2015 to 2047 that were generated by 
the shipment analysis. See chapter IV.G for a complete description of 
the shipment analysis.
    DOE used the same shipment projections in this final rule analysis 
that were used in the SNOPR analysis.
3. Markup Scenarios
    The revenue DOE calculates for the battery charger GRIM is the 
revenue generated from the sale of the application that incorporates 
the covered battery charger. It is the revenue earned by the OEM on the 
sale of the product to the OEM's first customer (e.g., usually the 
retailer). After calculating the average retail price from the product 
price survey as discussed in section IV.J.1. DOE discounted the price 
by the appropriate retailer markup (calculated in the market and 
technology assessment) to calculate the per-unit revenue the OEM 
generates for each application. To calculate the potential impacts on 
manufacturer profitability in the standards case, DOE analyzed how the 
incremental costs of more efficient battery chargers would impact this 
revenue stream on an application-by-application basis.
    DOE acknowledges that new standards have the potential to increase 
product prices and disrupt manufacturer profitability, particularly as 
the market transitions to meet new energy conservation standards. This 
change could force manufacturers to alter their markups on products as 
a result of new energy conservation standards. To account for this 
uncertainty, DOE analyzes three profitability, or manufacturer markup, 
scenarios in the GRIM: The flat markup scenario, the pass-through 
markup scenario, and the constant price markup scenario.
    DOE used the same markup scenarios in this final rule analysis that 
were used in the SNOPR analysis.
4. Capital and Product 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 conversion costs into two major groups: (1) 
Capital conversion costs and (2) product conversion costs. Capital 
conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment 
necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities so that new 
product designs can be fabricated and assembled. 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.
    DOE used the same product and capital conversion costs in this 
final rule analysis that were used in the SNOPR analysis.
5. Comments From Interested Parties
    Several stakeholders commented on DOE's SNOPR MIA. These comments 
were made either in writing during the comment period following the 
publication of the battery charger SNOPR in the Federal Registry or 
during the SNOPR public meeting for battery chargers.
a. Manufacturer Interviews
    AHAM noted that DOE did not conduct manufacturer interviews in the 
three-year period between the NOPR and SNOPR. It suggested interviews 
during this period would have allowed DOE to seek further information 
on new efficiency levels. (AHAM, No. 249 at p. 3) DOE notes that even 
though no new manufacturer interviews were conducted during the period 
between the NOPR and SNOPR, the stakeholder feedback DOE received in 
response to the NOPR led DOE to conduct further analyses on new and 
upcoming battery charger technologies. The results of those efforts are 
reflected in the modified product class list and the change in TSL to 
EL mappings for PCs 2, 3, and 4 between the NOPR and the SNOPR.
b. TSL to EL Mapping
    Some manufacturers expressed strong support for the proposed TSL to 
EL mapping and standard of EL 1 for PCs 2, 3, and 4 in the SNOPR. In 
their view, performing an MIA along these mappings accurately reflects 
the nature of the products covered. (PTI, No. 244 at p. 2) (ITI, No. 
248 at p. 5) (AHAM, No. 249 p. 2, 3) AHAM raised concerns about DOE 
remapping the TSL to EL for PCs 2, 3, and 4. AHAM pointed out remapping 
would necessitate further manufacturer interviews and require DOE to 
redo its analysis, which would cause further delays in the regulatory 
process. It suggested DOE retain the TSL to EL mapping proposed in the 
SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 249 at p. 3) AHAM pointed out that setting standards 
higher than the proposed EL 1 for PC 2 in the SNOPR would disadvantage 
manufacturers of shavers and other applications much greater than 
manufacturers of products such as smartphones. (AHAM, No. 249 at p. 3)
    Other interested parties suggested modifying the TSL to EL mapping 
and increasing the stringency of the standard proposed in the SNOPR 
from EL 1 to EL 2 for PC 2. These interested parties suggested that a 
higher standard for PC

[[Page 38302]]

2 will be economically justified and increase energy savings. (CA IOUs, 
No. 251 at pp. 2-4) (CEC, No. 241 at pp. 2-3) (NRDC, ASAP, NEEA, No. 
252 at p. 4-6) DOE is retaining the TSL to EL mapping for PCs 2, 3, and 
4 proposed in the SNOPR as they use generally similar technology 
options and cover the exact same range of battery energies, as 
discussed in section V.A.

K. Emissions Analysis

    The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first 
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation 
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion 
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on 
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and 
N2O, as well as the reductions to emissions of all species 
due to ``upstream'' activities in the fuel production chain. These 
upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting 
fuels to the site of combustion. The associated emissions are referred 
to as upstream emissions.
    The analysis of power sector emissions uses marginal emissions 
factors that were derived from data in AEO 2015. The methodology is 
described in chapter 13 and 15 of the final rule TSD.
    Combustion emissions of CH4 and N2O are 
estimated using emissions intensity factors published by the EPA, GHG 
Emissions Factors Hub.\42\ The FFC upstream emissions are estimated 
based on the methodology described in chapter 15 of the final rule TSD. 
The upstream emissions include both emissions from fuel combustion 
during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuel, and 
``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of 
CH4 and CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/inventory/ghg-emissions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical 
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. Total emissions 
reductions are estimated using the energy savings calculated in the 
national impact analysis.
    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 each ton of gas 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,\43\ DOE used 
GWP values of 28 for CH4 and 265 for N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AEO incorporates the projected impacts of existing air quality 
regulations on emissions. AEO 2015 generally represents current 
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government 
actions, for which implementing regulations were available as of 
October 31, 2014. DOE's estimation of impacts accounts for the presence 
of the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs.
    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). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) SO2 
emissions from 28 eastern States and DC were also limited under the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR 
created an allowance-based trading program that operates along with the 
Title IV program. In 2008, CAIR was remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but it remained in 
effect.\44\ In 2011, EPA issued a replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 
2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR,\45\ and the 
court ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR. 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.\46\ On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit lifted the 
stay of CSAPR.\47\ Pursuant to this action, CSAPR went into effect (and 
CAIR ceased to be in effect) as of January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 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).
    \45\ See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 
(D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 
81 U.S.L.W. 3702 (U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12-1182).
    \46\ 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.
    \47\ See Georgia v. EPA, Order (D.C. Cir. filed October 23, 
2014) (No. 11-1302).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EIA was not able to incorporate CSAPR into AEO 2015, so it assumes 
implementation of CAIR. Although DOE's analysis used emissions factors 
that assume that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force, the 
difference between CAIR and CSAPR is not significant 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.
    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 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. AEO 
2015 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, which are used to reduce acid gas 
emissions, 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.\48\ Therefore, DOE

[[Page 38303]]

believes that energy conservation standards will generally reduce 
SO2 emissions in 2016 and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ DOE notes that the Supreme Court recently remanded EPA's 
2012 rule regarding national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants from certain electric utility steam generating units. See 
Michigan v. EPA (Case No. 14-46, 2015). DOE has tentatively 
determined that the remand of the MATS rule does not change the 
assumptions regarding the impact of energy efficiency standards on 
SO2 emissions. Further, while the remand of the MATS rule 
may have an impact on the overall amount of mercury emitted by power 
plants, it does not change the impact of the energy efficiency 
standards on mercury emissions. DOE will continue to monitor 
developments related to this case and respond to them as 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAIR established a cap on NOX emissions in 28 eastern 
States and the District of Columbia.\49\ 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 from other 
facilities. 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 final rule for these States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 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 AEO 2015, which 
incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this 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 benefit, DOE considered the 
reduced emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products 
shipped in the forecast period for each TSL. This section summarizes 
the basis for the monetary values used for each of these emissions and 
presents the values considered in this final rule.
    For this final rule, 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 in the next section, 
and a more detailed description of the methodologies used is provided 
as an appendix to chapter 14 of the final rule 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) climate-change-related 
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, ``Regulatory Planning 
and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 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 these SCC 
estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular 
basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in 
relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main 
objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a 
defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific 
and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model 
differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC 
estimates used in the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    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 \50\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ National Research Council, Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced 
Consequences of Energy Production and Use, National Academies Press: 
Washington, DC (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
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,

[[Page 38304]]

$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. 
Specially, 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.
    In 2010, 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 the 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, was 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,\51\ although preference is given to consideration of the 
global benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV-15 
presents the values in the 2010 interagency group report,\52\ which is 
reproduced in appendix 14A of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 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.
    \52\ 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: 
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf).

                     Table IV-15--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 final rule were generated using the 
most recent versions of the three integrated assessment models that 
have been published in the peer-reviewed literature, as described in 
the 2013 update from the interagency working group (revised July 
2015).\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 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 July 2015) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-16 shows the sets of SCC estimates from the latest 
interagency update 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 final rule 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 38305]]



           Table IV-16--Annual SCC Values From 2013 Interagency Update (Revised July 2015), 2010-2050
                                           [2007$ per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Discount rate
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................              10              31              50              86
2015............................................              11              36              56             105
2020............................................              12              42              62             123
2025............................................              14              46              68             138
2030............................................              16              50              73             152
2035............................................              18              55              78             168
2040............................................              21              60              84             183
2045............................................              23              64              89             197
2050............................................              26              69              95             212
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties 
remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional 
and revisable because they will evolve with improved scientific and 
economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the 
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research 
Council report mentioned previously 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.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In November 2013, OMB announced a new opportunity for 
public comment on the interagency technical support document 
underlying the revised SCC estimates. 78 FR 70586. In July 2015 OMB 
published a detailed summary and formal response to the many 
comments that were received. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating-benefits-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions. It 
also stated its intention to seek independent expert advice on 
opportunities to improve the estimates, including many of the 
approaches suggested by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting 
from reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the values from the 
2013 interagency report (revised July 2015), adjusted to 2013$ using 
the implicit price deflator for gross domestic product (GDP) from the 
Bureau of Economic Analysis. For each of the four sets of SCC cases 
specified, the values for emissions in 2015 were $12.2, $40.0, $62.3, 
and $117 per metric ton avoided (values expressed in 2013$). DOE 
derived values after 2050 based on the trend in 2010-2050 in each of 
the four cases.
    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.
    In response to the SNOPR, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce objected to 
the use of the SCC until more rigorous review is available. (U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, No. 242, p. 4) AHAM commented that 2010 values of 
SCC should be used until a complete review of the 2013 values is 
completed. (AHAM, No. 249, p. 6) In contrast, EDF and UCS supported 
DOE's use of the Interagency Working Group estimates of SCC. (EDF, UCS, 
No. 239, p. 21-22)
    In response, in conducting the interagency process that developed 
the SCC values, 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. Key uncertainties and model differences transparently and 
consistently inform the range of SCC estimates. These uncertainties and 
model differences are discussed in the interagency working group's 
reports, which are reproduced in appendix 14A and 14B of the final rule 
TSD, as are the major assumptions. Specifically, uncertainties in the 
assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, as well as other model 
inputs such as economic growth and emissions trajectories, are 
discussed and the reasons for the specific input assumptions chosen are 
explained. However, the three integrated assessment models used to 
estimate the SCC are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature 
and were used in the last assessment of the IPCC. In addition, new 
versions of the models that were used in 2013 to estimate revised SCC 
values were published in the peer-reviewed literature (see appendix 14B 
of the final rule TSD for discussion). Although uncertainties remain, 
the revised estimates that were issued in November 2013 are based on 
the best available scientific information on the impacts of climate 
change. The current estimates of the SCC have been developed over many 
years, using the best science available, and with input from the 
public. In November 2013, OMB announced a new opportunity for public 
comment on the interagency technical support document underlying the 
revised SCC estimates. 78 FR 70586. In July 2015, OMB published a 
detailed summary and formal response to the many comments that were 
received.\55\ DOE stands ready to work with OMB and the other members 
of the interagency working group on further review and revision of the 
SCC estimates as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating-benefits-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions. OMB also stated its 
intention to seek independent expert advice on opportunities to 
improve the estimates, including many of the approaches suggested by 
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants
    As noted previously, DOE has estimated how the considered energy 
conservation standards would decrease power sector NOX 
emissions in those 22 States not affected by the CAIR.
    DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions 
reductions from electricity generation using benefit per ton estimates 
from the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final 
Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality

[[Page 38306]]

Planning and Standards.\56\ The report includes high and low values for 
NOX (as PM2.5) for 2020, 2025, and 2030 
discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent; these values are presented in 
chapter 14 of the final rule TSD. DOE primarily relied upon the low 
estimates to be conservative.\57\ DOE assigned values for 2021-2024 and 
2026-2029 using, respectively, the values for 2020 and 2025. DOE 
assigned values after 2030 using the value for 2030. DOE developed 
values specific to the end-use category for battery chargers using a 
method described in appendix 14C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Available at www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis. See Tables 4A-3, 4A-4, and 
4A-5 in the report. The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the rule 
implementing the Clean Power Plan until the current litigation 
against it concludes. Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, et al., 
Order in Pending Case, 136 S.Ct. 999 (2016). However, the benefit-
per-ton estimates established in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for 
the Clean Power Plan are based on scientific studies that remain 
valid irrespective of the legal status of the Clean Power Plan.
    \57\ For the monetized NOX benefits associated with 
PM2.5, the related benefits are primarily based on an 
estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski 
et al. 2009), which is the lower of the two EPA central tendencies. 
Using the lower value is more conservative when making the policy 
decision concerning whether a particular standard level is 
economically justified. If the benefit-per-ton estimates were based 
on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al. 2012), the values would be 
nearly two-and-a-half times larger. (See chapter 14 of the final 
rule TSD for further description of the studies mentioned above.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the emissions reduction (in tons) in each year by 
the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using 
discount rates of 3-percent and 7-percent as appropriate. DOE will 
continue to evaluate the monetization of avoided NOX 
emissions and will make any appropriate updates in energy conservation 
standards rulemakings.
    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.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the 
electric power industry that would result from the adoption of new or 
amended energy conservation standards. The utility impact analysis 
estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and generation 
that would result for each TSL. The analysis is based on published 
output from the NEMS associated with AEO 2015. NEMS produces 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 
published side cases to estimate the marginal impacts of reduced energy 
demand on the utility sector. These marginal factors are estimated 
based on the changes to electricity sector generation, installed 
capacity, fuel consumption and emissions in the AEO Reference case and 
various side cases. Details of the methodology are provided in the 
appendices to chapter 15 of the final rule TSD.
    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 energy 
conservation standards.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a standard. Employment impacts from new or amended 
energy conservation standards 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 service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect 
employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to 
the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase 
and operation of more-efficient appliances. 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 consumer 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\ BLS regularly publishes its 
estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic 
activity in different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs 
created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic activity. Data 
from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally 
create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than 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, the BLS data suggest that 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].
    \59\ See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A 
User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS 
II), U.S. Department of Commerce (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this final rule 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 final rule TSD.

[[Page 38307]]

O. Marking Requirements

    In the SNOPR regarding energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers, DOE declined to propose marking requirements for battery 
chargers. DOE received comments from AHAM supporting its decision to 
refrain from setting marking requirements for battery chargers. (AHAM, 
No. 249, p. 5) However, DOE also received comments from CEC, NRDC, 
ASAP, NEEA and Delta Q requesting that marking requirements be 
established for battery chargers. The CEC argued that a required mark 
will make it easier to gauge compliance with DOE's energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers and make alignment with international 
standards possible. (CEC, No. 241, p. 3-4) NRDC, ASAP and NEEA asserted 
that a required marking would facilitate standards enforcement, help 
identify non-compliant products, and drive accountability from the 
retailer throughout the supply-chain. (NRDC, ASAP, NEEA, No. 252, p. 6) 
Delta Q advised DOE to either adopt the CEC's ``BC'' product mark or 
pre-empt it with an alternate mark to avoid a scenario where two marks 
are required. (Delta Q, No. 238, p. 2)
    As discussed in the SNOPR's response to stakeholder comments 
received on the NOPR, mandating a marking requirement for battery 
chargers does not offer significant benefits in terms of gauging 
compliance with, or facilitating enforcement of, DOE's energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers. Manufacturers of battery 
chargers must certify compliance with applicable DOE's energy 
conservation standards using the Compliance Certification Management 
System (``CCMS'') as a condition of sale in the United States, which 
effectively holds manufacturers accountable for ensuring compliance of 
their covered products. As a result, battery charger compliance with 
DOE's standards can be as easily verified using DOE's compliance 
certification database, rendering a compliance mark on the product 
redundant and an unnecessary burden to manufacturers. Therefore, DOE is 
not mandating any marking requirements for battery chargers in this 
final rule.

P. Reporting Requirements

    Manufacturers (which includes importers), as defined in 42 U.S.C. 
6291(10), will be required to report the applicable certification data 
to the Department through DOE's CCMS on or before the compliance date 
of the standards finalized in this rulemaking.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

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

A. Trial Standard Levels

    DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of four TSLs for battery 
chargers. These TSLs were developed by combining specific efficiency 
levels for each of the product classes analyzed by DOE. DOE presents 
the results for the TSLs in this document, while the results for all 
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the final rule 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, PCs 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC 1--Low E, Inductive..........................            EL 1            EL 2            EL 2            EL 3
PC 2--Low E, Low Voltage........................            EL 1            EL 1            EL 2            EL 4
PC 3--Low E, Medium Voltage.....................            EL 1            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3
PC 4--Low E, High Voltage.......................            EL 1            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3
PC 5--Medium E, Low Voltage.....................            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3            EL 3
PC 6--Medium E, High Voltage....................            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3            EL 3
PC 7--High E....................................            EL 1            EL 1            EL 2            EL 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For battery charger PC 1 (low-energy, inductive), DOE examined 
trial standard levels corresponding to each of three ELs 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 PCs 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 PC 2, and the 
best-in-market efficiency level for PCs 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 PC 2 only, EL 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 EL 3 and the fact that only four TSLs were analyzed.
    DOE's third set of TSLs corresponds to the grouping of PCs 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

[[Page 38308]]

level for both product classes and the maximum NES.
    For PC 7 (high-energy), DOE examined only two ELs 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 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 final rule 
TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    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 impacts are measured 
relative to the efficiency distribution in the in the no-standards case 
in the compliance year (see section IV.F.10 of this final rule).

                                            Table V-2--Average LCC and PBP Results by TSL for Product Class 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average costs  (2013$)
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------     Simple          Average
                   TSL                          EL                         First year's      Lifetime                         payback        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC           (years)         (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
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 (EL 0) product.


      Table V-3--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for Product Class 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                             TSL                                    EL         % of Consumers
                                                                               that experience  Average 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 payback      Average
                   TSL                          EL                         First year's      Lifetime                         (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                                    EL         % of Consumers
                                                                               that experience  Average  savings
                                                                                  net cost          * (2013$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................               1               1.2              0.07
2...........................................................               1               1.2              0.07

[[Page 38309]]

 
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                          EL                         First year's      Lifetime                         payback        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC           (years)         (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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table V-7--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for Product Class 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                             TSL                                    EL         % of Consumers
                                                                               that experience  Average 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                          EL                         First year's      Lifetime                         (years)        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       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                                    EL         % of Consumers
                                                                               that experience   Average 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38310]]


                                           Table V-10--Average LCC and PBP Results by TSL for Product Class 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2013$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                   TSL                          EL                         First year's      Lifetime                         (years)        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       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                                    EL         % of Consumers
                                                                               that experience   Average 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                           Table V-12--Average LCC and PBP Results by TSL for Product Class 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2013$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                   TSL                          EL                         First year's      Lifetime                         (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                                    EL         % of Consumers
                                                                               that experience   Average 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 payback      Average
                   TSL                          EL                         First year's      Lifetime                         (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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38311]]


      Table V-15--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for Product Class 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                             TSL                                    EL         % of Consumers
                                                                               that experience   Average 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 PC 1 are positive through TSL 3. For the low-energy product classes 
(PCs 2, 3, and 4), LCC results are positive through TSL 2 and become 
negative at TSL 3, with PC 2 becoming negative at TSL 4. The medium-
energy product classes (PCs 5 and 6) are positive through TSL 2 but 
become negative at TSL 3. The high-energy product class (PC 7) has 
positive LCC savings through TSL 2, and then becomes negative at TSL 3.
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the 
considered TSLs for low-income consumers, small businesses, residential 
top tier electricity price consumers, time-of-use peak electricity 
price consumers, and consumers of specific applications. 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.

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


[[Page 38312]]


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


                       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. As part of this subgroup analysis, DOE 
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 PCs 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

[[Page 38313]]

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 PCs 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 PC 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. With tiered pricing 
(also known as inclining block rates), the price of electricity 
increases in discrete steps as overall electricity consumption 
increases. For example, the price of electricity can differ between the 
first 100 kWh of consumption, and the next 100 kWh of consumption, in a 
given billing cycle. Under such pricing systems, a consumer's marginal 
electricity price can be significantly higher than the national 
average. 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 PC 1 at TSL 4 
and PC 4 at TSL 3 to positive LCC savings.
Peak Time-of-Use Electricity Price Consumers
    For peak time-of-use electricity price consumers (i.e. those 
electricity consumers who purchase electricity at peak rates, depending 
on either the time of day or season), 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: PC 1 at TSL 4, PC 4 
at TSL 3, and PC 7 at TSLs 3 and 4. Some product classes would still 
have negative LCC savings, which indicates that these 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.
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 final rule TSD.
    DOE noted a few trends highlighted by the application-specific 
subgroup. For PC 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 PC 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 final rule TSD for 
further detail.
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section III.F, 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. In calculating a rebuttable 
presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used 
discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use 
calculation on the DOE test procedures for battery chargers. In 
contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a were calculated using 
distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field.
    Table V-23 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods 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.

[[Page 38314]]



             Table V-23--Trial Standard Levels with Rebuttable Payback Period Less Than Three Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Rebuttable
             Product class                     Description        Trial standard     Candidate      presumption
                                                                       level      standard 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 Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of battery charger 
applications. The section below describes the expected impacts on 
manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 of the final rule TSD explains 
the analysis in further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    The INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between 
the no-standards case and the standards cases, which DOE calculated by 
summing the discounted industry cash flows from the reference year 
(2015) through the end of the analysis period. The discussion also 
notes the difference in the annual cash flow between the no-standards 
case and the standards cases 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 no-standards 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 application's MSP and the 
incremental cost of improving its battery charger; and (2) the dominant 
no-standards case battery charger technology that a given application 
uses, which is approximated by the application's efficiency 
distribution.
    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 the no-standards 
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 (least severe) of profitability impacts. In this scenario, 
manufacturers are able to maintain their no-standards case gross 
margin, as a percentage of revenue, at higher ELs, 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 producing 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38315]]


                     Table V-25--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 1 Battery Charger Applications--Flat Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 1 Battery Charger Applications--Pass-Through Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 1 Battery Charger Applications--Constant Price Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PC 1 has only two applications: Rechargeable toothbrushes and water 
jets. Rechargeable toothbrushes represent over 99 percent of the PC 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 EL 1 for PC 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 PC 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 PC 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 EL 2 for PC 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 decrease of 4 percent, compared to the 
no-standards 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 PC 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 PC 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 no-standards case INPV of $497 million 
and annual cash flow of $39 million for PC 1 battery charger 
applications.
    TSL 4 sets the efficiency level at EL 3 for PC 1. This represents 
max-tech for PC 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

[[Page 38316]]

-4.5 percent. At TSL 4, industry free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease to $36 million, or a decrease of 8 percent, compared to the 
no-standards 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 PC 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 PC 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 no-standards case INPV of $497 million and annual cash 
flow of $39 million for PC 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 PCs 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 Trimmers               Camcorders                                Handheld Vacuums.
Bluetooth Headsets                         DIY Power Tools (External)                Netbooks.
Can Openers                                DIY Power Tools (Integral)                Notebooks.
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 (Integral)                 Portable DVD Players                      Robotic Vacuums.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table V-29--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Flat Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Pass-Through Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38317]]


              Table V-31--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Constant Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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, PCs 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 EL 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 decrease of under one percent, compared to the no-
standards 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 PC 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 PC 2 battery charger applications, 
94 percent of all PC 3 battery charger applications, and 94 percent of 
all PC 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 EL 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 decrease of 1 percent, 
compared to the no-standards case value of $6,024 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly negative at this TSL. DOE 
does not anticipate that most PC 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 PC 2 battery charger applications, 60 percent 
of all PC 3 battery charger applications, and 86 percent of all PC 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 no-standards case INPV of 
$76.8 billion and annual cash flow of $6.02 billion for PC 2, 3, and 4 
battery charger applications.
    TSL 4 sets the efficiency level at EL 3 for PCs 3 and 4 and EL 4 
for PC 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, industry free 
cash flow is estimated to decrease to $5.87 billion, or a decrease of 3 
percent, compared to the no-standards 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 PC 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 PC 2 battery charger 
applications, 58 percent of all PC 3 battery charger applications, and 
74 percent of all PC 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 PC 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 PC 2 battery charger application MPC 
is $127.73. For PC 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 PC 3 
battery charger application MPC is $61.11. For PC 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 PC 4 battery charger application MPC of 
$192.40--in essence, it represents an 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, no-standards 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 PCs 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

[[Page 38318]]

($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 EL 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. 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--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Pass-Through Markup Scenario--Consumer Electronics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Pass-Through Markup Scenario--Power Tools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table V-34--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 2, 3, and 4 Battery Charger Applications--Pass-Through Markup Scenario--Small Appliances
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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 PCs 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38319]]


                  Table V-36--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 5 and 6 Battery Charger Applications--Flat Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 5 and 6 Battery Charger Applications--Pass-Through Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 5 and 6 Battery Charger Applications--Constant Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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 PC 5 and 6 
shipments are at either EL 1 or EL 2. The battery charger cost 
associated with each EL is the same for PC 5 and 6 applications, but 
the energy usage profiles are different.
    TSL 1 sets the efficiency level at EL 1 for Product Classes 5 and 
6. At TSL 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 PC 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 PC 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 EL 2 for PCs 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 decrease of less than one 
percent, compared to the no-standards 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 PC 5 battery charger applications 
and 95 percent of all PC 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 EL 3 for PCs 5 and 6. 
This efficiency level represents max-tech for PCs 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 decrease of 15 percent, compared to the 
no-standards 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 as MPC significantly increases 
manufacturers will have greater difficulty in marking up prices to

[[Page 38320]]

reflect these incremental costs. This would imply that the negative 
INPV impact is a more realistic scenario than the positive INPV impact 
scenario. DOE anticipates that most PC 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 PC 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 PC 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 PC 5 and 
6 battery charger application MPC in the no-new standards case 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 PC 7.

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


                     Table V-40--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 7 Battery Charger Applications--Flat Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial Standard Level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 7 Battery Charger Applications--Pass-Through Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial Standard Level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Table V-42--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class 7 Battery Charger Applications--Constant Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Trial Standard Level
                                                      Units                No-standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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 PC 7. Approximately 80 
percent of the market incorporates baseline battery charger 
technology--the remaining 20 percent employs technology that meets the 
efficiency requirements at EL 1. The cost of a battery charger in PC 7, 
though higher relative to other product classes, remains a small 
portion of the overall selling price of a golf car. This analysis, 
however, focuses on the application manufacturer (OEM). DOE identified 
one small U.S. manufacturer of golf car battery chargers. The impacts 
of standards on small businesses is addressed in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (see section VII.B for the results of that 
analysis).
    TSL 1 and TSL 2 set the efficiency level at EL 1 for PC 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 decrease of 1 percent, compared to the 
no-standards 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 PC 7 battery 
charger

[[Page 38321]]

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 PC 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 EL 2 for PC 7. This 
represents max-tech for PC 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 
decrease of 3 percent, compared to the no-standards 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 PC 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 no-standards case INPV of $1,124 million and 
annual cash flow of $88 million for PC 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.
    At the adopted 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. 
Based on available data, 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 section VII.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, when asked if their domestic 
employment levels would change due to new standards, generally agreed 
these changes would not lead to positive or negative changes in 
employment, outside of the golf car battery charger industry.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    DOE does not anticipate that the standards adopted by this final 
rule would adversely impact manufacturer capacity. The battery charger 
application industry is characterized by rapid product development 
lifecycles. 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 adopted standards for 
battery chargers.
d. Impacts on Subgroups 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 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

[[Page 38322]]

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--Other DOE Regulations Potentially 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. As of the compliance date for the 
standards established in this rule is reached, the CEC standards will 
be preempted. Therefore, DOE did not consider the CEC standards as 
contributing to the cumulative regulatory burden of this rulemaking.
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential standards 
for battery chargers, DOE compared their energy consumption under the 
no-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each 
TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products 
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated 
compliance with new standards (2018-2047). Table V-44 and Table V-45 
present DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL 
considered for battery chargers. The savings were calculated using the 
approach described in section IV.H of this document.

   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           0.048           0.048           0.086
2, 3, 4.........................................           0.088           0.088           0.311           0.428
5, 6............................................           0.000           0.017           0.132           0.132
7...............................................           0.012           0.012           0.027           0.027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 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           0.050           0.050           0.090
2, 3, 4.........................................           0.092           0.092           0.325           0.448
5, 6............................................           0.000           0.018           0.138           0.138
7...............................................           0.013           0.013           0.028           0.028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \61\ 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. 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 nine-year period is a proxy for 
the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 
standards.\62\ 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

[[Page 38323]]

presented in Table V-46. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of 
battery chargers purchased in 2018-2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 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/).
    \62\ 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           0.098           0.136
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 
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for battery 
chargers. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory 
analysis,\63\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent 
real discount rate. Table V-47 shows the consumer NPV results with 
impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2018-2047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, ``Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis,'' section E, (Sept. 17, 2003) (Available at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/).

  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, 
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are 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 Impacts on Employment
    DOE expects energy conservation standards for battery chargers to 
reduce energy bills for consumers of those products, with the resulting 
net savings being 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 of this document, 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.
    The results suggest that the adopted standards are likely to have a 
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 final rule TSD presents detailed results 
regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    Based on testing conducted in support of this rule, DOE has 
concluded that the standards adopted in this final rule 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 the adopted standards. DOE 
has also declined to adopt battery charger

[[Page 38324]]

marking requirements as part of this final rule, providing 
manufacturers with more flexibility in the way that they design, label, 
and market their products.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE has also considered any lessening of competition this is likely 
to result from the adopted standards. The Attorney General of the 
United States (Attorney General) determines the impact, if any, of any 
lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and 
is required to transmit such determination in writing to the Secretary 
within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an 
analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))
    To assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE 
provided the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') with copies of the SNOPR 
and the accompanying SNOPR TSD for review. In its assessment letter 
responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the proposed energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers are unlikely to have a significant 
adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the Attorney General's 
assessment at the end of this final rule.
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 (costs) 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 final rule TSD presents the estimated 
reduction in generating capacity, relative to the no-standards case, 
for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
    Energy conservation resulting from standards for battery chargers 
is 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 expected to result 
from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The table includes both 
power sector emissions and upstream emissions. The emissions were 
calculated using the multipliers discussed in section IV.K. DOE reports 
annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the final 
rule TSD. The energy conservation standards established by this rule 
are economically justified under EPCA with regard to the added benefits 
achieved through reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse 
gases.

         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).......................            6.49           10.25           32.08           41.78
SO2 (thousand tons).............................            4.10            6.48           20.29           26.44
NOX (thousand tons).............................            7.02           11.09           34.68           45.16
Hg (tons).......................................           0.015           0.024           0.075           0.098
CH4 (thousand tons).............................           0.582           0.919           2.877           3.749
N2O (thousand tons).............................           0.083           0.131           0.409           0.533
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................           0.342           0.542           1.697           2.209
SO2 (thousand tons).............................           0.064           0.102           0.318           0.415
NOX (thousand tons).............................            4.89            7.75           24.26           31.57
Hg (tons).......................................           0.000           0.000           0.001           0.001
CH4 (thousand tons).............................            27.0            42.7           133.8           174.1
N2O (thousand tons).............................           0.003           0.005           0.016           0.021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................            6.83           10.79           33.77           43.99
SO2 (thousand tons).............................            4.17            6.58           20.61           26.86
NOX (thousand tons).............................           11.91           18.83           58.94           76.73
Hg (tons).......................................           0.015           0.024           0.076           0.099
CH4 (thousand tons).............................            27.6            43.6           136.6           177.8
CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq)*......................             772            1222            3826            4979
N2O (thousand tons).............................           0.086           0.136           0.424           0.553
N2O (thousand tons CO2eq)*......................            22.7            35.9           112.5           146.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.

    As part of the analysis for this 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 
for battery chargers. As discussed in section IV.L of this document, 
for CO2, DOE used 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 $12.2/metric ton (the average value from a 
distribution that uses a 5-percent discount rate), $40.0/metric ton 
(the average value from a distribution that uses a 3-percent discount 
rate), $62.3/metric ton (the average value from a distribution that 
uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and $117/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

[[Page 38325]]

damages (public health, economic and environmental) 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 final rule 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...............................................            51.9           223.6           350.4           676.9
2...............................................            81.5           351.9           551.8          1065.8
3...............................................           254.2          1099.4          1724.3          3329.9
4...............................................           331.4          1432.8          2246.9          4339.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................             2.7            11.6            18.3            35.3
2...............................................             4.2            18.4            28.9            55.7
3...............................................            13.1            57.4            90.2           174.2
4...............................................            17.1            74.8           117.5           226.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            54.6           235.3           368.7           712.2
2...............................................            85.7           370.3           580.6          1121.5
3...............................................           267.3          1156.8          1814.5          3504.1
4...............................................           348.6          1507.6          2364.4          4566.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.2, $40.0, $62.3, and $117
  per metric ton (2013$).

    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 
reduced 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 rule the most 
recent values and analyses resulting from the 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 values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.L 
of this document. Table V-51 presents the cumulative present values for 
NOX emissions for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-
percent discount rates. This table presents values that use the low 
dollar-per-ton values, which reflect DOE's primary estimate. Results 
that reflect the range of NOX dollar-per-ton values are 
presented in Table V.53.

     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.......................................            15.7             8.0
2.......................................            24.6            12.5
3.......................................            76.7            38.8
4.......................................            99.9            50.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................            10.8             5.4
2.......................................            17.0             8.4
3.......................................            52.9            26.0

[[Page 38326]]

 
4.......................................            69.0            33.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total FFC Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................            26.5            13.4
2.......................................            41.6            20.8
3.......................................           129.6            64.8
4.......................................           168.9            84.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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)) No 
other factors were considered in this analysis. 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 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 in this 
rulemaking, at both a 7-percent and 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer NPV at 3% Discount rate added with: (Billion 2013$)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               TSL                 SCC case $12.2/t    SCC case $40.0/t    SCC case $62.3/t     SCC case $117/t
                                    and 3% low NOX      and 3% low NOX      and 3% low NOX      and 3% low NOX
                                        values              values              values              values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................                 0.9                 1.1                 1.3                 1.6
2...............................                 1.3                 1.6                 1.8                 2.4
3...............................               -15.8               -14.9               -14.3               -12.6
4...............................               -47.4               -46.3               -45.4               -43.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                           Consumer NPV at 7% Discount rate added with: (Billion 2013$)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               TSL                 SCC Case $12.2/t    SCC Case $40.0/t    SCC Case $62.3/t     SCC Case $117/t
                                    and 7% low NOX      and 7% low NOX      and 7% low NOX      and 7% low NOX
                                        values              values              values              values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................                 0.5                 0.7                 0.8                 1.2
2...............................                 0.7                 1.0                 1.2                 1.8
3...............................                -9.2                -8.3                -7.7                -6.0
4...............................               -27.5               -26.3               -25.5               -23.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering the above results, two issues are relevant. 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,\64\ the SCC values in 
future years reflect future climate-related impacts that continue 
beyond 2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of 
the order of 30-95 years. Jacobson, MZ, ``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 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conclusion

    When considering standards, the new or amended energy conservation 
standards 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 by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

[[Page 38327]]

    For this final rule, DOE considered the impacts of new standards 
for battery chargers at each TSL, beginning with the maximum 
technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was 
economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE 
then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same 
evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both 
technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a 
significant amount of energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present 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. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    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. 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 (for example, 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 the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this 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 
purchased 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 
of the final rule 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.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 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 conservation 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\66\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory (2010) (Available online at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Battery Charger 
Standards
    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.B of this document.

                            Table V-53--Battery Chargers: Summary of National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                           TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Cumulative FFC Energy Savings quads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           0.109           0.173           0.540           0.703
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                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.........................            6.83           10.79           33.77           43.99
SO2 thousand tons...............................            4.17            6.58           20.61           26.86
NOX thousand tons...............................           11.91           18.83           58.94           76.73
Hg tons.........................................           0.015           0.024           0.076           0.099
CH4 thousand tons...............................            27.6            43.6           136.6           177.8
CH4 thousand tons CO2eq *.......................             772            1222            3826            4979
N2O thousand tons...............................           0.086           0.136           0.424           0.553
N2O thousand tons CO2eq *.......................            22.7            35.9           112.5           146.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Value of Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 2013$ billion **............................  0.055 to 0.712  0.086 to 1.121  0.267 to 3.504  0.349 to 4.566

[[Page 38328]]

 
NOX--3% discount rate 2013$ million.............    26.5 to 60.4    41.6 to 94.7  129.6 to 295.4  168.9 to 385.1
NOX--7% discount rate 2013$ million.............    13.4 to 30.3    20.8 to 47.0   64.8 to 146.0   84.6 to 190.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) (No-standards case    79,782-79,887   79,375-79,887   77,387-80,479   64,012-81,017
 INPV = 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$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC 1--Low E, Inductive *........................            0.08            0.71            0.71          (3.44)
PC 2--Low E, Low-Voltage........................            0.07            0.07            0.06          (2.79)
PC 3--Low E, Medium-Voltage.....................            0.08            0.08          (1.36)          (2.17)
PC 4--Low E, High-Voltage.......................            0.11            0.11          (0.38)          (4.91)
PC 5--Medium E, Low-Voltage *...................            0.00            0.84        (138.63)        (138.63)
PC 6--Medium E, High-Voltage *..................            0.00            1.89        (129.15)        (129.15)
PC 7--High E....................................           51.06           51.06         (80.05)         (80.05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC 1--Low E, Inductive *........................             1.1             1.5             1.5             7.4
PC 2--Low E, Low-Voltage........................             0.6             0.6             2.5            19.5
PC 3--Low E, Medium-Voltage.....................             0.8             0.8            21.6            31.2
PC 4--Low E, High-Voltage.......................             1.4             1.4             5.2            20.7
PC 5--Medium E, Low-Voltage *...................             2.3             2.7            29.1            29.1
PC 6--Medium E, High-Voltage *..................             1.0             1.1            12.5            12.5
PC 7--High E....................................             0.0             0.0             8.1             8.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC 1--Low E, Inductive *........................             0.0             0.0             0.0            96.3
PC 2--Low E, Low-Voltage........................             1.2             1.2            33.1            73.8
PC 3--Low E, Medium-Voltage.....................             0.6             0.6            39.0            40.8
PC 4--Low E, High-Voltage.......................             1.3             1.3            12.6            25.8
PC 5--Medium E, Low-Voltage *...................             0.0             0.6            99.7            99.7
PC 6--Medium E, High-Voltage *..................             0.0             0.0           100.0           100.0
PC 7--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 0.703 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 43.99 Mt of 
CO2, 76.73 thousand tons of NOX, 26.86 thousand 
tons of SO2, 0.099 ton of Hg, 177.8 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.553 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at 
TSL 4 ranges from $0.349 billion to $4.566 billion.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a cost of $3.44 for PC 1, $2.79 
for PC 2, $2.17 for PC 3, $4.91 for PC 4, $138.63 for PC 5, $129.15 for 
PC 6, and $80.05 for PC 7. The simple payback period is 7.4 years for 
PC 1, 19.5 years for PC 2, 31.2 years for PC 3, 20.7 years for PC 4, 
29.1 years for PC 5, 12.5 years for PC 6, and 8.1 years for PC 7. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 96.3 percent for 
PC 1, 73.8 percent for PC 2, 40.8 percent for PC 3, 25.8 percent for PC 
4, 99.7 percent for PC 5, 100 percent for PC 6, and 100 percent for PC 
7.
    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 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 concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 0.540 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 33.77 Mt of 
CO2, 58.94

[[Page 38329]]

thousand tons of NOX, 20.61 thousand tons of SO2, 
0.076 ton of Hg, 136.6 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.424 
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reduction at TSL 3 ranges from $0.267 billion 
to $3.504 billion.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $0.71 for PC 1 and 
$0.06 for PC 2, and a cost of $1.36 for PC 3, $0.38 for PC 4, $138.63 
for PC 5, $129.15 for PC 6, and $80.05 for PC 7. The simple payback 
period is 1.5 years for PC 1, 2.5 years for PC 2, 21.6 years for PC 3, 
5.2 years for PC 4, 29.1 years for PC 5, 12.5 years for PC 6, and 8.1 
years for PC 7. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost 
is 0.0 percent for PC 1, 33.1 percent for PC 2, 39.0 percent for PC 3, 
12.6 percent for PC 4, 99.7 percent for PC 5, 100 percent for PC 6, and 
100 percent for PC 7.
    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 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 concluded that TSL 3 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.173 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 10.79 Mt of 
CO2, 18.83 thousand tons of NOX, 6.58 thousand 
tons of SO2, 0.024 ton of Hg, 43.6 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.136 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at 
TSL 2 ranges from $0.086 billion to $1.121 billion.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $0.71 for PC 1, 
$0.07 for PC 2, $0.08 for PC 3, $0.11 for PC 4, $0.84 for PC 5, $1.89 
for PC 6, and $51.06 for PC 7. The simple payback period is 1.5 years 
for PC 1, 0.6 years for PC 2, 0.8 years for PC 3, 1.4 years for PC 4, 
2.7 years for PC 5, 1.1 years for PC 6, and 0.0 years for PC 7. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 0.0 percent for PC 
1, 1.2 percent for PC 2, 0.6 percent for PC 3, 1.3 percent for PC 4, 
0.6 percent for PC 5, 0.0 percent for PC 6, and 0.0 percent for PC 7.
    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 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 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, based on the above considerations, DOE is 
adopting energy conservation standards for battery chargers at TSL 2. 
The energy conservation standards for battery chargers are shown in 
Table V-55.

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

2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
    The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
the sum of: (1) The annualized national economic value (expressed in 
2013$) of the benefits from operating products that meet the adopted 
standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using 
less energy, minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the benefits of CO2 and 
NOX emission reductions.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 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 average SCC series corresponding to a 
value of $40.0/ton in 2015 (2013$)), the estimated cost of the adopted 
standards for battery chargers is $9 million per year in increased 
equipment costs, while the estimated benefits are $68 million per year 
in reduced equipment operating costs, $20 million per year in 
CO2 reductions, and $1.92 million per year in reduced 
NOX emissions. In this

[[Page 38330]]

case, the net benefit amounts to $81 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the 
average SCC series corresponding to a value of $40.0/ton in 2015 (in 
2013$), the estimated cost of the adopted standards for battery 
chargers is $10 million per year in increased equipment costs, while 
the estimated annual benefits are $75 million in reduced operating 
costs, $20 million in CO2 reductions, and $2.25 million in 
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts 
to $88 million per year.

                               Table V-56--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards (TSL 2) for Battery Chargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Million 2013$/year
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Discount rate                                        Low net benefits estimate      High net  benefits
                                                                          Primary  estimate *                  *                      estimate *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings............  7%..............................  68........................  68........................  69
                                    3%..............................  75........................  74........................  76
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value       5%..............................  6.........................  6.........................  6
 ($12.2/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value       3%..............................  20........................  20........................  20
 ($40.0/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value       2.5%............................  29........................  29........................  29
 ($62.3/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value       3%..............................  61........................  61........................  61
 ($117/t case) **.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value       7%..............................  1.92......................  1.92......................  4.34
 [dagger].
                                    3%..............................  2.25......................  2.25......................  5.13
Total Benefits [dagger][dagger]...  7% plus CO2 range...............  76 to 131.................  76 to 131.................  80 to 134
                                    7%..............................  90........................  90........................  94
                                    3% plus CO2 range...............  83 to 138.................  83 to 137.................  87 to 142
                                    3%..............................  97........................  97........................  101
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs  7%..............................  9.........................  9.........................  6
                                    3%..............................  10........................  10........................  6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger][dagger]............  7% plus CO2 range...............  67 to 122.................  67 to 121.................  73 to 128
                                    7%..............................  81........................  81........................  87
                                    3% plus CO2 range...............  74 to 128.................  73 to 128.................  81 to 136
                                    3%..............................  88........................  87........................  95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 AEO 2015 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] DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean
  Power Plan Final Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.) See section IV.L.2 for further discussion. For DOE's Primary Estimate and Low
  Net Benefits Estimate, the agency used a national benefit-per-ton estimate for particulate matter emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector
  based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al., 2009). For DOE's High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-
  ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al., 2011), which are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the ACS study.
[dagger][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
  ($40.0/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.

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 adopted standards for battery chargers are 
intended to 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 that are not captured by the users of such 
equipment. These benefits include externalities related to public 
health, environmental protection and national energy 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. DOE

[[Page 38331]]

attempts to qualify some of the external benefits through use of social 
cost of carbon values.
    In addition, DOE has determined that this 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, issued on January 18, 2011. (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011) E.O. 
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, OIRA 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 final rule is 
consistent with these principles, including the 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 a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') 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 FRFA for the products that are the subject 
of this rulemaking.
1. Description of the Need for and Objectives of, the Rule
    A description of the need for, and objectives of, the rule is set 
forth elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here.
2. Description of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comment
    DOE received no comments specifically on the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis prepared for this rulemaking. Comments on the 
economic impacts of the rule are discussed elsewhere in the preamble 
and did not necessitate changes to the analysis required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
3. Description of Comments Submitted by the Small Business 
Administration
    The Small Business Administration did not submit comments on DOE's 
earlier proposal detailing the standards that DOE is adopting in this 
rule.
4. 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 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 several companies that 
could potentially manufacture battery chargers covered by this 
rulemaking. 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 Participants
    Before issuing the NOPR for this rulemaking, DOE contacted the 
potential small business manufacturers of battery chargers it had 
identified. One small business consented to being interviewed during 
the MIA interviews which were conducted prior to the publication of the 
NOPR. DOE also

[[Page 38332]]

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 (PC 7).
    A high level of concentration exists in the market for battery 
chargers used for golf cars. 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 appendix 12-B of the final rule 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 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. 
DOE does not anticipate the adopted standard to have a negative impact 
on motorized wheelchair operations because the standard for PC 5 
inherently scales with battery energy. Irrespective of the size of the 
battery used in wheelchair applications, charge current will only 
terminate when the battery has reached a predetermined max voltage and 
is fully charged. DOE therefore has no reason to believe that compliant 
chargers would undercharge certain types of batteries and affect a 
wheelchairs runtime and performance. Further, battery chargers at the 
adopted standard already exists in the marketplace and these battery 
chargers have shown to charge wheelchair batteries effectively.
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.
5. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    The U.S.-owned small business DOE identified manufactures battery 
chargers for golf cars (PC 7). DOE anticipates the adopted rule will 
require both capital and product conversion costs to achieve 
compliance. The ELs adopted for PCs 5, 6, and 7 will drive different 
levels of small business impacts. The compliance costs associated with 
the adopted TSLs are present in Table VI-1 through Table VI-3.
    DOE does not expect the adopted TSL to require significant capital 
expenditures. Although some new assembly equipment and tooling would be 
required, the magnitude of these expenditures would be unlikely to 
cause significant adverse financial impacts. PC 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.........................            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3            EL 3
Product Class 7.................................            EL 1            EL 1            EL 2            EL 2
Estimated Capital Conversion Costs (2013$)......            $0.1            $0.1            $0.2            $0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the TSL adopted in this final rule.

    The product conversion costs associated with standards are more 
significant for the small business manufacturer than the projected 
capital conversion costs. TSL 2 for PC 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 PC 7 at each TSL. Additionally, based on 
market research conducted during the analysis period of this final 
rule, 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

[[Page 38333]]

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.........................            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3            EL 3
Product Class 7.................................            EL 1            EL 1            EL 2            EL 2
Estimated Product Conversion Costs (2013$)......            $1.8            $2.0            $5.1            $5.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the TSL adopted in this 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.........................            EL 1            EL 2            EL 3            EL 3
Product Class 7.................................            EL 1            EL 1            EL 2            EL 2
Estimated Total Conversion Costs (2013$)........            $1.9            $2.1            $4.3            $4.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the TSL adopted in this final rule rulemaking.

    Based on its engineering analysis, manufacturer interviews and 
public comments, DOE believes TSL 2 for PC 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 several battery chargers manufactured by the one small 
business DOE identified would need to be modified to meet the adopted 
standards for PC 7, this manufacturer also sells several 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 adopted 
standards, since it is likely that switch-mode battery charger 
manufacturing would take place abroad.
6. Description of Steps Taken To Minimize Impacts to Small Businesses
    The discussion in the previous sections analyzes impacts on small 
business that would result from the other TSLs DOE considered. Though 
TSLs lower than the adopted 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.
    With respect to TSL 4, DOE estimates that while there would be an 
additional 0.525 quads of energy savings at TSL 4 compared to the 
adopted standards, TSL 2, it would cause consumers to lose $27.9 
billion using a 7-percent discount rate or $47.9 billion using a 3-
percent discount rate, compared to consumers saving $0.6 billion using 
a 7-percent discount rate or saving $1.2 billion using a 3 percent 
discount rate at the adopted standards, TSL 2. Also, manufacturers 
could lose up to 19.9 percent of their INPV at TSL 4. DOE determined 
that the additional high cost to consumers and the potential reduction 
in manufacturer INPV, would outweigh the potential energy savings 
benefits. For TSL 3, DOE estimates that while there would be an 
additional 0.364 quads of energy savings at TSL 3 compared to the 
adopted standards, TSL 2, it would cause consumers to lose $9.5 billion 
using a 7-percent discount rate or $16.2 billion using a 3-percent 
discount rate, compared to consumers saving $0.6 billion using a 7-
percent discount rate or saving $1.2 billion using a 3 percent discount 
rate at the adopted standards, TSL 2. Also manufacturers could lose up 
to 3.2 percent of their INPV at TSL 3. DOE determined that the 
additional cost to consumers and the potential reduction in 
manufacturer INPV, would outweigh the potential energy savings 
benefits.
    In addition, while TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on small business 
manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a significant reduction 
in energy savings and NPV benefits to consumers, achieving 36 percent 
lower energy savings and 17 to 25 percent less NPV benefits to 
consumers compared to the energy savings and NPV benefits at TSL 2.
    EPCA requires DOE to establish standards at the level that would 
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. Based on its 
analysis, DOE concluded that TSL 2 achieves the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. Therefore, DOE did not establish standards at the levels 
considered at TSL 3 and TSL 4 because DOE determined that they were not 
economically justified. DOE's analysis of economic justification 
considers impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses. While 
TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on small business manufacturers, EPCA 
prohibits DOE from adopting TSL 1.
    In summary, DOE concluded that establishing standards at TSL 2 
balances the benefits of the energy savings and the NPV benefits to 
consumers at TSL

[[Page 38334]]

2 with the potential burdens placed on battery charger application 
manufacturers, including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE 
did not adopt any of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or the 
other policy alternatives detailed as part of the regulatory impacts 
analysis included in chapter 17 of the final rule TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. Additionally, Section 504 of the 
Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides 
authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued under EPCA in order 
to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of 
burdens'' that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a result of such 
rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and 
part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of battery chargers must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In 
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according 
to the DOE test procedures for 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 rule fits within the category of actions 
included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 (Actions to conserve energy 
or water) and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. 
See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and App. B, B(1)-
(5). The rule fits within this category of actions because it is a 
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer 
products or industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions 
identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX 
determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an 
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this 
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 
rule and has 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 levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. 
States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 
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 final rule meets the 
relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action 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

[[Page 38335]]

timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal 
governments on a ``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.
    DOE has concluded that this final rule may require expenditures of 
$100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. 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 final rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)). The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document and the TSD for this 
final rule respond to those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an 
explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(d), 
(f), and (o), this final rule establishes 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 chapter 17 of the 
TSD for this final rule.

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

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a 
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family 
well-being. This 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 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this 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 final rule under the OMB 
and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with 
applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any 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 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 concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth 
energy conservation standards for battery chargers, is not a 
significant energy action because the 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 final 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.'' Id at 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.

[[Page 38336]]

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
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 May 6, 2016.
David Friedman,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends 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 on or after 
June 13, 2018, must 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 rated 
battery energy as shown in the following table:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Special          Maximum UEC (kWh/yr)
   Product class         Product class       Rated battery energy     characteristic or      (as a function of
                          description             (Ebatt **)           battery voltage           Ebatt **)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................  Low-Energy............  <=5 Wh................  Inductive Connection   3.04
                                                                     *.
2.................  Low-Energy, Low-        <100 Wh...............  <4 V.................  0.1440 * Ebatt + 2.95
                     Voltage.
3.................  Low-Energy, Medium-     ......................  4-10 V...............  For Ebatt <10 Wh,
                     Voltage.                                                              1.42 kWh/y
                                                                                           Ebatt >=10 Wh,
                                                                                           0.0255 * Ebatt + 1.16
4.................  Low-Energy, High-       ......................  >10 V................  0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18
                     Voltage.
5.................  Medium-Energy, Low-     100-3000 Wh...........  <20 V................  0.0257 * Ebatt + .815
                     Voltage.
6.................  Medium-Energy, High-    ......................  >=20 V...............  0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4
                     Voltage.
7.................  High-Energy...........  >3000 Wh..............  .....................  0.0502 * Ebatt + 4.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Inductive connection and designed for use in a wet environment (e.g. electric toothbrushes).
** Ebatt = Rated battery energy as determined in 10 CFR part 429.39(a).

    (2) 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)).

Appendix

    Note:  The following letter from the Department of Justice will 
not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

WILLIAM J. BAER

Assistant Attorney General
Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20530-0001, (202) 514-2401/(202) 616-2645 (Fax)
October 30, 2015.
Anne Harkavy
Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, Regulation and Enforcement,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585.

Dear Deputy General Counsel Harkavy: I am responding to your 
September 1, 2015, letter seeking views of the Attorney General 
about the impact on competition of proposed energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers. Your request was submitted under 
Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which required the Attorney General to 
make determination of the impact of any lessening of competition 
this is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy 
conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for 
responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a 
program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney 
General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g).
    In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines 
whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by 
substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry 
concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher 
prices to manufacturers and consumers.
    We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the 
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (80 Fed. Reg. 52,850, 
Sep. 1, 2015) and the related Technical Support Documents. We have 
also reviewed information presented at the public meeting held on 
the proposed standards on September 15, 2015.
    Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers are unlikely to have a 
significant adverse impact on competition.

Sincerely,
William J. Baer.

[FR Doc. 2016-12835 Filed 6-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P