Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government

• Home
• Departments
• Agencies
• Dates

Top Searches

Popular Sites

Common CFR Searches

Federal Register: November 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 211)

DOCID: fr03no09-25 FR Doc E9-26192

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Veterans Affairs Department

CFR Citation: 10 CFR Part 430

Docket ID: [Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005]

RIN ID: RIN 1904-AB80

NOTICE: Part II

DOCID: fr03no09-25

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed determination.

SUBJECT CATEGORY:

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Determination Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Non- Class A External Power Supplies

DATES: Written comments on this document and the TSD are welcome and must be submitted no later than December 18, 2009. For detailed instructions, see section VI, ``Public Participation.''

DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as amended, requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to issue a final rule by December 19, 2009, that determines whether energy conservation standards for nonClass A external power supplies (EPSs) are warranted.

In this document, DOE proposes to determine that energy conservation standards for nonClass A external power supplies are warranted. This document informs interested parties of the analysis underlying this proposal, which examines the potential energy savings and the direct economic costs and benefits that could result from a future standard. In this document, DOE also announces the availability of a technical support document (TSD), which provides additional analysis in support of the determination. The TSD is available from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http:// www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ battery_external.html.

SUMMARY:

Energy Department

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

I. Summary of the Proposed Determination

A. Background and Legal Authority

B. Scope
II. Methodology

A. Market Assessment

1. Introduction

2. Shipments, Efficiency Distributions, and Market Growth

3. Product Lifetimes

4. Distribution Channels and Markups

5. Interested Parties

6. Existing Energy Efficiency Programs

B. Technology Assessment

1. Introduction

2. Modes of Operation

3. Functionality and Circuit Designs of NonClass A EPSs

4. Product Classes

5. Technology Options for Improving Energy Efficiency

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Introduction

2. Data Sources

3. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units

4. Selection of Candidate Standard Levels

5. Methodology and Data Implementation

6. Relationships Between Cost and Efficiency

D. Energy Use and EndUse Load Characterization

1. Introduction

2. Modes and Application States

3. Usage Profiles

4. Unit Energy Consumption

E. LifeCycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

F. National Impact Analysis
III. Results

A. LifeCycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

B. National Impact Analysis
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

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 of 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review V. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Determination

EPCA requires DOE to issue a final rule determining whether to issue energy efficiency standards for nonClass A EPSs. DOE has tentatively determined that such standards are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. Thus, DOE proposes to issue a positive determination.

DOE analyzed multiple candidate standard levels for nonClass A EPSs and has determined that it is technologically feasible to manufacture
[[Page 56929]]
EPSs at some of these levels because EPSs with energy efficiencies meeting these levels are currently commercially available.

DOE further determined that standards for nonClass A EPSs could be economically justified from the perspective of an individual consumer and from that of the Nation as a whole. For all EPSs that DOE analyzed, at least one standard level could be set that would reduce the life cycle cost (LCC) of ownership for the typical consumer; that is, any increase in equipment cost resulting from a standard would be more than offset by energy cost savings.

Standards could also be costeffective from a national perspective. The national net present value (NPV) of standards could be as much as $512 million in 2008$, assuming an annual discount rate of 3 percent. This forecast considers only the direct financial costs and benefits to consumers of standards, specifically the increased equipment costs of EPSs purchased from 2013 to 2042 and the associated energy cost savings. In its determination analysis, DOE did not monetize or otherwise characterize any other potential costs and benefits of standards such as manufacturer impacts or power plant emission reductions. If the final determination is positive, then such impacts would be examined in a future analysis of the economic feasibility of particular standard levels in the context of a standards rulemaking.

DOE's analysis also indicates that standards would result in significant energy savingsas much as 0.14 quads of energy over 30 years (2013 to 2042). This is equivalent to the annual electricity needs of 1.1 million U.S. homes.

Further documentation supporting the analyses described in this notice is contained in a separate technical support document (TSD), available from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/ residential/battery_external.html.

This document's information and format are unique to this determination analysis and do not establish a precedent for future determination analyses of the Appliance Standards Program. The unique nature of this document results from the statutory requirement that the determination be published as a rule (i.e., notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and final rule). In addition, although Congress, through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110140 (Dec. 19, 2007), directed DOE to perform this analysis, some of the analyses and information contained in this document were developed earlier as part of the determination analysis required by EPACT 2005.

A. Background and Legal Authority

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 62916309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) amended EPCA to require DOE to issue a final rule determining whether to issue efficiency standards for battery chargers (BCs) and EPSs. DOE initiated this determination analysis rulemaking in 2006, which included a scoping workshop on January 24, 2007 at DOE headquarters in Washington, DC. The determination was under way and on schedule for issuance by August 8, 2008, as originally required by EPACT 2005.

However, EISA 2007 also amended EPCA by setting efficiency standards for certain types of EPSs (Class A) and modifying the statutory provision that directed DOE to perform the determination analysis (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I), as amended). EISA 2007 removed BCs from the determination, leaving only EPSs, and changed the amount of time allotted to complete the determination to 2 years after the date of EISA 2007's enactment, i.e., by December 19, 2009.

In addition to the existing general definition of EPS, EISA 2007 amended EPCA to define a ``Class A external power supply'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)) and set efficiency standards for those products (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)). As amended by EISA 2007, the statute further directs DOE to publish a final rule by July 1, 2011 to evaluate whether the standards set for Class A EPSs should be amended and, if so, include any amended standards as part of that final rule. The statute further directs DOE to publish a second final rule by July 1, 2015, to again determine whether the standards in effect should be amended and to include any amended standards as part of that final rule.

Because Congress has already set standards for Class A EPSs and separately required DOE to perform two rounds of rulemakings to consider amending efficiency standards for Class A EPSs, the determination analysis under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) does not include these products. Therefore, DOE is interpreting 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) as a requirement for a determination analysis that will consider in its scope only EPSs outside of Class A, hence ``non Class A EPSs.'' This determination is scheduled for issuance by December 19, 2009 and is the subject of this notice. The determination will address whether efficiency standards appear to be warranted for nonClass A EPSs, i.e., whether it appears that such standards are technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant conservation of energy (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).

EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA also require DOE to issue a final rule prescribing energy conservation standards for BCs, if technologically feasible and economically justified, by July 1, 2011 (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(II)). This rulemaking has been bundled with the rulemaking for Class A EPSs, given the related nature of such products and the fact that these provisions share the same statutory deadline. DOE initiated the energy conservation standards rulemaking for BCs and Class A EPSs by publishing a framework document on June 4, 2009, and holding a public meeting at DOE headquarters on July 16, 2009. If DOE issues a positive determination for EPSs falling outside of Class A, it may consider standards for these products within the context of the energy conservation standards rulemaking for BCs and Class A EPSs already underway.

In addition to the determination and energy conservation standards rulemakings, DOE has conducted test procedure rulemakings for BCs and EPSs. The test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of singlevoltage EPSs is codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies.'' DOE modified this test procedure, per EISA 2007, to include standby and off modes. DOE proposed a test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of multiplevoltage EPSs in its NOPR published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2008. 73 FR 48054. DOE has set the target date of October 31, 2010 to finalize the test procedure for multiplevoltage EPSs.

For more information about DOE rulemakings concerning BCs and EPSs, see the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ battery_external.html.

B. Scope

The present determination analysis considers only those EPSs outside of Class A, or nonClass A EPSs. EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, defines an EPS. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A).

[[Page 56930]]

EISA 2007 later amended EPCA, inserting a definition for Class A EPS. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C).

Thus, the determination analysis concerns those devices that fit the definition of an EPS (from EPACT 2005) but do not fit the definition of a Class A EPS (from EISA 2007).

Considering the above definitions, DOE identified four types of power conversion devices on the market to analyze for its determination on nonClass A EPSs: (1) Multiplevoltage EPSsEPSs that can provide multiple output voltages simultaneously; (2) highpower EPSsEPSs with nameplate output power greater than 250 watts; (3) medical EPSsEPSs that power medical devices and EPSs that are themselves medical devices; and (4) EPSs for battery chargers (EPSs for BCs)EPSs that power the chargers of detachable battery packs or charge the batteries of products that are fully or primarily motor operated.

Class A EPSs, by definition, may provide only one output voltage at a time and have nameplate output power no greater than 250 watts. Multiplevoltage and highpower EPSs fall outside this group. Medical EPSs and EPSs for battery chargers are specifically excluded from Class A and can be considered nonClass A EPSs.

DOE considers both EPSs that power medical devices and EPSs that are themselves medical devices to be nonClass A EPSs. A literal reading of EPCA would exclude from Class A only those EPSs that are themselves medical devices. As EPCA states, ``The term `class A external power supply' does not include any device that requires Federal Food and Drug Administration listing and approval as a medical device in accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c).'' 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C) However, a search of FDA's product classification database for ``power supply'' reveals only one EPS that is a medical deviceauxiliary power supply (alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC)) for external transcutaneous cardiac pacemakers. Furthermore, all EPSs used with medical devices must meet the special requirements of UL 60601 (Underwriters Laboratories standard for power supplies for medical devices), discussed further in section 2.2.3 of the TSD. Accordingly, because the exclusion applies to ``any device'' covered by the FDA's listing and approval requirements, DOE interprets EPCA to also exclude from Class A those EPSs that power medical devices. Consistent with this approach, DOE analyzed those EPSs that power medical devices that are consumer products for purposes of today's proposed determination.

Lastly, DOE considered EPSs that power the chargers of detachable battery packs or charge the batteries of products that are fully or primarily motor operated. DOE refers to these two groups of products collectively as ``EPSs for BCs.'' Products that are fully or primarily motor operated include portable rechargeable household appliances such as handheld vacuums, personal care products such as shavers, and power tools.

EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, defines a detachable battery as ``a battery that is (A) contained in a separate enclosure from the product; and (B) intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for recharging.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(52)) The phrase ``contained in a separate enclosure from the product'' appears earlier within the Class A EPS definition. In this context, the definition limits Class A EPSs to devices ``contained in a separate physical enclosure from the enduse product,'' i.e., a separate component outside the physical boundaries of the enduse consumer product. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)(IV)) Similarly, when applied to detachable batteries, this phrase can also be interpreted to mean ``wholly outside the physical boundaries of the enduse consumer product.'' BCEPS Framework Document, p. 21 (June 4, 2009), available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_ standards/residential/battery_external_std_2008.html. This is in contrast to batteries contained in an enclosure wholly or partly inside the physical boundaries of the enduse consumer product (e.g., inside a battery compartment).

Further, detachable batteries must be ``intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for recharging.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(52)(B)) Thus, even if a battery is not contained inside the product, it may not be considered detachable unless it is also intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for recharging.

Several popular models of camcorders employ wall adapters that can be used to power the camcorder and charge its battery. Even though these batteries are not contained inside the product, it is not necessary to remove them for charging. Rather, the wall adapter plugs directly into the camcorder body or into a cradle that accepts the entire camcorder. Because the batteries do not need to be removed for recharging, DOE does not consider these batteries detachable. Accordingly, wall adapters for these camcorders are included in the Class A EPS definition (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii)(II)) and, therefore, are not analyzed in this determination.

The statute does not provide clear guidance for determining which, if any, of the devices that power batterycharged products are EPSs and leaves open the issue of how DOE should classify the wall adapters that are part of battery charging systems. Because ``external power supply'' has a specific legal meaning, the term ``wall adapter'' is used to refer to the potentially larger set of external power converters for consumer products. DOE's initial review of these products indicates that some of these wall adapters for battery chargers could be electrically equivalent to the wall adapters that power applications other than battery chargers. However, while all wall adapters ``convert household electric current into DC current or lowervoltage AC current,'' as stated in the statutory definition (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)), at least some wall adapters for battery chargers also provide additional charge control functions necessary for battery charging. These additional functions may add to the cost and power consumption of the wall adapter. These wall adapters generally are not interchangeable, but are designed to be components of specific BCs.

DOE is considering adopting one of two approaches relevant to this determination analysis with respect to when a wall adapter would be categorized as an EPS. The approaches differ in their scope of coverage for EPSs. Under the first approach (Approach A), DOE would consider only those wall adapters that do not provide additional charge control functions to be EPSs. These EPSs have constantvoltage output that is electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs. Under the other approach (Approach D), DOE would consider wall adapters with and without charge control functions to be EPSs. These include EPSs with constantvoltage output equivalent to Class A EPSs as well as those that do not have constantvoltage output, which may indicate the presence of charge control. The approaches are described in greater detail in section 3.2.3.3 of DOE's framework document for the BC and EPS energy conservation standards rulemaking (available at http:// www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ battery_external_std_2008.html). Interested parties are encouraged to refer to the framework document for more detail and provide input to DOE on the approaches. (Other approaches described in that document are not used in today's analysis because either they
[[Page 56931]]
would conflict with statutory requirements, i.e., Approach B, or would be equivalent in scope to Approach A, i.e., Approach C.) DOE will consider all comments received in its selection of an approach.

The present determination analysis includes only those devices that are EPSs under Approach A (wall adapters without charge control). Under Approach A, this draft determination finds that energy efficiency standards are economically justified, technologically feasible, and would result in significant energy savings. Based on the data collected to date, the set of EPSs under Approach A is a subset of EPSs under Approach D. Thus, DOE believes that were it to adopt the broader Approach D, the energy savings potential from standards for nonClass A EPSs would be greater compared to Approach A. DOE seeks comment on whether Approach A reasonably estimates the minimum amount of significant energy savings under this analysis.

While the approaches noted above address the question of what is and is not an EPS, there are additional scoping issues unique to non Class A EPSs. In particular, there are four criteria under which an EPS could be considered nonClass A: (1) Multiple output voltages, (2) high output power, (3) designed for medical use, and (4) designed for battery charging. This determination analysis examines EPSs that meet any one of these criteria, but not those EPSs that meet multiple criteria. These EPSs remain within the scope of the determination, however. For instance, this analysis does not evaluate EPSs such as the Astec Electronics power supply model DPT54M, which has three simultaneous output voltages and UL 60601 medical certification, although it does address EPSs with either multiple output voltages or medical certification under UL 60601. Based on its review of the available data, DOE believes that there are few products that fall into this ``multiple criteria'' category. Accordingly, a separate analysis for these types of products was not conducted because the energy savings potential from incorporating these devices into the analysis would again be greater compared to the analysis under Approach A. II. Methodology
A. Market Assessment

1. Introduction

To understand the present and future market for nonClass A EPSs, DOE gathered data on these EPSs and their associated applications. DOE also examined the industry composition, distribution channels, and regulatory and voluntary programs for nonClass A EPSs. The market assessment provides important inputs to the LCC analysis and national energy savings (NES)/NPV estimates.

This notice is not intended to provide a general background on the market for all EPSs, but rather to present specific information for those EPSs outside of Class A. For additional background information on EPSs in general, see the framework document and the companion draft technical report published on June 4, 2009.

a. Overview

External power supplies are designed for use with an associated consumer product. The market for these consumer products drives the market for EPSs. References to an EPS application refer to the consumer product that the EPS powers and not the conversion function of the EPS itself. Energy savings potential for EPSs is thus a function of usage and sales volume of applications powered by EPSs, in addition to EPS efficiency.

Because EPSs are typically sold with their enduse application, shipment data for EPSs alone are not directly available. Therefore, DOE estimated EPS shipments based on applications known to use them. The amount of energy an application uses over the course of a year will directly affect the amount of savings that can be expected by improving the efficiency of the EPS. The product application determines the power requirements, usage profile, and load profile of the EPS.

For its market analysis, DOE first identified those applications known to use nonClass A EPSs. DOE then analyzed shipments and energy usage data for those applications to calculate shipments and energy usage of the associated EPSs. DOE considered applications for which publicly available data exist or for which industry and other interested parties provided data.

Applications for each of the four types of nonClass A EPS DOE identified are discussed below.

b. MultipleVoltage External Power Supplies

The consumer product market for EPSs with multiple simultaneous outputs (multiplevoltage EPSs) is limited. For consumer products that require multiple voltages, most manufacturers indicated that it is more cost effective to specify a single output EPS and employ local DCDC converters located within the application rather than a multiple voltage EPS. Multiplevoltage EPSs are commonly used in only two circumstances:
(1) Lowvolume applications, such as lab equipment and product prototypes, where designing and implementing an internal splitter would be costprohibitive. Because lowvolume applications are, by definition, limited in market size, DOE will not consider EPSs for these products further.
(2) Highvolume applications where space limitations may cause manufacturers to seek alternatives to an internal power supply with voltage splitting circuitry.

DOE has identified three consumer product applications that sometimes use multiplevoltage EPSs: Video game consoles, multi function devices (MFDs), and home security systems.

The Xbox 360, manufactured by Microsoft Corporation, is one video game console that uses a multiplevoltage EPS. This EPS functions much like the internal power supply of a desktop computer, providing separate voltage levels for standby, monitoring, and processing functions. Competing systems such as the Nintendo Wii and Sony PlayStation 3 use internal power supplies.

Multifunction devices duplicate the functions of some or all of the following devices: Copiers, printers, scanners, and facsimile machines. These devices are also commonly referred to as ``allinone'' systems or multifunction printers. MFDs eliminate the need to purchase and maintain multiple pieces of office equipment and typically are used in small or homeoffice settings. A single multiplevoltage EPS design can be used across multiple MFD models, eliminating the need to design and build several different internal splitters. Also, using a multiple voltage EPS may allow the MFD to have a smaller form factor, which refers to the physical size of the application.

Security systems in homes may include entry detection, video and thermal detection, and emergency and fire alert systems. Such equipment is often used in conjunction with a security subscription through which a security services company monitors the equipment for the consumer. In this way, security equipment is distributed and used in a similar manner to cable settop boxes and Internet modems provided by telecommunications companies. In comments submitted to DOE following the Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure NOPR Public Meeting on September 12, 2008, the Security Industry Association indicated [[Page 56932]]
that some of these products may be powered by multiplevoltage EPSs (Docket No. EERE2008BTTP0004. Security Industry Association, No. 7 at p. 2.). However, in a followup interview on March 19, 2009, SIA indicated that the equipment powered by these multiplevoltage EPSs is limited to fire alarm systems, specifically to power horns and strobe light control circuitry in commercial buildings, not homes. Based on this information, DOE did not analyze the multiplevoltage EPSs used to power security equipment as part of the draft analysis. DOE encourages interested parties to submit additional data on the use of multiple voltage EPSs with home security equipment. DOE also encourages interested parties to submit information about any other consumer product applications for multiplevoltage EPSs they are aware of. c. High Power External Power Supplies

Highpower EPSsthose with output power greater than 250 watts are rarely used to power consumer products. Internal power supplies are generally preferred for higher powered applications. Industry experts give three reasons for this preference. First, internal power supplies offer increased ventilation options, including fans, vent slats, and cooling fins, all of which would be difficult to include in most EPS designs without increasing bulk. Second, most applications that would require such a high power input will already be large, which means the increase in volume from the internal power supply would have a proportionally small effect. Third, power regulation and voltage drop are much easier to control with an internal supply due to the shorter transmission distances.

For these reasons, there are few circumstances in which an appliance uses a highpower EPS rather than an internal power supply. In fact, many appliances already use internal power supplies at a wide range of power levels. Major applications for high power internal power supplies include audio amplifiers, televisions, and computers.

Amateur radio equipment is the only consumer product application DOE identified as using highpower EPSs. (Other applications identified include laboratory testing equipment and other lowvolume applications that were not considered for analysis.) Amateur radio operators typically use highpower EPSs when they need to power multiple components simultaneously and transmit at output powers between 100 and 200 watts. (Interview with the with the American Radio Relay League on August 18, 2008.) Operators typically use an EPS with nameplate output power greater than 250 watts to allow for a cushion should equipment requiring additional power be added to the setup. This is often the case for portable transmission setups, such as those used at amateur radio fairs or in emergency situations. In both cases, the need to power multiple components while maintaining sufficient transmission power requires an EPS with a suitably high output.

However, in home or office use, most radio operators use a more standardized setup. In this environment, most amateur radio equipment, including transmission equipment, is designed to run directly off mains power, using internal power supplies. In addition, when transmitting at higher power, a radio operator will likely use a separate signal amplifier that contains an internal power supply. Therefore, EPSs are seldom used in fixed transmission setups.

d. External Power Supplies for Medical Devices

EPSs are used to power a wide variety of medical devices, from laboratory test equipment to home care devices. As discussed further in section 2.2.3 of the TSD, EPSs are required by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to meet labeling, safety and durability requirements such as those included under UL 60601. To maintain certification, the medical device manufacturer must always use the same components in the device, including those used in the EPS. Therefore, once a device is certified, its EPS cannot be exchanged for a different EPS model without recertification. An EPS model must also use the same individual components for the entirety of the production cycle. These requirements tend to lengthen the design cycles for medical device EPSs because after being designed they must be registered, which can take up to 2 years. Despite long design cycles, there are already medical device EPSs on the market that meet the energy efficiency standards for Class A EPSs that took effect on July 1, 2008. (SL Power Web site (Accessed October 30, 2008) http://www.slpower.com/ ProductDetails.aspx?CategoryID=46.)

For this determination, DOE examined medical devices designed for inhome use that employ EPSs, specifically sleep therapy devices, nebulizers, portable oxygen concentrators, blood pressure monitors, and ventilators. EPSs for these medical devices exhibit a broad range of nameplate output powers, similar to those of Class A EPSs.

Sleep therapy devices include continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (biPAP), automatic positive airway pressure (autoPAP), and similar machines used to treat obstructive sleep apnea. Some sleep therapy devices are battery powered, some plug directly into mains, and others are powered by EPSs, which typically have nameplate output power of approximately 30 to 35 watts. (Schirm, Jeffrey. Personal Communication. Philips Electronics, NV. Phone call with Matthew Jones, D&R International. December 15, 2008.)

Nebulizers administer liquid medication as a mist that can be inhaled into the lungs. They are commonly used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The EPSs that provide power to nebulizers tend to have nameplate output power in the range of 10 to 20 watts. Of the 26 nebulizer models DOE identified, only four employ EPSs; the remainder use internal power supplies. (Models using EPSs include the PARI Trek S, Omron Comp Air Elite Model NEC30, Omron Micro Air Model NEU22VAC, and John Bunn NanoSonic Nebulizer Model JB0112066. An EPS is an option for Omron Micro Air, which is typically powered with primary batteries. The EPS cannot charge these batteries. The other nebulizers are sold with an EPS to power the product but offer rechargeable battery packs as an optional accessory.)

Portable oxygen concentrators absorb nitrogen from the air to provide oxygen to the user at higher concentrations, eliminating the need for oxygen tanks. These devices typically use higher powered wall adapters ranging from 90 to 200 watts. The wall adapters are used to charge batteries, but can also operate the device directly.

Blood pressure monitors are used by those who must take frequent readings of their blood pressure. Most digital units operate with primary batteries; however, some units are also sold with an EPS or offer an optional EPS. (The Omron IntelliSense blood pressure meter, model HEM780, has an EPS rated at 6V and 500 mA but can also be powered by primary batteries (``AA,'' ``AAA,'' ``C,'' among others).) The EPSs for blood pressure monitors that DOE identified have a nameplate output power of 3 watts.

Though most commonly found in hospitals, ventilators are also available for home use. While most models have internal power supplies, some use EPSs with output power in the range of approximately 100 to 150 watts.
[[Page 56933]]

e. External Power Supplies for Certain Battery Chargers

This group is composed of EPSs for two types of battery chargers: (1) Battery chargers used to charge detachable battery packs, and (2) battery chargers that charge the batteries of products that are fully or primarily motor operated. The term ``detachable battery'' means a battery that is (A) contained in a separate enclosure from the product; and (B) intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for recharging. DOE's interpretation of ``detachable battery'' is explained in section I.B.

Under its interpretation of the term ``detachable battery,'' DOE has not identified any nonmotor operated applications with an EPS that powers the charger of a detachable battery pack. DOE invites interested parties to submit any information they have about applications of this type that use nonClass A EPSs.

DOE identified a number of motoroperated, batterycharged products that use wall adapters. The applications DOE identified can be divided into two groups: rechargeable power tools and cordless rechargeable household appliances. The latter can be further subdivided into kitchen appliances (e.g., can openers and electric knives), personal care appliances (e.g., electric toothbrushes, shavers, and trimmers), and floor care appliances (e.g., handheld vacuums and robotic vacuums).

Although there are many grades of cordlessrechargeable power toolsranging from entrylevel, doityourself (DIY) tools intended for occasional homeowner use to highend tools designed for frequent use by professionalsall can be purchased and used by consumers and, thus, are considered consumer products. However, it appears that very few, if any, professionalgrade power tools use wall adapters. Instead, the charging base is plugged directly into mains. Thus, DOE only considered DIY tools.

DOE has included in the present determination analysis only those devices that are EPSs under Approach A (only those wall adapters that do not provide additional charge control functions are EPSs), with the understanding that the set of EPSs under Approach A is a subset of EPSs under Approach D (wall adapters with charge control functions are also EPSs). Thus, the analysis presents the minimum level of expected energy savings from a potential standard for these products. If DOE were to later adopt Approach D (i.e., include coverage of wall adapters with charge control functions), the energy savings potential from standards for nonClass A EPSs would either increase or remain unchanged, but would not decrease below the current analysis' projected energy savings potential.
2. Shipments, Efficiency Distributions, and Market Growth

a. Overview

Based on its market analysis, DOE estimates that 11.3 million non Class A EPSs are sold in the United States each year. For the national impact analysis, DOE also created forecasts of market size to 2032, the last year of sales in the analysis. Table II.1 summarizes DOE's estimates of market size and growth rate for each type of nonClass A EPS. These estimates are discussed in detail in the subsections that follow.
Table II.1Market Size and Growth Prospects for NonClass A External Power Supplies
Market size
in 2008 Annual growth Type of external power supply (shipments rate per year) (percent) MultipleVoltage EPSs for Multifunction 5,085,000 1 Devices................................
MultipleVoltage EPSs for Xbox 360...... 4,000,000 3 HighPower EPSs......................... 3,000 0 Medical EPSs............................ 1,450,000 3 EPSs for Cordless Rechargeable Floor 297,000 1 Care Appliances *......................
EPSs for Cordless Rechargeable Power 499,400 2 Tools *................................

Total............................... 11,334,400 .............. * DOE estimates that a maximum of 5 percent of the wall adapters that ship with products of this type are EPSs under Approach A. Source: DOE estimated longrun growth rates by examining published shipments growth estimates (both past and projected) from the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) (``U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and Forecasts 20042009'', Consumer Electronics Association, July 2008), Appliance Magazine (``31st Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry'', Appliance Magazine, September 2008) the Darnell Group (External ACDC Power Supplies Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition. Special estimate for North America, Darnell Group. May 2008), and others.

In addition to assessing the size of the market for each EPS type, DOE also assessed the efficiency of those EPSs. DOE defined four candidate standard levels (CSLs) for each EPS type and described market distribution in terms of efficiency across those levels (section II.C.4) DOE also created two basecase forecasts of efficiency distribution to 2032. These efficiency distributions describe the market in the absence of a standard and are required as a point of comparison in the national impact analysis. DOE's characterizations of presentday efficiency and its efficiency forecasts are also discussed in detail in the following subsections.
b. MultipleVoltage External Power Supplies

EPSs for Multifunction Devices

In field research, DOE found that HewlettPackard (HP) manufactures all those MFDs that currently use multiplevoltage EPSs. In August 2008, DOE visited five retail outlets to determine which MFDs use multiplevoltage EPSs. DOE inspected 87 unique MFD models for sale at Best Buy, Circuit City, Office Depot, Staples, and Target. Of these 87 models, 16 used multiplevoltage EPSs; the remainder either had internal power supplies or used singlevoltage EPSs. Many of these models were among the topselling MFDs on Amazon.com, BestBuy.com, and CircuitCity.com.

In a written comment DOE received in October 2008 in connection with its Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure rulemaking, HP indicated that it plans to phase out multiplevoltage EPSs. It stated, ``About 45% of HP's total current usage of externalstyle power supplies is made up [multiplevoltage output power supplies (MVOPS)]. HP is planning to eliminate the use of MVOPS by early 2010. So our product designs will consist entirely of [singlevoltage output power supplies].'' (Comment from HewlettPackard dated October 29, 2008. Docket Number EERE2008BT
[[Page 56934]]
TP0004. Comment 30.) Nevertheless, DOE is including multiple voltage EPSs for MFDs in its analysis as some MFDs may continue to ship with multiplevoltage EPSs after 2010, or new applications with similar power requirements may be introduced.

Based on the available data, DOE estimated that 5,085,000 multiple voltage EPSs for MFDs shipped for sale in the United States in 2008. Using data from Gartner Dataquest and the Consumer Electronics Association, DOE estimated that about 20 million inkjet printers and MFDs shipped in 2008. (Gartner Dataquest. ``Gartner Says United States Printer and MFP Shipments Declined 4 Percent in Second Quarter of 2006.'' August 2006. Last accessed February 27, 2009, http:// www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=496184&format=print.; Consumer Electronics Association. U.S. Consumer Sales and Forecasts, 20042009. July 2008. CEA: Arlington, VA.) According to Gartner Dataquest, HP controlled 56.4 percent of the inkjet printer/MFD market in the second quarter of 2006. DOE assumed HP's market share remained unchanged in 2008, resulting in shipments of 11.3 million HP inkjet printers and MFDs that year. As HP claimed that 45 percent of its EPSs are multiple voltage EPSs, DOE estimated that 5,085,000 multiplevoltage EPSs for use with MFDs (45 percent of 11.3 million) were shipped in 2008. Given HP's stated intent to discontinue use of multiplevoltage EPSs, DOE assumed in its model a modest market growth rate of 1 percent annually.

DOE defined four CSLs for multiplevoltage EPSs for MFDs (Table II.2) DOE tested two multiplevoltage EPSs for MFDs, and neither unit tested above CSL 0. Thus, DOE assumed that all units on the market today are at CSL 0.
Table II.2Efficiency of MultipleVoltage External Power Supplies for MFDs Minimum active mode Maximum no Market share Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power (percent) Shipments (percent) (W) 0. Current Level................................ 81 0.50 100 5,085,000 1. Mid Level.................................... 86 0.45 0 0 2. High Level................................... 90 0.31 0 0 3. Higher Level................................. 91 0.20 0 0

All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 5,085,000 DOE estimated the market distribution across CSLs using test data from two units.

DOE examined two base case efficiency forecasts in its national impact analysis. In the first, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In the second, which considered spillover effects from existing Class A EPS standards, nonClass A EPSs for MFDs gradually become more efficient throughout the period of analysis, with threequarters of the market still at CSL 0 and the remainder at CSL 1 in 2032, the last year of sales.

EPSs for the Xbox 360

The NPD group estimates that since its release of the Xbox 360 in November 2005, more than 14 million units have been sold in the United States at an annual average of 4 million units. (NPD Group, reported from http://www.joystiq.com archives, last accessed February 28, 2009.) Because demand for a specific video game console is generally driven by novelty, the majority of shipments for a given model tend to occur early in its production cycle, with shipments generally decreasing over time as newer competing consoles or nextgeneration consoles become available. Therefore, DOE assumed a market size of 4 million units in the base year.

The market for video game consoles, including the Xbox 360, has grown considerably in recent years, and analysts expect the market to continue growing annually at between 5 percent (``U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and Forecasts 20042009,'' Consumer Electronics Association, July 2008) and 10 percent (``External ACDC Power Supplies Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition.'' Special estimate for North America by the Darnell Group. May 2008.) Because the market for the Xbox 360 represents a subset of the console market, DOE developed a conservative growth forecast for this market of 3 percent annual growth.

DOE defined four CSLs for multiplevoltage EPSs for the Xbox 360 (Table II.3). An estimated 95 percent of units on the market today those units sold with the Xbox 360have average activemode efficiency of 86 percent and consume 0.4 watts in noload mode. Replacement units, which have poorer energy performance, comprise the remaining 5 percent of the market.
Table II.3Efficiency of MultipleVoltage External Power Supplies for Xbox 360 Minimum active mode Maximum no Market share Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power W (percent) Shipments (percent) 0. Generic Replacement.......................... 82 12.33 5 200,000 1. Manufacturer Provided........................ 86 0.40 95 3,800,000 2. EU Qualified Level........................... 86 0.30 0 0 3. Higher Level................................. 89 0.30 0 0

All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 4,000,000 DOE estimates are based on test data and market share of generic replacements for the Xbox 360 EPS. [[Page 56935]]

DOE examined two basecase efficiency forecasts in its national impact analysis. In the first, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In the second, EPSs for the Xbox 360 gradually become more efficient. No units remain at CSL 0 in 2018, the sixth year after the standard is assumed to take effect. By 2032, onequarter of the market has moved up to CSL 2, while the remainder is at CSL 1. c. High Output Power External Power Supplies

Due to the highly specialized and relatively uncommon application of high power external power supplies, only about 30,000 units are in use. (Communication with the American Radio Relay League (August 2008). Despite the inherent limitations of highpower EPSs and the increasing use of internal power supplies for home amateur radio equipment setups, DOE expects the market for highpower EPSs to remain level throughout the analysis period based on input from the Amateur Radio Relay League. Given an average lifetime of 10 years and assuming that the same number of new units is put into service each year that is taken out of service, it follows that approximately 3,000 new units are put into service each year. (DOE interview with manufacturer, September 15, 2008.)

Table II.4 shows the four CSLs DOE defined for highpower EPSs. Line frequency EPSs account for an estimated 60 percent of the market; switchedmode EPSs comprise the remaining 40 percent. Line frequency EPSs historically have been preferred over switchedmode EPSs for amateur radio applications. However, they are slowly losing market share to switchedmode EPSs, which are considerably more efficient and much less expensive.
Table II.4Efficiency of High Power External Power Supplies Minimum active mode Maximum no Market share Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power (percent) Shipments (percent) (W) 0. Line Frequency............................... 62 15.43 60 1,800 1. Switched ModeLow........................... 81 6.01 40 1,200 2. Switched ModeMid........................... 84 1.50 0 0 3. Switched ModeHigh.......................... 85 0.50 0 0

All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 3,000 DOE estimates are based on test data and manufacturer interviews.

In the first basecase efficiency forecast in its national impact analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In the second forecast, increased consumer preference for switchedmode highpower EPSs and spillover effects from existing Class A EPS standards lead to efficiency improvements in highpower EPSs. In this second forecast, highpower EPSs at CSL 2 are introduced in 2010 and gradually become more efficient throughout the period of analysis. By 2032, 38 percent of units remain at CSL 0, 40 percent are at CSL 1, and the remaining 22 percent have reached CSL 2.

d. External Power Supplies for Medical Devices

DOE examined those medical devices that are used in homecare settings and employ an EPS. An estimated 1.45 million of these devices shipped in 2008. (External ACDC Power Supplies Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition. Special estimate for North America by the Darnell Group. May 2008.) This market is expected to grow at an average rate of 11.4 percent per year between 2008 and 2013. The reasons for this growth are numerous. Over this period, the population aged 65 and older is expected to grow at 2.5 percent per year, compared to 0.75 percent per year for the population under age 65. (U.S. Population Projections.'' U.S. Census Bureau. 2008.) Demand for home care devices is increasing as the high cost of hospital stays encourages home care. (``DME Market of the Future.'' Home Care Magazine. July 1, 2000.) Patients' demands for greater portability are also driving an increase in the number of medical devices that can operate on battery power, some of which require wall adapters. (``Oxygen Concentrator Market Opportunities, Strategies, and Forecasts, 2005 to 2011.'' Wintergreen Research. 2005.) Finally, in some cases, medical device manufacturers can bring new products to market faster by using an EPS. (Personal communication. Phone call with Marco Gonzalez, Director of Supplier Management for Power. Avnet Inc. September 30, 2008.) This last trend in particular is increasing the number of medical devices using EPSs with output power greater than 90 watts. DOE forecasts the long term growth rate of medical device EPSs for consumer products to be 3 percent per year.

Additionally, the market for sleep therapy devices shows significant potential for growth. Based on available studies, DOE estimates that approximately 20 million Americans experience a moderate form of obstructive sleep apnea, which causes the afflicted to stop breathing momentarily during sleep. (``What is Sleep Apnea?'' National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions Index. http:// www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/SleepApnea/SleepApnea_ WhatIs.html.) As the number of diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea increases, demand for sleep therapy devices, one of the most common treatments for the condition, increases as well. DOE estimates that approximately 50 percent of sleep therapy devices, or about 1 million new units annually, are powered by EPSs. (Schirm, Jeffrey. Personal communication. Philips Electronics, NV. Phone call with Matthew Jones, D&R International. December 15, 2008.)

Nebulizers are commonly used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An estimated 22 million Americans have been diagnosed with asthma, and an additional 12 million Americans have been diagnosed with COPD. (``What is Asthma?'' National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions Index. http:// www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Asthma/Asthma_WhatIs.html.; ``What is COPD?'' National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions Index. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Copd/ Copd_WhatIs.html.) The prevalence of COPD is increasing as the population ages. The incidence of asthma has also increased over time. A June 2005 report, ``U.S. Nebulizers and Markets,'' indicates that portable nebulizers, which are more likely to
[[Page 56936]]
employ EPSs, have taken market share from nonportable units. (``U.S. Nebulizers and Markets.'' Frost & Sullivan. June, 2005.) From the available data, DOE estimates shipments of nebulizers to be 3 million units per year. However, DOE observed only a few examples that use EPSs. Accordingly, DOE assumes 15 percent of nebulizers, or 450,000 units per year, employ an EPS.

DOE did not consider the remaining three applicationsventilators, blood pressure monitors, and portable oxygen concentratorsfurther in the determination analysis. Very few ventilators or blood pressure monitors employ EPSs. Due to time constraints, DOE did not analyze or develop costefficiency curves for medical EPSs with high output power, so portable oxygen concentrators also were not included in the analysis. DOE may examine these products as part of a possible future standards rulemaking for medical EPSs.

DOE defined four CSLs for medical EPSs (Table II.5). DOE believes that roughly 66 percent of medical EPSs sold into the market today meet the Federal standard for Class A EPSs and could be labeled according to the international efficiency marking protocol with a ``IV''. The international efficiency marking protocol, initiated by the ENERGY STAR program and adopted by the U.S., Australia, China and Europe, provides a system for power supply manufacturers to designate the minimum efficiency performance of an external power supply, so that finished product manufacturers and government representatives can easily determine a unit's efficiency. Under this protocol manufacturers place a roman numeral from I (less efficient) to V (more efficient) on an EPS that corresponds to the EPS's efficiency. For instance, the mark of ``IV'' corresponds to the efficiency of the EISA 2007 standard. More information on the protocol can be found on the ENERGY STAR Web site at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/ downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf.

DOE based its view regarding the ability of medical EPSs to satisfy current Federal Class A standards enacted by Congress on available test results and its understanding that SL Power, a leading manufacturer of medical EPSs, is designing its EPSs for medical devices to meet the standard for Class A EPSs. Competing medical EPS manufacturers such as Elpac and GlobTek are also beginning to offer EPSs that meet the Class A standard. From this information, DOE assumes that 17 percent of units are less efficient and that the remaining 17 percent of units are more efficient.
Table II.5Efficiency of Medical External Power Supplies Minimum active mode Maximum no Market share Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power W (percent) Shipments (percent) 0. Less than the II Mark........................ 66 0.56 17 246,500 1. Meets the IV Mark............................ 76 0.50 66 957,000 2. Meets the V Mark............................. 80 0.30 17 246,500 3. Higher Level................................. 85 0.15 0 0

All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 1,450,000 DOE estimated shipment distributions based on test results from six units.

In the first basecase efficiency forecast in the national impact analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In the second forecast, additional manufacturers adopt Class A EPS standards for medical device EPSs, which are projected to become gradually more efficient throughout the period of analysis. By 2032, 5 percent of units remain at CSL 0, 54 percent of the market is at CSL 1, and the remaining 41 percent of units are at CSL 2.

e. External Power Supplies for Certain Battery Chargers

As noted above, DOE identified several batterypowered applications that could potentially use nonClass A EPSs. Many of these applications were excluded from further consideration because DOE's analysis indicated they accounted for only a trivial amount of nonClass A EPS energy consumption. Batterypowered kitchen appliances were excluded because only a small number of units are sold annually. Personal care products were excluded because wall adapters used to power these products typically incorporate batterycharging circuitry and are unlikely to be EPSs under Approach A. Furthermore, personal care products that employ EPSs spend the vast majority of their time unplugged and stowed. (Comments on the Framework Document for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies (74 FR 26816). Philips Electronics (Philips, No. 22 at p. 3).) Lawn mowers and yard trimmers were excluded because those models that have wall adapters are unlikely to be EPSs under Approach A. However, DOE did include two of these applications in the determination analysis: Floor care appliances and power tools. Floor Care Appliances

DOE estimated that almost 6.5 million cordless rechargeable floor care appliances shipped in 2007. (Based on estimates of all stick vacuum and handheld vacuum shipments in ``31st Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry,'' Appliance Magazine, September 2008.) DOE further estimates that approximately 90 percent or 5.9 million of those units use wall adapters. (Wayne Morris. Personal Communication. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Letter to Victor Petrolati (DOE) and Michael Scholand (Navigant Consulting). August 11, 2006.) DOE lacks reliable data to determine what fraction of these wall adapters provide constant voltage and are therefore EPSs. In the absence of reliable data, DOE's preliminary estimate is that a maximum of 5 percent of these wall adapters, or 297,000 units per year, are EPSs (see Table II.6). DOE welcomes input on the accuracy of these estimates.
[[Page 56937]]
Table II.6Annual Shipments of Floor Care Appliances Cordless rechargeable units With wall adapter Type of floor care appliance Total Total Without charge Total control (EPS) Handheld Vacuums................................ 5,580,000 3,683,000 3,315,000 166,000 Stick Vacuums................................... 4,500,000 1,800,000 1,620,000 81,000 Robotic Vacuums................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 50,000 =================

All Types................................... 11,080,000 6,483,000 5,935,000 297,000

Despite the stable market for floor care appliances, improvements in battery technology and the greater adoption of robotic vacuums may enable growth in the cordless rechargeable segment of the market. (``Robot Home Vacuum Cleaning, Cooking, Pool Cleaning, and Lawn Mowing Market Strategy, Market Shares, and Market Forecasts, 20082014.'' Electronics.ca Publications. January 2008.) Thus, DOE forecasts 1 percent annual growth in the size of the market for cordless rechargeable floor care appliances.

DOE defined four CSLs for EPSs that power the BCs of cordless rechargeable floor care appliances (Table II.7). Based on test data from 12 EPS units, DOE believes that threequarters of EPSs for floor care appliances sold today meet or exceed the Federal standard for Class A EPSs and could be labeled according to the international efficiency marking protocol with a ``IV'' or ``V.'' DOE assumes that 8 percent of these units are somewhat less efficient, but could still be labeled with a ``II,'' while the remaining 17 percent of units are even less efficient.
Table II.7Efficiency of External Power Supplies for Cordless Rechargeable Floor Care Appliances Minimum active mode Maximum no Market share Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power (percent) Shipments (percent) (W) 0. Less than the II Mark........................ 24 1.85 17 50,490 1. Meets the II Mark............................ 45 0.75 8 23,760 2. Meets the IV Mark............................ 55 0.50 58 172,260 3. Meets the V Mark............................. 66 0.30 17 50,490

All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 297,000 DOE estimated market distributions based on test data of 12 Class A EPSs.

In the first basecase efficiency forecast in the national impact analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In the second forecast, EPSs for BCs that power cordless rechargeable floor care appliances gradually become more efficient throughout the period of analysis. By 2032, 5 percent of units remain at CSL 0, 20 percent of units are at CSL 1, 52 percent of units are at CSL 2, and the remaining 23 percent of units are at CSL 3.

DIY Power Tools

DOE estimates that 499,400 wall adapters without charge control (EPSs) are sold annually for use with rechargeable power tools. This is a preliminary estimate based on the assumptions shown in Table II.8. As noted above, professional tools, which DOE assumed account for 50 percent of shipments, do not employ wall adapters. The remaining 50 percent, the DIY tools, can be divided into those with a detachable battery and those with an integral battery. DOE assumed that the former account for 30 percent and the latter 20 percent of the market. Based on data obtained from the Power Tool Institute, DOE estimated that 80 percent of DIY tools with detachable batteries and 100 percent of DIY tools with integral batteries employed wall adapters. DOE's preliminary estimate is that a maximum of 5 percent of those 9,990,000 wall adapters lack charge control and, thus, are considered EPSs under Approach A.
Table II.8Shipments of Cordless Rechargeable Power Tools Wall adapter Percent of Annual unit With wall With wall without charge Wall adapter Type of power tool shipments shipments adapter adapter control without char

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Mr. Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 205850121. Telephone: (202) 5864549. Email:
Victor.Petrolati@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 5868145. Email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

For further information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 205850121. Telephone (202) 5862945. Email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.