[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55090-55132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18717]



[[Page 55089]]

Vol. 87

Thursday,

No. 173

September 8, 2022

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 430





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery Chargers; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 55090]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012]
RIN 1904-AE49


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery Chargers

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') 
amends the existing test procedures for battery chargers to reorganize 
certain subsections, clarify symbology and references, correct an 
incorrect cross reference and section title, update the list of battery 
chemistries, and terminate an existing test procedure waiver because 
the covered subject models have been discontinued. This final rule also 
establishes in new appendix Y1 a new a test procedure for battery 
chargers that expands coverage to include inductive wireless battery 
chargers and establishes associated definitions and test provisions; 
establishes a new test procedure approach that relies on separate 
metrics for active mode, standby mode, and off mode; and updates the 
EPS selection criteria. The new test procedure Y1 will be used for the 
evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, as well as to 
determine compliance with the updated standards, should such standards 
be established.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is October 11, 2022. The 
amendments to the current test procedure will be mandatory for product 
testing starting March 7, 2023. Manufacturers will be required to use 
the amended test procedure in appendix Y until the compliance date of 
any final rule establishing amended energy conservation standards based 
on the newly established test procedure in appendix Y1. At such time, 
manufacturers will be required to begin using the newly established 
test procedure in appendix Y1.
    The incorporation by reference of certain materials listed in this 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on October 11, 
2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 
index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly 
available, such as those containing information that is exempt from 
public disclosure.
    A link to the docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012. The docket web page contains instructions 
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the 
docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by 
email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-5709. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following 
industry standards into 10 CFR part 430:
    ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016, ``Wiring Devices--Dimensional 
Specifications;''
    IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0, ``Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)--Part 3: 
Method of specifying the performance and test requirements, Edition 
2.0, 2011-03;''
    IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of 
standby power, (Edition 2.0, 2011-01), (``IEC 62301'')''.
    Copies of ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 can be obtained from the American 
National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 
10036, (212) 642-4900, webstore.ansi.org.
    Copies of IEC 62040-3 Ed.2.0 and IEC 62301 can be obtained from the 
International Electrotechnical Commission at 446 Main Street, Sixteenth 
floor, Worcester, MA 01608, or by going to www.iec.ch., and is 
available from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd 
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to 
webstore.ansi.org.
    For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N. of 
this document.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Scope of Applicability
    1. Battery Chargers
    2. Inductive Wireless Battery Chargers
    B. Test Procedure
    1. Wireless Charger Test Procedure
    2. External Power Supply Selection
    3. Battery Chemistry and End-of-Discharge Voltages
    4. Battery Selection
    5. Mode-Specific Metrics
    6. Active Mode Test
    7. Standby Mode Tests
    8. Non-Battery-Charging Related Functions
    C. Corrections and Non-Substantive Changes
    1. Certification Flowcharts
    2. Testing and Certification Clarifications
    3. Cross-Reference Corrections
    4. Sub-Section Corrections
    D. Effective and Compliance Dates
    E. Test Procedure Costs
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
    N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Battery chargers are included among the consumer products for which 
the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is authorized to establish and 
amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(1)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for 
battery chargers are currently prescribed at title 10 CFR 430.32(z) and 
10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix Y (``appendix Y''), respectively. 
The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test 
procedures for battery chargers and relevant background information 
regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this product.

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
authorizes

[[Page 55091]]

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, which sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Battery chargers, the 
subject of this final rule, are products included in the Energy Policy 
Conservation Program. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32); 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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), the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    The testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) 
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) 
making other representations about the efficiency of those products (42 
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to 
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
    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) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for 
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or 
amended be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure 
energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a 
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of 
use, as determined by the Secretary, and shall not be unduly burdensome 
to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    EPCA also requires that DOE evaluate test procedures for each type 
of covered product, including battery chargers, at least once every 7 
years to determine whether amended test procedures would more 
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test 
procedures to be reasonably designed to produce test results that 
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs 
during a representative average use cycle or period of use and to not 
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(3))
    Additionally, EPCA requires DOE to amend its test procedures for 
all covered products to include standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption, with standby mode and off mode energy consumption 
integrated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or 
other energy descriptor unless the Secretary determines that (i) the 
current test procedures already fully account for and incorporate the 
standby mode and off mode energy consumption, or (ii) such an 
integrated test procedure is technically infeasible for a particular 
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A); see also 42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(1)(B)(i))) If an integrated test procedure is technically 
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode 
energy use test procedures, if separate tests are technically feasible. 
(Id.) Any such amendment must consider the most current versions of the 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301 \3\ and 
IEC Standard 62087 \4\ as applicable. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of 
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
    \4\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of 
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015, 
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a 
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be 
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the 
Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons 
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments 
with respect to such procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) The comment 
period on a proposed rule to amend a test procedure shall be at least 
60 days and may not exceed 270 days. Id. In prescribing or amending a 
test procedure, the Secretary shall take into account such information 
as the Secretary determines relevant to such procedure, including 
technological developments relating to energy use or energy efficiency 
of the type (or class) of covered products involved. Id. If DOE 
determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must 
publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. Id.
    DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the 7-year 
review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))

B. Background

    On May 4, 2020, DOE published a request for information (``May 2020 
RFI'') seeking comments and data on whether, since the last test 
procedure update, there have been changes in battery charger testing 
methodology or new products introduced to the market since the last 
test procedure update that may necessitate amending the test procedure 
for battery chargers. 85 FR 26369, 26370. DOE specifically solicited 
feedback on possible approaches to testing inductive wireless battery 
chargers not designed for use in a wet environment. 85 FR 26369, 26371. 
DOE requested comment on the characteristics of the EPSs typically used 
by manufacturers for testing and certification purposes for battery 
charger products that require an EPS but do not come prepackaged with 
one, and the characteristics of the EPS used by consumers in real-world 
settings. Id. DOE also requested comment on whether using a reference 
EPS for testing would be appropriate in such a situation. Id. DOE 
similarly requested comment on the appropriateness of testing a battery 
charger using a reference battery load. 85 FR 26369, 26372. DOE further 
requested comment on whether other parts of the battery charger test 
procedure need to be updated such as end-of-discharge voltages, 
prescribed battery chemistries, consumer usage profiles, battery 
selection criteria, and the battery charger waiver process. 85 FR 
26369, 26372-26373.
    On November 23, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(``November 2021 NOPR''), in which DOE responded to comments received 
in response to the May 2020 RFI and proposed amendments to the test 
procedures for battery chargers in appendix Y and in a new appendix Y1. 
86 FR 66878. DOE's proposed amendments to appendix Y included 
reorganizing two subsections, clarifying symbology and references, 
correcting an incorrect cross reference and section title, updating the 
list of battery chemistries, and terminating an existing test procedure 
waiver because the

[[Page 55092]]

covered subject models have been discontinued. 86 FR 66878, 66881, 
66885-66886, 66889-66894.
    DOE also proposed to establish a new appendix Y1 that, in addition 
to the changes proposed for appendix Y, would expand the scope of the 
test procedure to include inductive wireless battery chargers beyond 
those designed and manufactured to operate in a wet environment 
(removing that distinction altogether), increase the rated battery 
energy limit of fixed location wireless chargers in appendix Y1 from 
<=5 Wh to <=100 Wh, establish associated definitions for fixed-location 
wireless chargers and open-placement wireless chargers and 
corresponding test provisions; establish a new test procedure approach 
that relies on separate metrics for active mode, standby mode, and off 
mode (consequently removing the battery charger usage profiles and 
single-metric unit energy consumption calculation); and update the EPS 
selection criteria. 86 FR 66878, 66881, 66883-66885, 66887-66889.
    On January 7, 2022, DOE published an extension of the comment 
period in response to a joint request submitted by some 
stakeholders.\5\ 87 FR 890.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The joint request was submitted by the Association of Home 
Appliance Manufacturers, Consumer Technology Association, 
Information Technology Industry Council, National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, 
Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, and Power Tool Institute. Comment 
no. EERE-BT-2020-TP-0012-0017 (available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012-0017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received comments in response to the November 2021 NOPR from 
the interested parties listed in Table II.1.

          Table II.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the November 2021 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reference in this final    Document No.
              Commenter(s)                           rule                in docket          Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co., INC...........  Honda.....................              26  Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project,    Joint Efficiency Advocates              23  Efficiency Organizations.
 American Council for an Energy-
 Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation
 of America, Natural Resources Defense
 Council.
Association of Home Appliance             Joint Trade Associations..              24  Trade Associations.
 Manufacturers, Outdoor Power Equipment
 Institute, Power Tool Institute, Inc.
California Investor-Owned Utilities       CA IOUs...................              25  Utilities.
 (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
 Diego Gas and Electric, Southern
 California Edison).
CSA Group...............................  CSA.......................              12  Efficiency Organization.
Delta-Q Technologies....................  Delta-Q...................              28  Manufacturer.
Information Technology Industry Council.  ITI.......................              20  Trade Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance....  NEEA......................              27  Efficiency Organization.
Schumacher Electric Corporation.........  Schumacher................              21  Manufacturer
STIHL...................................  STIHL.....................              16  Manufacturer.
Wireless Power Consortium...............  WPC.......................              22  Efficiency Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
test procedures for battery chargers. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-
0012, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references 
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, 
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE amends appendix Y by adopting the proposed 
test procedure changes as follows:
    (1) Updates terms used in the battery chemistry table;
    (2) Provides further direction regarding the application for a 
battery charger test procedure waiver when battery energy cannot be 
directly measured;
    (3) Provides more descriptive terms for battery energy and battery 
voltage values used for determining product class and calculating unit 
energy; and
    (4) Corrects a cross-reference and a table title, further clarifies 
certain references and terminologies, and reorganizes certain 
subsections for improved readability.
    DOE is also adopting the proposed new appendix Y1, which would 
generally require that testing be conducted as provided in appendix Y 
as amended in this final rule, but with the following additional 
changes:
    (1) Establishing definitions associated with inductive wireless 
power transfer, and differentiating between wireless chargers that 
incorporate a physical receiver locating feature (e.g., a peg, cradle, 
dock, locking mechanism, magnet, etc.) for aligning or orienting the 
position of the receiver (``fixed-location'' wireless chargers) to the 
transmitter and those that do not (``open-placement'' wireless 
chargers);
    (2) Including within the scope of the test procedure fixed-location 
inductive wireless battery chargers, and adding a separate no-battery 
mode test for open-placement wireless chargers;
    (3) Removing the unit energy consumption (``UEC'') \7\ calculations 
and usage profiles and instead relying on separate metrics for active 
mode, standby mode, and off mode using Ea, Psb, 
and Poff, respectively, as measured by the newly established 
appendix Y1; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The UEC represents the annualized amount of the non-useful 
energy consumed by a battery charger among all tested modes of 
operation. Non-useful energy is the energy consumed by a battery 
charger that is not transferred and stored in a battery as a result 
of charging, i.e., the losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Specifying EPS selection priority and amending selection 
requirements for battery chargers that do not ship with an EPS and for 
which one is not recommended by the manufacturer.
    Manufacturers would not be required to test according to appendix 
Y1 until such time as compliance is required with any amended energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers established after September 
8, 2022.
    The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the 
test procedure provision prior to the amendment, as well as the reason 
for the adopted change.

[[Page 55093]]



                          Table II.1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Current DOE test procedure      Amended test procedure    Applicable test procedure        Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only those wireless chargers that    Increases the 5 Wh      Appendix Y1.................  To reflect changes in
 operate in ``wet environments''      limit to 100Wh and                                    the market.
 and have a battery energy of less    replaces the ``wet
 than or equal to 5 watt-hours (Wh)   environment''
 are in scope of the battery          designation with
 charger test procedure.              ``fixed-location
                                      wireless chargers'',
                                      such that wireless
                                      chargers meant for
                                      dry as well as wet
                                      environments would be
                                      in scope.
Does not differentiate between       Addresses open-         Appendix Y1.................  To reflect changes in
 types of wireless chargers.          placement wireless                                    the market.
                                      chargers and fixed-
                                      location wireless
                                      chargers, and adds
                                      definitions for both.
Does not provide a test method for   Adds a no-battery mode  Appendix Y1.................  To reflect changes in
 open-placement wireless chargers.    test method for open-                                 the market and to
                                      placement wireless                                    improve
                                      chargers in a newly                                   representativeness.
                                      created section of
                                      the appendix.
Does not provide EPS selection       Adds EPS selection      Appendix Y1.................  To reflect changes in
 priority for chargers that do have   order priority and                                    technology and to
 associated EPSs. For those that do   removes the 5.0V DC                                   improve
 not, current test procedure          input criteria. For                                   representativeness
 requires DC battery chargers be      battery chargers that                                 and comparability of
 tested with 5.0 V DC for USB port    do not ship with an                                   results.
 powered devices, or the midpoint     EPS and do not have a
 of the rated input voltage range     recommended adapter,
 for others.                          requires that the
                                      charger be tested
                                      using an EPS that is
                                      minimally compliant
                                      with the applicable
                                      energy conservation
                                      standard and supplies
                                      the rated input
                                      voltage and current.
Battery chemistries specified in     Updates ``Lithium       Appendix Y and Appendix Y1..  To reflect changes in
 Table 3.3.2 do not reflect the       Polymer'' to                                          the market.
 latest industry naming conventions.  ``Lithium-Ion
                                      Polymer,'' and
                                      changes
                                      ``Nanophosphate
                                      Lithium-Ion'' to
                                      ``Lithium Iron
                                      Phosphate''.
UEC calculation relies on usage      Removes battery         Appendix Y1.................  To improve
 profiles to determine the length     charger usage                                         representativeness.
 of time spent in each mode of        profiles and the UEC
 operation.                           calculation; adopts
                                      separate metrics, Ea,
                                      Psb and Poff, for the
                                      energy performance of
                                      a battery charger in
                                      each of the following
                                      three modes of
                                      operation
                                      respectively: active
                                      mode, standby mode
                                      and off mode.
Total test duration might not        Prolongs the test       Appendix Y1.................  To improve
 capture a representative measure     duration until                                        representativeness.
 of maintenance mode power of         maintenance mode
 certain battery chargers.            power has been
                                      captured
                                      representatively, if
                                      needed.
Manufacturer can report the battery  Provides specific       Appendix Y and Appendix Y1..  To improve
 discharge energy and the charging    direction to apply                                    representativeness.
 and maintenance mode energy as       for a test procedure
 ``Not Applicable'' if the            waiver if the battery
 measurements cannot be made.         energies cannot be
                                      directly measured.
Uses the designation ``Ebatt'' for   Changes the             Appendix Y..................  To improve
 both experimentally measured         denotations to                                        readability.
 battery energy and representative    ``Measured Ebatt''
 battery energy.                      for experimentally
                                      measured battery
                                      energy, and
                                      ``Representative
                                      Ebatt'' for
                                      representative
                                      battery energy, with
                                      further clarification
                                      in the footnotes.
Section 3.3.4 incorrectly            Corrects the cross-     Appendix Y and Appendix Y1..  To improve
 references section 3.3.2 for         section reference to                                  readability.
 instructions on how to discharge     Table 3.3.2.
 batteries.
Table 3.3.2 is located after         Moves Table 3.3.2 to    Appendix Y and Appendix Y1..  To improve
 Section 3.3.10 (Determining the 24-  Section 3.3.8.                                        readability.
 hour Energy Consumption) but is
 required for use in section 3.3.8
 (Battery Discharge Energy Test).
Certain sections use terms such as   Further clarifies the   Appendix Y and Appendix Y1..  To improve
 ``above'' or ``below'' for           referenced sections.                                  readability.
 references.
Battery charger standby mode and     Reorganizes sections    Appendix Y and Appendix Y1..  To improve
 off mode can be inappropriately      3.3.11 and 3.3.12 so                                  readability.
 tested if manufacturer does not      battery charger
 follow the test procedure in order.  standby and off modes
                                      can be tested
                                      correctly even if the
                                      test procedure order
                                      is not followed.
Column title in Table 3.3.3 states   Corrects the title to   Appendix Y and Appendix Y1..  To improve
 ``Special characteristic or rated    read ``Special                                        readability.
 battery voltage''.                   characteristic or
                                      highest rated battery
                                      voltage'' to clarify
                                      that for multi-
                                      voltage chargers, the
                                      highest battery
                                      voltage must be used
                                      to determine product
                                      class.
Uses the term ``wall adapters'' to   Changes the ``wall      Appendix Y and Appendix Y1..  To improve
 refer to external power supplies,    adapter'' terms to                                    readability.
 which is inconsistent with           more technically
 certification requirements and       correct term of
 reporting templates.                 ``EPSs''.
Definition of ``C-Rate'' does not    Adds clarification      Appendix Y and Appendix Y1..  To improve
 provide a straightforward            that a 0.2 C-Rate                                     readability.
 translation between charge or        would translate to a
 discharge rate and charge or         charge or discharge
 discharge time.                      period of 5 hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has determined that the amendments to appendix Y described in 
section III and adopted in this document will not alter the measured 
efficiency of battery chargers, or require retesting or recertification 
solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the amendments to the test 
procedure at appendix Y. Additionally, DOE has determined that the 
amendments will not increase the cost of testing under appendix Y.
    DOE has determined that the newly established appendix Y1, which 
specifies testing with a minimally compliant EPS, increases scope of 
wireless chargers, and removes the usage profiles and UEC calculation 
would result in a value for measured energy use that is different from 
that measured using the current test procedure. However, testing in 
accordance with the newly established appendix Y1 would not be required 
until such time as compliance is required with new and amended energy 
conservation standards, should DOE establish such standards. 
Additionally, DOE has determined that testing under appendix Y1 would 
not increase the cost of testing as compared to testing under appendix 
Y. Discussion of DOE's actions are addressed in detail in section III 
of this document.
    The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this 
final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be 
based on testing in

[[Page 55094]]

accordance with the amended appendix Y test procedures beginning 180 
days after the publication of this final rule. Manufacturers will be 
required to certify compliance using the new appendix Y1 test procedure 
beginning on the compliance date of any final rule published after the 
effective date of this final rule that establishes amended energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers.

III. Discussion

    In this battery chargers test procedure final rule, DOE is amending 
appendix Y and establishing a new appendix Y1 as described throughout 
the following sections.
    EPCA requires DOE to review the test procedure for battery chargers 
at least once every 7 years and to determine whether amendments to the 
test procedure would more accurately or fully comply with the 
requirements for test procedures to be reasonably designed to produce 
representative test results without undue burden. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(1)(A)) In response to the November 2021 NOPR, the Joint Trade 
Associations stated that DOE proposed several changes that improve the 
clarity but not representativeness of the test procedure and urged DOE 
to prioritize other rulemakings. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at 
p. 1) DOE reiterates that it is undertaking this rulemaking pursuant to 
the periodic review required by EPCA. As discussed in the following 
sections, DOE has determined that appendix Y, as amended in this final 
rule, and appendix Y1 as established in this final rule, more 
accurately and fully comply with the requirements in EPCA for test 
procedures to be reasonably designed to produce representative test 
results without undue burden. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

A. Scope of Applicability

1. Battery Chargers
    This rulemaking applies to battery chargers, which are devices that 
charge batteries for consumer products, including battery chargers 
embedded in other consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32); 10 CFR 430.2) 
A battery charger may be wholly embedded in another consumer product, 
partially embedded in another consumer product, or wholly separate from 
another consumer product. Id. Appendix Y differentiates among different 
types of battery chargers, including batch chargers, multi-port 
chargers, and multi-voltage chargers, as well as various battery 
chemistries. For each type of battery charger, appendix Y specifies 
test setup requirements and test battery selection, such as battery 
preparation steps, battery end-of-discharge voltages, and battery 
charger usage profiles based on the respective product classes. These 
different specifications are intended to ensure that each battery 
charger is tested to produce results that measure energy use during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use.
    DOE's current battery charger test procedure applies to battery 
chargers that operate at either direct current (``DC'') or United 
States alternating current (``AC'') line voltage (115 Volts (``V'') at 
60 Hertz), as well as to uninterruptible power supplies that have an AC 
output and utilize the standardized National Electrical Manufacturer 
Association (``NEMA'') plug, 1-15P or 5-15P, as specified in American 
National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/NEMA WD 6-2016.
    The CA IOUs stated in their comment responding to the November 2021 
NOPR that new consumer products powered by batteries require more 
power, and therefore current battery chargers are more powerful than 
when DOE initially developed its battery charger standard and test 
procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7) These more powerful battery 
chargers, they claimed, offer larger energy savings potential through 
energy efficiency standards. Id. CA IOUs therefore recommended that DOE 
clarify the scope of the test procedure, and expand it to cover battery 
chargers that can operate on either 115V or 230V AC voltage levels. (CA 
IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7) CA IOUs noted that US residences typically offer 
AC electricity at both 115V and 230V at 60Hz and that modern battery 
chargers may be designed for either voltage, and therefore DOE should 
expand the test procedure to include both voltage levels. Id.
    DOE notes that AC line voltage for common household electrical 
outlets in the United States is typically limited to 115V \8\ at 60Hz 
for residential environments, with specialized 230V 60Hz AC line 
voltage outlets reserved for limited number of heavy-duty applications 
such as clothes washers, dryers, and electric cooking products. While 
battery chargers with universal inputs exist (i.e., that support a 
range of 115V to 230V as input voltage), such products support 230V 
generally only to facilitate travel outside of the United States 
without the need for a travel adapter. These products, when used within 
the United States, operate at 115V and therefore should be tested as 
such. The scope of the test procedure includes any battery charger 
capable of operating at either DC or United States AC line voltage 
without regard to whether it is also capable of operating at other 
voltages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ DOE refers to AC line voltage here as 115V, recognizing that 
United States line voltage is also often referred to as 120V or 110V 
in some contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs further requested that DOE clarify the extent of DOE's 
authority on automobile chargers and other products. (CA IOUs, No. 25 
at p. 7) CA IOUs stated that DOE possessed the authority to regulate 
battery chargers embedded in consumer products, and therefore DOE could 
regulate chargers embedded in automobiles even if DOE cannot regulate 
the efficiency of electric vehicles themselves. Id. CA IOUs asked DOE 
to clarify its authority under EPCA to set standards for chargers 
embedded in automobiles, both those that charge other consumer products 
and those that charge the automobile's internal battery. Id. NEEA also 
encouraged DOE to cover electric vehicle (``EV'') chargers under the 
test procedure scope, stating that market data and policy trends 
illustrate the need for EV charger efficiency standards. (NEEA, No. 27 
at p. 10) NEEA noted there are three types of energy losses associated 
with EV charging, and that consumers are paying for these energy losses 
as though the lost energy were gasoline leaking from the hose as a tank 
is filled. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 10) NEEA further suggested that because 
public policy and market designs are not focusing on promoting higher 
efficiency charging, EV chargers focus on lower cost and lower weight, 
and that even small efficiency differences from standards could have 
large nationwide impacts. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 11)
    DOE notes, however, that due to the definition of battery chargers 
in EPCA, DOE's authority to regulate battery chargers extends only to 
battery chargers that charge batteries for consumer products. (42 
U.S.C. 6291(32)) As defined by EPCA, ``consumer products'' statutorily 
excludes automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) Regardless, DOE further notes 
that its test procedure for battery chargers as established in appendix 
Y (and newly established appendix Y1) cannot be adapted to measure the 
energy performance of battery chargers designed to charge electric 
vehicles without significant modifications that were not proposed in 
the November 2021 NOPR. Therefore, in this final rule DOE clarifies 
that this battery charger test procedure does not provide a method for 
testing electric vehicle battery chargers, and they remain outside the 
test procedure's scope.

[[Page 55095]]

    Finally, CA IOUs requested clarification regarding whether chargers 
used by (i) electric trucks, E-bikes, electric motorcycles, electric 
boats, and other consumer electric vehicles that are not automobiles; 
(ii) aerial drones and other battery-powered, remotely operated devices 
marketed to consumers; (iii) battery-powered electric riding lawn 
mowers and walk-behind lawnmowers sold to consumers; and (iv) battery 
chargers commonly referred to as ``DC fast chargers'' or ``Level 3 
chargers'' (e.g., Wallbox and SETEC) that are not embedded in electric 
automobiles but are designed to charge batteries in electric 
automobiles by bypassing the on-board battery charger. (CA IOUs, No. 25 
at p. 7)
    A manufacturer is best positioned to know the nuances of their 
model's characteristics and design, which impact how regulations apply. 
DOE however notes that most battery chargers intended for use with 
consumer electronics, including E-bikes, aerial drones and lawn mowers 
are in scope of the battery charger test procedure. While DOE cannot 
comment on the test procedure's applicability to all the battery 
chargers for a specific end-use product group, DOE suggests inquiring 
with the department directly for clarifications on a case-by-case 
basis.
2. Inductive Wireless Battery Chargers
    DOE's current energy conversation standards for battery chargers 
were established in a final rule published on June 13, 2016 (``June 
2016 Final Rule''). The standards cover inductive wireless battery 
charger products (also referred to as ``wireless power devices'') only 
to the extent that such products are designed and manufactured to 
operate in a wet environment (i.e., Product Class 1). 81 FR 38266, 
38282; 10 CFR 430.32(z)(1). DOE established standards for these wet-
environment inductive wireless battery chargers (e.g., battery chargers 
found in wireless toothbrushes and electric shavers) after finding that 
the technology used in those products was mature. Id. DOE did not 
establish standards for other types of inductive wireless battery 
chargers to avoid restricting the development of newer, less mature 
inductively charged products. Id. Similarly, DOE did not generate usage 
profiles for other types of inductive wireless chargers at the time 
because of their nascent state of development and their lack of 
widespread availability in the marketplace. Id. Without usage profiles, 
a corresponding unit energy consumption value cannot be calculated 
under the test procedure in appendix Y. Id.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define fixed-location 
wireless chargers and open-placement wireless chargers in a new 
appendix Y1 to include these chargers within the scope; and to expand 
the scope of the proposed appendix Y1 test procedure to cover testing 
of fixed-location wireless chargers in all modes of operation, as well 
as testing of open-placement wireless charger in no-battery mode only. 
86 FR 66878, 66882-66884. DOE proposed to define the term ``fixed 
location'' wireless charger in appendix Y1 to refer to inductive 
wireless battery chargers that incorporate a physical receiver locating 
feature (e.g., a peg, cradle, dock, locking mechanism, magnet, etc.) to 
repeatably align or orient the position of the receiver with respect to 
the transmitter. DOE then proposed to define the term ``open-
placement'' wireless chargers in appendix Y1 to address wireless 
charging products that do not have a physical locating feature (e.g., 
charging mats). DOE proposed to remove the ``wet environment'' products 
distinction for wireless chargers, as a result of these changes. 86 FR 
66878, 66883.
    ITI, the Joint Efficiency Advocates, the Joint Trade Associations, 
the CA IOUs, NEEA, and Delta-Q expressed general support for DOE's 
proposed approach to expand the scope in appendix Y1 to remove the wet 
environment definition and to classify and cover both fixed-location 
and open-placement wireless chargers. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2; Joint 
Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 1-2; Joint Trade Associations, No. 
24 at p. 8; CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 2-3; NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 4-6; Delta-
Q, No. 28 at p. 1) However, NEEA urged DOE to adopt technology-neutral 
definitions for wireless chargers rather than specifying only an 
inductive connection, to allow future products to be tested and 
considered under the test procedures regardless of specific product 
technology used (citing inductive, magnetic resonant, radio frequency 
as examples) and allow free competition to deliver wireless charging 
without restriction by technology specific test procedures. (NEEA, No. 
27 at pp. 6-7) Instead, NEEA recommended a definition for wireless 
chargers that defines wireless chargers as those chargers that transmit 
energy without a wired connection to a receiving device. (NEEA, No. 27 
at p. 7) DOE notes that other wireless charging methods beyond those 
addressed in appendix Y and new appendix Y1 are still nascent and lack 
widespread availability in the market. Defining such technologies and 
addressing them in the test procedure at this time could potentially 
restrict the development of these less mature technologies.
    DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to cover fixed-location 
wireless chargers, having tentatively determined that the physical 
receiver locating feature would allow accurate and repeatable relative 
receiver alignment or orientation. 86 FR 66878, 66883. NEEA noted that 
DOE's proposal for fixed-location wireless chargers addresses the 
technical challenges associated with physical displacement of the 
transmitter and receiver, and that wireless charger efficiency depends 
on the product's horizontal and vertical displacement from the 
transmitter but that fixed-location charger's magnetic or physical 
guides ensure proper and consistent positioning. (NEEA, No. 27 at 6). 
ITI suggested that DOE clarify in its definition that fixed-location 
wireless chargers should be able to align or orient the receiver 
position in both vertical and horizontal orientations through the 
receiver locating feature, whereas open-placement chargers do not 
incorporate a physical receiver locating feature. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 
1-2) ITI further inquired whether a wireless charger that relies on LED 
or another form of indication to indicate correct placement in lieu of 
physical locating features, would be considered as an open-placement 
one. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2)
    DOE concludes that the definition as proposed, specifying that the 
locating feature should ``repeatably align or orient the position of 
the receiver with respect to the transmitter'', to be sufficiently 
specific without respect to whether such alignment is in the vertical 
or horizontal (or any other) position. DOE finds that this 
specification in the definition sufficiently minimizes test to test 
variation without prescribing additional design constraints. In cases 
where the charger only employs indication of correct placement, such as 
by visual indication or audio indication, but does not have physical 
locating features that ensures repeatable alignment or orientation, DOE 
notes that relative receiver placement can still vary ever so slightly 
for such chargers, which causes variation in active mode testing. 
Therefore, such wireless charger would still be considered as open-
placement wireless charger because of the lack of locating feature that 
can ``repeatably align or orient the position of the receiver with 
respect to the transmitter.''
    NEEA stated that for future fixed-location wireless chargers able 
to charge a variety of products (interoperable fixed-location 
chargers), different

[[Page 55096]]

receiver-battery combinations could result in efficiency differences. 
(NEEA, No. 27 at p. 6) NEEA suggested that DOE either address these 
chargers with an active mode test procedure waiver, or further specify 
that these chargers must be tested with a manufacturer-specified range 
of receivers but not other products that use the same power transfer 
standard. (Id.) The CA IOUs referred DOE to WPC's comment that fixed-
location wireless chargers risk efficiency variations for different 
receivers, which prevents WPC from releasing a receiver-independent 
active mode power transfer efficiency metric. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 5) 
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to continue to measure performance and 
regulate fixed-location wireless charging systems under the current 
approach, and suggested that DOE require combinations of new receiver 
devices used in conjunction with previous wireless charger models to 
meet the minimum efficiency requirement. (Id.) The CA IOUs further 
encouraged DOE to clarify that if a change in receiver were to reduce 
efficiency beyond a nominal threshold for a particular fixed-location 
wireless charger, then it should be regulated as a new basic model. 
(Id.)
    DOE notes that the definitions of ``fixed-location wireless 
charger'' and ``open-placement wireless charger'' proposed in the 
November 2021 NOPR and adopted in this final rule indicate that the 
term ``wireless battery charger'' encompasses both the transmitter 
(i.e., the charging mat, for example) and the receiver (i.e., the end-
use product containing the battery). Neither the transmitter nor the 
receiver on its own constitutes a ``battery charger.'' As such, each 
combination of transmitter and receiver \9\ that has different 
electrical, physical, or functional characteristics that affect energy 
consumption would be considered a different basic model and would be 
required to be certified accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DOE further notes that applicable to transmitters that can 
accommodate multiple receivers or batteries, only the manufacturer 
recommended combinations are tested. See section 3.1.4(b) of 
appendix Y and appendix Y1 as finalized, which specifies testing 
battery chargers with an EPS recommended by the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ITI further suggested that although ITI is unaware of any type of 
wireless chargers other than fixed-location or open-placement wireless 
chargers, DOE should leave open the possibility that future wireless 
chargers may not fall into either fixed-location or open-placement 
wireless chargers. (ITI No. 20 at p. 2) DOE agrees with ITI that all 
current wireless chargers would fall in either fixed-location wireless 
charger or open-placement wireless charger category. As such, the 
adopted fixed-location and open-placement wireless charger definitions 
would capture the current wireless charger market accurately. DOE will 
make thorough reviews of the battery charger test procedure, should new 
charger types mature in the market.
    The Joint Trade Associations, noting that they support maintaining 
the UEC approach, also suggested DOE add Table 3.3.3 to a UEC-
compatible version of appendix Y1 so that Product Class 1 is preserved 
with lower battery energy limits, and a new Product Class 1A can be 
established for higher battery energy inductive chargers. (Joint Trade 
Associations, No. 24 at p. 8) The Joint Trade Associations stated that 
it would be appropriate to separate wireless chargers from wired 
chargers under this approach, and further suggested DOE would need to 
account for the expanded scope and create a new Product Class 1A for 
higher energy inductive chargers. (Id.) DOE notes that DOE is adopting 
the proposed multi-metric approach, and under the multi-metric 
approach, DOE does not need to further separate product classes, as the 
testing method and calculation steps for determining the tested values 
are the same for battery chargers in all product classes. To the extent 
that consideration of different product classes may be warranted, DOE 
would do so in a future energy conservation standards rulemaking.
    ITI inquired as to the applicability of standards to a product that 
can take either wired or wireless charging; and the applicability of 
standards to a wireless charger shipped without an end use device. 
(ITI, No. 20 at p. 6) As stated earlier, different wired/wireless 
charger and end use product/battery combinations could result in 
different charging efficiencies. Therefore, they would constitute 
different battery charger models and would need to be tested and 
certified separately. DOE notes that manufacturers have already been 
certifying products in this way under the current test procedure. 
Furthermore, under the new appendix Y1 test procedure if a consumer 
product can accept charge either wired or wirelessly, each charging 
configuration would also need to be tested and certified separately.
    The CA IOUs supported DOE expanding coverage to ``combination 
products'' with integrated wireless chargers such as bedside or desk 
lamps, clocks, and furniture that has built in wireless chargers. (CA 
IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 5-6) The CA IOUs suggested that these products are 
currently not covered under DOE's battery charger test procedure and 
are expected to significantly displace DOE-regulated battery chargers 
in some product classes. Id. The CA IOUs stated that they are analyzing 
combination products and recommended DOE establish clear definitions 
for combination products to clarify what combination products are not 
covered by DOE's test procedures and standards, so that they can be 
covered under other energy efficiency regulations or guidelines such as 
CEC Low Power Mode Roadmap.\10\ (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 5-6) The Joint 
Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to expand the no-battery mode only 
test coverage to include dual-purpose open-placement chargers such as 
alarm clocks and table lamps with embedded wireless chargers, because 
they are becoming increasingly common. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 
23 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CEC Low Power Road Map is available on www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's definition for battery charger includes battery chargers 
embedded in other consumer products. 10 CFR 430.2. For combination 
products that have multiple functions, if they do come with a battery 
charger, then the battery charging component of the combination product 
would still need to be tested under DOE's battery charger test 
procedure.
    The Joint Trade Associations stated that there was some confusion 
in DOE's proposal for expanded wireless chargers in appendix Y1, as 
they noted the preamble proposed a change to Product Class 1 in 
appendix Y1 to include all fixed-location wireless chargers, but that 
this change was not present in the regulatory text, and the proposed 
regulatory text for Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y shows a measured battery 
energy of 20Wh, a value not discussed anywhere in the preamble. (Joint 
Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 8) DOE notes that the reference to 20 
Wh in the proposed regulatory text for appendix Y was an error and has 
been corrected to 5 Wh for this final rule.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to increase the rated 
battery energy limit of fixed-location wireless chargers in appendix Y1 
from <=5 Wh to 100 Wh. 86 FR 66878, 66883. At the time of the June 2016 
Final Rule, all inductive wireless chargers designed for use in wet 
environments (the prior scope of coverage) had a battery energy under 5 
Wh. Id. In discussion of the increased limit in the November 2021 NOPR 
and in light of the removal of the wet environment distinction, DOE 
stated that it had conducted initial research and found that although 
most

[[Page 55097]]

of the fixed-location inductive wireless chargers were designed for 
batteries with lower energy ratings, typically within 20Wh, there are 
some fixed-location inductive wireless chargers that can charge 
products with higher battery energy levels of around 80 Wh, namely 
inductively charged power tool products. Id. The expansion of the limit 
to 100 Wh was made to accommodate potential future product designs that 
may have larger battery energies. Id. In their response to the November 
2021 NOPR, NEEA noted that wireless charging for consumer products is 
already commonplace and continued growth is expected, along with 
substantially increased energy use. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 4) ITI and the 
Joint Trade Association supported the proposal to expand the scope to 
include those with battery energies up to 100Wh. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2, 
Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 8)
    WPC stated that wireless chargers (referred to as ``wireless power 
transmitters'' by WPC) should be categorized as external power supplies 
(``EPSs'') because they can power devices without batteries. (WPC, No. 
22 at p. 1) WPC stated that although they believe wireless chargers 
should be tested as EPSs with appropriate resistive loads, the usage 
profile is very different from wired chargers, and they are more 
frequently used for ``top-ups''. (WPC, No. 22 at pp. 1-2)
    In the November 2019 NOPR, the department acknowledged that open-
placement wireless chargers are sometimes designed to work with third 
party products, some of which may not be battery operated. DOE's 
research of the marketplace however shows that the vast majority of 
these third-party applications continue to be primarily reliant on 
battery power, with power received from an open-placement charger used 
to charge that battery. This conclusion is reasonable, considering the 
inherent limitation in the distance across which wireless power can be 
transmitted. As such, DOE maintains that the revised battery charger 
test procedure is appropriate for capturing the energy performance of 
open-placement wireless chargers in no-battery mode. With regards to 
WPC's comment that wireless chargers should be measured with resistive 
loads, DOE notes that testing with a load is only relevant for active 
mode testing, which DOE did not propose for the reasons stated in 
section III.B.1 of this final rule. For the reasons discussed in the 
preceding paragraphs and in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is adopting the 
proposals made in the November 2021 NOPR to establish definitions for 
both fixed-location wireless chargers and open-placement wireless 
chargers, to increase the rated battery energy limit for fixed-location 
inductive chargers from <5 Wh to <100 Wh, and, as discussed below to 
expand the test procedure's scope to cover testing open-placement 
wireless chargers in no-battery mode only.

B. Test Procedure

1. Wireless Charger Test Procedure
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand the scope of the 
proposed appendix Y1 test procedure to cover testing of fixed-location 
wireless chargers in all modes of operation, and to cover testing of 
open-placement wireless charger in no-battery mode only. 86 FR 66878, 
66882-66884.
    The CA IOUs further recommended that DOE collaborate with industry 
and standards organizations to develop a suitable method of measurement 
for active mode power for interoperable open placement chargers, such 
as the approach proposed by WPC that measures active mode power 
consumption at several key locations on the charging device. (CA IOUs, 
No. 25 at p. 3) The CA IOUs modeled the savings potential from applying 
potential standby and active mode power regulations to inductive 
battery chargers. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs estimated 
the lifetime unit energy savings from regulating standby mode to be 
about 1.4 GWh for 5 years of shipments. (Id.) The CA IOUs estimated the 
lifetime unit energy savings from regulating active mode to be about 60 
GWh for 5 years of shipments. (Id.)
    NEEA supported the development of a standby test method for open-
placement wireless chargers using International Electrotechnical 
Commission (IEC) 62301 in appendix Y1 and encouraged DOE to continue 
developing an active mode test procedure with industry. (NEEA, No. 27 
at 6). NEEA further recommended that DOE in the interim retain a 
placeholder for future active mode or other low power mode testing of 
open-placement wireless chargers. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 6-7). WPC agreed 
that no appropriate active mode test can be prescribed for open-
placement wireless chargers yet, because of varying receiver efficiency 
and the capability for one open placement charger to simultaneously 
charge multiple receivers. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 1) However, WPC noted 
that covering only fixed-location wireless chargers in the active mode 
test procedures can discourage manufacturers from choosing more 
efficient fixed-location wireless charger designs. (WPC, No. 22 at pp. 
1-2) WPC recommended that DOE extend the no-battery only test to fixed-
location chargers designed for receivers that can take open-placement 
chargers as well (for example, exclude certain wireless charging stands 
and specific in-car wireless chargers from the active charging test). 
(WPC, No. 22 at pp. 1-2)
    DOE acknowledges the difficulty in establishing a repeatable and 
representative open-placement wireless charger (including interoperable 
open-placement wireless charger) test procedure for active mode. As 
stated in the November 2021 NOPR, first, efficiency of wireless power 
transfer varies greatly depending on the alignment of the receiver with 
respect to the transmitter. A test procedure designed to capture the 
representative energy performance of such a device would need to 
repeatably measure the average power transfer efficiency across the 
full range of possible placement positions on the transmitter. Second, 
representative test load(s) would need to account for all charging 
scenarios because these open-placement wireless chargers are designed 
to work with various third-party products. Third, these devices also 
typically incorporate other non-battery-charging related features 
inherent to implementing an open-placement design, such as foreign 
object detection circuits, that may affect charging efficiency. 86 FR 
66884. DOE, working in conjunction with industry organizations such as 
the WPC, has found that mitigating these challenges is difficult. To-
date, that work has yielded test methods that either lack repeatability 
or result in significant test burden. In addition, evaluating whether a 
particular test procedure measures the energy performance of open-
placement wireless chargers during a representative average use cycle, 
specifically during active mode operation, requires data on consumer 
usage at the various modes of operation. DOE lacks, and is unaware of, 
such data. Id.
    Based on further evaluation and consideration of the comments 
received, DOE concludes that a representative and repeatable test 
procedure for measuring the active mode energy performance of open-
placement wireless chargers cannot be prescribed at this time without 
undue burden. DOE will continue its efforts, working with industry 
bodies, such as WPC, IEC, and ANSI/CTA, to develop an active mode test 
procedure for open-placement wireless chargers that appropriately 
addresses the impact of receiver

[[Page 55098]]

placement on charging efficiency, and will continue to gather relevant 
consumer usage data. WPC stated that fixed-placement does not 
necessarily mean battery charger, because the battery management and 
control circuitry are often placed in the wireless receiver. (WPC, No. 
22 at p. 3) WPC agreed that the present ``interoperable'' wireless 
charger (regardless of open-placement or fixed-location) efficiency 
testing method is not representative of real-world performance and is 
likely not repeatable. WPC stated that to make such a test method 
repeatable would require a placement coordinate table that moves the 
receiver in 1mm increments within the charging area, developing 
accurate user placement models, and limiting the receiver to one 
specific product design. (Id.)
    For fixed-location wireless battery chargers that can work with 
multiple end use products, each different wireless charger and end use 
product/battery combinations could result in different charging 
efficiencies, therefore, they would constitute as different battery 
charger models and would need to be tested and certified separately. 
DOE notes that manufacturers have already been certifying products in 
this way under the current test procedure. As for open-placement 
wireless chargers, DOE notes that for even a relatively small wireless 
charging coil of 30 by 30 square millimeters, to accurately and 
repeatably capture the overall active mode energy consumption by moving 
the relative receiver placement in 1mm increments, as described by WPC, 
would result in 900 iterations. Even if the technician were to measure 
the efficiency differences across 5mm or 10mm increments, it would 
still result in dozens of repeated active mode tests, which adds 
significant undue burden to the test procedure. Additionally, because 
of the open-placement wireless charger design, it would be virtually 
impossible to develop representative relative receiver placement 
models. Therefore, DOE reiterates that a representative and repeatable 
test procedure for measuring the active mode energy performance of 
open-placement wireless chargers cannot be prescribed at this time 
without undue burden.
    WPC further suggested that the name for open-placement chargers 
``no-battery mode'' test should be changed to ``no receiver mode''. 
(WPC, No. 22 at p. 2) DOE notes that wirelessly charged devices usually 
have batteries and receiving circuitry built-in the device; therefore, 
batteries and receivers cannot be separated without tearing down the 
product. To maintain test mode language consistency, DOE is not 
changing the ``no-battery mode'' designation.
    DOE appreciates the remainder of WPC's comments and notes that this 
final rule establishes only a test procedure and not energy 
conservation standards for fixed-location wireless chargers. DOE does 
not believe simply providing a method for testing the efficiency of 
these technologies without a corresponding energy conservation standard 
would impact manufacturer's design choices.
    In this final rule, DOE is finalizing its proposal from the 
November 2021 NOPR to test fixed-location wireless chargers in all 
modes of operation, and to capture the no-battery mode energy 
performance of open-placement wireless chargers in the new appendix Y1. 
DOE is also adopting the proposal to leave a placeholder section in the 
new appendix Y1 to be reserved for a potential active mode test 
procedure for open-placement wireless chargers.
2. External Power Supply Selection
    Most battery chargers require the use of an EPS to convert 115-volt 
(``V'') AC line voltage into a low-voltage DC or AC output suitable for 
powering the battery charger. DOE's current battery charger test 
procedure specifies that the battery charger be tested with the EPS 
packaged with the charger, or the EPS that is sold or recommended by 
the manufacturer. If an EPS is not packaged with the charger, or if the 
manufacturer does not sell or recommend an EPS, then the battery 
charger is tested using a 5.0V DC input for products that draw power 
from a computer USB port, or using the midpoint of the rated input 
voltage range for all other products. Appendix Y, sections 3.1.4.(b) 
and 3.1.4.(c). However, the 5.0 V DC specification for products drawing 
power from a computer USB port may not be representative for battery 
chargers designed for operation only on DC input voltage and for which 
the manufacturer does not package the charger with an EPS or sell or 
recommend an EPS. The current generation USB specification can support 
up to 20 V, per the voltage and current provisions of the most recent 
version of the International Electrotechnical Commission's (``IEC'') 
``Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power--Part 1-2: Common 
components--USB Power Delivery'' (``IEC 62680-1-2'') specification.
    To resolve this issue and improve test procedure representativeness 
and test results comparability, in the November 2021 NOPR DOE proposed 
to require in appendix Y1 that when an EPS is not pre-packaged with a 
battery charger (and the charger manufacturer does not sell or 
recommend a compatible charger), testing would be performed using any 
commercially-available EPS that is both (i) minimally compliant with 
DOE's energy conservation standards for EPS found in 10 CFR 430.32(w) 
and (ii) satisfies the EPS output criteria specified by the battery 
charger manufacturer. 86 FR 66878, 66885. DOE further proposed that if 
the certified EPS is no longer available in the market, then for DOE's 
compliance and enforcement testing DOE would test the battery charger 
with any compatible minimally compliant EPS that meets the performance 
criteria. Id. Additionally, in appendix Y1, DOE proposed to clarify the 
EPS selection priority when one is provided or recommended, to maintain 
test procedure repeatability. Id.
    In response to these proposals regarding EPSs, DOE received several 
comments. Schumacher suggested DOE allow manufacturers describe the 
recommended EPSs in their user manuals for customers' reference and 
that such recommendations direct the use of an EPS when testing a 
battery charger that does not ship with one. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 
5) ITI asked DOE to clarify whether the ``minimally compliant EPS'' 
language simply means any compliant EPS, currently level VI, and 
nothing more. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2) Both the Joint Efficiency Advocates 
and NEEA suggested DOE further specify the efficiency range for these 
minimally compliant EPSs to improve reproducibility and maintain a 
level playing field. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2; NEEA, 
No. 27 at pp. 9-10) WPC and the CA IOUs recommended DOE prescribe a 
standardized EPS when none is recommended. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 2; CA 
IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6)
    The CA IOUs also commented that there is a trend towards shipping 
chargers without an EPS, and that many consumers are reusing AC to DC 
EPSs whose efficiency under load contributes to an important part of 
the battery charger efficiency and should not be eliminated via an 
adjustment factor approach unless significant experimental validation 
confirms this model. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6) The CA IOUs further 
requested that DOE consider how new battery chargers will typically be 
powered by older EPSs if current trends continue. (Id.)
    As an initial matter, DOE will also continue studying the trends of 
shipping battery chargers without an EPS and the effect of reusing old 
EPSs. The proposal to require testing with a minimally compliant EPS 
reflects the

[[Page 55099]]

wide selection of EPSs readily available and ensures that the battery 
charger is tested in a configuration representative of actual use, as 
most battery chargers require the use of an EPS to convert 115V AC line 
voltage into a low-voltage DC or AC output. By ``minimally compliant 
EPS'', DOE is referring to EPSs that are minimally compliant with their 
respective EPS product class energy conservation standard, or in other 
words, EPSs with Compliance Certification Database (``CCD'') reported 
efficiencies as close to their respective minimum product class energy 
conservation standard as possible. Requiring the use of a minimally 
compliant EPS for testing will help improve test procedure 
reproducibility. Requiring the use of an EPS with an efficiency as 
close to the minimum as possible also ensures that manufacturers who do 
not package, sell, or recommend an EPS for testing with their battery 
chargers do not get an unfair advantage, by preventing the use of a 
very efficient third-party EPS for testing. DOE reiterates that the 
make and model of such minimally compliant EPS used for testing would 
also need to be reported to CCD, as prescribed by battery charger 
certification reporting requirements at 10 CFR 429.39. Specifying the 
use of a minimally compliant EPS results in battery chargers shipped 
without an EPS being tested with EPSs of comparable efficiency. As 
such, DOE is not prescribing specific EPSs, or the acceptable range of 
EPS efficiencies for testing with battery chargers.
    The Joint Trade Associations opposed DOE's proposal to test battery 
chargers with a minimally compliant EPS, when applicable. The Joint 
Trade Associations claimed that manufacturers do not know which 
adapters are minimally compliant until after testing them. The Joint 
Trade Associations instead suggested DOE to continue allow 5V DC input 
option for conventional USB connections. For other connections, 
including for USB-PDs, the Joint Trade Associations proposed allowing 
any other commercially available EPS to be used. The Joint Trade 
Associations asserted that this would avoid possible circumvention 
through use of a specially designed adapter, but that DOE should study 
whether adapters vary enough in efficiency that this approach may cause 
an increase in unacceptable testing variations. (Joint Trade 
Associations, No. 24 at p. 9)
    DOE clarifies that the ``minimally compliant'' qualification 
applies to the EPS and compliance with the applicable energy 
conservation standards applicable to EPSs. By adopting the proposal to 
test with a minimally compliant EPS for applicable battery chargers, it 
would further avoid accounting for adapter efficiency differences, 
leading to unacceptable testing variation. The efficiencies of DOE 
compliant EPSs can be found on DOE's publicly available CCD. As 
discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, testing with a 5V DC input is less 
representative than testing with an EPS. 86 FR 66878, 66885. 
Additionally, testing with a 5V DC input does not provide as comparable 
of results with battery chargers that are shipped and tested with an 
EPS. Therefore, in order to improve the representativeness and 
comparability of testing, DOE is adopting the provisions discussed in 
the preceding paragraphs to test with a ``minimally compliant EPS,'' as 
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. These battery chargers are operated 
with an EPS by the consumer and testing the chargers without an EPS is 
not representative of actual use. DOE is also adopting the proposed 
enforcement testing change in appendix Y1 from the November 2021 NOPR 
to address instances in which the certified EPS relied on in testing is 
no longer available in the market. 86 FR 66878, 66885. In such an 
instance, DOE will test the battery charger with any compatible 
minimally compliant EPS that meets the performance criteria.
    Regarding DOE's proposal in appendix Y1 to further specify the EPS 
selection priority when one is provided or recommended, DOE did not 
receive comments opposing such proposal, with both WPC and the Joint 
Efficiency Advocates expressing their support for this proposal. (WPC, 
No. 22 at p. 2; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2) As such, 
DOE is adopting the proposal that a battery charger would first be 
tested using the pre-packaged wall adapter; if the battery charger does 
not include a pre-packaged wall adapter, then the battery charger would 
be tested with a wall adapter sold and recommended by the manufacturer; 
if the manufacturer does not recommend a wall adapter that it sells, 
then the battery charger is to be tested with a wall adapter 
recommended by the manufacturer. DOE reiterates that only if when the 
manufacturer does not package, sell, or recommend an EPS to be used 
with the battery charger, then the battery charger should be tested 
with a minimally compliant EPS, or in other words, and EPS that is no 
more efficient than the corresponding baseline EPS standard.
    For the reasons presented in the November 2021 NOPR and in the 
preceding paragraphs, DOE is adopting the proposals from the November 
2021 NOPR to specify the EPS selection priority and require applicable 
battery chargers to test with a minimally compliant EPS in the new 
appendix Y1.
3. Battery Chemistry and End-of-Discharge Voltages
    The battery charger test procedure requires that, as part of the 
battery discharge energy test, the battery must be discharged at a 
specified discharge rate until it reaches the specified end-of-
discharge voltage stipulated in Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y. Appendix Y, 
section 3.3.8(c)(2). Table 3.3.2 defines different end-of-discharge 
voltages for different battery chemistries. A footnote to Table 3.3.2 
provides that if the presence of protective circuitry prevents the 
battery cells from being discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage 
specified, then the battery cells must be discharged to the lowest 
possible voltage permitted by the protective circuitry. Id.
    DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that although the presence of 
protective circuitries allows some batteries to discharge to end-of-
discharge voltages that are different from the voltages prescribed in 
Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y, such circuits are not universal, and 
accurate values for end-of-discharge voltages are required to ensure 
batteries are safely and representatively discharged when such circuits 
are not present. 86 FR 66878, 66886. Therefore, DOE proposed no changes 
for the footnote regarding protective circuitries. Id. However, DOE 
proposed to update the term used for battery chemistry in Table 3.3.2 
from ``Lithium Polymer'' to ``Lithium-Ion Polymer'' and to change 
``Nanophosphate Lithium-Ion'' to ``Lithium Iron Phosphate'' in order to 
reflect changes in the market. 86 FR 66878, 66886.
    The Joint Trade Associations supported DOE's proposal to update the 
battery chemistry terms, and also supported not changing the foot note 
regarding end-of-discharge voltages. The Joint Trade Associations 
further stated that they are not aware of new cut off voltages and the 
new battery chemistries DOE considered are still in their infancy. 
(Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 9)
    Schumacher requested that DOE add Lead-Carbon based Valve-Regulated 
Lead Acid (``VRLA'') batteries to the list of batteries, stating that 
such batteries are quickly developing and are mostly used in Solar 
Charging and RVs. However, Schumacher indicated that they were not sure 
of the per-cell rating or end-of-discharge voltage for these batteries. 
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2) In response to Schumacher's comment,

[[Page 55100]]

DOE reviewed the Lead-Carbon based VRLA battery market and was not able 
to find valid data to establish the end-of-discharge voltages for these 
batteries. At this time, the Lead-Carbon based VRLA battery market 
appears to still be developing. As such, DOE is not including Lead-
Carbon based VRLA batteries in Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y.
    Schumacher also suggested DOE provide a tolerance to end-of-
discharge voltage to ensure uniformity, because not all test equipment 
stops the discharge test at the exact voltage. (Schumacher, No. 21 at 
p. 3) DOE notes that battery voltages can fluctuate during discharge 
and might drop suddenly around end-of-discharge voltage. Therefore, it 
would be more accurate for the test equipment and lab technician to 
determine when exactly should discharge be stopped once it reaches 
close to DOE specified end-of-discharge voltage. From DOE's own testing 
according to the current test procedure, the discharge tests are 
usually terminated by either the battery analyzer at the specified end-
of-discharge voltage, or by the built-in battery protection circuitry. 
DOE does not anticipate the current test procedure language to cause 
repeatability or reproducibility issues, nor did DOE receive other 
stakeholder concerns on the current approach.
    Delta-Q claimed that the name change from ``Lithium Polymer'' to 
``Lithium-Ion Polymer'' does not address the issue that virtually all 
commercialized lithium-ion batteries have a polymer separator. (Delta-
Q, No. 28 at p. 1) Delta-Q further proposed DOE to simply delete 
``Lithium Polymer'' from the table to avoid confusion and redundancy. 
Id. DOE notes that although most lithium-ion batteries on the market 
utilize a polymer separator, there are still potentially some batteries 
that do not have the polymer separator, and the additional battery 
chemistry would not cause variation in test results. Therefore, DOE 
will maintain both the Lithium-Ion Polymer and Lithium-Ion chemistries.
    For the reasons discussed in the November 2021 NOPR and in the 
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule DOE is adopting the proposed 
updates to the battery chemistry table to update ``Lithium Polymer'' 
term to ``Lithium-Ion Polymer'' and updating the term ``Nanophosphate 
Lithium-ion'' to ``Lithium Iron Phosphate''.
4. Battery Selection
    Table 3.2.1 of appendix Y specifies battery selection criteria 
based on the type of charger being tested; specifically, whether the 
charger is multi-voltage, multi-port, and/or multi-capacity. For multi-
capacity chargers, Table 3.2.1 specifies using a battery with the 
highest charge capacity. Similarly, for multi-voltage chargers, Table 
3.2.1 specifies using the highest voltage battery. Section 3.2.3(b)(2) 
of appendix Y specifies that if the battery selection criteria 
specified in Table 3.2.1 results in two or more batteries or 
configurations of batteries with same voltage and capacity ratings, but 
made of different chemistries, the battery or configuration of 
batteries that results in the highest maintenance mode power must be 
used for testing.
    Although DOE did not propose to make changes to the current battery 
selection criteria in the November 2021 NOPR, Schumacher suggested DOE 
reconsider the battery selection method for automotive chargers. 
(Schumacher, No. 21 at pp. 1-2) Schumacher stated that it is better to 
use 12V Absorbent Glass Mat (``AGM'') batteries with Thin Plate Pure 
Lead (``TPPL'') technology for testing multi-voltage automotive battery 
chargers because they have lower stratification, do not need 
electrolytes measurement, are easier to maintain, are safer, have lower 
losses, and have more repeatable and reproducible results. Schumacher 
also indicated that these batteries are more popular, with 12V 
batteries being the most common voltage. Schumacher stated that for 
multi-voltage automotive battery chargers that can charge 12V 
batteries, batteries of other voltages should not be required for 
testing because of their significantly fewer annual volumes. (Id.) 
Schumacher added that these batteries can be reused more times to keep 
test costs lower. Schumacher further suggested DOE add reusing of 
automotive batteries and float charging specifications to the test 
procedure as many automotive battery chargers reuse the same batteries 
for testing. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2)
    DOE reiterates that its current battery selection criteria 
specifically states that if multiple batteries meet the battery 
selection criteria, the battery or configuration of batteries with the 
highest maintenance mode power should be selected for testing. Section 
3.2.3.(b)(2) of appendix Y. In real world scenarios, consumers do not 
always choose the most efficient battery chemistry to use with their 
battery chargers. Therefore, testing a lead acid charger with more 
efficient AGM batteries with TPPL technology would not be 
representative. If a manufacturer can select either a regular AGM 
battery or an AGM battery with TPPL technology, the battery with higher 
maintenance mode power would be selected for testing. As for selecting 
batteries for testing with multi-voltage chargers, Table 3.2.1 of 
appendix Y specifically states that battery with the highest voltage 
should be used for testing.
    DOE's battery charger test procedure requires manufacturers to use 
new battery chargers and associated batteries. Section 3.2.2 of 
appendix Y. Battery charge capacity can vary with number of charge 
cycles and discharge rates, especially for lead acid batteries. As 
such, testing a battery charger with a new battery versus with the same 
battery, but after repeated number of charge and discharge cycles, can 
result in significant variation that diminishes the accuracy and 
repeatability of the testing. To determine if a used battery is still 
suitable for testing would require monitoring and testing of various 
factors, which can also add undue burden. Therefore, DOE is not 
changing the requirement that new batteries be used for testing, to 
maintain test procedure repeatability as well as test result 
reproducibility and comparability.
5. Mode-Specific Metrics
    Currently, DOE's battery charger test procedure is based on the 
integrated UEC approach. The UEC equation in section 3.3.13 of appendix 
Y integrates active mode, standby mode, and off mode power measurements 
by combining certain parameters, including 24-hour energy, measured 
battery energy, maintenance mode power, standby mode power, off mode 
power, charge test duration, and usage profiles. Table 3.3.3 specifies 
the usage profile for each battery charger product class, meaning the 
values for time spent (in hours per day) in active and maintenance 
mode, standby mode, off mode; number of charges per day; and threshold 
charge time (in hours). In incorporating usage profiles into the 
integrated metric, DOE in the June 2016 Final Rule stated that 
aggregating the performance parameters of battery chargers into one 
metric and applying a usage profile would allow manufacturers more 
flexibility for improving performance during the modes of operation 
most beneficial to their consumers, rather than being required to 
improve the performance in each mode of operation, including those 
which may not provide any appreciable benefit. 81 FR 38266, 38286-
38287.
    UEC integrates active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use 
in order to estimate the amount of non-useful energy (i.e., energy not 
transferred to the battery) consumed by the battery charger over the 
course of a year. The UEC approach therefore requires the use

[[Page 55101]]

of usage profiles to appropriately reflect the period of time a product 
spends in each mode, in order to maintain the representativeness of the 
metric for an average use cycle or period of use as required by EPCA. 
The usage profiles provide a weighted average of application-specific 
usage for battery chargers within a specific product class. The usage 
profiles are based on data for a variety of applications from user 
surveys, metering studies, and stakeholder input that DOE considered in 
the June 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 38266, 38287. DOE's product-class 
specific usage profiles were initially also developed using the 
shipment-weighted average usage hours of all the applications of 
battery chargers whose battery voltage and energy met the criteria for 
each product class. The intended result was for each usage profile to 
be representative of the usage of the product class as a whole.
    EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for all covered 
products to include standby mode and off mode energy consumption, with 
such energy consumption integrated into the overall energy efficiency, 
energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered 
product, unless the Secretary determines that (i) the current test 
procedures for a covered product already fully account for and 
incorporate the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the 
covered product; or (ii) such an integrated test procedure is 
technically infeasible for a particular covered product, in which case 
the Secretary shall prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode 
energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically 
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) EPCA requires the use of an 
integrated metric unless such a test procedure is technically 
infeasible. If an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible, 
DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode energy use test 
procedures, if a separate test is technically feasible. (Id.)
    However, under EPCA, DOE is required to establish test procedures 
that are reasonably designed to produce test results which measure 
energy efficiency and/or energy use of a covered product during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the 
Secretary, and such test procedures must not be unduly burdensome to 
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The requirement for a representative 
test procedure that does not impose an undue burden underpins EPCA's 
ability to develop and enforce standards, and therefore is a 
fundamental requirement of EPCA. EPCA does not define what is 
technically infeasible or what it means. But DOE finds it reasonable 
when considering the technical feasibility of a test procedure that 
provides for a metric that integrates active mode, standby mode, and 
off mode energy use to consider the representativeness and burden of a 
test procedure using that metric. An integrated test procedure metric 
that cannot be reasonably expected to produce representative test 
results or that would result in undue burden cannot be considered 
technically feasible under EPCA, because it is unable to meet the 
requirements to be a permissible test procedure under the statute--even 
if an integrated metric is theoretically possible approach were those 
requirements to not apply.
    As explained in the November 2021 NOPR, as the battery charger 
market continues to evolve, DOE has observed that the relative share of 
shipments among different types of products within a product class has 
changed; the types of products within a given product class as well as 
the usage patterns of the products within a product class have become 
more varied. 86 FR 66878, 66887. In the November 2021 NOPR DOE 
presented the example of the current Product Class 2, which includes 
both smartphones and small capacity home power tools--two products with 
widely different usage patterns and annual shipments. Id. A more recent 
market review shows that the shipments for certain applications, such 
as smartphones, cordless phones, wireless headsets, have changed 
significantly since the usage profiles in appendix Y were originally 
established. Id. Furthermore, there has been a recent but rapid market 
adoption of smart wearable devices, tablets, consumer drones, and 
mobility scooters from DOE's internal research. Some of these products 
would have drastically different usage profiles from their respective 
product classes, which adversely impacts the representativeness of the 
corresponding usage profiles. Changes in consumer use of a number of 
products within a product class or the emergence of new or altered end 
use products impacts the representativeness of the usage profile for 
that product class under the UEC metric. DOE anticipates that the 
battery charger market will continue to change dynamically at a rate 
that will render usage profiles unrepresentative more quickly than 
EPCA's review cycles anticipate. Because the UEC metric requires 
integrating active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use, which 
requires representative usage profiles, the need for new or amended 
usage profiles to maintain representativeness would result in the need 
to repeatedly and frequently amend test procedures, which in turn 
potentially would require manufacturers to update representations, 
increasing undue manufacturer burden.
    In an effort to maintain the representativeness of the test 
procedure for battery chargers in light of the rapidly changing market, 
while maintaining a consistent test procedure for manufacturers, in the 
November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed an approach that does not rely on the 
UEC equation or usage profiles. 86 FR 66878, 66887. Specifically, DOE 
proposed in appendix Y1 to establish an approach that relies on a 
separate metric for each of the following modes of operation: active 
mode, standby mode, and off mode. Id. DOE is not aware and has not been 
made aware of any other integrated approach that integrates the energy 
consumption of different battery charger modes of operations.
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates and CA IOUs noted in response to 
DOE's proposal that developing accurate and representative usage 
profiles has become more difficult with the constant development of new 
end use product types and changes in consumer usage patterns, risking 
the market usage assumptions used to calculate UEC becoming obsolete 
for specific classes of battery chargers unless continuously updated. 
(See, Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2-3; CA IOUs No. 25 at 
p. 2) The Joint Efficiency Advocates noted that the multi-metric 
approach presented a more representative method. (Joint Efficiency 
Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented 
that they found it would be more representative to separate the test 
procedure to three separate metrics for active mode, standby mode, and 
off mode. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) The CA IOUs 
also supported the development of separate reported metrics for active 
charge energy, standby mode, and off mode energy use. (CA IOUs, No. 25 
at p. 1). The CA IOUs agreed that the evolving nature of battery 
charger technology tends to quickly make obsolete the market usage 
assumptions used to calculate UEC obsolete for specific classes of 
battery chargers. Id. The CA IOUs stated that the benefits of the 
disaggregated metric test procedure have become increasingly relevant 
for reasons such as products having different usage profiles within the 
same product class, evolving technology and

[[Page 55102]]

usage patterns, increases in battery energy density and capacity across 
products, and variation in charge time profiles. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 
2) The CA IOUs stated that as battery charger technologies and markets 
evolve, an integrated metric becomes less representative of the product 
classes as currently defined in the test procedure and stated that 
because DOE's proposed approach does not rely on a UEC equation or 
usage profiles, it should be more flexible. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2)
    NEEA also supported DOE's proposed multi-metric approach and noted 
that its research demonstrated that the use of separate active, 
standby, and off mode metrics aligns with the current battery charger 
market. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 2) NEEA noted that battery charger end uses 
are substantially more varied than when DOE promulgated its UEC metric, 
citing AHAM's comment that there are hundreds, if not, thousands of 
battery-charged consumer products in the market. NEEA noted that there 
are many factors that contribute to this growth, such as price 
reduction for lithium-ion batteries, increased wireless applications, 
and smaller charger formats. NEEA stated that this proliferation makes 
it technically inappropriate to continue using usage profiles to 
represent the energy use of hundreds of widely varying applications. 
(Id.) NEEA explained as well that markets for and shipments of battery 
chargers can change rapidly, as products evolve and consumer demand 
shifts. NEEA listed certain products as examples, such as landlines, 
smartphones, drones, cameras and MP3 players. Id. NEEA stated that 
while the UEC approach is appropriate for more stable appliance 
categories such as refrigerators, it is not a useful measure for the 
continuously evolving array of battery charger end uses. (NEEA, No. 27 
at p. 3) In contrast, NEEA noted that there are multiple advantages to 
DOE's multi-metric approach: increasing representativeness of the range 
of battery chargers, both now and as the market continues to change; 
improving harmonization with DOE's EPS test procedure approach; and 
enabling more detailed standards analysis. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 3)
    ITI suggested, however, that DOE continue using the UEC metric 
while gathering active charge energy data to fully understand the 
complexity of these energy use parameters before deciding to switch 
metrics. (ITI, No. 20 at 3) ITI and the Joint Trade Associations stated 
that current class groupings are not perfect, but that they were based 
on objective criteria and still provide a clear indication of which 
product class a charger should fall into. (ITI, No. 20 at 3; Joint 
Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3) Delta-Q acknowledged the 
imperfection of the UEC and its usage profiles but did not support 
replacing the usage profiles-based UEC system with the multi-metric 
approach, stating that the multi-metric approach will unduly constrain 
design options to minimize overall energy use while managing trade-offs 
with cost and customer value. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 1) Delta-Q 
suggested that the multi-metric approach would cause uncertainty and 
could require redesigns, increase costs, and remove features that may 
not reduce energy consumption in real-world usage. Id.
    DOE does not agree that the multi-metric approach lacks the 
potential to reduce energy consumption in real-world usage. DOE's UEC 
metric currently represents the annualized amount of the non-useful 
energy consumed by a battery charger (i.e., energy losses) among all 
tested modes of operation. As battery and battery charger technology 
develops along with change in usage profiles, DOE is noticing that more 
and more energy losses happen during maintenance mode and no-battery 
mode, as battery chargers are simply either maintaining the battery at 
a fully charged state or monitoring the charger circuitry to facilitate 
active charging when a battery is inserted. In these modes, the battery 
charger is not doing any useful work to transfer energy into the 
battery, and because these modes can last indefinitely, they can result 
in significant energy savings potential if regulated separately from 
active mode. DOE further notes that the potential redesign and 
additional costs are not associated with change to multi-metric testing 
approach, but directly related to the energy conservation standards 
rulemaking. However, DOE notes that any energy savings potential and 
cost burdens from increased efficiency levels would be analyzed 
thoroughly in the separate energy conservation standards rulemaking.
    The Joint Trade Associations opposed the proposed multi-metric 
approach, asserting that the multi-metric approach does not satisfy 
EPCA's intent or requirements, and it would make savings and energy 
savings difficult for the consumer to understand as well as for DOE to 
analyze. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 1-3) The Joint Trade 
Associations asserted that DOE failed to demonstrate that its proposals 
are justified and are not arbitrary and capricious, and that DOE's 
proposal does not meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure 
Act or the Data Quality Act. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3) 
The Joint Trade Associations asserted that DOE has not shown that the 
current approach does not represent an average consumer use cycle, that 
it cannot be updated to maintain its representativeness of average 
consumer use, that it is infeasible to integrate active mode and 
standby mode, or that the current test procedure approach would be 
unduly burdensome to conduct. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 
2-4) The Joint Trade Associations also noted that the proposed appendix 
Y1 would add significant burden and is contrary to EPCA's clear 
preference for aggregated metrics. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at 
pp. 1-2)
    The Joint Trade Associations acknowledged, however, that the 
current product classes are not perfect and that they have acknowledged 
their imperfection from the beginning; they acknowledged that there are 
difficulties in developing product classes for battery chargers, with 
thousands of different end use products, and that usage and shipments 
of products within classes differs. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 
at pp. 2-3) The Joint Trade Associations solution to these issues was 
not to remove the UEC metric and usage profiles but to update the usage 
profiles and shipments analysis more regularly, considering the breadth 
of products in each class from both usage and shipments perspectives. 
The Joint Trade Associations offered to provide data to assist in that 
analysis. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3). The Joint Trade 
Associations noted that EPCA requires DOE to review and update test 
procedures at least once every 7 years, and that DOE has further 
discretion to initiate an early review if usage profiles or shipments 
for product classes become unrepresentative. (Joint Trade Associations, 
No. 24 at p. 4) Because DOE is already required to update the test 
procedures periodically, the Joint Trade Associates could not see how 
the multi-metric approach solved any issue. The Joint Trade 
Associations noted that these reviews and updates are critical to DOE's 
analysis, and it is difficult to understand why it is too challenging 
to do these as part of the test procedure review. The Joint Trade 
Associations speculated that DOE did not want to be bothered re-
assessing its categorizations and updating usage profiles. Id.
    DOE is undertaking this rulemaking in compliance with its 
requirement under EPCA to review and update test procedures at least 
once every 7 years. However, the issue DOE identified with keeping the 
current integrated UEC

[[Page 55103]]

approach was not the need to update the test procedures according to 
the requirements of EPCA, but the frequency of updates required to 
maintain the UEC metric as a representative approach to testing as 
required under EPCA. DOE reiterates that it has determined it would 
need to update the test procedures more often than the 6- and 7-year 
standards and test procedure update cycles to maintain the UEC metric; 
as other commenters also noted, the battery chargers' dynamic market 
already would warrant far more frequent updates and DOE projects this 
need to only increase over time. While the Joint Trade Associations 
pointed out that DOE regularly updates annual use cycles for products 
such as residential dishwashers, laundry products, and air treatment 
products based on varying sets of data, DOE notes an approach that is 
both feasible and representative for some products may not be feasible 
or representative for others where there are clear and significant 
differences between the products such as quantity of end use products 
for battery chargers.
    The Joint Trade Associations further stated that DOE failed to 
present data supporting its conclusions from a recent market review 
showing that shipments for certain applications have changed 
significantly since the usage profiles were established, or that market 
and shipments of battery chargers change quickly as the market and 
consumer use changes. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3) The 
Joint Trade Associations further disputed that the current approach is 
no longer representative, and that DOE has presented no compelling 
evidence that the test procedure has become overly burdensome, noting 
that the simple solution is to simply update the test procedures. They 
concluded that because the current test procedure has accomplished 
EPCA's requirements of representative results without undue burden 
relatively well, DOE cannot show it is infeasible to have an integrated 
metric representative of consumer use. They therefore also disputed 
DOE's findings of a repeated need to update leading to increased 
manufacturer burden and claimed the multi-metric approach would be more 
burdensome than minor revisions to update usage profiles and shipments. 
Id.
    DOE notes that an approach's historical success or validity does 
not necessarily justify maintaining that approach in the face of 
changed and changing circumstances. DOE has projected that the battery 
chargers' market and the variety of consumer end uses make the UEC 
metric increasingly infeasible and untenable to maintain, both 
administratively and for regulated parties. The technical requirements 
to maintain the UEC metric and its attendant usage profiles are no 
longer feasible to meet. The need to frequently review and update usage 
profiles, while known in the 2016 rulemaking, was of a different scope 
than the need for review and updating dictated by the current market 
for battery chargers. DOE believes this need to update would only 
increase in rapidity. And as DOE has noted, even if DOE were able to 
maintain these profiles on its own end the frequent changes to the test 
procedures and standards would require frequent recertifications for 
manufacturers and may cause impermissible undue burden.
    The Joint Trade Associations disputed that the test procedure must 
be representative of consumer use at every moment, noting that this is 
not only impossible, but also unnecessary and not consistent with 
EPCA's intent. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 4) DOE agrees 
that this is not the statutory standard, but DOE notes that DOE is 
required to maintain test procedures reasonably designed to produce 
representative test results without undue burden. Maintaining the 
current battery charger test procedure, which DOE reasonably believes 
will lead to foreseeably unrepresentative test results on a regular 
basis, is contrary to EPCA's requirements where an alternative test 
procedure exists to provide more representative results without undue 
burden. While EPCA expresses a preference for an integrated metric, 
this preference yields before EPCA's more fundamental need for accurate 
and representative test results, without which EPCA's standards are 
undermined.
    The Joint Trade Associations also argued that DOE originally 
grouped products with different usage profiles into the same product 
class, and that DOE did not present data in the November 2021 NOPR on 
what has changed since the initial test procedure and standards 
development. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 2) The Joint Trade 
Associations stated that DOE was placing the burden of proof for 
retaining the integrated metric on commenters but claimed that the 
burden was in fact on DOE to demonstrating that its proposals were 
justified and not arbitrary and capricious. Joint Trade Associations, 
No. 24 at p. 3) DOE has acknowledged that it is changing its position 
on whether the UEC metric can meet the requirements of EPCA but 
disagrees that it has not explained the basis for this change in 
position. DOE, and other commenters in response, noted that the changes 
in the market justified reconsideration and ultimately departure from 
the UEC and usage profile approach. The market review has shown that 
the UEC integrated metric approach can no longer feasibly be reasonably 
expected to produce representative test results as required by EPCA, 
absent such frequent updates to the test procedures as to constitute 
undue hardship--which itself would contravene EPCA. DOE is adopting its 
multi-metric approach because an integrated metric is now infeasible.
    The Joint Trade Associations asserted that UEC is a more 
representative approach because it accounts for consumer usage, whereas 
DOE's multi-metric approach does not account for the contribution of 
each to the overall product efficiency. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 
24 at p. 7) However, as DOE has noted the representativeness of the UEC 
approach is dependent on representativeness of the usage profiles and 
shipment data underpinning the metric, and the current battery chargers 
market dynamics make maintaining the representativeness of that metric 
infeasible without incurring undue burden. DOE's UEC approach would 
only be representative of the annual non-useful energy resulting from 
battery chargers, provided that the usage profiles are updated 
frequently and repeatedly. DOE's multi-metric approach would, still 
representatively but separately, measure and certify the active mode 
energy, standby mode energy, and off mode energy. As battery charger 
overall efficiency is highly dependent on usage profiles, the multi-
metric approach can further help consumers in learning which battery 
charger would provide best overall efficiency under that specific 
consumer's usage profile by providing the separate metrics.
    The Joint Trade Associations stated that not only is DOE's proposal 
inconsistent with EPCA's clear preference for integrated metrics, but 
it is also inconsistent with DOE's systems approach, which aims to 
allow flexibility in component designs while ensuring an overall 
efficiency requirement. The Joint Trade Associations stated that they 
assumed the proposed appendix Y1 will translate to three separate 
energy conservation standards requirements and noted that not all 
products have the capability to reduce energy consumption of a 
particular mode which may require redesign to meet DOE standards. The 
Joint Trade Associations commented that by separating active, standby, 
and off modes into three metrics DOE is requiring the redesign of 
products and

[[Page 55104]]

effectively increased design complexity. The Joint Trade Associations 
stated that manufacturers are allowed flexibility to distribute energy 
across the different modes with the current UEC compliance 
requirements. The Joint Trade Associations stated that the integrated 
UEC approach therefore allows more innovation and flexibility in 
designs and posited that the burden associated with DOE's multi-metric 
approach will likely be more significant as it will inhibit innovation 
inhibit innovation and the ability to differentiate one's products from 
others in the market. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 4-6) DOE 
acknowledges that the original UEC approach provides greater design 
flexibility because of its integrated nature, and that this was one 
purpose of the UEC metric. 81 FR 38266, 38286-38287. However, DOE 
cannot maintain an approach that will not meet EPCA's requirement of 
representative test procedures or lead to undue burden. Furthermore, 
DOE's multi-metric approach will still regulate the integrated power 
draw of battery chargers in standby mode operations, allowing 
manufacturers to still have significant design flexibility in improving 
either maintenance mode or no-battery mode efficiency.
    The Joint Trade Associations further stated that manufactures have 
already developed their products to comply with DOE's current 
standards, which is challenging for some battery chargers, especially 
the infrequently charged ones. The Joint Trade Associations claimed 
that if DOE were to change its approach, some products will likely need 
to be redesigned and the investments manufacturers have made to comply 
with the current standards would be stranded. (Joint Trade 
Associations, No. 24 at p. 2)
    The Joint Trade Associations commented that they cannot fully 
comment on DOE's proposal when DOE has not provided more detail on how 
the product classes or standards would be amended. The Joint Trade 
Associations stated it is likely that that some currently compliant 
products may no longer be compliant under the newly proposed approach 
but with no real savings but only additional costs on consumers and 
manufacturers. The Joint Trade Associations suggested DOE analyze this 
further during manufacturer interviews. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 
24 at p. 5)
    Schumacher stated that if DOE's amended test procedure impacts 
existing CCD reported models, they recommend the currently compliant 
products to be grandfathered in under the amended standards or required 
to be updated several years after the revised standard publication. 
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 6) Schumacher argued that if a newly revised 
standard was to be put into effect immediately, it would result in 
higher cost to manufacturers; whereas a buffer period of several years 
would minimize costs and let manufacturers retest the products or 
redesign the products. Id.
    DOE is adopting the mode-specific metric approach as proposed in 
the December 2021 NOPR and consistent with its authority and duties 
under EPCA. As previously noted, when considering the feasibility of a 
test procedure with a metric integrating active mode, standby mode, and 
off mode energy use, DOE must also consider whether that metric will 
satisfy the test procedure criteria prescribed by EPCA: the 
representativeness of the test procedure and whether a test procedure 
is unduly burdensome. The UEC test procedure approach specifies an 
integrated metric relying on usage profiles. However, changes in 
consumer use and the emergence of new products can both impact the 
representativeness of that usage profile and therefore the UEC metric 
overall. While the Joint Trade Associations suggested that maintaining 
the representativeness of the current usage factors is simply a matter 
of updating the data, as discussed in the November 2021 NOPR the market 
and shipments of battery chargers has been shown to change over short 
periods of time as new products that rely on battery chargers emerge 
and are adopted by the market, and as consumer use of products that 
rely on battery charger changes. 86 FR 66878, 66887. As an example, DOE 
noted that the shipments for Digital Audio Players and Digital Cameras 
have declined significantly with the advent of smart phones that have 
similar built-in capabilities. Id.
    Because of the nature of battery chargers, they serve a great 
variety of end use products, updated on an annual basis. Although DOE 
collects and reviews usage profiles and shipment data constantly, going 
through the process of updating the test procedure and energy 
conservation standards in a similar way would impose undue burden on 
manufacturers. Needing to update the test procedure in order to avoid 
reliance on obsolete usage profiles and comply with EPCA's 
representativeness requirement would in turn require updating the 
energy conservation standards to reflect the test procedure changes. 
Manufacturers would then need to frequently retest and recertify their 
products, creating significant and undue burden.
    By regulating the different battery charger operating modes 
separately, DOE avoids the risk of usage profiles becoming increasingly 
unrepresentative before having a chance to update them, as the multi-
metric approach is not reliant on usage profiles, but rather 
performance in individual operating modes. The multi-metric approach 
provides for a more stable regulatory environment, by minimizing the 
possibility that manufacturers would need to retest and recertify 
products with changes in the market and the associated usage profiles, 
thereby reducing potential test burden.
    DOE notes that the multi-metric test procedure approach in appendix 
Y1, adopted in this final rule, would not be required until such time 
as compliance is required with amended battery chargers energy 
conservation standards developed based on the new test procedure, 
should DOE establish such standards. Were DOE to establish amended 
energy conservation standards reflective of the multi-metrics, DOE 
would consider, in part, the efficiencies of battery chargers on the 
current market at each metric and the technologies available to improve 
the efficiencies at each metric.
    DOE reiterates that adoption of the multi-metric test procedure in 
appendix Y1 itself will not require manufacturers to redesign their 
products. Moreover, the multi-metric testing approach provides results 
that more directly correlate to direct testing of a battery charger, as 
opposed to results that are dependent on shipments data and data 
regarding consumer usage patterns. As such, the test procedure is less 
dependent on data that may quickly become obsolete or data that may be 
unable to fully reflect appropriate market and consumer usage 
conditions. Therefore, DOE anticipates that it will provide a more 
stable regulatory environment for manufacturers moving forward.
    DOE also notes that it is adopting the alternate active mode test 
method proposed in the NOPR, which essentially relies on the current 
active and maintenance modes test method found in appendix Y with only 
an added step for test technicians to analytically compute the 
integrated active mode energy from the active mode and maintenance mode 
test data. DOE estimates the additional time required to perform the 
active energy calculation would be roughly the same as that for 
calculating UEC. However, because technicians would no longer need to 
compute UEC under the multi-metric approach, overall testing burden 
would be the same between the multi-

[[Page 55105]]

metric approach and the current UEC approach.
    The CA IOUs further recommended that DOE require manufacturers to 
report values for different operating modes, and that DOE publish these 
values in the CCD to allow calculations of UECs for specific products 
in specific use cases. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2) The CA IOUs stated 
this performance data would be essential for assessing the impacts of 
the new test procedure metrics. Id. DOE notes that the performance 
values are already presented on the CCD, and DOE will make necessary 
amendments to the reporting template to account for the reporting 
changes under the multi-metric approach.
    ITI also requested DOE to consider harmonizing and coordinating the 
test procedure with Canada so they remain consistent. (ITI, No. 20 at 
p. 6) DOE notes that Canada's Department of Natural Resources primarily 
references DOE's existing test procedure for battery chargers, which 
relies on the consolidated UEC metric. While there is an effort to 
harmonize with widely and internationally adopted industry standards, 
DOE is required by EPCA to ensure that its test procedure for a covered 
product is representative. For the reasons stated above relating to 
DOE's own UEC-based test procedure metric, DOE is therefore unable to 
continue harmonizing with Canada's test procedure for battery chargers. 
DOE notes however that the test procedure's conduct between the current 
UEC approach and the adopted multi-metric approach still remains 
largely the same; therefore, DOE does not anticipate there to be 
significant difference between how tests are conducted in Canada and in 
the US. DOE will work with international agencies to reduce 
manufacturer burden to a reasonable extent, where doing so aligns with 
DOE's statutory requirements under EPCA.
    Based on the discussion presented in the November 2021 NOPR and in 
the preceding paragraphs, DOE has determined that the adopted multi-
metric approach more fully meets the representativeness requirements of 
EPCA without being unduly burdensome. Moving to a multi-metric approach 
avoids DOE imposing an undue burden on manufacturers by requiring 
frequent recertification and retesting due to frequent updates to an 
integrated metric, updates that would be needed to maintain the 
metric's compliance with EPCA's representativeness requirement in a 
shifting market landscape. DOE reiterates that testing under the new 
multi-metric approach would not be required until after DOE's battery 
charger energy conservation standards have been amended. DOE will also 
study the potential redesign needs and costs because of the multi-
metric approach in the separate standards rulemaking.
6. Active Mode Test
    Battery charger active mode is the state (condition) in which the 
battery charger system is connected to a main electricity supply (main 
power source) and is actively delivering power to bring the depleted 
battery to a fully charged state (the charger's main function), as 
defined in section 2.1 of appendix Y.--(See also 42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(1)(A)(i)) Appendix Y currently tests the active mode power 
consumption along with battery maintenance mode power \11\ to produce a 
consolidated 24-hour energy consumption value, or E24, which 
is then used in the UEC calculation. As previously discussed, in the 
new appendix Y1, DOE is replacing the UEC metric system with a discrete 
multi-metric approach that determines the energy efficiency and energy 
use of the active mode, standby mode, and off mode power consumption 
separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Maintenance mode is the operation of a battery charger to 
maintain a battery at full charge while a battery remains in the 
charger after fully charged. Under the current test procedure the 
characterization of maintenance mode as active mode or standby mode 
is less critical because the current test procedure metric 
integrates the modes. As discussed in the following section, DOE has 
tentatively characterized maintenance mode as part of standby mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to use a charge test in 
which the test period would begin upon insertion of a depleted battery 
and would end when the battery is fully charged. 86 FR 66878, 66888. 
The active mode energy, Ea, would represent the accumulated 
input energy, meaning the average input power integrated over this test 
period. Similar to the procedure currently in section 3.3.2 of appendix 
Y (Determining the Duration of the Charge and Maintenance Mode Test), 
if a battery charger has an indicator to show that the battery is fully 
charged, that indicator would be used to terminate the active mode 
test. Id. If no indicator besides the manufacturer's instructions 
indicates how long it should take to charge the test battery, the 
active mode test would be conducted for the longest estimated charge 
time provided in the manufacturer's materials. Id. If the battery 
charger does not have such an indicator and a manufacturer does not 
provide such a time estimate, the length of the active mode test would 
be 1.4 multiplied by the rated charge capacity of the battery divided 
by the maximum charge current. DOE also proposes to arrange sections of 
appendix Y1 so that the battery discharge test is performed immediately 
after this active mode test is completed, but prior to the 24-hour 
charge and maintenance mode test that would then be used to determine 
maintenance mode power. Id.
    Joint Trade Associations commented that the November 2021 NOPR 
preamble stated the battery discharge test would be performed 
immediately after the active mode test, but the proposed appendix Y1 
regulatory text appropriately included a wait period. The Joint Trade 
Associations urged DOE to retain the wait periods, should DOE continue 
with the amended test procedure. The Joint Trade Associations expressed 
concern that going immediately from active mode testing to maintenance 
mode testing \12\ would impact the test because the battery could be 
hot and stated the wait times are important for reducing test 
variation. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As discussed in the following section, in this final rule 
DOE has determined that energy use during maintenance mode is 
appropriately assigned to standby mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's proposed charge test would begin upon insertion of a depleted 
battery and would end when the battery is fully charged and require 
that the test be terminated when there is indication that the charge 
test has ended. DOE's intent was to explain that manufacturers should 
terminate charging immediately after the battery reaches full charge, 
rather than wait for the original total charge and maintenance mode 
test duration to complete. The proposal was not intended to remove the 
wait period between the charge and discharge test. As such, DOE 
clarifies in this final rule that it is not removing the wait period 
between the charge and battery discharge test, and a wait period 
continues to be included in the newly established appendix Y1.
    ITI suggested that the proposed charging test would be challenging 
to conduct for the following reasons: the maintenance mode power would 
be difficult to measure under the new approach for products with 
integrated battery; and if a battery charger does not have charge 
status indicator, it would be hard to monitor when the battery is fully 
charged as there many variables that can affect the total charging 
time, which makes it difficult to develop an automated and consistently 
accurate process. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 3) ITI suggested DOE collect more 
power data before proceeding with the new active charge test and 
reiterated that separating

[[Page 55106]]

active charge test with maintenance mode test would require 
significantly longer testing time, and the maintenance mode power would 
not be possible to measure after battery discharge test for products 
with integrated batteries. (Id.) ITI suggested that DOE also consider 
the cost associated with potential redesign of battery charger 
products. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6)
    ITI and the Joint Trade Associations stated that the multi-metric 
test would either require active technician monitoring or additional 
special equipment for monitoring, which adds significant time and cost. 
(ITI, No. 20 at p. 6; (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 5-6) The 
Joint Trade Associations opposed the proposed active mode test 
procedure, stating it would significantly increase test burden and 
incur undue burden. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 5) The 
Joint Trade Associations stated that because the test takes longer, 
fewer tests can be conducted. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 
5-6)
    CSA commented that the current appendix Y allows laboratory 
technicians leave the battery charger unattended for 19 hours before 
having to check on the charging status to determine total test 
duration, and the batteries will usually be charged within 19 hours for 
the test to be terminated at the 24-hour mark; this test can be left 
running overnight and requires very little time and effort from the lab 
technician. (CSA, No. 12 at p. 1) CSA further commented that if the 
active charge test needs to be terminated immediately after indication 
of battery is fully charged, the lab technician would need to 
continuously monitor the charge indicator and immediately terminate the 
charge when the fully charged indicator turns on. (CSA, No. 12 at pp. 
1-2) Although CSA conceded this could be done by implementing sensors 
and other controls, CSA stated that it would be more burdensome than 
the appendix Y test method. Id. Similarly, Delta-Q argued that the 
proposed test procedure change adds test complexity and duration with 
the addition of the separate maintenance mode test. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at 
p. 2) Delta-Q also noted that the active mode test procedure was 
problematic both because it appeared to require constant monitoring and 
because it reduces battery rest time, which can increase test-to-test 
variation. Id.
    NEEA recommended DOE test a wide variety of battery chargers to 
evaluate appropriateness of the active mode test. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 
7-8) NEEA asserted that relying on a battery charge indicator may 
result in different charge levels at the end of the active mode tests, 
because not all chargers indicate charge status and those that do may 
signal full charge at different thresholds, which could result in 
unfair comparisons. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 7-8)
    DOE notes that battery chargers are typically designed for a 
specific battery or combination of batteries. Therefore, manufacturers 
should already have an understanding of the full charge time for each 
battery and charger combination, making it unlikely that a technician 
would need to monitor a unit under test during the entire test period.
    However, DOE also stated in the November 2021 NOPR that in its 
experience, it may be possible to analyze the resulting data from the 
24-hour charge and maintenance mode energy consumption test and divide 
it into its constituents: the active mode energy and maintenance mode 
power. 86 FR 66878, 66888. DOE therefore considered this alternative 
approach, in which active mode energy consumption, Ea, would 
be the time series integral of the power consumed from the point when 
the battery was first inserted (or plugged in for chargers with 
integrated batteries) until the measured data indicate a drop in power 
associated with the transition from active charging to maintenance 
mode. Under this approach, a single test period would provide the 
necessary measurements for the active mode energy, Ea, from 
the 24-hour charge and maintenance mode test data. DOE stated that it 
would consider the discussed alternate approach in the development of 
the final rule. Id. Under this approach, lab technicians do not need to 
rely on charge status indicator to determine when the battery reaches 
the full charge, which would ensure that the test battery would always 
be fully charged at the end of the combined charge and maintenance mode 
test.
    CA IOUs agreed that calculating energy in active mode as the 
integral of applied power during the charge period is a practical and 
reasonable approach based on sound physics. (CA IOUs No. 25 at p. 2) 
The Joint Trade Associations stated the alternative active mode test 
would not work because battery chargers may have points at which the 
battery power is turned off, such as a series of pulses at the end 
where the battery attempts to get full charge. The Joint Trade 
Associations stated that such instances could be misinterpreted at the 
end of the appendix Y1 active test, and for products with complex 
charge profiles, it is difficult to detect the end of active mode given 
different battery sizes. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 7)
    NEEA similarly commented that analyzing charge status based on AC 
input power is difficult for slower trickle chargers because input 
power may not indicate a transition from active to battery maintenance 
mode. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 8) NEEA also suggested that although 
additional instrumentation can be used to monitor battery charger 
output and more accurately determine the state of charge, measuring 
additional charger DC output may interfere battery and charger 
communication signals, impacting testing safety; affect the measurement 
directly; and increase test burden. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 8-9) NEEA 
claimed that determining charge status by using AC input power may 
result in different charge levels for fast chargers because these 
chargers transition from fast to slow charging with different 
algorithms. (Id.) NEEA encouraged DOE to investigate the issues it 
identified, and to retain its current appendix Y active and maintenance 
mode testing approach if the challenges prove difficult to overcome. 
(Id.) NEEA stated that advantages of the appendix Y 24-hour active mode 
test include reduced test burden for technicians, the ability to 
address both slow and fast chargers through a uniform approach and 
eliminating the need to determine/define charge status. (Id.)
    WPC supported DOE's alternate approach of conducting a single 24-
hour charge and maintenance mode test and determining active charge 
energy based on the data generated. (WPC, No. 22 at pp. 2-3) WPC also 
commented however that it may be difficult to define the actual 
transitioning point between active mode and maintenance mode. (Id.)
    To minimize any potential additional burden that may be associated 
with an active-mode only test as noted by commenters, DOE is adopting 
the alternative active charge energy approach discussed in the November 
2021 NOPR, under which active mode energy is calculated from the 
combined charge and maintenance mode test, similar to the test procure 
in appendix Y. DOE notes that battery chargers may have different 
charging profiles. Based on DOE's testing, most battery chargers 
exhibit a distinctive drop off in power indicating a transition to 
maintenance mode. In certain limited instances, the battery charger 
shows unstable power consumption towards the end of charging phase. 
However, such periods would be classified as active charging because 
the battery is pining the charger to get full charge, and as stated in 
section 2.1 of appendix Y and the new appendix Y1 active mode is when 
``the battery charger is delivering current,

[[Page 55107]]

equalizing the cells, and performing other one-time or limited-time 
functions in order to bring the battery to a fully charged state.'' 
Therefore, by defining the state that would be classified as active 
mode and by determining when the charger enters maintenance mode, lab 
technicians can precisely identify the transition point from active 
mode to maintenance mode and calculate the active charge energy from 
this alternative approach, as prescribed in sections 3.3.9 and 3.3.10 
of appendix Y1.
    Schumacher commented that the best way to calculate the efficiency 
of an automotive battery charger with non-integrated batteries is 
similar to the calculation used for UPSs. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 1) 
Schumacher further noted that including a non-integrated battery into 
the efficiency calculation is not an effective measure of the charger's 
efficiency because different batteries have different losses, and the 
charger has no control over these batteries. Id. Schumacher therefore 
stated that it is better and more accurate to measure the efficiency of 
the charger directly, by itself, so that the chargers would not be 
affected by the battery efficiencies. Id. Schumacher stated that lower 
quality batteries can result in manually reduced charge cycles just to 
pass the standard, which causes faster battery degrading and adds user 
costs with greater environmental impact. (Id.)
    DOE understands that for battery chargers designed for large-
capacity lead-acid batteries, manufacturers are less involved in the 
end use product design and usually cannot pick which battery will be 
used with their chargers. However, battery performance is a crucial 
part for measuring battery charger efficiencies. Different battery 
chemistries have different self-discharge rate, affecting the charge 
and maintenance modes algorithms. DOE's battery charger test procedure 
also determines the amount of ``useful energy'' by measuring how much 
energy the fully charged battery can output.
    In this final rule, DOE is adopting the alternate active charge 
energy approach discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, in which active 
mode energy is calculated from the combined charge and maintenance mode 
test that is similar to the test procure in appendix Y.
7. Standby Mode Tests
    Standby mode is the condition in which an energy-using product is:
    (1) Connected to a main power source; and
    (2) Offers 1 or more of the following user-oriented or protective 
functions:
    (aa) To facilitate the activation or deactivation of other 
functions (including active mode) by remote switch (including remote 
control), internal sensor, or timer.
    (bb) Continuous functions, including information or status displays 
(including clocks) or sensor-based functions.
    (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii))
    Appendix Y defines standby mode for battery chargers as the 
condition in which a battery charger is connected to mains electricity 
supply, the battery is not connected to the charger--and for battery 
chargers with manual on-off switches, all switches are turned on. 
Section 2.25 of appendix Y. Appendix Y also includes a definition for 
maintenance mode in section 2.8, to mean the mode of operation in which 
the battery charger is connected to the main electricity supply and the 
battery is fully charged but still connected to the charger. In 
maintenance mode, a battery charger continuously monitors the voltage 
of the fully charged battery and periodically supplies charge current 
to maintain the battery at the fully-charged state. As mentioned 
previously, because the test procedure in appendix Y relies on a metric 
that integrates active mode, standby mode, and off mode, it is less 
critical in that context as to whether maintenance mode is 
characterized as standby mode as compared to the proposed multi-metric 
approach.
    The current ``standby mode'' definition in appendix Y only captures 
what can be referred to as ``no-battery mode,'' i.e., the condition 
where a battery charger is connected to a mains power source but a 
battery itself has not yet been inserted. In the context of the 
proposed multi-metric approach, DOE tentatively determined in the 
November 2021 NOPR that maintenance mode is also appropriately 
characterized as a standby power mode. 86 FR 66878, 66888. In 
maintenance mode, a battery charger provides continuous monitoring of 
the battery charge. While a battery charger provides some limited 
charging in maintenance mode in order to maintain the battery at full 
charge, it is not charging a depleted battery. Unlike active mode, 
maintenance mode can persist indefinitely. As an example, DOE 
referenced power tool chargers in the November 2021 NOPR, which in 
residential environments routinely spend an indefinite amount of time 
maintaining batteries that are not regularly used but are required to 
be fully charged. Id. In addition to balancing and mitigating self-
discharge of the cells, these chargers also typically provide a status 
display indicating that the battery is in the fully charged state and 
ready for use.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that these 
continuous functions in maintenance mode satisfy both EPCA's and IEC 
62301's definition of standby. 86 FR 66878, 66888-66889. To better 
account for these conditions, DOE proposed to first rename what is 
currently defined in appendix Y as standby mode to ``no-battery mode'' 
in appendix Y1 (and reference this term, as appropriate, throughout 
appendix Y1). Id. DOE proposed to then define in appendix Y1 the term 
``standby mode'' to include both no-battery mode and maintenance mode. 
Id. Specifically, DOE proposed that in appendix Y1, standby mode power 
of a battery charger (Psb), would be calculated as the sum 
of the no-battery mode power (Pnb), and maintenance mode 
power (Pm). Id.
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates supported DOE's proposal to regulate 
no-battery mode and maintenance as standby mode. (Joint Efficiency 
Advocates, No. 23 at p. 3) NEEA supported DOE's proposal to include 
both battery maintenance mode and no battery mode within standby mode 
but encouraged DOE to require reporting of these two modes separately 
to support more accurate standards analysis. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 3) 
NEEA also supported DOE's proposal to regulate standby power mode as 
the sum of maintenance mode power and no battery mode power, as this 
metric gives manufacturers greater design flexibility. (NEEA, No. 27 at 
pp. 3-4)
    ITI stated that the new proposed test procedure would prolong the 
maintenance mode test until maintenance mode power has been captured 
representatively, and that it does not make sense to combine no-battery 
mode power and maintenance mode power as products spend different time 
in each of these states. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 3) The CA IOUs, while 
otherwise supportive, stated that the proposed integrated standby 
metric does not clearly delineate no-battery and maintenance modes 
power. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2) The CA IOUs recommended that the no-
battery and maintenance modes power be reported separately as unique 
values, especially in the case of combination products that provide 
battery charging in addition to other functions. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 
2) The CA IOUs also reiterated their support of using IEC 62301 to 
develop a no-load standby measurement so that DOE's test procedure can 
harmonize with industry practices and improve

[[Page 55108]]

low power factor treatment. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 3) DOE notes that 
the no-battery mode test procedure was indeed developed based on IEC 
62301 test procedure, with resolution parameters for power measurements 
and uncertainty methodologies, including input crest factor tolerance 
parameters, referenced directly from IEC 62301.
    Honda disagreed with DOE's approach of combining maintenance mode 
power and no-battery mode power under standby mode power, stating that 
the approach would not properly evaluate standby power and would result 
in double evaluation of the power to boot up the battery charger. 
(Honda, No. 26 at pp. 1-2) Honda additionally asked DOE to monitor the 
current supply in maintenance mode when calculating standby power, 
because there can be differences when the charger is ``providing 
limited charge'' and when the charger is ``not charging''. (Id.) DOE 
reiterates that in maintenance mode operation, the battery charger is 
only continuously monitoring the fully charged battery's voltage to 
facilitate limited charging, if the voltage drops below a certain 
threshold. In no-battery mode, the battery charger is constantly 
``scanning'' to determine if a battery has been inserted, or connected, 
to activate charging. The actual power to boot up the battery charging 
function to charge the depleted battery would be regulated in active 
mode itself. Therefore, combining maintenance mode power and no-battery 
mode power would not be double evaluating the power to boot up the 
battery charger.
    WPC stated that it may be more accurate to determine the start of 
maintenance mode by measuring the decrease in power rather than using a 
charge indicator or timed rate of charge, as some device charge 
indicators may show a premature full charge state when compared to the 
rated capacity or after a period of maintenance mode charging. (WPC, 
No. 22 at p. 2) WPC, however, did not agree with DOE's proposal to 
combine no-battery mode and maintenance mode power into standby mode 
power for fixed-location wireless chargers, and suggested that focusing 
on ``no battery'' or ``no receiver'' mode would let DOE focus on 
standby power reduction. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 3)
    DOE is aware of some instances in which battery chargers may enter 
a low power mode similar to no battery mode prior to entering 
maintenance mode, which exhibits higher power consumptions in 
comparison. Therefore, to ensure test procedure repeatability and 
representativeness, DOE adopts the proposal that the maintenance mode 
testing period should continue until 5 hours after true maintenance 
mode has been captured. This ensures that the consumption in the 
alternate low power mode described above is not being inadvertently 
captured as maintenance mode. For example, if a battery charger does 
not enter maintenance mode until the 50th hour of being in the active 
charge and maintenance mode test, then the total active and maintenance 
mode test period should be 55 hours, which ends at 5 hours after the 
charger enters maintenance mode.
    EPCA requires DOE to include standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption, taking into consideration the most current versions of 
Standards 62301 and 62087 of the IEC, and to integrate such energy 
consumption into the overall descriptor for each covered product, 
unless technically infeasible, such as here. However, where integration 
into an overall metric is infeasible, EPCA directs DOE to prescribe a 
separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the 
covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 
The operation of a battery charger in maintenance mode meets the 
definition of ``standby mode'' as that term is defined by EPCA. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii)) As discussed, maintenance mode provides the 
continuous function of maintaining a battery at full charge following 
active mode until such time as the fully charged battery is removed 
from the charger by the user. (Id.) The energy used during this 
continuous (and potentially indefinite) mode is distinct from energy 
use during active mode, the discrete period following placement of a 
depleted battery on the charger, as the energy used in maintenance mode 
does not contribute to direct battery charging. Further, because it is 
providing a user-oriented or protective function, maintenance mode does 
not meet the definition of off mode, which is defined as the condition 
in which an energy-using product is connected to a main power source; 
and is not providing any standby or active mode function. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii))
    As noted in section III.B.5 of this document, most energy losses 
happen during maintenance mode and no-battery mode, with the battery 
charger not doing any useful work to transfer energy into the battery. 
As these modes can last indefinitely based on different consumer usage 
and product types, calculating the energy losses based on a weighting 
factor would not be representative, which is also why DOE is 
discontinuing the integrated UEC approach. By combining the power draw 
of battery charger in maintenance mode and no-battery mode, DOE would 
be able to representatively capture the energy usage metrics for 
battery chargers in these states regardless of how much time the 
battery charger spends in each state, while still giving manufacturers 
freedom in design flexibility. Unlike with the overall UEC metric, DOE 
would not be reliant on usage profiles and the requisite updates here; 
therefore, it is not infeasible to combine maintenance mode and no-
battery mode. Furthermore, because maintenance mode power computes the 
average power during at least the last four hours of maintenance mode 
period, it would not be necessary to separately measure the power of 
when the battery charger is providing limited charge.
    As stated in section III.B.6 of this document, DOE is adopting the 
NOPR discussed alternative approach that calculates the active mode 
energy and maintenance mode power analytically from the combined charge 
and maintenance mode test. DOE reiterates that from extensive internal 
testing, DOE found that by monitoring battery charger input power, most 
battery chargers would exhibit a distinctive drop off in power, 
indicating a clear transition to maintenance mode. In rare instances 
when the battery charger shows unstable power consumption towards the 
end of charging phase, DOE notes that technically, they would still be 
considered as active charging phase as the battery is pining the 
charger to get full charge. Therefore, DOE does not anticipate there to 
be obstacles that prevents stakeholders from identifying the 
maintenance mode power under the alternative approach.
    DOE is adopting the NOPR proposal to combine both maintenance mode 
and no-battery mode under battery charger standby mode. DOE further 
clarifies that for open-placement chargers, only no-battery mode power 
would need to be tested, as prescribed in section 5 of appendix Y1.
8. Non-Battery-Charging Related Functions
    DOE granted Dyson, Inc. (``Dyson'') a waiver from the current 
battery charger test procedure for a specified battery charger model 
(used in a robotic vacuum cleaner) and provided an alternate means for 
disabling non-battery-charging functions during testing.\13\ 82 FR 
16580 (Apr. 5, 2017). As described in the petition for waiver, the

[[Page 55109]]

battery charger basic models subject to the waiver have a number of 
settings and remote management features not associated with the battery 
charging function but are instead associated with the vacuum cleaner 
end product that must remain on at all times. 82 FR 16580, 16581. Dyson 
explained that it would be inappropriate to make these functions user 
controllable, as they are integral to the function of the robot. Id. 
The DOE test procedure for battery chargers requires that any function 
controlled by the user and not associated with the battery charging 
process must be switched off; or, for functions not possible to switch 
off, be set to the lowest power consuming mode. Section 3.2.4.b of 
appendix Y. DOE determined that the current test procedure at appendix 
Y would evaluate the battery charger basic models specified in the 
Orders granting the waiver and (related waiver extension) in a manner 
so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as 
to provide materially inaccurate comparatively data. 82 FR 16580, 16581 
and 84 FR 12240, 12241. Pursuant to the approved test procedure waiver, 
the specified basic models must be tested and rated such that power to 
functions not associated with the battery charging process are disabled 
by isolating a terminal of the battery pack using isolating tape. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Dyson, Inc. From 
the Department of Energy Battery Charger Test Procedure (Case No. 
BC-001). Subsequently, DOE issued an Extension of Waiver to Dyson, 
Inc. to cover an additional basic model (Case No. 2018- 012). 84 FR 
12240 (Apr. 1, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed the market and initially 
determined that the products subject to the waivers granted to Dyson 
are no longer available; therefore, DOE proposed to not amend the test 
procedure to include instructions regarding disabling power to 
functions not associated with the battery charging process that are not 
consumer controllable, or to allow adders for such functions. 86 FR 
66878, 66889-66890. DOE noted that this proposal would also terminate 
the existing Dyson waivers consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3) and 10 
CFR 430.27(l). Id.
    In response to DOE's proposal, the Joint Efficiency Advocates 
supported DOE's proposal to maintain the current approach for disabling 
power to non-battery-charging related functions, and supported DOE's 
proposal to terminate Dyson's waivers as these products are no longer 
available on the market. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 3) 
NEEA supported maintaining the present approach to waiver petitions, 
auxiliary functions in the test procedure, and DOE's decision to 
terminate the existing waiver granted to Dyson. (NEEA, No. 27 at 11)
    The Joint Trade Associations asked DOE to provide additional 
clarity on requirements regarding disabling power to non-battery-
charging related functions, because although some functions do not 
contribute to battery charging, they cannot be disabled directly by the 
user. The Joint Trade Associations stated that DOE and stakeholders 
have struggled with how to address these functions in the past and 
suggested a proposal to allow disabling of these functions but with 
non-circumventing language. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 10) 
The Joint Trade Associations suggested DOE to include a publicly 
viewable column with the CCD so that the public can know when an 
alternative means is used to isolate the charging function. The Joint 
Trade Associations further suggested DOE to add a confidential column 
so manufacturers can report instructions on how to disable the non-
battery-charging related functions or set them to the lowest power 
consuming state. The Joint Trade Associations also proposed to DOE that 
anti-circumvention language should be added to make the intent that 
battery-charging related circuit or function cannot be changed in the 
test procedure clear, as such language has been successful in other 
appliances categories. (Id.) ITI and Delta-Q also supported the joint 
comments. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 4-5; Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2) Delta-Q 
further expressed their support of the existing Dyson waiver approach 
and suggested that DOE integrate allowances to more battery charger 
models, because it is not always practical or desirable for the user to 
have the ability to manually disable non-charging-features or reduce 
their consumption. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2)
    STIHL commented that when STIHL's lawn mower battery is charging, 
there are some non-battery-charging related functions still running, 
such as connected functions or safety functions. (STIHL, No. 16 at p. 
1) STIHL inquired if these functions can be deactivated or be given 
appropriate power adders when calculating for energy consumption during 
testing, because they do not relate to the charging process. Id.
    DOE's current battery charger test procedure specifically requires 
non-battery-charging functions to be turned off during testing, unless 
manufacturers did not provide ways for end user to disable these 
functions. Section 3.2.4 of appendix Y. DOE notes that, due to the 
intricate nature of battery charger products, disabling non-battery-
charging related functions through non-user-accessible ways can have 
unexpected effects on the battery charging circuitry, which raises 
repeatability and reproducibility concerns. Therefore, DOE is not 
amending the test procedure to allow disabling of non-battery-charging 
related functions through alternative means. In the case suggested by 
STIHL's comment, the same requirements would also apply, and the 
battery charger would only be tested with these non-battery-charging 
functions on if they cannot be switched off by the end user. Due to the 
huge variety of non-battery-charging related functions and different 
ways they can be implemented, DOE is not prescribing power adders for 
these non-battery-charging related functions.
    Schumacher added that there is new automotive battery charger 
technology that uses internal super capacitors or Li-Ion batteries, 
which charges the standalone (end-use product's) battery normally, and 
then the internal battery or supercapacitor, if needed, after charge is 
complete. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 6) Schumacher asked if the charging 
of these internal batteries should be included into E24 or Pm or some 
other parts of the standard that are yet to be described. (Schumacher, 
No. 21 at p. 6) DOE's notes that its battery charger test procedure 
only measures the energy consumption at the input of the charger. Based 
on when charging of these super capacitors occur, it could be regulated 
either under active charge mode or maintenance mode of DOE's test 
procedure.

C. Corrections and Non-Substantive Changes

    Since the publication of DOE's current battery charger test 
procedure and energy conservation standards, DOE has received numerous 
stakeholder inquiries regarding various topics involving battery 
charger testing and certification. Based on these inquiries, DOE 
identified the need for certain minor corrections. These corrections 
are addressed in the following sections. Additionally, in the interest 
of improving overall clarity, DOE will include a flowchart in the 
docket outlining the required testing and certification process with 
this final rule.
1. Certification Flowcharts
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include certification 
flowcharts in the docket upon publication of the final rule, shown in 
Figure III.C.1 and Figure III.C.2,\14\ to

[[Page 55110]]

help manufacturers better understand the battery charger testing and 
certification process. The flowcharts provide an overview of the 
testing and certification process, including an overview of the basic 
model definition, the scope of DOE's battery charger test procedure; 
the required sample size, the difference between a rated value, a 
represented value, and a certified rating, and the statistical criteria 
for determining compliance with energy conservation standards. The 
flowcharts are not intended to address all aspects of the testing and 
certification requirements, but instead provide a general-level guide 
to the process. As such, manufacturers should not rely solely on the 
flowcharts for testing and compliance. Manufacturers of battery 
chargers are required to comply with the applicable provisions under 10 
CFR parts 429 and 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Figures III.C.1 and III.C.2 are included to clarify the 
process in this rulemaking only. Manufacturers should not rely 
solely on the flowcharts as substantive guides for testing and 
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 55111]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.000


[[Page 55112]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.001

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    The Joint Trade Associations suggested that DOE consistently update 
the flowcharts as needed and make it clear that the regulatory text 
would override anything in the flowcharts because many manufacturers 
will rely on these flowcharts, if finalized. (Joint Trade Associations, 
No. 24 at p. 11) ITI also supported this comment. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Appendix Y1 test procedure would not be effective until 
after energy conservation standards have been amended to account for 
the multi-metric approach.

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

[[Page 55113]]

    DOE acknowledges these comments and will ensure that the flowcharts 
are updated as necessary. DOE also reemphasizes that the regulatory 
text would override anything in the flowcharts.
2. Testing and Certification Clarifications
    DOE's current battery charger UEC calculation is prescribed in 
section 3.3.13 of appendix Y, with product specific certification 
requirements prescribed in 10 CFR 429.39. DOE proposed clarifications 
in the November 2021 NOPR, based on stakeholder comments.
a. Measured vs. Rated Battery Energy
    The product class distinctions provided in Table 3.3.3 of appendix 
Y are based in part on rated battery energy as determined in 10 CFR 
429.39(a), which in turn references the represented value of battery 
discharge energy. 10 CFR 429.39(a)(1). The calculation of UEC in 
section 3.3.13 of appendix Y is based in part on the tested (measured) 
battery energy.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to further clarify the 
nomenclature in appendix Y by modifying the ``Ebatt'' term 
used in the UEC calculation and usage profile selection in Table 3.3.3 
to ``Measured Ebatt''. As for the proposed appendix Y1, DOE 
noted that all of the instructions rely on measured Ebatt, 
making it unnecessary to distinguish between measured and rated 
Ebatt. 86 FR 66878, 66893.
    Delta-Q supported the extra clarifications on measured and 
nameplate nomenclature. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2)
    The Joint Trade Associations stated that it is not clear whether 
measured or rated values for battery energy should be used, and they 
would support DOE's proposal to update the nomenclature if coupled with 
an enforcement provision that allows for tolerance, as there could be 
inherent variations in test and production that affect how standard and 
product class applies. The Joint Trade Associations stated that their 
proposed approach is consistent with DOE's enforcement approach for 
other appliances, such as measured volume for refrigerators, freezers, 
clothes washers, dehumidifiers, etc. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 
at p. 11) ITI supported this comment and further requested DOE to 
continue using the term ``rated'' instead of ``represented'', unless 
DOE can provide a clear definition on when should the ``represented'' 
term be used. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 5)
    DOE recognizes the inherent variations in testing and production, 
especially for tested battery energies. However, DOE notes that due to 
the nature of how battery energy differs even for the same models from 
the same batch, when determining compliance through enforcement testing 
DOE would be looking at the individual sample performance more closely 
and determine compliance based on per sample basis, if necessary. DOE 
will also ensure that its battery charger energy conservation standards 
would show comparable standards for battery chargers that fall on the 
border of two neighboring product classes.
    DOE notes that under the term ``rated'', some manufacturers might 
confuse it with ``nameplate'' values, which can differ for batteries. 
Therefore, to ensure test procedure repeatability and reproducibility, 
DOE is avoiding using the term ``rated'', and is updating the terms to 
``represented'', ``nameplate'', and ``measured'' instead.
b. Other Nomenclatures
    Schumacher stated that appendix Y's specified 5-hour discharge time 
resulted from the 0.2 C-rate, and conflicts with real world automotive 
battery ratings which are usually based on 10-to-20-hour rates. 
Schumacher stated that the 5-hour discharge time results in a much 
lower rating than the nameplate rating because of energy loss through 
heat. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2) Schumacher proposed DOE to clarify 
the 0.2C C-rate means a 5-hour discharge rate to ensure manufacturers 
are conducting the tests correctly and reporting correctly. 
(Schumacher, No. 21 at pp.2-3)
    DOE notes that discharge rates will vary by end-use application. It 
would be infeasible and add burden if DOE was to prescribe a unique 
discharge rate for each type of application in the test procedure. 
DOE's specified 0.2C discharge rate offers a practical and repeatable 
solution for different applications with either slow or fast discharge 
rates. By maintaining the same discharge rate, it would also improve 
comparability in results. For batteries that serve the same end-use 
application, although the tested value may differ from manufacturer 
designed ratings, they would still be comparable to other batteries 
from the same application.
    The definition for C-rate is prescribed at section 2.10 of appendix 
Y, which specifies that the C-rate is calculated by dividing the charge 
or discharge current by the nameplate battery charge capacity of the 
battery. DOE has not received stakeholder comments suggesting that the 
current 0.2 discharge C-rate causes confusion prior to Schumacher's 
comment. DOE is also unaware of any manufacturer discharging the 
batteries differently than the prescribed 0.2C discharge rate. However, 
to further improve test procedure language clarity, DOE will amend the 
C-rate definition in both appendix Y and appendix Y1 to give an example 
that time needed to charge or discharge with a 0.2 C-rate would equal 5 
hours.
    Schumacher stated that the term used to refer to ``Product 
Classes'' and ``wall adapters'' are not consistent between the 
standard, test procedure, and CCD report template. (Schumacher, No. 21 
at pp. 4-5) Schumacher commented that making consistent use of terms 
would avoid ambiguity and DOE should clarify that wall adapters indeed 
refer to EPSs. Id.
    DOE's mention of wall adapters in the test procedure was to 
facilitate understanding and readability of the test procedure. In most 
cases, the term ``wall adapter'' can be used interchangeably with 
``EPS''. To further improve language consistency, DOE is changing the 
``wall adapter'' terms used in appendices Y and Y1 to the more 
technically appropriate term ``EPSs''. As for the term ``Product 
Classes'', DOE notes that in the CCD reporting template, they are 
referred to as ``Product Group Codes'', which should not cause 
confusion as the ``Product Group Codes'' worksheet details the product 
groups with matching product classes.
c. Alternate Test Method for Small Electronic Devices
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE did not propose to amend the test 
procedure to rely on the measured battery energy value for the purpose 
of the testing and certification, because DOE has observed several 
occasions in which the measured battery energy was lower than the 
marked nameplate energy, which could lead to unrepresentative value of 
UEC or active energy consumption. 86 FR 66878, 66893.
    ITI reiterated their recommendation for DOE to simplify the test 
procedure for small electronics by relying on the nameplate battery 
energy so that testers would not need to obtain special standalone 
battery samples or solder on tiny terminals. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 6-7) 
ITI suggested DOE to reconsider its stance on these devices because 
inconsistencies caused by these small energy batteries would have 
negligible impact on overall results. (Id.) ITI also requested DOE to 
review data from

[[Page 55114]]

small electronics as they normally have passed the UEC standard with 
large margins, but with maintenance mode energy contributing to 
majority of energy consumption. (Id.) NEEA expressed general support 
for DOE's assertion that rated and measured battery capacities can 
differ substantially, and that requiring measurement ensures fair 
competition under the standard. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 11)
    DOE reemphasizes that DOE's battery charger test procedure relies 
on the tested battery energy to carry out UEC calculation. DOE has 
encountered several occasions where the actual battery energy differs 
from the rated battery energy. Relying on the rated battery energy to 
test the product therefore would result in inaccurate measurements and 
certifications, contrary to EPCA's requirement that DOE adopt test 
procedures reasonably designed to produce representative results. 
Therefore, DOE is not prescribing any alternative test methods for 
small electronics.
d. Inability To Directly Measure Battery Energy
    Section 3.2.5.(f) of appendix Y states that when the battery 
discharge energy and the charging and maintenance mode energy cannot be 
measured directly due to any of the following conditions: (1) inability 
to access the battery terminals; (2) access to the battery terminals 
destroys charger functionality; or (3) inability to draw current from 
the test battery, the battery discharge energy and the charging and 
maintenance mode energy shall be reported as ``Not Applicable.'' In 
such cases, the test procedure does not provide instruction on how to 
proceed with the remainder of the test, and an alternate test method 
must be used to measure battery discharge energy and the charging and 
maintenance mode energy.
    DOE therefore proposed to update section 3.2.5(f) of appendix Y to 
explicitly state that if any of the aforementioned conditions are 
applicable, preventing the measurement of the battery discharge energy 
and the charging and maintenance mode energy, a manufacturer must 
submit a petition for a test procedure waiver in accordance with 10 CFR 
430.27. The same provision would also be included as part of the new 
appendix Y1. 86 FR 66878, 66893. DOE did not receive comments on this 
topic and is adopting the proposed changes in this final rule.
e. Determining Battery Voltage
    The product class distinctions provided in Table 3.3.3 of appendix 
Y are based in part on ``battery voltage'' in addition to rated battery 
energy or special charging characteristics, as described previously. 
Section 3.3.1 of appendix Y specifies recording the nameplate battery 
voltage of the test battery. Section 2.21 of appendix Y defines 
``nameplate battery voltage'' as specified by the battery manufacturer 
and typically printed on the label of the battery itself. If there are 
multiple batteries that are connected in a series, the nameplate 
battery voltage of the batteries is the total voltage of the series 
configuration--that is, the nameplate voltage of each battery 
multiplied by the number of batteries connected in series. Connecting 
multiple batteries in parallel does not affect the nameplate battery 
voltage. Section 2.21 of appendix Y.
    Additionally, for a multi-voltage charger, the battery with the 
highest battery voltage must be selected for testing, as prescribed by 
Table 3.2.1 of appendix Y. Consequently, the highest supported battery 
voltage should also be used to determine product class, which is not 
reflected by the current term ``battery voltage'' in Table 3.3.3. 
Updating the language in Table 3.3.3 would avoid the potential for 
future confusion with regard to multi-voltage products.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend Table 3.3.3 of 
appendices Y and Y1 by replacing the term ``battery voltage'' with 
``highest nameplate battery voltage'' to provide clearer direction that 
the battery voltage used to determine product class is based on its 
nameplate battery voltage, and that for multi-voltage products, the 
highest voltage is used. 86 FR 66878, 66893-66894. The Joint Trade 
Associations supported DOE's proposal to clarify that the highest 
nameplate battery voltage should be used in determining product class. 
(Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 12)
    In this final rule, DOE is adopting the proposed editorial change 
on battery voltage specification in Table 3.3.3.
f. UEC and Reporting Discrepancies
    Schumacher noted that Ebatt and UEC allow 3 decimal places for 
entry, while the other measured, calculated, and determined values only 
allow 2 decimal places, which sometimes creates calculation errors. 
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 3) Schumacher proposed that DOE change all 
finished calculated values to 3 decimal places, except for UEC and max 
UEC which should be 2 decimal places; and all the constants provided by 
DOE to change from 2 decimal places to 5 or with fractions to reduce 
rounding errors, which sometimes prevents submission. (Schumacher, No. 
21 at p. 3) Schumacher claimed that the UEC calculation selection 
formula can have discrepancies from the use of only 2 decimal places. 
For example, a battery charger with 64.271 hours of total charge time 
can use either UEC equation (i) or (ii) from the selection formula. 
(Id.) Schumacher stated that increasing the decimal places to 5 for 
constants and rounding the finished results to 3 decimal places or 
keeping the constants in fractions would reduce these discrepancies. 
(Schumacher, No. 21 at pp. 3-4)
    DOE's CCD already allows manufacturers to report values with 
multiple decimal places. DOE notes that it cannot change the constants 
provided in appendix Y to more decimal places or fractions, as doing so 
could affect the currently CCD reported basic models. For example, even 
a slight change in usage profiles or threshold charge time could cause 
numerous currently reported basic models to have slightly different 
UEC. This change would also result in unnecessary need for 
manufacturers to recertify their basic models. DOE's CCD reporting form 
does not specifically look for rounding errors, and it was not clear 
from Schumacher's comment on how the submission rejection occurred. 
However, if stakeholders continue to have submission related questions, 
stakeholders can contact DOE's Compliance Certification Management 
System directly for help.
    Schumacher also included a chart to illustrate that there is a 5-
hour transition shift between UEC formula (i) and (ii), which does not 
lead to a smooth transition and asked DOE to provide some explanation. 
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 4) UEC equation (i) was developed based on 
usage profiles. To account for chargers that takes significantly longer 
to charge than DOE's threshold charge time, DOE developed UEC equation 
(ii) with close reference to equation (i). Because DOE's UEC equation 
(ii) accounts for the prolonged charge time that exceeds DOE's standard 
threshold charge time, it could negatively impact a battery charger's 
UEC in very limited cases.
g. Testing Setup
    Schumacher suggested that the DOE battery charger test procedure 
should reference appendix Z or add greater detail on test measurement 
setup with proper connection sequence, to provide a more uniform 
standard and ensure reproducibility. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 5) 
Schumacher suggested that the sense leads should be placed directly on 
the battery terminals and not the charger terminals to ensure voltage 
loss of the

[[Page 55115]]

charger terminals are measured and should be repeated for discharge 
measurement so that the terminal connection losses can be accounted 
for, which ensures a more uniform standard. (Schumacher, No. 21 at pp. 
5-6)
    Battery charger testing setup can vary significantly depending on 
different product configurations. DOE has already prescribed language 
in section 3.2.1 for manufacturers to set up the battery chargers 
according to manufacturer instructions or the default settings. DOE 
notes that the measurement setup figure used in appendix Z is for 
reference only and has language indicating that actual test setup may 
vary pursuant to appendix Z requirements. DOE has not encountered 
scenarios in which manufacturers cannot successfully set up measurement 
for battery charger testing; therefore, DOE is not providing greater 
detail on how manufacturers should set up test measurement.
    DOE's battery charger test procedure measures the charging 
efficiency as a whole. Therefore, DOE is not adding requirements for 
manufacturers to measure the charger input at battery terminals, 
because adding the battery input terminal measurements would not 
representatively measure the useful energy being put into the battery 
and would add undue burden. Furthermore, battery chargers can have 
different designs that impact how discharge tests can be performed. As 
such, DOE is not prescribing additional requirements on where the 
battery output connections should be made for measurement to avoid 
undue burden.
3. Cross-Reference Corrections
    Section 3.3.4 of appendix Y, ``Preparing the Battery for Charge 
Testing,'' specifies that the test battery shall be fully discharged 
for the duration specified in section 3.3.2 of appendix Y, or longer 
using a battery analyzer. However, DOE's intention was to instruct the 
user to discharge a test battery not for a set duration but until it 
reaches the end of discharge voltages listed in Table 3.3.2 of appendix 
Y. While a battery would be fully discharged with either set of 
instructions, current instructions would lead to a battery preparation 
step that is significantly longer. Additionally, there are several 
instances in appendix Y of which DOE used generic terms such as 
``specified above'' or ``noted below''. While these generic reference 
terms are referring to the test procedure sections immediately 
preceding or following, identifying the specific referenced sections 
would improve the test procedure clarity. Therefore, DOE proposed to 
further clarify these cross-references in appendix Y, and incorporate 
this same change into proposed appendix Y1, to reduce test burden and 
avoid potential confusion. To further streamline the readability of 
appendix Y, DOE proposed to move the end-of-discharge Table 3.3.2 so 
that it immediately follows the battery discharge energy test at 
section 3.3.8. 86 FR 66878, 66894.
    Honda suggested that the proposed Table 3.1.1 for appendix Y1 
includes incorrect subsection references. (Honda, No. 26 at p. 1) Honda 
also stated that the proposed Table 4.3.1 of appendix Y1 appears to 
have a typographical error and that it should remain the same for 
current appendix Y Table 4.3.1. (Honda, No. 26 at p. 2)
    DOE appreciates Honda's comment. The incorrect subsection 
references were unintentional typographical errors. For the proposed 
Table 4.3.1 of appendix Y1, it was incorrectly formatted upon 
publication. Table 4.3.1 should still remain the same as the one in 
appendix Y. DOE is correcting these two typographical errors in this 
final rule. DOE is also adopting the rest of the proposed cross-
reference corrections.
4. Sub-Section Corrections
    Sections 3.3.11(b) and 3.3.12(b) of appendix Y provide instructions 
for testing the standby and off mode power consumption, respectively, 
of a battery charger with integral batteries. Section 2.6 of appendix Y 
describes an integral battery as a battery that is contained within the 
consumer product and is not removed from the consumer product for 
charging purposes. Sections 3.3.11(c), 3.3.11(d), 3.3.12(c), and 
3.3.12(d) provide instructions applicable to products containing 
``integrated power conversion and charging circuitry,'' which is 
intended to refer to products with integral batteries for which the 
circuitry is integrated within the battery charger, in contrast to 
being integrated within a cradle or an external adapter (as referred to 
in sections 3.3.11(b) and 3.3.12(b)).
    To improve the readability of the test procedure and avoid 
potential confusion as to the applicability of sections 3.3.11(c), 
3.3.11(d), 3.3.12(c), and 3.3.12(d) in relation to sections 3.3.11(b) 
and 3.3.12(b), DOE in the November 2021 NOPR proposed to reorder these 
sections of appendix Y such that section 3.3.11(b) would include only 
the statement that standby mode may also apply to products with 
integral batteries. 86 FR 66878, 66894. The remainder of current 
section 3.3.11(b), as well as 3.3.11(c) and 3.3.11(d) would be 
reorganized as subsections (1) through (3) subordinate to section 
3.3.11(b), to provide clearer indication that these three subsections 
refer to three different types of products with integral batteries. The 
same structure would be applied in section 3.3.12(b) for off mode. 86 
FR 66878, 66894.
    ITI requested DOE to further explain how sections 3.3.11 and 3.3.12 
will be reorganized. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6)
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated in the preamble and in the 
proposed appendix Y and Y1 regulatory text section that subsections 
3.3.11.(b) through (d) would be reorganized as subsections (1) through 
(3) subordinate to section 3.3.11(b), to provide clearer indication 
that these three subsections refer to three different types of products 
with integral batteries. The same structure would be applied in section 
3.3.12(b) for off mode. 86 FR 66878, 66894. These would improve 
readability and DOE does not anticipate any impacts to current test 
procedure from these reorganizations. Therefore, DOE is adopting the 
proposed subsection corrections.

D. Effective and Compliance Dates

    The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendment will be 
30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. 
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and 
energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product 
labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure, 
beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) EPCA provides an allowance for 
individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-
day period if the manufacturer would experience undue hardship in 
meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an 
extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days 
before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the 
manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.) To the extent the 
modified test procedure adopted in this final rule is required only for 
the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, compliance 
with the amended test procedure does not require use of such modified 
test procedure provisions until the compliance date of updated 
standards.
    Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions in this final 
rule, waivers that had been previously issued to Dyson (Case No. BC-001 
and Case No. 2018-012) are terminated. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3). Because 
these Dyson products are no longer distributed in the

[[Page 55116]]

market, DOE does not anticipate further testing for these products.

E. Test Procedure Costs

    In this final rule, DOE incorporates some editorial changes in the 
preceding test procedure for battery chargers at appendix Y to: (1) 
update battery chemistry table to improve representativeness; (2) 
explicitly refer manufacturers to the test procedure waiver provisions 
when battery energy cannot be measured; and (3) provide more 
descriptive designation of the different battery energy and battery 
voltage values used for determining product class and calculating unit 
energy consumption. The changes to appendix Y also include minor cross 
reference corrections and test procedure organization improvements. DOE 
is also terminating the existing Dyson test procedure waiver.
    Appendix Y1 would include all the changes previously listed, as 
well as: (1) remove the ``wet environment'' designation and expand the 
5 Wh battery energy limit to 100 Wh for fixed-location wireless 
chargers; (2) add definitions for ``fixed-location'' and ``open-
placement'' wireless chargers; (3) introduce a new no-battery mode only 
test for open-placement wireless chargers; (4) amend the wall adapter 
selection for chargers that do not come with one; and (5) establish an 
approach that relies on separate metrics for active mode, standby mode, 
and off mode, in place of the UEC calculation in appendix Y. DOE has 
determined that these proposed amendments would not be unduly 
burdensome for manufacturers to conduct.
Appendix Y Test Procedure Amendments
    The amendments specific to appendix Y would not alter the scope of 
applicability or the measured energy use of basic models currently 
certified to DOE. DOE does not anticipate that the proposals specific 
to appendix Y would cause any manufacturer to re-test any currently 
covered battery chargers or incur any additional testing costs.
Appendix Y1 Test Procedure Proposal
    All the amendments specific to appendix Y1 would not be required to 
be used until DOE amends energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers in a future rulemaking and requires battery charger 
manufacturers to rate their products using appendix Y1. DOE is aware 
that certain manufacturers may be voluntarily reporting under state 
programs the energy efficiency as determined under appendix Y of a 
limited number of fixed-location wireless chargers that are not 
currently subject to the DOE test procedure. DOE is not aware of such 
representations being included in manufacturer literature. Given that 
such reporting appears limited to state programs and manufacturers are 
not otherwise making representations of the energy efficiency or energy 
use of such products, DOE is unable to estimate the extent of such 
reporting. Beginning 180 days following the final rule requiring the 
use of appendix Y1, were manufacturers to continue such voluntary 
reporting any such representations would have to be based on the DOE 
test procedure as amended. To the extent there is a limited number of 
models for which manufacturers are making voluntary representations, 
such models may require re-testing. Further details regarding the cost 
impact of the proposed amendments for when battery charger 
manufacturers are required to test their products using appendix Y1 are 
presented in the following paragraphs.
Appendix Y1--Wireless Chargers
    The amendment to remove the ``wet environment'' designation and 
increase the battery energy limit will increase the scope of the 
existing battery charger test procedure to include wireless battery 
chargers other than those with inductive connection and designed for 
use in a wet environment.
    DOE has estimated the testing cost associated to test these fixed-
location and open-placement wireless chargers in accordance with the 
test procedure. DOE estimates that it would take approximately 40 hours 
to conduct testing for one fixed-location wireless charger unit and 2.2 
hours to conduct the no-battery mode only test for one open-placement 
wireless charger unit. These tests do not require the wireless charger 
unit being tested to be constantly monitored by a lab technician. DOE 
estimates that a lab technician would spend approximately 2.5 hours to 
test a fixed-location wireless charger unit and 1 hour to test an open-
placement wireless charger unit.
    Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (``BLS's'') 
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for 
electrical and electronic engineering technologist and technician is 
$32.84.\16\ DOE also used data from BLS's Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation to estimate the percent that wages comprise the total 
compensation for an employee. DOE estimates that wages make up 70.4 
percent of the total compensation for private industry employees.\17\ 
Therefore, DOE estimates that the total hourly compensation (including 
all fringe benefits) of a technician performing these tests is 
approximately $46.65.\18\ Using these labor rates and time estimates, 
DOE estimates that it would cost wireless charger manufacturers 
approximately $117 to conduct a single test on a fixed-location 
wireless charger unit and approximately $47 to conduct a single test on 
an open-placement wireless charger unit.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ DOE used the mean hourly wage of the ``17-3023 Electrical 
and Electronic Engineering Technologists and Technicians'' from the 
most recent BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (May 
2020) to estimate the hourly wage rate of a technician assumed to 
perform this testing. See https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes173023.htm. Last accessed on July 22, 2021.
    \17\ DOE used the March 2021 ``Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation'' to estimate that for ``Private Industry Workers,'' 
``Wages and Salaries'' are 70.4 percent of the total employee 
compensation. See www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06172021.pdf. Last accessed on July 22, 2021.
    \18\ $32.84 / 0.704 = $46.65.
    \19\ Fixed-location wireless charger: $46.65 x 2.5 hours = 
$116.63 (rounded to $117).
    Open-placement wireless charger: $46.65 x 1 hour = $46.65 
(rounded to $47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requires that at least two units be tested for each basic model 
prior to certifying a rating. Therefore, DOE estimates that 
manufacturers would incur testing costs of approximately $234 per 
fixed-location wireless charger basic model and approximately $94 per 
open-placement wireless charger basic model, when testing these 
wireless chargers. However, this amendment to remove the ``wet 
environment'' designation and increase the battery energy limit for 
wireless battery chargers would only be applicable for appendix Y1, and 
manufacturers would not be required to use appendix Y1 for wireless 
battery chargers that are not currently covered by appendix Y until DOE 
amends the energy conservation standards for battery chargers as part 
of a future rulemaking. DOE will further address the expected costs to 
industry if and when DOE establishes energy conservation standards for 
wireless chargers.
Appendix Y1--EPS Selection
    The update to require the use of a minimally compliant power supply 
selection criteria for battery chargers that are not sold with one 
ensures that these products are tested in a manner that is 
representative of actual use, as required by EPCA. This update would 
not create additional cost or require additional time as compared to 
the prior test procedure, as these battery chargers

[[Page 55117]]

currently require a low voltage input; this change will only specify 
how the low voltage input must be provided and is not expected to 
result in additional costs. DOE also anticipates this update to impact 
the measured energy consumption of battery chargers, but only for 
scenarios where the manufacturer previously certified the product using 
an EPS that is either not minimally compliant or used a bench power 
supply and failed to include its energy consumption as part of the 
battery charger system.
    However, the amended test procedure would only apply to the new 
appendix Y1, meaning it would not be required for testing until DOE 
amends energy conservation standards and requires manufacturers to use 
appendix Y1. Based on DOE's market research, DOE estimates that most 
battery charger models do not remain on the market for more than four 
years because of frequent battery charger model updates and retirement 
of old models. Therefore, DOE anticipates that most battery chargers 
required to use appendix Y1 will likely be introduced into the market 
after this test procedure amendment is finalized.\20\ Should the use of 
appendix Y1 be required due to amended energy conservation standards, 
battery chargers introduced prior to this test procedure's finalization 
would likely no longer be on the market and therefore DOE does not 
anticipate manufacturers needing to re-test those charger models. 
Battery chargers introduced into the market after this test procedure 
takes effect will have the option to test those models using the new 
power supply selection criteria. Battery charger manufacturers using 
the proposed selection criteria of a power supply would not incur any 
additional testing costs compared to the current battery charger 
testing costs. Any manufacturer seeking to avoid any risk of retesting 
costs can choose to comply with the new selection criteria of a power 
supply earlier than required. If a manufacturer chooses this option, 
they would incur the same testing costs when using the new selection 
criteria as they currently incur and would not have to retest those 
battery chargers after appendix Y1 is required. DOE will examine the 
potential retesting costs of manufacturers continuing to test battery 
charger models that do not use the new power supply selection criteria 
in any future energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For this cost analysis DOE estimates that the battery 
charger test procedures will be finalized in 2022. Similarly, 
amended energy conservation standards, if justified, would be 
finalized in 2024 with an estimated 2026 compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix Y1--Modes of Operation
    DOE has also estimated the testing costs associated with battery 
charger testing under appendix Y1. Removing usage profiles and 
switching the UEC metric to the active, standby, and off modes multi-
metric system in appendix Y1 will cause battery charger manufacturers 
to re-test their products when DOE amends energy conservation standards 
requiring manufacturers to test their products using appendix Y1. Under 
appendix Y1, if the manufacturer has (i) already tested and certified 
the battery charger basic model under the current appendix Y and (ii) 
still has the original testing data from the appendix Y testing 
available for standby power calculation, those battery charger basic 
models would only need to be recertified with the active charge energy 
and standby power data analysis. For these battery charger basic 
models, DOE estimates an extra labor time of 10 minutes would be needed 
to reanalyze the test results. Using the previously calculated fully-
burdened labor rate of $46.65 per hour for an employee conducting these 
tests, DOE estimates manufacturers would incur approximately $7.78 to 
analyze the test results for these battery chargers. DOE requires at 
least two units be tested per basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates 
manufacturers would incur approximately $15.56 per battery charger 
basic model for these battery chargers.
    Basic models that will either be newly covered under the expanded 
scope or that are missing the original test data from their appendix Y 
testing would need to be fully tested under appendix Y1. DOE estimates 
a total testing time of approximately 40 hours would be needed, with 
2.5 hours of technician intervention required to test each additional 
battery charger unit. Using the previously calculated fully-burdened 
labor rate of $46.65 for an electrical technician to conduct these 
tests, manufacturers would incur approximately $116.63 per unit. DOE 
requires at least two units be tested per basic model. Therefore, DOE 
estimates manufacturers would incur approximately $233.25 per battery 
charger basic model to conduct the complete testing under appendix Y1.
All Other Test Procedure Amendments
    The remainder of the final rule would add additional detail and 
instruction to improve the readability of the test procedure. The 
cross-reference corrections, sub-section corrections and 
reorganizations also help improve the test procedure readability and 
clarity without modifying or adding any steps to the test method. As 
such, these amendments will not result in increased test burden.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires 
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a 
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify 
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to 
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into 
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office 
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques 
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might 
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. 
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is 
consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a 
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. 
Accordingly,

[[Page 55118]]

this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any 
final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a 
proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the 
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on 
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking 
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available 
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    The following sections detail DOE's FRFA for this test procedure 
final rule.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    DOE is amending the existing DOE test procedures for battery 
chargers. DOE shall amend test procedures with respect to any covered 
product, if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would 
more accurately produce test results which measure energy efficiency, 
energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product 
during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(1)(A))
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    DOE is required to review existing DOE test procedures for all 
covered products every 7 years. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
    For manufacturers of battery chargers, the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those 
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the 
statute. The size standards are listed by North American Industry 
Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry description and are 
available at: www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. 
Battery charger manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335999, ``All 
Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing.'' 
The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or fewer for an entity to be 
considered as a small business in this category.
    DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine 
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the 
proposed rule. 13 CFR part 121. DOE reviewed the test procedures in 
this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003.
Wired Battery Chargers
    DOE used data from DOE's publicly available Compliance 
Certification Database (``CCD'') \21\ and the California Energy 
Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System 
(``MAEDbS'').\22\ DOE identified over 2,000 companies that submitted 
entries for Federally regulated battery chargers.\23\ DOE screened out 
companies that do not meet the SBA definition of a ``small entity'' or 
are foreign-owned and operated. DOE identified approximately 294 
potential small businesses that currently certify battery chargers or 
applications using battery chargers to DOE's CCD. These 294 potential 
small businesses manufacture approximately 3,456 unique basic models of 
battery chargers or applications using battery chargers. The number of 
battery charger models made by each potential small business ranges 
from 1 model to 263 models, with an average of approximately 12 unique 
basic models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. Last 
accessed on August 11, 2021.
    \22\ See cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx. Last accessed on August 11, 2021.
    \23\ These entities consist of both battery charger 
manufacturers and manufacturers of devices that use a battery 
charger (e.g., toys or small electronic devices that have a battery 
charger embedded in the product).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wireless Battery Chargers
    DOE used publicly available data from the Wireless Power Consortium 
and the aforementioned manufacturer list generated from the CCD and 
MAEDbS databases to estimate the number of wireless battery charger 
manufacturers and number of wireless battery charger models.\24\ The 
majority of these companies are foreign owned and operated, as most 
wireless battery charger manufacturing is done abroad. DOE identified 
13 potential domestic small businesses that manufacture approximately 
327 wireless battery charger models. The number of wireless battery 
charger models made by each potential small business ranges from 1 
model to 183 models, with an average of approximately 25 models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/products. Last accessed 
on September 8, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
Wired Battery Chargers
    DOE assumes that each small business's regulatory costs would 
depend on the number of unique basic battery charger models and 
applications using a battery charger that small business manufactures. 
It is likely that some unique applications using a battery charger may 
use the same battery charging component as another unique application 
listed in DOE's CCD, meaning the cost of testing would be double 
counted in this analysis. However, DOE has conservatively estimated the 
cost associated with re-testing each unique application using a battery 
charger. Additionally, while some battery charger manufacturers could 
partially rely on previous testing conducted under appendix Y for their 
battery chargers (as described in section III.E of this document), DOE 
conservatively estimates each small business would need to conduct the 
entire test under appendix Y1 for each unique basic model they 
manufacture.
    As discussed in section III.E of this document, battery chargers 
would only need to be tested under appendix Y1 when DOE sets future 
energy conservation standards for battery chargers that require 
appendix Y1. DOE estimates that the total time for conducting testing 
under appendix Y1 would be approximately 40 hours, and that it would 
require approximately 2.5 hours of technician intervention to test each 
additional battery charger unit. Using the previously calculated fully-
burdened labor rate of $46.65 for an electrical technician to conduct 
these tests,\25\ manufacturers would incur approximately $116.63 of 
testing costs per unit. DOE requires at least two units be tested per 
basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates manufacturers would incur 
approximately $233.25 of testing costs per battery charger basic model 
to conduct the complete testing under appendix Y1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Based on data from the BLS's Occupational Employment and 
Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for an electrical and 
electronic engineering technologist and technician is $32.84 
(www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173023.htm). Additionally, DOE used data 
from BLS's Employer Costs for Employee Compensation to estimate the 
percent that wages comprise the total compensation for an employee. 
DOE estimates that wages make up 70.4 percent of the total 
compensation for private industry employees (www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06172021.pdf). $32.84 / 0.704 = $46.65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimates that all small businesses combined would incur

[[Page 55119]]

approximately $0.81 million \26\ if these small businesses re-tested 
all their unique basic models of battery chargers or applications using 
battery chargers under appendix Y1. The potential range of testing 
costs for an individual small business would be between $233.25 (to re-
test one basic model to) and approximately $61,340 (to re-test 263 
basic models,), with an average cost of approximately $2,799 to re-test 
12 basic models (the average number of models) under appendix Y1. As 
noted in section III.E of this document, manufacturers could 
alternatively keep their original test data and extract an active 
charge energy metric for appendix Y1, which would avoid retesting costs 
for newly introduced basic models. As DOE estimated previously, most 
battery chargers will not stay on the market for more than four years, 
accordingly, small business manufacturers may be able to avoid most 
retesting costs by analyzing and keeping record of the active charge 
energy data, while conducting tests according to appendix Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ $233.25 (testing cost per basic model) x 3,456 (number of 
unique basic models manufactured by all small businesses) = 
$806,112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE was able to find annual revenue estimates for 289 of the 294 
small businesses DOE identified. DOE was not able to identify any 
reliable annual revenue estimates for the remaining five small 
businesses. Based on the number of unique basic models of battery 
chargers or applications using battery chargers each small business 
manufactures, DOE estimates that the $233.25 per model potential re-
testing cost would represent less than 2 percent of annual revenue for 
286 of the 289 small businesses. DOE estimates that three small 
businesses could incur re-testing costs that would exceed 2.0 percent 
of their annual revenue.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ One small business manufactures eight unique basic models, 
which if all basic models were re-tested could cost up to $3,136. 
This small business has an estimated annual revenue of $52,000, 
meaning testing costs could comprise up to 6.0 percent of their 
annual revenue. Another small business manufactures six basic 
models, which if all basic models were re-tested could cost up to 
$2,352. This small business has an estimated annual revenue of 
$94,000, meaning testing costs could comprise up to 2.5 percent of 
their annual revenue. The remaining small business manufactures five 
basic models, which if all basic models were re-tested could cost up 
to $1,960. This small business has an estimated annual revenue of 
$68,400, meaning testing costs could comprise up to 2.9 percent of 
their annual revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wireless Battery Chargers
    DOE assumed that each small business's regulatory costs would 
depend on the number of wireless battery charger models that each small 
business manufactures. As discussed in section III.E, wireless battery 
chargers would only need to be tested under appendix Y1 when DOE sets 
future energy conservation standards for battery chargers. DOE 
estimates that a total testing time for conducting testing under 
appendix Y1 for wireless battery chargers would take approximately 40 
hours to conduct the test for one fixed-location wireless charger unit, 
and 2.2 hours to conduct the no-battery mode only test for one open-
placement wireless charger unit. These tests do not require the 
wireless charger unit being tested to be constantly monitored by a lab 
technician. DOE estimates that a lab technician would spend 
approximately 2.5 hours to test a fixed-location wireless charger unit 
and 1 hour to test an open-placement wireless charger unit.
    The Wireless Power Consortium database does not identify if the 
wireless charger is a fixed-location or an open-placement wireless 
charger. Based on DOE's market research, the vast majority of wireless 
chargers are open-placement wireless chargers. Therefore, DOE is 
estimating the costs to small businesses using the estimated per unit 
open-placement wireless charger testing costs.
    Using the previously calculated fully-burdened labor rate of $46.65 
for an electrical technician to conduct these tests, manufacturers 
would incur approximately $47 per unit. DOE requires at least two units 
be tested per basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates manufacturers would 
incur approximately $94 to conduct the no-battery mode test for one 
open-placement wireless charger unit under appendix Y1.
    DOE estimates that all small businesses combined would incur 
approximately $31,000 to test all their wireless chargers under 
appendix Y1.\28\ The potential range of testing costs for an individual 
small business would be between $94 (to test one wireless charger 
model) to approximately $17,200 (to test 183 wireless charger models), 
with an average cost of approximately $2,350 to test 25 wireless 
charger models (the average number of models) under appendix Y1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ $94 (testing cost per model) x 327 (number of wireless 
charger models manufactured by all small businesses) = $30,738.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE was able to find annual revenue estimates for 12 of the 13 
wireless charger small businesses DOE identified. DOE was not able to 
identify any reliable annual revenue estimates for the remaining 
wireless charger small businesses DOE identified. Based on the number 
of wireless charger models each small business manufactures, DOE 
estimates that the $94 per model testing cost would represent less than 
2 percent of annual revenue for all 12 of the wireless charger small 
businesses that DOE found annual revenue estimates for.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the final rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    As previously stated in this section, DOE is required to review 
existing DOE test procedures for all covered products every 7 years. 
Additionally, DOE shall amend test procedures with respect to any 
covered product, if the Secretary determines that amended test 
procedures would more accurately produce test results which measure 
energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a 
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of 
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE has determined that appendix Y1 
would more accurately produce test results to measure the energy 
efficiency of battery chargers.
    While DOE recognizes that requiring that battery charger 
manufacturers use appendix Y1 to comply with future energy conservation 
standards would cause manufacturers to re-test some battery charger 
models or test some wireless chargers, for most battery charger 
manufacturers it will be inexpensive to re-test or test these models. 
Additionally, some manufacturers might be able to partially rely on 
previous test data used manufacturers tested their wired battery 
chargers under appendix Y.
    DOE has determined that there are no better alternatives than this 
amended test procedure in terms of meeting the agency's objectives to 
more accurately measure energy efficiency and reducing burden on 
manufacturers. Therefore, DOE is, in this final rule, amending the DOE 
test procedure for battery chargers.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, 
section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 
7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued

[[Page 55120]]

under EPCA in order to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or unfair 
distribution of burdens'' that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a 
result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of battery chargers must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To 
certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their 
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments 
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for 
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered 
consumer products and commercial equipment, including battery chargers. 
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information 
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to 
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated 
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    DOE is not amending the certification or reporting requirements for 
battery chargers in this final rule. Instead, DOE may consider 
proposals to amend the certification requirements and reporting for 
battery chargers under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and 
equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 
1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that 
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers. DOE has determined that 
this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded 
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 
1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures 
for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial 
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021, 
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final 
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal 
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition 
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on 
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 
required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final 
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that 
the rule

[[Page 55121]]

contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may 
result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these 
requirements do not apply.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant 
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information 
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which 
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; 
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where 
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the 
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and 
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE 
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal 
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or 
industry standards on competition.
    The modifications to the test procedure for battery chargers 
adopted in this final rule incorporates testing methods contained in 
certain sections of IEC 62301, IEC 62040-3, and ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016. 
DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether it 
fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA 
(i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for 
public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on 
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has 
received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

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

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the following 
industry standards into the new appendix Y1:
    1. ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016, ``Wiring Devices--Dimensional 
Specifications,'' ANSI approved February 11, 2016. Appendix Y1 
references the input plug requirements in Figure 1-15 and Figure 5-15 
of ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016. ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 is an industry standard 
that covers the plugs, receptacles, and wall plates used in most 
electrical installations in residential, commercial, and industrial 
buildings.
    2. IEC 62040-3, ``Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)--Part 3: 
Methods of specifying the performance and test requirements,'' Edition 
2.0, 2011-03. Appendix Y1 references various sections from IEC 62040 
for test requirements of uninterruptible power supplies. IEC 62040 is 
an international test standard that specifies the performance and test 
requirements applied to movable, stationary, and fixed electronic 
uninterruptible power systems.
    3. IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of 
standby power, (Edition 2.0, 2011-01)'' into the new appendix Y1. 
Appendix Y1 references various sections from IEC 62301 for test 
conditions, standby power measurement, and measurement uncertainty 
determination. IEC 62301 is an international test standard that 
specifies methods of measurement of electrical power consumption of 
household electrical appliances in standby mode(s) and other low power 
modes, as applicable.
    Copies of ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 can be obtained from American 
National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 
10036, (212) 642-4900, or by going to www.ansi.org.
    Copies of IEC 62040-3 and IEC 62301 can be obtained from the 
International Electrotechnical Commission at 446 Main Street, Sixteenth 
floor, Worcester, MA 01608, or by going to www.iec.ch., and are also 
available from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd 
Street, 4th Floor, New York,

[[Page 55122]]

NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to webstore.ansi.org.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

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

10 CFR Part 430

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

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 25, 
2022, Dr. Geraldine L. Richmond, Undersecretary of Science and 
Innovation, 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 August 25, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

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

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

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
2. Section 429.134 is amended by adding paragraph (u) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product specific enforcement provisions.

* * * * *
    (u) Battery chargers--verification of reported represented value 
obtained from testing in accordance with appendix Y1 of 10 CFR part 430 
subpart B when using an external power supply. If the battery charger 
basic model requires the use of an external power supply (``EPS''), and 
the manufacturer reported EPS is no longer available on the market, 
then DOE will test the battery charger with any compatible EPS that is 
minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards for EPSs 
as prescribed in Sec.  430.32(w) of this subchapter and that meets the 
battery charger input power criteria.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

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


Sec.  430.3   [Amended]

0
4. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (e)(22) introductory text, removing the text ``Appendix 
Y'', and adding in its place the text ``appendices Y and Y1'';
0
b. In paragraph (p)(3) introductory text, removing the text ``appendix 
Y'', and adding in its place the text ``appendices Y and Y1''; and
0
c. In paragraph (p)(6), removing the text ``Y, Z,'', and adding in its 
place the text ``Y, Y1, Z''.

0
5. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (aa) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.23  Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water 
consumption.

* * * * *
    (aa) Battery Chargers. (1) For battery chargers subject to 
compliance with the relevant standard at Sec.  430.32(z) as that 
standard appeared in the January 1, 2022, edition of 10 CFR parts 200-
499:
    (i) Measure the maintenance mode power, standby power, off mode 
power, battery discharge energy, 24-hour energy consumption and 
measured duration of the charge and maintenance mode test for a battery 
charger other than uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with 
appendix Y to this subpart;
    (ii) Calculate the unit energy consumption of a battery charger 
other than uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with appendix Y 
to this subpart;
    (iii) Calculate the average load adjusted efficiency of an 
uninterruptible power supply in accordance with appendix Y to this 
subpart.
    (2) For a battery charger subject to compliance with any amended 
relevant standard provided in Sec.  430.32 that is published after 
September 8, 2022:
    (i) Measure active mode energy, maintenance mode power, no-battery 
mode power, off mode power and battery discharge energy for a battery 
charger other than uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with 
appendix Y1 to this subpart.
    (ii) Calculate the standby power of a battery charger other than 
uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with appendix Y1, to this 
subpart.
    (iii) Calculate the average load adjusted efficiency of an 
uninterruptible power supply in accordance with appendix Y1 to this 
subpart.
* * * * *

0
6. Appendix Y to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory note and introductory text;
0
b. Revising sections 2.1.0, 3.1.4.(b), 3.2.5.(f), 3.3.4, 3.3.6.(c)(5), 
and 3.3.8.;
0
c. Revising Table 3.3.2 to section 3.3.10.; and
0
d. Revising sections 3.3.11. through 3.3.13.
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers

    Note: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under 
appendix Y to determine compliance with the relevant standard from 
Sec.  430.32(z) as that standard appeared in the January 1, 2022, 
edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499. Specifically, before March 7, 2023 
representations must be based upon results generated either under 
this appendix or under appendix Y as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 
200-499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022.
    For any amended standards for battery chargers published after 
September 8, 2022, manufacturers must use the results of testing 
under appendix Y1 to determine compliance. Representations related 
to energy consumption must be made in accordance with the 
appropriate appendix that applies (i.e., appendix Y or appendix Y1) 
when determining compliance with the relevant standard. 
Manufacturers may also use appendix Y1 to certify compliance with 
amended standards, published after September 8, 2022, prior to the 
applicable compliance date for those standards.

* * * * *

[[Page 55123]]

    2.10. C-Rate (C) is the rate of charge or discharge, calculated 
by dividing the charge or discharge current by the nameplate battery 
charge capacity of the battery. For example, a 0.2 C-rate would 
result in a charge or discharge period of 5 hours.
* * * * *

3.1.4. Verifying the UUT's Input Voltage and Input Frequency

* * * * *
    (b) If a charger is powered by a low-voltage DC or AC input, and 
the manufacturer packages the charger with an external power supply 
(``EPS''), sells, or recommends an optional EPS capable of providing 
that low voltage input, then the charger shall be tested using that 
EPS and the input reference source shall be 115 V at 60 Hz. If the 
EPS cannot be operated with AC input voltage at 115 V at 60 Hz, the 
charger shall not be tested.
* * * * *

3.2.5. Accessing the Battery for the Test

* * * * *
    (f) If any of the following conditions noted immediately below 
in sections 3.2.5.(f)(1) to 3.2.5.(f)(3) are applicable, preventing 
the measurement of the Battery Discharge Energy and the Charging and 
Maintenance Mode Energy, a manufacturer must submit a petition for a 
test procedure waiver in accordance with Sec.  430.27:
    (1) Inability to access the battery terminals;
    (2) Access to the battery terminals destroys charger 
functionality; or
    (3) Inability to draw current from the test battery.
* * * * *

3.3.4. Preparing the Battery for Charge Testing

    Following any conditioning prior to beginning the battery charge 
test (section 3.3.6 of this appendix), the test battery shall be 
fully discharged to the end of discharge voltage prescribed in Table 
3.3.2 of this appendix, or until the UUT circuitry terminates the 
discharge.
* * * * *

3.3.6. Testing Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Connect the test battery to the battery charger within 3 
minutes of beginning logging. For integral battery products, connect 
the product to a cradle or EPS within 3 minutes of beginning 
logging;
* * * * *

3.3.8. Battery Discharge Energy Test

    (a) If multiple batteries were charged simultaneously, the 
discharge energy is the sum of the discharge energies of all the 
batteries.
    (1) For a multi-port charger, batteries that were charged in 
separate ports shall be discharged independently.
    (2) For a batch charger, batteries that were charged as a group 
may be discharged individually, as a group, or in sub-groups 
connected in series and/or parallel. The position of each battery 
with respect to the other batteries need not be maintained.
    (b) During discharge, the battery voltage and discharge current 
shall be sampled and recorded at least once per minute. The values 
recorded may be average or instantaneous values.
    (c) For this test, the technician shall follow these steps:
    (1) Ensure that the test battery has been charged by the UUT and 
rested according to sections 3.3.6. and 3.3.7 of this appendix.
    (2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant discharge rate and 
the end-of-discharge voltage in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the 
relevant battery chemistry.
    (3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer and begin recording 
the voltage, current, and wattage, if available from the battery 
analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage is reached or the UUT 
circuitry terminates the discharge, the test battery shall be 
returned to an open-circuit condition. If current continues to be 
drawn from the test battery after the end-of-discharge condition is 
first reached, this additional energy is not to be counted in the 
battery discharge energy.
    (d) If not available from the battery analyzer, the battery 
discharge energy (in watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the 
voltage (in volts), current (in amperes), and sample period (in 
hours) for each sample, and then summing over all sample periods 
until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached.
* * * * *

   Table 3.3.2--Required Battery Discharge Rates and End-of-Discharge
                            Battery Voltages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       End-of-discharge
         Battery chemistry           Discharge rate    voltage *  (volts
                                           (C)             per cell)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA)..               0.2                1.75
Flooded Lead Acid.................               0.2                1.70
Nickel Cadmium (NiCd).............               0.2                 1.0
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH).......               0.2                 1.0
Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion)..............               0.2                 2.5
Lithium-Ion Polymer...............               0.2                 2.5
Lithium Iron Phosphate............               0.2                 2.0
Rechargeable Alkaline.............               0.2                 0.9
Silver Zinc.......................               0.2                 1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If the presence of protective circuitry prevents the battery cells
  from being discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage specified, then
  discharge battery cells to the lowest possible voltage permitted by
  the protective circuitry.

3.3.11. Standby Mode Energy Consumption Measurement

    The standby mode measurement depends on the configuration of the 
battery charger, as follows:
    (a) Conduct a measurement of standby power consumption while the 
battery charger is connected to the power source. Disconnect the 
battery from the charger, allow the charger to operate for at least 
30 minutes, and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time 
series integral of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period, 
divided by the period of measurement. If the battery charger has 
manual on-off switches, all must be turned on for the duration of 
the standby mode test.
    (b) Standby mode may also apply to products with integral 
batteries, as follows:
    (1) If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power 
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the 
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which 
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging 
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and 
standby mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or 
adapter alone.
    (2) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord 
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry, 
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and standby mode 
power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero 
watts).
    (3) If the product contains integrated power conversion and 
charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power 
cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain 
connected to mains, and standby mode measurement is not applicable.

3.3.12. Off Mode Energy Consumption Measurement

    The off mode measurement depends on the configuration of the 
battery charger, as follows:
    (a) If the battery charger has manual on-off switches, record a 
measurement of off mode energy consumption while the battery charger 
is connected to the power source.

[[Page 55124]]

Remove the battery from the charger, allow the charger to operate 
for at least 30 minutes, and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed 
as the time series integral of the power consumed over a 10-minute 
test period, divided by the period of measurement, with all manual 
on-off switches turned off. If the battery charger does not have 
manual on-off switches, record that the off mode measurement is not 
applicable to this product.
    (b) Off mode may also apply to products with integral batteries, 
as follows:
    (1) If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power 
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the 
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which 
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging 
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and off 
mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or adapter 
alone.
    (2) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord 
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry, 
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and off mode 
power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero 
watts).
    (3) If the product contains integrated power conversion and 
charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power 
cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain 
connected to mains, and off mode measurement is not applicable.

3.3.13. Unit Energy Consumption Calculation

    Unit energy consumption (UEC) shall be calculated for a battery 
charger using one of the two equations (equation (i) or equation 
(ii)) listed in this section. If a battery charger is tested and its 
charge duration as determined in section 3.3.2 of this appendix 
minus 5 hours is greater than the threshold charge time listed in 
Table 3.3.3 of this appendix (i.e. (tcd - 5) * n > 
ta&m), equation (ii) shall be used to calculate UEC; 
otherwise a battery charger's UEC shall be calculated using equation 
(i).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.002

Where:

E24 = 24-hour energy as determined in section 3.3.10 of this 
appendix,
Measured Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in section 
3.3.8. of this appendix,
Pm = Maintenance mode power as determined in section 3.3.9. of this 
appendix,
Psb = Standby mode power as determined in section 3.3.11. of this 
appendix,
Poff = Off mode power as determined in section 3.3.12. of this 
appendix,
tcd = Charge test duration as determined in section 3.3.2. of this 
appendix, and
ta&m, n, tsb, and toff, are constants used depending upon a device's 
product class and found in Table 3.3.3:

                                                       Table 3.3.3--Battery Charger Usage Profiles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Product class                                                Hours per day ***               Charges      Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    (n)      charge time *
                                                                     Special                                                  --------------------------
                                          Measured battery      characteristic or        Active +        Standby       Off
     Number           Description         energy (measured      highest nameplate       maintenance       (tsb)      (toff)      Number        Hours
                                              Ebatt) **          battery voltage          (ta&m)                                per day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............  Low-Energy...........  <=5 Wh..............  Inductive Connection             20.66         0.10        0.00       0.15          137.73
                                                               ****.
2..............  Low-Energy, Low-       <100 Wh.............  <4 V................              7.82         5.29        0.00       0.54           14.48
                  Voltage.
3..............  Low-Energy, Medium-                          4-10 V..............              6.42         0.30        0.00       0.10           64.20
                  Voltage.
4..............  Low-Energy, High-                            >10 V...............             16.84         0.91        0.00       0.50           33.68
                  Voltage.
5..............  Medium-Energy, Low-    100-3000 Wh.........  <20 V...............              6.52         1.16        0.00       0.11           59.27
                  Voltage.
6..............  Medium-Energy, High-                         >=20 V..............             17.15         6.85        0.00       0.34           50.44
                  Voltage.
7..............  High-Energy..........  >3000 Wh............  ....................              8.14         7.30        0.00       0.32           25.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If the duration of the charge test (minus 5 hours) as determined in section 3.3.2. of this appendix exceeds the threshold charge time, use equation
  (ii) to calculate UEC otherwise use equation (i).
** Measured Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in section 3.3.8.
*** If the total time does not sum to 24 hours per day, the remaining time is allocated to unplugged time, which means there is 0 power consumption and
  no changes to the UEC calculation needed.
**** Fixed-location inductive wireless charger only.


[[Page 55125]]

* * * * *

0
7. Appendix Y1 to subpart B of part 430 is added to read as follows:

Appendix Y1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers

    Note: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this 
appendix Y1 to determine compliance with any amended standards for 
battery chargers provided in Sec.  430.32 that are published after 
September 8, 2022. Representations related to energy or water 
consumption must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix 
that applies (i.e., appendix Y or appendix Y1) when determining 
compliance with the relevant standard. Manufacturers may also use 
appendix Y1 to certify compliance with amended standards, published 
after September 8, 2022, prior to the applicable compliance date for 
those standards.

1. Scope

    This appendix provides the test requirements used to measure the 
energy consumption of battery chargers, including fixed-location 
wireless chargers designed for charging batteries with less than 100 
watt-hour battery energy and open-placement wireless chargers, 
operating at either DC or United States AC line voltage (nominally 
115V at 60Hz). This appendix also provides the test requirements 
used to measure the energy efficiency of uninterruptible power 
supplies as defined in section 2 of this appendix that utilize the 
standardized National Electrical Manufacturer Association (NEMA) 
plug, 1-15P or 5-15P, as specified in ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3) and have an AC output. 
This appendix does not provide a method for testing back-up battery 
chargers.

2. Definitions

    The following definitions are for the purposes of explaining the 
terminology associated with the test method for measuring battery 
charger energy consumption.\1\
    \1\ For clarity on any other terminology used in the test 
method, please refer to IEEE 1515-2000, (Sources for information and 
guidance, see Sec.  430.4).
    2.1. Active mode or charge mode is the state in which the 
battery charger system is connected to the main electricity supply, 
and the battery charger is delivering current, equalizing the cells, 
and performing other one-time or limited-time functions in order to 
bring the battery to a fully charged state.
    2.2. Active power or real power (P) means the average power 
consumed by a unit. For a two terminal device with current and 
voltage waveforms i(t) and v(t), which are periodic with period T, 
the real or active power P is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.003

    2.3. Ambient temperature is the temperature of the ambient air 
immediately surrounding the unit under test.
    2.4. Apparent power (S) is the product of root-mean-square (RMS) 
voltage and RMS current in volt-amperes (VA).
    2.5. Batch charger is a battery charger that charges two or more 
identical batteries simultaneously in a series, parallel, series-
parallel, or parallel-series configuration. A batch charger does not 
have separate voltage or current regulation, nor does it have any 
separate indicators for each battery in the batch. When testing a 
batch charger, the term ``battery'' is understood to mean, 
collectively, all the batteries in the batch that are charged 
together. A charger can be both a batch charger and a multi-port 
charger or multi-voltage charger.
    2.6. Battery or battery pack is an assembly of one or more 
rechargeable cells and any integral protective circuitry intended to 
provide electrical energy to a consumer product, and may be in one 
of the following forms:
    (a) Detachable battery (a battery that is contained in a 
separate enclosure from the consumer product and is intended to be 
removed or disconnected from the consumer product for recharging); 
or
    (b) Integral battery (a battery that is contained within the 
consumer product and is not removed from the consumer product for 
charging purposes). The word ``intended'' in this context refers to 
whether a battery has been designed in such a way as to permit its 
removal or disconnection from its associated consumer product.
    2.7. Battery energy is the energy, in watt-hours, delivered by 
the battery under the specified discharge conditions in the test 
procedure.
    2.8. Battery maintenance mode or maintenance mode, is a subset 
of standby mode in which the battery charger is connected to the 
main electricity supply and the battery is fully charged, but is 
still connected to the charger.
    2.9. Battery rest period is a period of time between discharge 
and charge or between charge and discharge, during which the battery 
is resting in an open-circuit state in ambient air.
    2.10. C-Rate (C) is the rate of charge or discharge, calculated 
by dividing the charge or discharge current by the nameplate battery 
charge capacity of the battery. For example, a 0.2 C-rate would 
result in a charge or discharge period of 5 hours.
    2.11. Cradle is an electrical interface between an integral 
battery product and the rest of the battery charger designed to hold 
the product between uses.
    2.12. Energy storage system is a system consisting of single or 
multiple devices designed to provide power to the UPS inverter 
circuitry.
    2.13. Equalization is a process whereby a battery is 
overcharged, beyond what would be considered ``normal'' charge 
return, so that cells can be balanced, electrolyte mixed, and plate 
sulfation removed.
    2.14. Instructions or manufacturer's instructions means the 
documentation packaged with a product in printed or electronic form 
and any information about the product listed on a website maintained 
by the manufacturer and accessible by the general public at the time 
of the test. It also includes any information on the packaging or on 
the product itself. ``Instructions'' also includes any service 
manuals or data sheets that the manufacturer offers to independent 
service technicians, whether printed or in electronic form.
    2.15. Measured charge capacity of a battery is the product of 
the discharge current in amperes and the time in decimal hours 
required to reach the specified end-of-discharge voltage.
    2.16. Manual on-off switch is a switch activated by the user to 
control power reaching the battery charger. This term does not apply 
to any mechanical, optical, or electronic switches that 
automatically disconnect mains power from the battery charger when a 
battery is removed from a cradle or charging base, or for products 
with non-detachable batteries that control power to the product 
itself.
    2.17. Multi-port charger means a battery charger that charges 
two or more batteries (which may be identical or different) 
simultaneously. The batteries are not connected in series or in 
parallel but with each port having separate voltage and/or current 
regulation. If the charger has status indicators, each port has its 
own indicator(s). A charger can be both a batch charger and a multi-
port charger if it is capable of charging two or more batches of 
batteries simultaneously and each batch has separate regulation and/
or indicator(s).
    2.18. Multi-voltage charger is a battery charger that, by 
design, can charge a variety of batteries (or batches of batteries, 
if also a batch charger) that are of different nameplate battery 
voltages. A multi-voltage charger can also be a multi-port charger 
if it can charge two or more batteries simultaneously with 
independent voltages and/or current regulation.
    2.19. Normal mode is a mode of operation for a UPS in which:
    (a) The AC input supply is within required tolerances and 
supplies the UPS,
    (b) The energy storage system is being maintained at full charge 
or is under recharge, and
    (c) The load connected to the UPS is within the UPS's specified 
power rating.
    2.20. Off mode is the condition, applicable only to units with 
manual on-off switches, in which the battery charger:
    (a) Is connected to the main electricity supply;
    (b) Is not connected to the battery; and
    (c) All manual on-off switches are turned off.
    2.21. Nameplate battery voltage is specified by the battery 
manufacturer and typically printed on the label of the battery 
itself. If there are multiple batteries that are connected in 
series, the nameplate battery voltage of the batteries is the total 
voltage of the series configuration--that is, the nameplate voltage 
of each battery multiplied by the number of batteries connected in 
series. Connecting multiple batteries in parallel does not affect 
the nameplate battery voltage.
    2.22. Nameplate battery charge capacity is the capacity, claimed 
by the battery manufacturer on a label or in instructions, that the 
battery can store, usually given in

[[Page 55126]]

ampere-hours (Ah) or milliampere-hours (mAh) and typically printed 
on the label of the battery itself. If there are multiple batteries 
that are connected in parallel, the nameplate battery charge 
capacity of the batteries is the total charge capacity of the 
parallel configuration, that is, the nameplate charge capacity of 
each battery multiplied by the number of batteries connected in 
parallel. Connecting multiple batteries in series does not affect 
the nameplate charge capacity.
    2.23. Nameplate battery energy capacity means the product (in 
watts-hours (Wh)) of the nameplate battery voltage and the nameplate 
battery charge capacity.
    2.24. No-battery mode is a subset of standby mode and means the 
condition in which:
    (a) The battery charger is connected to the main electricity 
supply;
    (b) The battery is not connected to the charger; and
    (c) For battery chargers with manual on-off switches, all such 
switches are turned on.
    2.25. Reference test load is a load or a condition with a power 
factor of greater than 0.99 in which the AC output socket of the UPS 
delivers the active power (W) for which the UPS is rated.
    2.26. Standby mode means the condition in which the battery 
charge is either in maintenance mode or no battery mode as defined 
in this appendix.
    2.27. Total harmonic distortion (THD), expressed as a percent, 
is the root mean square (RMS) value of an AC signal after the 
fundamental component is removed and interharmonic components are 
ignored, divided by the RMS value of the fundamental component.
    2.28. Uninterruptible power supply or UPS means a battery 
charger consisting of a combination of convertors, switches and 
energy storage devices (such as batteries), constituting a power 
system for maintaining continuity of load power in case of input 
power failure.
    2.28.1. Voltage and frequency dependent UPS or VFD UPS means a 
UPS that produces an AC output where the output voltage and 
frequency are dependent on the input voltage and frequency. This UPS 
architecture does not provide corrective functions like those in 
voltage independent and voltage and frequency independent systems.
    Note to 2.28.1: VFD input dependency may be verified by 
performing the AC input failure test in Section 6.2.2.7 of IEC 
62040-3 Ed. 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3) and 
observing that, at a minimum, the UPS switches from normal mode of 
operation to battery power while the input is interrupted.
    2.28.2. Voltage and frequency independent UPS, or VFI UPS, means 
a UPS where the device remains in normal mode producing an AC output 
voltage and frequency that is independent of input voltage and 
frequency variations and protects the load against adverse effects 
from such variations without depleting the stored energy source.
    Note to 2.28.2: VFI input dependency may be verified by 
performing the steady state input voltage tolerance test and the 
input frequency tolerance test in Sections 6.4.1.1 and 6.4.1.2 of 
IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 respectively, and observing that, at a minimum, 
the UPS produces an output voltage and frequency within the 
specified output range when the input voltage is varied by 10 percent of the rated input voltage and the input frequency 
is varied by 2 percent of the rated input frequency.
    2.28.3. Voltage independent UPS or VI UPS means a UPS that 
produces an AC output within a specific tolerance band that is 
independent of under-voltage or over-voltage variations in the input 
voltage without depleting the stored energy source. The output 
frequency of a VI UPS is dependent on the input frequency, similar 
to a voltage and frequency dependent system.
    Note to 2.28.3: VI input dependency may be verified by 
performing the steady state input voltage tolerance test in Section 
6.4.1.1 of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0 and ensuring that the UPS remains in 
normal mode with the output voltage within the specified output 
range when the input voltage is varied by 10% of the 
rated input voltage.
    2.29. Unit under test (UUT) in this appendix refers to the 
combination of the battery charger and battery being tested.
    2.30. Wireless charger is a battery charger that can charge 
batteries inductively.
    2.30.1. Fixed-location wireless charger is an inductive wireless 
battery charger that incorporates a physical receiver locating 
feature (e.g., by physical peg, cradle, locking mechanism, magnet, 
etc.) to repeatably align or orient the position of the receiver 
with respect to the transmitter.
    2.30.2. Open-placement wireless charger is an inductive wireless 
charger that does not incorporate a physical receiver locating 
feature (e.g., by a physical peg, cradle, locking mechanism, magnet 
etc.) to repeatably align or orient the position of the receiver 
with respect to the transmitter.

3. Testing Requirements for all Battery Chargers Other Than 
Uninterruptible Power Supplies and Open-Placement Wireless Chargers

3.1. Standard Test Conditions

3.1.1. General

    The values that may be measured or calculated during the conduct 
of this test procedure have been summarized for easy reference in 
Table 3.1.1 of this appendix.

           Table 3.1.1--List of Measured or Calculated Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of measured or calculated value              Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Duration of the Charge and            Section 3.3.2.
 Maintenance Modes test.
2. Battery Discharge Energy (Ebatt)....  Section 3.3.8.
3. Initial time and power (W) of the     Section 3.3.6.
 input current of connected battery.
4. Active and Maintenance Modes Energy   Section 3.3.6.
 Consumption.
5. Maintenance Mode Power (Pm).........  Section 3.3.9.
6. Active mode Energy Consumption (Ea).  Section 3.3.10.
7. No-Battery Mode Power (Pnb).........  Section 3.3.11.
8. Off Mode Power (Poff)...............  Section 3.3.12.
9. Standby Mode Power (Psb)............  Section 3.3.13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1.2. Verifying Accuracy and Precision of Measuring Equipment

    Any power measurement equipment utilized for testing must 
conform to the uncertainty and resolution requirements outlined in 
Section 4, ``General conditions for measurement'', as well as 
Annexes B, ``Notes on the measurement of low-power modes'', and D, 
``Determination of uncertainty of measurement'', of IEC 62301 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3).

3.1.3. Setting Up the Test Room

    All tests, battery conditioning, and battery rest periods shall 
be carried out in a room with an air speed immediately surrounding 
the UUT of <=0.5 m/s. The ambient temperature shall be maintained at 
20 [deg]C  5 [deg]C throughout the test. There shall be 
no intentional cooling of the UUT such as by use of separately 
powered fans, air conditioners, or heat sinks. The UUT shall be 
conditioned, rested, and tested on a thermally non-conductive 
surface. When not undergoing active testing, batteries shall be 
stored at 20 [deg]C  5 [deg]C.

3.1.4. Verifying the UUT's Input Voltage and Input Frequency

    (a) If the UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage 
input in the United States, it shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. If 
the UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage input but 
cannot be operated at 115 V at 60 Hz, it shall not be tested.
    (b) If a battery charger is powered by a low-voltage DC or AC 
input and the manufacturer packages the battery charger with an 
external power supply (``EPS''), test the battery charger using the 
packaged EPS; if the battery charger does not include a pre-packaged 
EPS, then test the battery charger with an EPS sold

[[Page 55127]]

and recommended by the manufacturer; if the manufacturer does not 
recommend an EPS that it sells, test the battery charger with an EPS 
that the manufacturer recommends for use in the manufacturer 
materials. The input reference source shall be 115 V at 60 Hz. If 
the EPS cannot be operated with AC input voltage at 115 V at 60 Hz, 
the charger shall not be tested.
    (c) If a battery charger is designed for operation only on DC 
input voltage and if the provisions of section 3.1.4.(b) of this 
appendix do not apply, test the battery charger with an external 
power supply that minimally complies with the applicable energy 
conservation standard and meets the external power supply parameters 
specified by the battery charger manufacturer. The input voltage 
shall be within 1 percent of the battery charger 
manufacturer specified voltage.
    (d) If the input voltage is AC, the input frequency shall be 
within 1 percent of the specified frequency. The THD of 
the input voltage shall be <=2 percent, up to and including the 13th 
harmonic. The crest factor of the input voltage shall be between 
1.34 and 1.49.
    (e) If the input voltage is DC, the AC ripple voltage (RMS) 
shall be:
    (1) <=0.2 V for DC voltages up to 10 V; or
    (2) <=2 percent of the DC voltage for DC voltages over 10 V.

3.2. Unit Under Test Setup Requirements

3.2.1. General Setup

    (a) The battery charger system shall be prepared and set up in 
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, except where those 
instructions conflict with the requirements of this test procedure. 
If no instructions are given, then factory or ``default'' settings 
shall be used, or where there are no indications of such settings, 
the UUT shall be tested in the condition as it would be supplied to 
an end user.
    (b) If the battery charger has user controls to select from two 
or more charge rates (such as regular or fast charge) or different 
charge currents, the test shall be conducted at the fastest charge 
rate that is recommended by the manufacturer for everyday use, or, 
failing any explicit recommendation, the factory-default charge 
rate. If the charger has user controls for selecting special charge 
cycles that are recommended only for occasional use to preserve 
battery health, such as equalization charge, removing memory, or 
battery conditioning, these modes are not required to be tested. The 
settings of the controls shall be listed in the report for each 
test.

3.2.2. Selection and Treatment of the Battery Charger

    The UUT, including the battery charger and its associated 
battery, shall be new products of the type and condition that would 
be sold to a customer. If the battery is lead-acid chemistry and the 
battery is to be stored for more than 24 hours between its initial 
acquisition and testing, the battery shall be charged before such 
storage.

3.2.3. Selection of Batteries To Use for Testing

    (a) For chargers with integral batteries, the battery packaged 
with the charger shall be used for testing. For chargers with 
detachable batteries, the battery or batteries to be used for 
testing will vary depending on whether there are any batteries 
packaged with the battery charger.
    (1) If batteries are packaged with the charger, batteries for 
testing shall be selected from the batteries packaged with the 
battery charger, according to the procedure in section 3.2.3(b) of 
this appendix.
    (2) If no batteries are packaged with the charger, but the 
instructions specify or recommend batteries for use with the 
charger, batteries for testing shall be selected from those 
recommended or specified in the instructions, according to the 
procedure in section 3.2.3(b) of this appendix.
    (3) If no batteries are packaged with the charger and the 
instructions do not specify or recommend batteries for use with the 
charger, batteries for testing shall be selected from any that are 
suitable for use with the charger, according to the procedure in 
section 3.2.3(b) of this appendix.
    (b)(1) From the detachable batteries specified in section 
3.2.3.(a) of this appendix, use Table 3.2.1 of this appendix to 
select the batteries to be used for testing, depending on the type 
of battery charger being tested. The battery charger types 
represented by the rows in the table are mutually exclusive. Find 
the single applicable row for the UUT, and test according to those 
requirements. Select only the single battery configuration specified 
for the battery charger type in Table 3.2.1 of this section.
    (2) If the battery selection criteria specified in Table 3.2.1 
of this appendix results in two or more batteries or configurations 
of batteries of different chemistries, but with equal voltage and 
capacity ratings, determine the maintenance mode power, as specified 
in section 3.3.9 of this appendix, for each of the batteries or 
configurations of batteries, and select for testing the battery or 
configuration of batteries with the highest maintenance mode power.
    (c) A charger is considered as:
    (1) Single-capacity if all associated batteries have the same 
nameplate battery charge capacity (see definition) and, if it is a 
batch charger, all configurations of the batteries have the same 
nameplate battery charge capacity.
    (2) Multi-capacity if there are associated batteries or 
configurations of batteries that have different nameplate battery 
charge capacities.
    (d) The selected battery or batteries will be referred to as the 
``test battery'' and will be used through the remainder of this test 
procedure.

                                   Table 3.2.1--Battery Selection for Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Type of charger                                          Tests to perform
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Battery selection (from all
           Multi-voltage                   Multi-port            Multi-capacity         configurations of all
                                                                                        associated batteries)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.................................  No....................  No....................  Any associated battery.
No.................................  No....................  Yes...................  Highest charge capacity
                                                                                      battery.
No.................................  Yes...................  Yes or No.............  Use all ports. Use the
                                                                                      maximum number of
                                                                                      identical batteries with
                                                                                      the highest nameplate
                                                                                      battery charge capacity
                                                                                      that the charger can
                                                                                      accommodate.
Yes................................  No....................  No....................  Highest voltage battery.
                                    ------------------------------------------------
Yes................................               Yes to either or both              Use all ports. Use the
                                                                                      battery or configuration
                                                                                      of batteries with the
                                                                                      highest individual
                                                                                      voltage. If multiple
                                                                                      batteries meet this
                                                                                      criteria, then use the
                                                                                      battery or configuration
                                                                                      of batteries with the
                                                                                      highest total nameplate
                                                                                      battery charge capacity at
                                                                                      the highest individual
                                                                                      voltage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2.4. Limiting Other Non-Battery-Charger Functions

    (a) If the battery charger or product containing the battery 
charger does not have any additional functions unrelated to battery 
charging, this section may be skipped.
    (b) Any optional functions controlled by the user and not 
associated with the battery charging process (e.g., the answering 
machine in a cordless telephone charging base) shall be switched 
off. If it is not possible to switch such functions off, they shall 
be set to their lowest power-consuming mode during the test.
    (c) If the battery charger takes any physically separate 
connectors or cables not required for battery charging but 
associated with its other functionality (such as phone lines, serial 
or USB connections, Ethernet, cable TV lines, etc.), these 
connectors or cables shall be left disconnected during the testing.
    (d) Any manual on-off switches specifically associated with the 
battery

[[Page 55128]]

charging process shall be switched on for the duration of the 
charge, maintenance, and no-battery mode tests, and switched off for 
the off mode test.

3.2.5. Accessing the Battery for the Test

    (a) The technician may need to disassemble the end-use product 
or battery charger to gain access to the battery terminals for the 
Battery Discharge Energy Test in section 3.3.8 of this appendix. If 
the battery terminals are not clearly labeled, the technician shall 
use a voltmeter to identify the positive and negative terminals. 
These terminals will be the ones that give the largest voltage 
difference and are able to deliver significant current (0.2 C or 1/
hr) into a load.
    (b) All conductors used for contacting the battery must be 
cleaned and burnished prior to connecting in order to decrease 
voltage drops and achieve consistent results.
    (c) Manufacturer's instructions for disassembly shall be 
followed, except those instructions that:
    (1) Lead to any permanent alteration of the battery charger 
circuitry or function;
    (2) Could alter the energy consumption of the battery charger 
compared to that experienced by a user during typical use, e.g., due 
to changes in the airflow through the enclosure of the UUT; or
    (3) Conflict requirements of this test procedure.
    (d) Care shall be taken by the technician during disassembly to 
follow appropriate safety precautions. If the functionality of the 
device or its safety features is compromised, the product shall be 
discarded after testing.
    (e) Some products may include protective circuitry between the 
battery cells and the remainder of the device. If the manufacturer 
provides a description for accessing the connections at the output 
of the protective circuitry, these connections shall be used to 
discharge the battery and measure the discharge energy. The energy 
consumed by the protective circuitry during discharge shall not be 
measured or credited as battery energy.
    (f) If any of the following conditions specified in sections 
3.2.5.(f)(1) to 3.2.5.(f)(3) of this appendix are applicable, 
preventing the measurement of the Battery Discharge Energy and the 
Charging and Maintenance Mode Energy, a manufacturer must submit a 
petition for a test procedure waiver in accordance with Sec.  
430.27:
    (1) Inability to access the battery terminals;
    (2) Access to the battery terminals destroys charger 
functionality; or
    (3) Inability to draw current from the test battery.

3.2.6. Determining Charge Capacity for Batteries With No Rating

    (a) If there is no rating for the battery charge capacity on the 
battery or in the instructions, then the technician shall determine 
a discharge current that meets the following requirements. The 
battery shall be fully charged and then discharged at this constant-
current rate until it reaches the end-of-discharge voltage specified 
in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix. The discharge time must be not less 
than 4.5 hours nor more than 5 hours. In addition, the discharge 
test (section 3.3.8 of this appendix) (which may not be starting 
with a fully-charged battery) shall reach the end-of-discharge 
voltage within 5 hours. The same discharge current shall be used for 
both the preparations step (section 3.3.4 of this appendix) and the 
discharge test (section 3.3.8 of this appendix). The test report 
shall include the discharge current used and the resulting discharge 
times for both a fully-charged battery and for the discharge test.
    (b) For this section, the battery is considered as ``fully 
charged'' when either: it has been charged by the UUT until an 
indicator on the UUT shows that the charge is complete; or it has 
been charged by a battery analyzer at a current not greater than the 
discharge current until the battery analyzer indicates that the 
battery is fully charged.
    (c) When there is no capacity rating, a suitable discharge 
current must generally be determined by trial and error. Since the 
conditioning step does not require constant-current discharges, the 
trials themselves may also be counted as part of battery 
conditioning.

3.3. Test Measurement

    The test sequence to measure the battery charger energy 
consumption is summarized in Table 3.3.1 of this appendix, and 
explained in detail in this appendix. Measurements shall be made 
under test conditions and with the equipment specified in sections 
3.1 and 3.2 of this appendix.

                                                               Table 3.3.1--Test Sequence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Equipment needed
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Thermometer
            Step/description                                                                               Battery                         (for flooded
                                                 Data taken?           Test battery       Charger        analyzer or     AC power meter     lead-acid
                                                                                                          constant-                          battery
                                                                                                         current load                     chargers only)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Record general data on UUT; Section   Yes.......................               X                X   ...............  ...............  ...............
 3.3.1.
2. Determine Active and Maintenance      No........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Modes Test duration; Section 3.3.2.
3. Battery conditioning; Section 3.3.3.  No........................               X                X                X   ...............  ...............
4. Prepare battery for Active Mode       No........................               X                X   ...............  ...............  ...............
 test; Section 3.3.4.
5. Battery rest period; Section 3.3.5..  No........................               X   ...............  ...............  ...............               X
6. Conduct Active and Maintenance Modes  Yes.......................               X                X   ...............               X   ...............
 Test; Section 3.3.6.
7. Battery Rest Period; Section 3.3.7..  No........................               X   ...............  ...............  ...............               X
8. Battery Discharge Energy Test;        Yes.......................               X   ...............               X   ...............  ...............
 Section 3.3.8.
9. Determine the Maintenance Mode        Yes.......................               X                X   ...............               X   ...............
 Power; Section 3.3.9.
10. Determine Active Charge Energy;      Yes.......................               X                X   ...............               X   ...............
 Section 3.3.10.
11. Conduct No-Battery Mode Test;        Yes.......................  ...............               X   ...............               X   ...............
 Section 3.3.11.
12. Conduct Off Mode Test; Section       Yes.......................  ...............               X   ...............               X   ...............
 3.3.12.
13. Calculating Standby Mode Power;      Yes.......................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Section 3.3.13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55129]]

3.3.1. Recording General Data on the UUT

    The technician shall record:
    (a) The manufacturer and model of the battery charger;
    (b) The presence and status of any additional functions 
unrelated to battery charging;
    (c) The manufacturer, model, and number of batteries in the test 
battery;
    (d) The nameplate battery voltage of the test battery;
    (e) The nameplate battery charge capacity of the test battery; 
and
    (f) The nameplate battery charge energy of the test battery.
    (g) The settings of the controls, if battery charger has user 
controls to select from two or more charge rates.

3.3.2. Determining the Duration of the Charge and Maintenance Modes 
Test

    (a) The charge and maintenance modes test, described in detail 
in section 3.3.6 of this appendix, shall be 24 hours in length or 
longer, as determined by the items in sections 3.3.2.(a)(1) to 
3.3.2.(a)(3) of this appendix. Proceed in order until a test 
duration is determined. In case when the battery charger does not 
enter its true battery maintenance mode, the test shall continue 
until 5 hours after the true battery maintenance mode has been 
captured.
    (1) If the battery charger has an indicator to show that the 
battery is fully charged, that indicator shall be used as follows: 
if the indicator shows that the battery is charged after 19 hours of 
charging, the test shall be terminated at 24 hours. Conversely, if 
the full-charge indication is not yet present after 19 hours of 
charging, the test shall continue until 5 hours after the indication 
is present.
    (2) If there is no indicator, but the manufacturer's 
instructions indicate that charging this battery or this capacity of 
battery should be complete within 19 hours, the test shall be for 24 
hours. If the instructions indicate that charging may take longer 
than 19 hours, the test shall be run for the longest estimated 
charge time plus 5 hours.
    (3) If there is no indicator and no time estimate in the 
instructions, but the charging current is stated on the charger or 
in the instructions, calculate the test duration as the longer of 24 
hours or:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.004

    (b) If none of section 3.3.2.(a) applies, the duration of the 
test shall be 24 hours.

3.3.3. Battery Conditioning

    (a) No conditioning is to be done on lithium-ion batteries. The 
test technician shall proceed directly to battery preparation, 
section 3.3.4 of this appendix, when testing chargers for these 
batteries.
    (b) Products with integral batteries will have to be 
disassembled per the instructions in section 3.2.5 of this appendix, 
and the battery disconnected from the charger for discharging.
    (c) Batteries of other chemistries that have not been previously 
cycled are to be conditioned by performing two charges and two 
discharges, followed by a charge, as sections 3.3.3.(c)(1) to 
3.3.3.(c)(5) of this appendix. No data need be recorded during 
battery conditioning.
    (1) The test battery shall be fully charged for the duration 
specified in section 3.3.2 of this appendix or longer using the UUT.
    (2) The test battery shall then be fully discharged using 
either:
    (i) A battery analyzer at a rate not to exceed 1 C, until its 
average cell voltage under load reaches the end-of-discharge voltage 
specified in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the relevant battery 
chemistry; or
    (ii) The UUT, until the UUT ceases operation due to low battery 
voltage.
    (3) The test battery shall again be fully charged per step in 
section 3.3.3(c)(1) of this appendix.
    (4) The test battery shall again be fully discharged per step in 
section 3.3.3(c)(2) of this appendix.
    (5) The test battery shall be again fully charged per step in 
section 3.3.3(c)(1) of this appendix.
    (d) Batteries of chemistries, other than lithium-ion, that are 
known to have been through at least two previous full charge/
discharge cycles shall only be charged once per step in section 
3.3.3(c)(5) of this appendix.

3.3.4. Preparing the Battery for Charge Testing

    Following any conditioning prior to beginning the battery charge 
test (section 3.3.6 of this appendix), the test battery shall be 
fully discharged to the end of discharge voltage prescribed in Table 
3.3.2 of this appendix, or until the UUT circuitry terminates the 
discharge.

3.3.5. Resting the Battery

    The test battery shall be rested between preparation and the 
battery charge test. The rest period shall be at least one hour and 
not exceed 24 hours. For batteries with flooded cells, the 
electrolyte temperature shall be less than 30 [deg]C before 
charging, even if the rest period must be extended longer than 24 
hours.

3.3.6. Testing Active Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode

    (a) The Active Charge and Battery Maintenance Modes test 
measures energy consumed during charge mode and some time spent in 
the maintenance mode of the UUT. Functions required for battery 
conditioning that happen only with some user-selected switch or 
other control shall not be included in this measurement. (The 
technician shall manually turn off any battery conditioning cycle or 
setting.) Regularly occurring battery conditioning or maintenance 
functions that are not controlled by the user will, by default, be 
incorporated into this measurement.
    (b) During the measurement period, input power values to the UUT 
shall be recorded at least once every minute.
    (1) If possible, the technician shall set the data logging 
system to record the average power during the sample interval. The 
total energy is computed as the sum of power samples (in watts) 
multiplied by the sample interval (in hours).
    (2) If this setting is not possible, then the power analyzer 
shall be set to integrate or accumulate the input power over the 
measurement period and this result shall be used as the total 
energy.
    (c) The technician shall follow these steps:
    (1) Ensure that the user-controllable device functionality not 
associated with battery charging and any battery conditioning cycle 
or setting are turned off, as instructed in section 3.2.4 of this 
appendix;
    (2) Ensure that the test battery used in this test has been 
conditioned, prepared, discharged, and rested as described in 
sections 3.3.3. through 3.3.5. of this appendix;
    (3) Connect the data logging equipment to the battery charger;
    (4) Record the start time of the measurement period, and begin 
logging the input power;
    (5) Connect the test battery to the battery charger within 3 
minutes of beginning logging. For integral battery products, connect 
the product to a cradle or EPS within 3 minutes of beginning 
logging;
    (6) After the test battery is connected, record the initial time 
and power (W) of the input current to the UUT. These measurements 
shall be taken within the first 10 minutes of active charging;
    (7) Record the input power for the duration of the ``Maintenance 
Mode Test'' period, as determined by section 3.3.2. of this 
appendix. The actual time that power is connected to the UUT shall 
be within 5 minutes of the specified period; and
    (8) Disconnect power to the UUT, terminate data logging, and 
record the final time.

3.3.7. Resting the Battery

    The test battery shall be rested between charging and 
discharging. The rest period shall be at least 1 hour and not more 
than 4 hours, with an exception for flooded cells. For batteries 
with flooded cells, the electrolyte temperature shall be less than 
30 [deg]C before charging, even if the rest period must be extended 
beyond 4 hours.

3.3.8. Battery Discharge Energy Test

    (a) If multiple batteries were charged simultaneously, the 
discharge energy (Ebatt) is the sum of the discharge 
energies of all the batteries.

[[Page 55130]]

    (1) For a multi-port charger, batteries that were charged in 
separate ports shall be discharged independently.
    (2) For a batch charger, batteries that were charged as a group 
may be discharged individually, as a group, or in sub-groups 
connected in series and/or parallel. The position of each battery 
with respect to the other batteries need not be maintained.
    (b) During discharge, the battery voltage and discharge current 
shall be sampled and recorded at least once per minute. The values 
recorded may be average or instantaneous values.
    (c) For this test, the technician shall follow these steps:
    (1) Ensure that the test battery has been charged by the UUT and 
rested according to the procedures prescribed in sections 3.3.6 and 
3.3.7 of this appendix.
    (2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant discharge rate and 
the end-of-discharge voltage in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the 
relevant battery chemistry.
    (3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer and begin recording 
the voltage, current, and wattage, if available from the battery 
analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage is reached or the UUT 
circuitry terminates the discharge, the test battery shall be 
returned to an open-circuit condition. If current continues to be 
drawn from the test battery after the end-of-discharge condition is 
first reached, this additional energy is not to be counted in the 
battery discharge energy.
    (d) If not available from the battery analyzer, the battery 
discharge energy (in watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the 
voltage (in volts), current (in amperes), and sample period (in 
hours) for each sample, and then summing over all sample periods 
until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached.

   Table 3.3.2--Required Battery Discharge Rates and End-of-Discharge
                            Battery Voltages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              End-of-
                                                             discharge
            Battery chemistry             Discharge rate     voltage*
                                                (C)         (volts per
                                                               cell)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA)........             0.2            1.75
Flooded Lead Acid.......................             0.2            1.70
Nickel Cadmium (NiCd)...................             0.2             1.0
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH).............             0.2             1.0
Lithium-ion (Li-Ion)....................             0.2             2.5
Lithium-ion Polymer.....................             0.2             2.5
Lithium Iron Phosphate..................             0.2             2.0
Rechargeable Alkaline...................             0.2             0.9
Silver Zinc.............................             0.2             1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    *If the presence of protective circuitry prevents the battery 
cells from being discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage 
specified, then discharge battery cells to the lowest possible 
voltage permitted by the protective circuitry.

3.3.9. Determining the Maintenance Mode Power

    After the measurement period is complete, the technician shall 
determine the average maintenance mode power consumption 
(Pm) by examining the power-versus-time data from the 
charge and maintenance mode test and:
    (a) If the maintenance mode power is cyclic or shows periodic 
pulses, compute the average power over a time period that spans a 
whole number of cycles and includes at least the last 4 hours.
    (b) Otherwise, calculate the average power value over the last 4 
hours.

3.3.10. Determining the Active Charge Energy

    After the measurement period is complete, the technician shall 
determine the total active charge energy (Ea) by 
examining the power-versus-time data from the charge and maintenance 
mode test and:
    (a) First determine when the battery charger enters maintenance 
mode by examining the power-versus-time data to identify when the 
input power enters either a steady state or a cyclic state with 
average power for that period being the same as the maintenance mode 
power determined in section 3.3.9. of this appendix.
    (b) The accumulated energy or the average input power, 
integrated over the test period from the initial recorded input time 
up until when the battery charger enters maintenance mode would be 
the active charge energy, Ea.

3.3.11. No-Battery Mode Energy Consumption Measurement

    The no-battery mode measurement depends on the configuration of 
the battery charger, as follows:
    (a) Conduct a measurement of no-battery power consumption while 
the battery charger is connected to the power source. Disconnect the 
battery from the charger, allow the charger to operate for at least 
30 minutes, and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time 
series integral of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period, 
divided by the period of measurement. If the battery charger has 
manual on-off switches, all must be turned on for the duration of 
the no-battery mode test.
    (b) No-battery mode may also apply to products with integral 
batteries, as follows:
    (1) If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power 
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the 
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which 
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging 
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and no-
battery mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or 
adapter alone.
    (2) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord 
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry, 
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and no-battery 
mode power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., 
zero watts).
    (3) If the product contains integrated power conversion and 
charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power 
cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain 
connected to mains, and no-battery mode measurement is not 
applicable.

3.3.12. Off Mode Energy Consumption Measurement

    The off mode measurement depends on the configuration of the 
battery charger, as follows:
    (a) If the battery charger has manual on-off switches, record a 
measurement of off mode energy consumption while the battery charger 
is connected to the power source. Remove the battery from the 
charger, allow the charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, and 
record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time series integral 
of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period, divided by the 
period of measurement, with all manual on-off switches turned off. 
If the battery charger does not have manual on-off switches, record 
that the off mode measurement is not applicable to this product.
    (b) Off mode may also apply to products with integral batteries, 
as follows:
    (1) If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power 
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the 
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which 
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging 
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and off 
mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or adapter 
alone.
    (2) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord 
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry, 
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and off mode 
power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero 
watts).
    (3) If the product contains integrated power conversion and 
charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power 
cord or plug blades, then no part of the

[[Page 55131]]

system will remain connected to mains, and off mode measurement is 
not applicable.

3.3.13. Standby Mode Power

    The standby mode power (Psb) is the summation power 
of battery maintenance mode power (Pm) and no-battery 
mode power (Pnb).

4. Testing Requirements for Uninterruptible Power Supplies

4.1. Standard Test Conditions

4.1.1. Measuring Equipment

    (a) The power or energy meter must provide true root mean square 
(r.m.s) measurements of the active input and output measurements, 
with an uncertainty at full rated load of less than or equal to 0.5 
percent at the 95 percent confidence level notwithstanding that 
voltage and current waveforms can include harmonic components. The 
meter must measure input and output values simultaneously.
    (b) All measurement equipment used to conduct the tests must be 
calibrated within the measurement equipment manufacturer specified 
calibration period by a standard traceable to International System 
of Units such that measurements meet the uncertainty requirements 
specified in section 4.1.1(a) of this appendix.

4.1.2. Test Room Requirements

    All portions of the test must be carried out in a room with an 
air speed immediately surrounding the UUT of <=0.5 m/s in all 
directions. Maintain the ambient temperature in the range of 20.0 
[deg]C to 30.0 [deg]C, including all inaccuracies and uncertainties 
introduced by the temperature measurement equipment, throughout the 
test. No intentional cooling of the UUT, such as by use of 
separately powered fans, air conditioners, or heat sinks, is 
permitted. Test the UUT on a thermally non-conductive surface.

4.1.3. Input Voltage and Input Frequency

    The AC input voltage and frequency to the UPS during testing 
must be within 3 percent of the highest rated voltage and within 1 
percent of the highest rated frequency of the device.

4.2. Unit Under Test Setup Requirements

4.2.1. General Setup

    Configure the UPS according to Section J.2 of Annex J of IEC 
62040-3 Ed. 2.0 with the following additional requirements:
    (a) UPS Operating Mode Conditions. If the UPS can operate in two 
or more distinct normal modes as more than one UPS architecture, 
conduct the test in its lowest input dependency as well as in its 
highest input dependency mode where VFD represents the lowest 
possible input dependency, followed by VI and then VFI.
    (b) Energy Storage System. The UPS must not be modified or 
adjusted to disable energy storage charging features. Minimize the 
transfer of energy to and from the energy storage system by ensuring 
the energy storage system is fully charged (at the start of testing) 
as follows:
    (1) If the UUT has a battery charge indicator, charge the 
battery for 5 hours after the UUT has indicated that it is fully 
charged.
    (2) If the UUT does not have a battery charge indicator but the 
user manual shipped with the UUT specifies a time to reach full 
charge, charge the battery for 5 hours longer than the time 
specified.
    (3) If the UUT does not have a battery charge indicator or user 
manual instructions, charge the battery for 24 hours.
    (c) DC output port(s). All DC output port(s) of the UUT must 
remain unloaded during testing.

4.2.2. Additional Features

    (a) Any feature unrelated to maintaining the energy storage 
system at full charge or delivery of load power (e.g., LCD display) 
shall be switched off. If it is not possible to switch such features 
off, they shall be set to their lowest power-consuming mode during 
the test.
    (b) If the UPS takes any physically separate connectors or 
cables not required for maintaining the energy storage system at 
full charge or delivery of load power but associated with other 
features (such as serial or USB connections, Ethernet, etc.), these 
connectors or cables shall be left disconnected during the test.
    (c) Any manual on-off switches specifically associated with 
maintaining the energy storage system at full charge or delivery of 
load power shall be switched on for the duration of the test.

4.3. Test Measurement and Calculation

    Efficiency can be calculated from either average power or 
accumulated energy.

4.3.1. Average Power Calculations

    If efficiency calculation are to be made using average power, 
calculate the average power consumption (Pavg) by 
sampling the power at a rate of at least 1 sample per second and 
computing the arithmetic mean of all samples over the time period 
specified for each test as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.005

Where:

Pavg = average power
Pi = power measured during individual measurement (i)
n = total number of measurements

4.3.2. Steady State

    Operate the UUT and the load for a sufficient length of time to 
reach steady state conditions. To determine if steady state 
conditions have been attained, perform the following steady state 
check, in which the difference between the two efficiency 
calculations must be less than 1 percent:
    (a)(1) Simultaneously measure the UUT's input and output power 
for at least 5 minutes, as specified in section 4.3.1 of this 
appendix, and record the average of each over the duration as 
Pavg\in and Pavg\out, respectively; or,
    (2) Simultaneously measure the UUT's input and output energy for 
at least 5 minutes and record the accumulation of each over the 
duration as Ein and Eout, respectively.
    (b) Calculate the UUT's efficiency, Eff1, using one of the 
following two equations:
    (1)
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.006
    
Where:

Eff is the UUT efficiency
Pavg\out is the average output power in watts
Pavg\in is the average input power in watts

    (2)
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.007
    
Where:

Eff is the UUT efficiency
Eout is the accumulated output energy in watt-hours
Ein in the accumulated input energy in watt-hours

    (c) Wait a minimum of 10 minutes.
    (d) Repeat the steps listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 
4.3.2 of this appendix to calculate another efficiency value, Eff2.
    (e) Determine if the product is at steady state using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.008

    If the percentage difference of Eff1 and Eff2 as described in 
the equation, is less than 1 percent, the product is at steady 
state.
    (f) If the percentage difference is greater than or equal to 1 
percent, the product is not at steady state. Repeat the steps listed 
in paragraphs (c) to (e) of section 4.3.2 of this appendix until the 
product is at steady state.

4.3.3. Power Measurements and Efficiency Calculations

    Measure input and output power of the UUT according to Section 
J.3 of Annex J of IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0, or measure the input and 
output energy of the UUT for efficiency calculations with the 
following exceptions:
    (a) Test the UUT at the following reference test load 
conditions, in the following order: 100 percent, 75 percent, 50 
percent, and 25 percent of the rated output power.

[[Page 55132]]

    (b) Perform the test at each of the reference test loads by 
simultaneously measuring the UUT's input and output power in Watts 
(W), or input and output energy in Watt-Hours (Wh) over a 15 minute 
test period at a rate of at least 1 Hz. Calculate the efficiency for 
that reference load using one of the following two equations:
    (1)
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.009
    
Where:

Effn = the efficiency at reference test load n%
Pavg\out n = the average output power at reference load n%
Pavg\in n = the average input power at reference load n%

    (2)
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.010
    
Where:

Effn = the efficiency at reference test load n%
Eout n = the accumulated output energy at reference load n%
Ein n = the accumulated input energy at reference load n%

4.3.4. UUT Classification

    Optional Test for determination of UPS architecture. Determine 
the UPS architecture by performing the tests specified in the 
definitions of VI, VFD, and VFI (sections 2.28.1 through 2.28.3 of 
this appendix).

4.3.5. Output Efficiency Calculation

    (a) Use the load weightings from Table 4.3.1 to determine the 
average load adjusted efficiency as follows:

Effavg = (t25 x Eff 
[verbarlm]25) + (t50 x Eff 
[verbarlm]50) + (t75 x Eff 
[verbarlm]75) + (t100 x Eff 
[verbarlm]100)


Where:

Effavg = the average load adjusted efficiency
tn = the portion of time spent at reference test load n% as 
specified in Table 4.3.1
Eff [verbarlm]n = the measured efficiency at reference test 
load n%

                                          Table 4.3.1--Load Weightings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Portion of time spent at reference load
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rated output power (W)      UPS architecture        25%             50%             75%            100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P <= 1500 W...................  VFD.............             0.2             0.2             0.3             0.3
                                VI or VFI.......             0 *             0.3             0.4             0.3
P > 1500 W....................  VFD, VI, or VFI.             0 *             0.3             0.4             0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Measuring efficiency at loading points with 0 time weighting is not required.

    (b) Round the calculated efficiency value to one tenth of a 
percentage point.

5. Testing Requirements for Open-Placement Wireless Chargers

5.1. Standard Test Conditions and UUT Setup Requirements

    The technician will set up the testing environment according to 
the test conditions as specified in sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.1.4 
of this appendix. The unit under test will be configurated according 
to section 3.2.1 and all other non-battery charger related functions 
will be turned off according to section 3.2.4.

5.2. Active Mode Test

    [Reserved]

5.3. No-Battery Mode Test

    (a) Connect the UUT to mains power and place it in no-battery 
mode by ensuring there are no foreign objects on the charging 
surface (i.e., without any load).
    (b) Monitor the AC input power for a period of 5 minutes to 
assess the stability of the UUT. If the power level does not drift 
by more than 1percent from the maximum value observed, the UUT is 
considered stable.
    (c) If the AC input power is not stable, follow the 
specifications in Section 5.3.3. of IEC 62301 for measuring average 
power or accumulated energy over time for the input. If the UUT is 
stable, record the measurements of the AC input power over a 5-
minute period.
    (d) Power consumption calculation. The power consumption of the 
no-battery mode is equal to the active AC input power (W).

[FR Doc. 2022-18717 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P