[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30636-30649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09988]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 20, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 30636]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006]
RIN 1904-AD87
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
External Power Supplies
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for External Power Supplies (``EPS''). Under the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, DOE must review these
standards at least once every six years and publish either propose new
standards for EPSs or a notice of determination that the existing
standards do not need to be amended. This request for information
(``RFI'') solicits information from the public to help DOE determine
whether amended standards for EPSs would result in significant energy
savings and whether such standards would be technologically feasible
and economically justified. As part of this RFI, DOE seeks comment on
whether there have been sufficient technological or market changes
since the most recent standards update that may justify a new
rulemaking to consider more stringent standards. Specifically, DOE
seeks data and information that could enable the agency to determine
whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' determination because
a more stringent standard: would not result in a significant savings of
energy; is not technologically feasible; is not economically justified;
or any combination of the foregoing. DOE welcomes written comments from
the public on any subject within the scope of this document (including
those topics not specifically raised), as well as the submission of
data and other relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before
July 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0006, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to [email protected] Include the docket number
EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 287-
1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the http://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.
The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit
comments through http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected]
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email:
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
I. Request for Information and Comments
A. Products Covered by This Process
1. External Versus Internal Power Supplies
2. Wireless Power Devices
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
E. Distribution Channels
F. Energy Use Analysis
1. Active-Mode and No-Load Mode of External Power Supplies
2. Idle Mode and Sleep Mode of External Power Supplies
G. Repair and Maintenance Costs
H. Shipments
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
2. Emerging Smart Technology Market
3. Other Issues
K. Updated Market Data
III. Submission of Comments
[[Page 30637]]
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products
include external power supplies (``EPSs''), the subject of this
document. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u) EPCA, as amended by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 (``EISA''),
also defined a subset of EPSs, called Class A EPSs--devices that are
``able to convert to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time'' and
have ``nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 watts''
among other characteristics.\3\ (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)) These
devices are also, by definition, (1) designed to convert line voltage
AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output, (2) sold with (or intended
to be used with) a separate end-use product that constitutes the
primary load, (3) contained in a separate physical enclosure from the
end-use product, and (4) connected to the end-use product via a
removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord
or other wiring. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i). EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for Class A EPSs (hereafter referred to as the
``Level IV standards,'' the nomenclature of which is based on the
marking required in accordance with the International Efficiency
Marking Protocol) that became required on July 1, 2008. EPCA also
directed DOE to conduct 2 cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to
amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was re-designated Part A.
\3\ Congress also excluded certain devices from the Class A EPS
definition, specifically certain devices requiring listing and
approval as a medical device and devices that either (1) power the
charger of a detachable battery pack or (2) charge the battery of a
product that is fully or primarily motor operated. See 42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(C)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the EISA amendments, Congress further amended EPCA to
exclude EPSs used for certain security and life safety alarms and
surveillance systems manufactured prior to July 1, 2017, from the
statutorily-prescribed ``no-load'' energy conservation standards. (Pub.
L. 111-360 (January 4, 2011) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)).
EPCA's EPS provisions were again amended by the Power and Security
Systems (``PASS'') Act, which extended the rulemaking deadline and
effective date established under the EISA 2007 amendments from July 1,
2015, and July 1, 2017, to July 1, 2021, and July 1, 2023,
respectively. (Pub. L. 115-78 (November 2, 2017) (codified at 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(3)(D)(ii))). The PASS Act also extended the exclusion of
certain security and life safety alarms and surveillance systems from
no-load standards until the effective date of the final rule issued
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii) and allows the Secretary to treat
some or all EPSs designed to be connected to a security or life safety
alarm or surveillance system as a separate product class or to further
extend the exclusion. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)(ii) and (iv).
Most recently, on January 12, 2018, the EPS Improvement Act of
2017, Public Law 115-115, amended EPCA to exclude the following devices
from the EPS definition: power supply circuits, drivers, or devices
that are designed exclusively to be connected to and power (1) light-
emitting diodes providing illumination, (2) organic light-emitting
diodes providing illumination, or (3) ceiling fans using direct current
motors.\4\ (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE amended its regulations to reflect the changes
introduced by the PASS Act and EPS Improvement Act. 84 FR 437
(January 29, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and 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 EPCA. (See 42
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
DOE completed the first of two required rulemaking cycles in 2014
by adopting amended performance standards for EPSs manufactured on or
after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7846 (February 10, 2014) (setting
amended standards to apply starting on February 10, 2016) (``February
2014 Final Rule''). The final rule amended the Level IV standards
prescribed by Congress and separated EPSs into two groups regardless of
whether they met the Class A criteria--direct operation EPSs and
indirect operation EPSs. The February 2014 Final Rule set new standards
that applied only to direct operation EPSs (hereafter referred to as
``Level VI standards''), which increased the stringency of the average
active-mode and no-load power consumption metrics over the Level IV
standards. Under this rule, Class A EPSs that could directly power a
consumer product (excluding battery chargers) became subject to the
Level VI standards, whereas a Class A EPS that requires the use of a
battery to power a consumer product remained subject to the Level IV
standards. Likewise, a non-Class A EPS that could directly power a
consumer product (excluding battery chargers) became subject to
efficiency standards for the first time (Level VI standards)--non-Class
A indirect operation EPS continued to remain free from any efficiency
requirements. 79 FR 7865. The current energy conservation standards are
located in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part
430, section 32(w). The currently applicable DOE test procedures for
EPS are at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z (``Appendix Z'').
In implementing its standards, DOE provided more detailed guidance
in an EPS test procedure rulemaking to help manufacturers and others
determine whether a given device fell into the direct operation or
indirect operation group. See 80 FR 51424 (Aug. 25, 2014). In that
document, DOE noted that the separation between these two types of EPSs
is based on their ability to power an end-use product when the
product's battery is removed or depleted. If the product can still
operate as intended when the battery is removed and the EPS is
connected, the EPS is considered a direct operation EPS provided that
the EPS operates a consumer product. If the product can only operate a
battery charger or if the product cannot operate with the battery
removed, it is considered an indirect operation EPS. 80 FR 51434-51435.
On December 6, 2019, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR) for the EPS test procedure as codified at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, Appendix Z, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy
Consumption of External Power Supplies.'' This notice was issued in
response to several test
[[Page 30638]]
procedure waivers, and stakeholder inquiries regarding testing methods
for EPSs that incorporated certain newer technologies. Specifically,
the proposed amendments address issues regarding the emergence of
adaptive and multiple-output EPSs.
EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of covered product,
including those at issue here, and publish either a notice of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to
a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) In making a
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, DOE must
evaluate whether amended standards (1) will result in significant
conservation of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are
cost effective as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must determine whether the benefits of a
standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable,
considering 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 products which are likely to
result from the imposition of the standard. If DOE publishes a final
determination that a standard does not need amending based on the
statutory criteria, not later than 3 years after the issuance of DOE's
determination, DOE must either make a new determination that standards
for the product do not need to be amended or propose new energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in the following
section, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) If DOE decides to amend the standard
based on the statutory criteria, DOE must publish a final rule not
later than two years after energy conservation standards are proposed.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A))
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to
inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria when prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine whether a standard is
economically justified, EPCA requires that the Secretary of Energy
(``the Secretary'') determine whether the benefits of the standard
exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable,
the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or
maintenance expenses likely to result from the imposition of the
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 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 considers relevant. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings......... Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Technological Feasibility.......... Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on Manufacturer Impact
manufacturers and consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup
Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime operating cost Markups for Product Price
savings compared to increased Determination.
cost for the product. Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy Shipments Analysis.
savings.
National Impact Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or Screening Analysis.
performance.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of Manufacturer Impact
competition. Analysis.
6. Need for national energy and Shipments Analysis.
water conservation.
National Impact Analysis.
7. Other factors the Secretary Employment Impact
considers relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission
Reductions Benefits.
[[Page 30639]]
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document to
seek input and data from interested parties to aid in the development
of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely to
determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for EPSs.
II. Request for Information and Comments
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for EPSs may be
warranted.
As an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether there have been
sufficient technological or market changes since the most recent
standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more
stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that
could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no
new standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1)
Would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
Additionally, DOE recently published an RFI on the emerging smart
technology appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17,
2018). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market
trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial
equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing
the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such
innovation in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting
efficiency standards for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks
comments, data and information on the issues presented in the RFI as
they may be applicable to EPSs.
A. Products Covered by This Process
This RFI covers those products that meet the definitions of various
EPSs codified at 10 CFR 430.2. An EPS is defined as an external power
supply circuit that is used to convert household electric current into
DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumer product.
10 CFR 430.2. DOE's regulations also include more specific definitions
of other EPS variants. See 10 CFR 430.2.
DOE is interested in any feedback stakeholders may have on the
classification of specific types of EPSs but notes that the EPS
definition is established by statute. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) There
are products that would initially appear to be within the broad
statutory definition of EPS, such as: Consumer devices with multiple
primary functions one of which is an EPS; and, wireless power supplies.
In each of these examples, a circuit is used to convert household
electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate
a consumer product. DOE is seeking information on the technical
differences between such products and other products that are EPSs.
1. Consumer Devices With Auxiliary Power Supply Function
The ubiquitous nature of universal serial bus (``USB'') devices as
charging and communication platforms has led many manufacturers to
embed USB ports within consumer devices whose primary function may not
be to serve as an external power supply. (A universal serial bus is a
type of interface that enables communication between various devices
and a host controller.) With ever improving specifications such as 100W
of power and 10 gigabits per second (Gbps) of throughout data, DOE
anticipates the presence of embedded USB ports to become even more
commonplace. This projected development raises the question about
whether these products are EPSs and subject to the EPS standards. This
section addresses this topic and seeks feedback from interested parties
on specific questions.
The USB specification, published by the USB Implementers Forum,\5\
requires any USB output port, even those embedded in other products, to
output a DC voltage. Therefore, a consumer product could generally
receive AC input from the mains and convert it into a DC output at an
embedded USB port. This includes products as varied as: Laptops,
desktop computers, TVs, power strips, surge protectors, refrigerators,
lamps, or any other household consumer goods with USB output ports. DOE
seeks feedback on the following topics related to consumer products
with USB output ports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The USB Implementers Forum is an organization made up of
industry stakeholders that support the advancement and adoption of
USB technologies. For more information, visit https://www.usb.org/about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 1: How can a product that has a primary functionality other
than power conversion but with an integrated USB output, be
differentiated from a product of which power conversion is the primary
function? For such products, is it possible to isolate the power
conversion associated with the USB output and measure its efficiency
independently from that of the remainder of the product?
2. Wireless Power Devices
A wireless power device is one that transfers electrical energy
from a power source to an electrical load without the use of physical
conductors such as wires and cables. DOE has identified two types of
wireless power devices, one of which appears to meet the definition of
an EPS.
One group of wireless power devices, which includes chargers for
electric toothbrushes, shavers, and smartwatches, consists of devices
that operate by only powering battery charging circuits in an end-use
product. These devices interface with the end-use product using
proprietary charging connections that only work with products from the
same manufacturer. However, only some of these devices are subject to
the battery charger standards--namely, electric toothbrushes and water
jets. These devices are collectively known as inductive chargers for
wet environments. To date, all other applications of inductive battery
charging fall under the dry environment terminology, for which DOE has
not promulgated any standards.
The second group of wireless power devices consists of devices that
can work with products that are equipped with or without batteries as
well as with products from different manufacturers. These include
products such as universal wireless mats that can be used with various
consumer devices made by different manufacturers. In DOE's view, these
devices could therefore be considered EPSs, but would not be Class A
EPSs because they are not connected to the end-use product using a
removable or hard-wired electrical connection, cable, cord, or other
wiring.
[[Page 30640]]
See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)(V). Further, DOE is not aware of any
wireless power device that can operate a consumer product that is not a
battery charger without the assistance of a battery--making them non-
Class A indirect operation EPSs, a subset of products for which energy
efficiency standards do not currently exist under DOE's regulations.
Accordingly, these products are not subject to the current EPS
standards. DOE seeks public input on the following questions to help
assess the necessity of regulating the energy efficiency of these
devices:
Issue 2: How many varieties of wireless EPS products that can power
a non-battery operated end-use product directly are currently offered
for sale? What are the shipment volumes of these products and what are
the projected sales in the industry over the next 5 years?
DOE requests feedback on what factors should be considered when
evaluating product classes and standards for wireless EPSs such as
wireless mats.
What are the design options associated with wireless EPSs that
could be used to improve the efficiency of the power transfer process
and what are the costs associated with each design option? What are the
achievable efficiencies of wireless EPSs and is there a correlation
between efficiency and output power such as in more traditional wired
EPSs?
Issue 3: How can the efficiency of wireless power devices be
measured and replicated in a lab setting to achieve repeatable results?
Do any industry standards or test methods exist or are any being
developed to test the energy efficiency or power consumption of
wireless EPSs that DOE would consider adopting? If yes, what are the
pros and cons of each? If no published industry testing standard exist,
do stakeholders have any input regarding a method to test these
products?
B. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides information about the EPS industry that
will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE
uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the
structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers,
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency
improvements in the design and manufacturing of EPSs. DOE also reviews
product literature, industry publications, and company websites.
Additionally, DOE may conduct interviews with manufacturers to improve
its assessment of the market and available technologies for EPSs.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that would
justify a different standard from that which applies (or will apply) to
other products within such type or class. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making
a determination whether capacity or another 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 deems
appropriate. (Id.)
For EPSs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10
CFR 430.32 are based on 8 product classes determined according to the
following performance-related features that provide utility to the
consumer, in terms of output voltage type, output voltage and current
levels, number of simultaneous output voltage(s) and whether the
product meets the definition of direct or indirect operation EPSs.
Additionally, EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, also prescribes the
criteria for a subcategory of EPSs--those classified as Class A EPSs.
42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i). Indirect operation EPSs falling within the
Class A EPS definition are subject to Level IV standards while non-
Class A indirect operation EPSs would not be subject to any standards.
Direct operation EPSs are subject to Level VI standards regardless of
whether they meet the Class A definition. 10 CFR 430.32. Table II.1
lists the level of standards applicable to different types of EPSs
based on operation type and whether it meets the Class A definition.
Table II.1--Application of Standards for Class A/Non-Class A EPS Standard Levels Based on Type of Operation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class A EPS Non-class A EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Operation EPS............. Level VI: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii)......................... Level VI: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii).
Indirect Operation EPS........... Level IV: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(i).......................... No Standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.2 lists the current 8 product classes for EPSs and their
respective product class codes for EPSs. A ``low-voltage EPS'' means an
EPS with a nameplate output voltage less than 6 volts and nameplate
output current greater than or equal to 550 milliamps. A ``basic-
voltage EPS'' means an EPS that is not a low-voltage EPS. See 10 CFR
430.2.
Table II.2--Current EPS Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class code Product class description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B............................. Direct Operation, AC-DC, Basic-Voltage.
C............................. Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage
(except those with nameplate output
voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate
output current greater than or equal to
1,000 milliamps that charge the battery
of a product that is fully or primarily
motor operated).
C-1........................... Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage
with nameplate output voltage less than
3 volts and nameplate output current
greater than or equal to 1,000
milliamps and charges the battery of a
product that is fully or primarily
motor operated.
D............................. Direct Operation, AC-AC, Basic-Voltage.
E............................. Direct Operation, AC-AC, Low-Voltage.
X............................. Direct Operation, Multiple-Voltage.
[[Page 30641]]
H............................. Direct Operation, High-Power.
N............................. Indirect Operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 4: DOE requests feedback on the current EPS product classes
and whether these classes continue to reasonably depict the make-up of
the EPS market or whether changes are merited. Related to this request,
DOE seeks information on whether combining certain classes could impact
product utility by eliminating any performance-related features or
impact the stringency of the current energy conservation standard for
these products. DOE also requests comment on separating any of the
existing product classes and whether it would impact product utility by
eliminating any performance-related features or reduce any compliance
burdens.
Issue 5: Separate from the approach to combine product classes, DOE
may also consider modifying the certification template to reduce the
number of individual product codes by requesting additional information
such as voltage rating and current rating which would then be used to
assign the appropriate product class and identify the corresponding
standard. DOE requests comment on this approach, or other approaches
that achieve the same purpose.
DOE also understands that new configurations and features may be
available for EPSs that may not have been available at the time of the
last energy conservation standards analysis.
Issue 6: DOE seeks information regarding any other new product
classes that are not already addressed by its current regulations that
it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically, DOE
requests information on the performance-related features (e.g.,
improved switched-mode topologies, semiconductor materials, component
designs etc.) that provide unique consumer utility and data detailing
the corresponding impacts on energy use that would justify separate
product classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of these
performance-related features would increase energy consumption).
Issue 7: Has the distribution of the various EPS product classes
that DOE regulates changed since DOE's analysis for the final rule
published on February 10, 2014? In that prior analysis, DOE indicated
that, for total EPS shipments in 2009, direct operation, AC-DC, basic-
voltage and low-voltage EPSs combined constituted nearly 73 percent of
shipments, indirect operation EPSs made up approximately 22 percent of
shipments, and the remaining product classes (AC-AC EPSs, multiple-
voltage EPSs, and high-power EPSs) made up 5 percent of shipments.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For additional details, see chapter 3 of the TSD for the
February 2014 Final Rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Direct Operation and Indirect Operation EPSs
The February 2014 Final Rule divided all EPSs into two categories,
direct operation and indirect operation EPSs--with only direct
operation EPSs being subject to the new Level VI standards that DOE
adopted in that rule. That final rule also indicated that indirect
operation EPSs that also met the definition of a Class A EPS would
continue to be required to meet the already statutorily prescribed
Level IV standards. The original intent of classifying all EPSs into
these categories was to distinguish between EPSs that directly operate
an end-use product, i.e., that can operate a consumer product that is
not a battery charger without the assistance of a battery (direct
operation EPSs), versus those devices that cannot operate a consumer
product that is not a battery charger without the assistance of a
battery (indirect operation EPSs). At the time of the February 2014
Final Rule's publication, DOE believed that it would be more effective
to regulate indirect operation EPSs as part of the then-parallel
battery charger rulemaking than to regulate them under the new and
amended external power supply standards.
Since the publication of the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE has
received many questions regarding EPSs that provide direct operation
with one end-use product but may also be used to provide indirect
operation with a different consumer product containing batteries and or
a battery charging system. In the 2015 test procedure rule, DOE
clarified that if an EPS can operate any consumer product directly,
that product would be treated as a direct operation EPS. 80 FR 51434.
Of particular importance are EPSs with common output plugs that can be
used with products made by different manufacturers. An example of this
scenario is an EPS with standard universal serial bus (``USB'')
connectors. These devices are often sold with end-use products
containing batteries, such as a smartphone. Because these same EPSs are
capable of directly operating other end-use products that do not
contain batteries (e.g., small LED lamps, external speakers, etc.),
they are not treated as indirect operation EPSs under DOE's
regulations. DOE's analysis of the EPSs that are certified in the
Compliance Certification Management System (``CCMS'') \7\ database
further shows that only a small percentage are indirect operation EPSs.
Specifically, of the 6,764 non-adaptive basic models of EPSs that are
certified in the database, only 60 basic models are classified as
indirect operation Class A and of which, a further 42 are able to meet
both the Level IV and Level VI standards. DOE therefore seeks feedback
on the practicality of continuing to categorize EPSs as direct
operation and indirect operation and on the merit of continuing to have
separate standards for each. Any potential alignment of the standards
between direct and indirect operation EPSs would result in standards
either as stringent or more stringent than the Level VI standards
currently required for direct operation EPSs.\8\ As is typically the
case, DOE would also consider the economic justification and
technological feasibility of a proposal based on such an approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. Appliance and Equipment Standards Program. CCMS. Last
accessed on July 18, 2019. https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-External_Power_Supplies_-_Other_Than_Switch-Selectable_and_Adaptive_Single-Voltage_External_Power_Supplies.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22External%20Power%20Supplies%20-%20Other%20Than%20Switch-Selectable%20and%20Adaptive%20Single-Voltage%20External%20Power%20Supplies%22.
\8\ See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), commonly referred to as the
``anti-backsliding provision'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also requests feedback on whether the EPS standards could be
expressed in alternate terms. For instance, DOE may consider removing
the distinction between direct operation/indirect operation EPSs. DOE
notes that other regulations for EPSs,
[[Page 30642]]
including those in Canada \9\ and the European Union,\10\ do not
distinguish between direct and indirect operation EPSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/regulations-codes-standards/products/6909.
\10\ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R0278&from=EN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these considerations, DOE requests feedback on the
following questions:
As DOE considers whether to amend its current standards, is the
distinction between direct and indirect operation EPSs necessary and/or
helpful and do they continue to merit separate standards?
Issue 8: Would manufacturers and other stakeholders better
understand their compliance obligations under the applicable standards
if DOE removed this classification and provided revised definitions for
EPSs that are subject to conservation standards that more clearly
specified the characteristics of EPSs that would be subject to or
exempt from future standards. New definitions for EPSs would not,
however, exempt EPSs from the standards to which they are currently
subject (i.e., Level IV and Level VI standards).
Issue 9: Whether DOE retains the definitions for direct operation
EPS and indirect operation EPS or proposes new definitions to describe
which EPSs are subject to standards, is there any ambiguity in these
existing definitions that DOE should consider clarifying? For instance,
how (if at all) should DOE clarify these definitions as it relates to
specific applications for which EPSs are used?
Issue 10: If DOE were to propose new definitions, what criteria or
characteristics should DOE use to identify whether an EPS is either
subject to or exempt from standards?
For the purposes of this document, DOE continues to refer to direct
operation and indirect operation EPSs, as appropriate, in the following
sections. These terms are used to discuss and seek feedback based on
the existing regulation. DOE's decision regarding the continued use of
these terms may be considered should DOE determine to proceed with a
rulemaking.
b. Low-Voltage, High-Current External Power Supplies
In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE separated direct operation
low-voltage, AC-DC EPSs into two separate product classes and outlined
two separate standards requirements. 79 FR 7866-7867. The first class
is reserved for all direct operation EPSs with nameplate output
voltages less than 6 volts and nameplate output currents greater than
or equal to 550 milliamps. EPSs in this product class are subject to
the Level VI standards.
The second class DOE created is a sub-set within this product
class, generally referred to as ``low-voltage, high-current EPSs.''
This class represents all EPSs with nameplate output voltages of less
than 3 volts and nameplate output currents greater than or equal to
1000 milliamps that are designed to charge the battery of a product
that is fully or primarily motor operated. EPSs in this product class
are not subject to the Level VI standards. Since these low-voltage,
high-current EPSs still meet the statutory definition of Class A EPSs,
they remain subject to the Level IV standards set by EISA. However, DOE
did not apply the Level VI standards to these products over
manufacturer concerns about the ability of these products to meet these
higher efficiency levels. See 79 FR 7866-7867.
DOE intends to analyze potential efficiency levels for these low-
voltage, high-current EPSs that are more stringent than the EISA Level
IV standards. DOE plans to conduct a market assessment, energy use
analysis, and third-party testing to develop a cost-efficiency
relationship for low-voltage, high-current EPSs to determine whether
any incremental improvements in energy efficiency are technologically
feasible and economically justified. DOE is specifically interested in
gathering particular information through this RFI on the following
questions:
In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined that the inherent
design of a low-voltage high-current EPS limits its achievable
efficiencies due to input rectification voltage drops relative to the
output voltage, resistive losses in the higher current outputs, and the
potential to decrease the utility of these products to improve
efficiency by forcing manufacturers to utilize more expensive and
larger components to meet the proposed standards. Is this justification
for exempting ``low-voltage, high-current'' EPSs from the active mode
efficiency requirements still valid?
Are there any products in the current market that would fall in the
low-voltage high-current product class? If so, which types of products?
Issue 11: Are there any unique technology or design options
associated with low-voltage, high-current EPSs? If so, what (if any)
specific unique design considerations (i.e., special topologies,
additional component derating, etc.) would be necessary in addressing
potential energy efficiency improvements for these EPSs?
Issue 12: What are the specific limitations (if any) associated
with the achievable efficiencies of low-voltage, high-current EPSs?
Issue 13: What technology options (if any) would allow low-voltage,
high-current EPSs to improve their average active-mode efficiency? What
specific costs (in dollars) are associated with these technology
options and subsequent efficiency gains?
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent
rulemaking for EPSs. A complete list of those prior options appears in
Table II.2. As certain technologies have progressed since the February
2014 Final Rule, Table II.3 lists newer technology options that DOE may
also consider in a future EPS energy conservation standards rulemaking.
Table II.3--Technology Options for EPSs Considered in the Development of
the February 2014 Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. Improved Transformers.
2................................. Switched-Mode Power Supplies.
3................................. Low-Power Integrated Circuits.
4................................. Schottky Diodes and Synchronous
Rectification.
5................................. Low-Loss Transistors.
6................................. Resonant Switching.
7................................. Resonant (``Lossless'') Snubbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.4--New Technology Options for EPSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. Adaptive voltage modulation via
digital communication.
2................................. Wide Band Gap Semiconductors.
3................................. Advanced Core Materials.
4................................. Low Equivalent Series Resistance
Capacitors.
5................................. Litz Wire.
6................................. Printed Circuit Boards with Higher
Copper Content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30643]]
DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table II.2
regarding their applicability to the current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency of EPSs as measured according to
the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how these
technologies may have changed since they were considered in the
February 2014 Final Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks information
on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics that are
currently available for each technology option.
DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table II.3
regarding their market adoption, costs, and any concerns with
incorporating them into products (e.g., impacts on consumer utility,
potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/implementation
issues, etc.), particularly as to changes that may have occurred since
the February 2014 Final Rule.
Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies
may impact product features or consumer utility.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
will be included in the engineering analysis for further consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.
Additionally, DOE notes that the four screening criteria do not
directly address the propriety status of technology options. DOE only
considers potential efficiency levels achieved through the use of
proprietary designs in the engineering analysis if they are not part of
a unique pathway to achieve that efficiency level (i.e., if there are
other non-proprietary technologies capable of achieving the same
efficiency level).
DOE did not screen out any technology options for EPSs, having
considered the following four factors: (1) Technological feasibility;
(2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (3) adverse
impacts on product utility to consumers; and (4) adverse impacts on
health or safety.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For additional details, see chapter 4 of the technical
support document (``TSD'') for the February 2014 Final Rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the four
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 with respect to
EPSs. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other technology options not already
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in
EPSs.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship
of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency
(``efficiency levels''). This relationship serves as the basis for the
cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation.
In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the
increase in manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') associated with
increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline, up to the
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for
each product class.
DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model various
design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-
level approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving
increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular
design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-
assessment (or reverse engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-
up'' manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of
increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and
material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as
a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline
model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or
typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that
meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and provides
basic consumer utility.
If it determines that a rulemaking is necessary, consistent with
this analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current
minimum energy conservations standards that were required for
compliance on February 10, 2016 as the baseline efficiency levels for
each product class. The current standards for each product class are
based on Active Mode Efficiency and No-load mode (standby mode) power
consumption. The current standards for EPS are found at 10 CFR 430.32.
Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on whether using the current energy
conservation standards for EPSs would be appropriate baseline
efficiency levels for DOE to apply to each product class in evaluating
whether to amend the current energy conservation standards
[[Page 30644]]
for these products. DOE requests data and suggestions to evaluate the
baseline efficiency levels in order to better evaluate whether to amend
the energy conservation standards for these products.
Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline
efficiency levels for any newly analyzed product classes that are not
currently in place or for the contemplated combined product classes, as
discussed in section II.B.1 of this document. For newly analyzed
product classes, DOE requests energy use data to develop a baseline
relationship between energy efficiency and nameplate power ratings.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is determined by the highest efficiency unit currently available on the
market. For the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not analyze all 4 EPS
configurations and 8 product classes. Rather, DOE focused the analysis
on three configurations of EPSs: Direct operation EPSs, multiple-
voltage and high-power EPSs, and indirect operation EPSs. For each
configuration of EPS, DOE selected certain classes and units as
``representative'' and concentrated its analytical effort on these
because they represent a significant majority of units and because
analysis on these units and classes can be extended to all units and
classes. For direct operation EPSs, DOE chose four representative units
and scaled the analysis according to different nameplate power ratings.
For multiple-voltage EPSs and high-power EPSs, DOE chose one
representative unit for each class. DOE chose not to conduct an
engineering analysis for indirect operation EPSs because DOE believed
that the energy savings associated with these EPSs would be captured in
a battery charger rulemaking. See 79 FR 57530 and chapter 5 of the
preliminary analysis TSD for that rulemaking.\12\ The current maximum
available efficiencies for all product classes are included in Table
II.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis TSD. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0031.
Table II.5--Maximum Efficiency Levels Currently Available
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best-in-market
Product class efficiencies (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Operation, AC-DC, Basic-Voltage................ 93.02
Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage (except those 91.8
with nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and
nameplate output current greater than or equal to
1,000 milliamps that charge the battery of a product
that is fully or primarily motor operated)...........
Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage with nameplate 84.86
output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output
current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps and
charges the battery of a product that is fully or
primarily motor operated.............................
Direct Operation, AC-AC, Basic-Voltage................ 90.96
Direct Operation, AC-AC, Low-Voltage.................. 87.58
Direct Operation, Multiple-Voltage.................... 91.18
Direct Operation, High-Power.......................... 93.59
Indirect Operation.................................... 88.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options
are incorporated in a model. In many cases, the max-tech efficiency
level is not commercially available because it is not economically
feasible. In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined max-tech
efficiency levels using energy modeling. These energy models were based
on use of all design options applicable to the specific product
classes. While these product configurations had not likely been tested
as prototypes, all of the individual design options had been
incorporated in available products.
DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency levels
are appropriate and technologically feasible for potential
consideration as possible energy conservation standards for the
products at issue--and if not, why not. DOE also requests feedback on
whether the maximum available efficiencies presented in Table II.5 are
representative of those for the other EPS product classes not directly
analyzed in the February 2014 Final Rule. If the range of possible
efficiencies is different for the other product classes not directly
analyzed, what alternative approaches should DOE consider using for
those product classes and why?
Issue 18: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain
combinations of design options.
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost
associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed product
classes. For the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed the cost-
efficiency relationships by estimating the efficiency improvements and
costs associated with incorporating specific design options into the
assumed baseline model for each analyzed product class.
Issue 19: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3
to increase energy efficiency in EPSs beyond the baseline. This
includes information on the order in which manufacturers would
incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve the
efficiencies of products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the
increased energy efficiency would lead to other design changes that
would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested in information
regarding any potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's
ability to incorporate additional functions or attributes in response
to consumer demand.
[[Page 30645]]
Issue 20: DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated
with incorporating each particular design option. Specifically, DOE is
interested in whether and how the estimated costs for the design
options used in the February 2014 Final Rule have changed since the
time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments
necessary to incorporate specific design options, including, but not
limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling (if any),
materials, engineering and development efforts to implement each design
option, and manufacturing/production impacts.
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options
may not be applicable to (or incompatible with) specific product
classes.
As described in section II.D.2 of this document, in the February
2014 Final Rule, DOE concentrated its analytical efforts on certain
representative product classes and extended the analysis to all other
product classes. DOE developed cost-efficiency curves for these product
classes that were used as the input for the downstream analyses
conducted in support of that rulemaking. See chapter 5 of the February
2014 Final Rule TSD for the cost-efficiency curves developed in that
rulemaking.
Issue 22: DOE seeks feedback on whether the approach of analyzing a
sub-set of product classes is appropriate for a future EPS energy
conservation standards rulemaking. DOE requests comment on whether it
is necessary to individually analyze all the other product classes
established in the February 2014 Final Rule. For example, analysis of
product classes with an AC output may not be necessary if the analysis
performed for AC-DC product classes applies to both. Additionally, DOE
seeks comment on whether the approach used to apply the analyzed
product class results to the other product classes is appropriate--and
if not, why not? For example, if it is necessary to individually
analyze more than the one product class used in the February 2014 Final
Rule, please provide information on why aggregating certain products is
not appropriate. If this approach is not appropriate, what alternative
approaches should DOE consider using as an alternative and why?
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'')
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. For the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE used increasing
manufacturer markups for successive efficiency levels at a given power
output within a product class. See Tables IV-5 through IV-10 in the
February 2014 Final Rule for a complete list of all mark-ups used.
Issue 23: DOE requests feedback on whether the various manufacturer
markups used in the February 2014 Final Rule are still appropriate and
applicable.
E. Distribution Channels
In generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost
(``LCC'') analysis and national impact analysis (``NIA''), DOE must
identify distribution channels (i.e., how the products are distributed
from the manufacturer to the consumer), and estimate relative sales
volumes through each channel.
Issue 24: DOE requests information on the existence of any
distribution channels, other than the retail outlet distribution
channel, that are used to distribute the products at issue into the
market.
Issue 25: Do the distribution channels and markups identified in
DOE's analysis for the final rule published in February 10, 2014, still
apply to the current EPS market? If not, what adjustments (if any)
would be needed to account for the current EPS market? In this regard,
DOE also seeks any supporting data that would help in making these
adjustments to its analyses.
F. Energy Use Analysis
As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use
analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and thereby
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency
improvements. DOE bases the energy consumption of EPSs on the rated
annual energy consumption as determined by the DOE test procedure.
Along similar lines, the energy use analysis is meant to represent
typical energy consumption in the field.
1. Active-Mode and No-Load Mode of External Power Supplies
DOE will review existing industry, international, and voluntary
standards to assist in its analysis of whether (and how, as
appropriate) to amend the current active-mode and no-load mode
efficiency standards for EPSs. Current mandatory standards programs for
EPSs include the European Union (``EU'') Code of Conduct, Version 4,
the Level IV Congressional standards; the Tier 1 EPS standards
established by National Resources Canada (``NRCan''); and DOE's Level
VI efficiency standards. DOE will also consider such voluntary
standards programs as the EU Code of Conduct, Version 5 (``Code of
Conduct v5'') \13\ when analyzing the impacts of more stringent
standards on manufacturers and consumers. All of these standards-
setting programs use active-mode and no-load mode metrics similar to
DOE's EPS standards to regulate the energy efficiency and power
consumption of EPSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ European Union: Code of Conduct on External Power Supplies
Version 5 (available at http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/files/documents/ICT_CoC/code_of_conduct_for_eps_version_5_-_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE defines ``active-mode'' as the mode of operation when the EPS
is connected to the main electricity supply and the output is connected
to a load. See section 2.a of Appendix Z. In this mode, EPS efficiency
is the conversion efficiency from the mains (i.e., the electrical
outlet) to the end-use load when the load draws some or all of the
maximum rated output power of the EPS. DOE averages the active-mode
efficiency at four loading conditions--25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of
maximum rated output current--to assess the performance of an EPS when
powering diverse loads.
Unlike active-mode efficiency, however, no-load mode is
characterized by power consumption rather than conversion efficiency.
This is because the EPS does not deliver power to the end use load in
this mode. DOE defines ``no-load mode'' as the mode of operation where
the EPS is connected to the main electricity supply and the output is
not connected to a load. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix Z,
section 2.q. The EPS test procedure measures the no-load performance of
a given EPS at 0 percent of the maximum rated output current where the
power consumed by the EPS is that drawn from the mains with all loads,
either electronic or resistive, physically and electrically
disconnected from the output of the EPS.
The Level IV and Level VI standards both use average active-mode
efficiency, calculated as a percentage, to regulate the active-mode of
EPSs and no-load power consumption, in watts, to regulate the standby
mode of EPSs. DOE analyzed the CCMS database and sorted the product
reports based on the compliance characteristics of Level VI EPSs. Of
the models DOE could accurately categorize using the manufacturer-
submitted output power and current data, more than 38% surpassed the
minimum average active-mode efficiency standard by at least 2
percentage points (i.e., more than 38% of models were more efficient
than required by the standard by at least 2 percentage points).
Similarly, DOE
[[Page 30646]]
identified over 7,700 models from NRCan's EPS database \14\ that met or
surpassed the Level VI standards, including 3,100 models that exceeded
the minimum average active-mode efficiency standard by at least 2
percentage points. The majority of these efficiency increases were seen
in EPSs with nameplate output powers greater than 49 watts, which may
indicate that these types of EPSs are capable of achieving even higher
average active-mode efficiencies than the minimum efficiency standards
prescribed by DOE's Level VI standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Natural Resources Canada. Energy Efficiency Ratings:
Search. Last Accessed on January 20, 2017. <http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/index.cfm?language_langue=en&action=app%2Esearch%2Drecherche&appliance=EPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other efficiency programs have recognized the potential efficiency
gains for these types of EPSs as well and have established energy
efficiency guidelines more stringent than the standards developed by
DOE. For instance, the EU's Code of Conduct v5 lays out the foundation
for a set of voluntary guidelines for individual manufacturers to meet
and includes specifications regarding EPS coverage, energy efficiency,
and monitoring provisions. The Code of Conduct v5 measures the active-
mode efficiency of an EPS at the same loading conditions as DOE's
standards program and also includes a no-load power consumption metric
at 0 percent load. Also like DOE's efficiency standards, the Code of
Conduct v5's prescribed energy efficiency levels at the specified five
loading points rely on equations that generate a minimum average
active-mode efficiency requirement as a function of nameplate output
power of an EPS. The energy efficiency provisions are divided into two
groupings--Tier 1 and Tier 2. These tiers delineate two separate sets
of voluntary energy efficiency guidelines with two unique effective
dates. Tier 1 went into effect in January 2014, and the more stringent
guidelines in Tier 2 in January 2016. These tiers sort the applicable
efficiency guidelines for EPSs based on the type of power conversion
and the nameplate output voltage in an identical manner to DOE's own
direct operation product classes. However, the Code of Conduct v5
provisions do not address some of the products addressed by DOE's
direct operation standards, such as EPSs with nameplate output powers
greater than 250 watts and EPSs that output more than one voltage
simultaneously. Instead, Code of Conduct v5 outlines unique efficiency
standards for low-voltage \15\ EPSs and EPSs that are not low-voltage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The EU Code of Conduct on External Power Supplies considers
a low-voltage EPS to be any EPS with a nameplate output voltage of
less than 6 volts and a nameplate output current greater than or
equal to 550 milliamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Code of Conduct v5 efficiency program is voluntary, an
assessment published in 2014 by the European Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy (``ECEEE'') analyzed the benefits and burdens of
harmonizing the EU Ecodesign Directive standards for EPSs \16\ with
both mandatory and voluntary international regulations. The Ecodesign
Directive outlines mandatory energy consumption and energy efficiency
standards for consumer and commercial products in the EU, and revises
those standards based on their Ecodesign Working Plan.\17\ The study
concluded that any revised standards for EPSs in the EU should
harmonize with DOE's Level VI standards while making the Code of
Conduct v5's Tier 2 standards mandatory at a later date, and that
failing to harmonize with, at the minimum, Level VI standards would
risk having poorer efficiency products circulating through the EU that
cannot be sold in the U.S. Currently, EPSs are regulated as part of the
Ecodesign Directive under Commission Regulation (``EC'') No. 278/
2009,\18\ but an April 2015 working document \19\ proposed to harmonize
the EU standards for EPSs with DOE's Level VI requirements by January
2017 and implement standards equivalent to those found in Tier 2 of the
Code of Conduct by January 2018. While this document was later revised
to propose harmonization with DOE's Level VI standards by April 2020
and abandon pursuit of Tier 2 standards altogether, DOE found that more
than 73% of the entries in its own CCMS database met or surpassed the
Tier 2 standards initially proposed in the Code of Conduct v5 as did
67% of the units in the NRCan database. Therefore, DOE intends to
analyze the impact of the Tier 2 standards on the EPS market for
products sold in the U.S. and countries within the EU to determine
whether more stringent efficiency standards in the U.S. are appropriate
for EPSs. DOE welcomes feedback on its proposed approach to re-examine
the minimum federal requirements for both the active-mode and no-load
mode for all EPSs subject to the Level VI standards. Additionally, DOE
seeks feedback from interested parties on the following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Additional Assessment in the Frame of the Review Study on
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 278/2009 External Power Supplies.
March 2014. Final Report. <http://www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/battery-chargers/eps-review-additional-assessment-up-dated-final-report.pdf.
\17\ Ecodesign and Labeling. ErP Working Plan. <http://www.eceee.org/ecodesign/Horizontal-matters/working-plan/.
\18\ Commission Regulation (EC) No. 278/2009 of April 6 2009.
<http://www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/battery-chargers/finalreg-eps.pdf.
\19\ Ecodesign and Labeling. 278/2009: Battery chargers and
external power supplies. <http://www.eceee.org/ecodesign/products/battery-chargers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 26: What impact (if any) does the EU Code of Conduct v5
currently have on the EPS industry in the United States? If the effects
are currently negligible, will the Code of Conduct v5 standards be
likely to have an effect in the future? If so, what are those impacts
likely to be and how long would it take for those impacts to impact the
U.S. market?
Issue 27: Is active mode still the most energy consumptive state of
operation for EPSs? If so, why? If not, why not?
Issue 28: Are there any specific types of EPSs for which it would
be difficult to meet standards more stringent than the existing Level
VI standards? If so, would it be difficult to meet the more stringent
standards for average active mode efficiency, no-load mode power, or
both? Which specific types of EPSs will find it difficult to meet more
stringent standards and why?
Issue 29: Are there any specific types of EPSs for which increasing
the efficiency requirement would impact the utility to consumers? If
so, which types of EPSs will be impacted and how?
Issue 30: What design options exist for improving the efficiency of
EPSs beyond the Level VI standard levels? Are any of the options
proprietary--and if so, which ones?
Issue 31: Can manufacturers comply with the originally proposed
Tier 2 Ecodesign requirements? If not, what are the technical and
production barriers that would prevent manufacturers from meeting those
proposed requirements? Will certain types of EPSs be likely to have
greater difficulty in meeting these proposed requirements compared to
other EPSs? If so, which types and why?
Issue 32: What are the costs (in dollars) associated with each of
the design options utilized to implement efficiencies greater than the
Level VI standards? Are there any currently available features that
would likely be sacrificed if standards were made more stringent than
Level VI?
Issue 33: Does the current average active-mode efficiency metric
capture appropriately representative loading points for EPSs? If not,
should DOE consider other loading points in active mode? If so, which
ones and why?
[[Page 30647]]
Issue 34: What impact would alternate loading points have on any
determination of active mode efficiency for EPSs? Should different
loading points be weighted differently from others based on usage when
considering overall energy consumption? If not, why not? If so, how?
Issue 35: Can EPSs achieve lower no-load values than those
described in the Level VI standard? If not, why not? If so, how?
Issue 36: The EU Code of Conduct v5 Tier 2 levels for no-load mode
are much more stringent than DOE's no-load requirements in the Level VI
standard. What technical difficulties (if any) are there in meeting the
EU Code of Conduct v5 Tier 2 levels for the no-load mode condition?
What barriers (if any) do manufacturers face meeting or exceeding the
EU Code of Conduct v5 Tier 2 levels for no-load mode?
2. Idle Mode and Sleep Mode of External Power Supplies
As part of its review and evaluation that led to the Level VI
standards, DOE analyzed the energy usage profiles of a number of
different EPSs based on the end-use application. These usage profiles
considered a number of different modes such as active mode, idle/
standby mode, sleep mode, no-load mode, and unplugged mode and then
assigned specific daily percentages to each mode based on the expected
operation. DOE used these weightings to calculate the overall energy
impact of more stringent standards because the loading conditions used
to determine the average active-mode efficiency metric for EPSs are
most often associated with the operating mode of the consumer products
they power.\20\ While DOE evaluated the energy impacts of all operating
modes, the Level VI standards do not account for any loading points
below those specified in the average active mode efficiency metric
(i.e., 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the nameplate output current of
the EPS). DOE has been made aware that several consumer products may
operate at lower loading conditions in standby or idle/standby modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Chapter 7 and Appendix 7A of the TSD for further
details. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 37: Do EPSs spend a significant portion of time operating at
loading conditions outside the range currently considered by the EPS
standards? If so, which ones?
Issue 38: What are the design options associated with improving
low-load efficiency? Are any of the design options proprietary? What
are the associated costs (in dollars) with implementing such options?
Issue 39: What EPS loading points would best represent idle mode,
sleep mode, or other low-power loading conditions associated with
consumer products in a low-power state? For each loading point, please
explain why it would be best for the applicable mode.
Issue 40: Would improving low-load conversion efficiency result in
any significant energy reduction over the lifetime of an EPS? If so,
would these anticipated reductions be limited to those EPSs that are
paired with particular types of associated end-use products--and if
this is the case, which ones and why?
Issue 41: What impact would lower loading points have on any
determination of average efficiency for EPSs--and why? Should different
loading points be weighted differently from others based on usage when
considering overall energy consumption--if so, why? And if not, why
not?
Issue 42: If DOE were to consider including additional loading
conditions into its test procedure, should they be integrated into
DOE's standards--and if so, how? Should the active mode efficiencies at
the additional loading conditions be included in the calculation for
the overall average active mode efficiency of a unit? If so, what
impact (if any) would the additional active mode efficiencies have on
overall efficiency ratings? If not, should DOE consider using a
separate efficiency metric for low-loading points? Is there another
approach that may be more appropriate for considering standby or idle
mode energy savings?
Issue 43: Are there any additional resources concerning the
operation of EPSs during idle or standby mode that DOE should consider
when evaluating the EPS standards?
Issue 44: How has the typical usage of EPSs changed, if at all,
since the Level VI standards became required, among the various modes
of operation (e.g., no-load, maintenance, active)? If the EPS usage has
changed, what is the nature of those usage pattern changes and what are
the technical reasons as to why those usage patterns have changed in
that manner?
G. Shipments
DOE develops shipments forecasts of EPSs to calculate the national
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy
consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future manufacturer cash
flows. DOE shipments projections are based on available historical data
broken out by product class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales
estimates allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends
in the market.
Issue 45: DOE requests 2018 annual sales data (i.e., number of
shipments) for EPSs and product classes. If disaggregated fractions of
annual sales are not available at the EPS class level, DOE requests
more aggregated fractions of annual sales at the EPS category level.
DOE also requests data and reports on future market shipment trends.
If disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available at the
product type level, DOE requests more aggregated fractions of annual
sales at the category level.
Issue 46: If available, DOE requests the same annual sales
information of the various classes of EPSs for the five years prior to
2019 (i.e., 2014-2018).
Issue 47: What are the potential impacts (if any) on EPS shipments
if the current energy conservation standards for EPSs were to be
amended to become more stringent?
Issue 48: Since compliance requirements with the Level VI standards
began in 2016, what is the percentage of shipments in each product
class at different efficiencies in the EPS market? In the absence of
any further amendments to the current energy conservation standards,
what are the current projected market trends (if any) in EPS efficiency
and why? If the current standards were to be amended in a manner
consistent with one of the approaches described elsewhere in this
document (e.g., increased stringency, combining of current classes,
etc.), what impact(s) (if any) would be likely to occur in response?
H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on EPS manufacturers, and to evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact
Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted for each product
in this analysis, with the key output of industry net present value
(``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential
impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and
industry competition, as well as factors such as product
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and
important market and product trends.
[[Page 30648]]
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
products, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'') code.\21\ Manufacturing of consumer EPS is classified under
NAICS 335999, ``All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and
Component Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 1500
employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small
business. This employee threshold includes all employees in a business'
parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing 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 than expected future returns than
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
Issue 49: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that
distribute EPSs in the United States.
Issue 50: DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. In the manufacturer impact analysis for
the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not identify any small business
manufacturers of EPSs. DOE also did not identify any domestic
manufacturers of EPSs (i.e., DOE found that all residential EPSs sold
in the U.S. were imported).\22\ If the previous determinations are no
longer valid, DOE requests the names and contact information of small
business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, of EPSs
that distribute products in the United States. In addition, DOE
requests comment on any other manufacturer subgroups that could be
disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation standards.
DOE requests feedback on any potential approaches that could be
considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See chapter 12 of the TSD for the February 2014 Final Rule.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 51: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of EPSs associated with (1)
other DOE standards applying to different products that these
manufacturers may also make and (2) product-specific regulatory actions
of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology
for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether there are any
flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this burden while
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
Issue 52: Are there any additional maintenance or repair costs (in
dollars), or differences in product lifetime, associated with EPSs at
efficiencies higher than the Level VI standards? If so, what are they
and what is the magnitude of those costs--both on a total basis and by
application. If such costs exist, how do they compare with respect to
the same types of costs for EPSs that were manufactured that did not
meet the Level VI standards? With respect to any impacts on product
lifetime, what is the extent of those impacts in light of the Level VI
requirements--i.e. have they increased, decreased, or stayed constant?
I. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of
amended energy conservation standards for EPSs such as a lack, or
excess of information which leads to misinformed purchases, misaligned
incentives between purchasers and users, and negative effects on
external factors related to public health, environmental protection, or
energy security.
2. Network/``Smart'' Technology
DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and
equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought
information to better understand market trends and issues in the
emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that
incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to
ensure that the Department did not inadvertently impede such innovation
in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards
for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks comments, data and
information on the issues presented in the RFI as they may be
applicable to energy conservation standards for EPSs.
3. Other Issues
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of its assessment in determining whether to amend the current
EPS energy conservation standards that may not have been specifically
identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs,'' Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage
the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to
comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (February 3, 2017).
Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to
provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its
energy conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and compliance and certification requirements applicable
to EPSs while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified previously in the DATES section of this document, comments
and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other
matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservation
standards for EPSs. After the close of the comment period, DOE will
review the public comments received and may begin collecting data,
conducting the analyses discussed in this document.
[[Page 30649]]
Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names,
organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your
comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that
www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential''a with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservations standards for consumer
products. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
the public during the comment period in each stage of the rulemaking
process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a
balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking
process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to
receive future notices and information about this rulemaking should
contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program at (202) 287-1445, or
via email at [email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 2,
2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-09988 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P