[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44298-44314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17123]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023]
RIN 1905-AE01


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Microwave Ovens

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

ACTION: Notification of proposed determination and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, prescribes 
energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain 
commercial and industrial equipment, including microwave ovens. EPCA 
also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') to periodically 
determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result 
in significant energy savings. In this notification of proposed 
determination (``NOPD''), DOE has initially determined that energy 
conservation standards for microwave ovens do not need to be amended 
and requests comment on this proposed determination and the associated 
analyses and results.

DATES: 
    Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Monday, September 13, 2021, 
from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' 
for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and 
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will 
be accepted on or before October 12, 2021.
    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. 
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by 
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023, by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: to [email protected]. Include docket number EERE-
2017-BT-STD-0023 in the subject line of the message.

No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section VII of this document.
    Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions 
through a variety of mechanisms, including email, postal mail, or hand 
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make 
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of 
the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of 
public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a 
commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please 
contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss 
the need for alternative arrangements. Once the Covid-19 pandemic 
health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its 
regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail 
and hand delivery/courier.
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, 
webinar attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
https://www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in 
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for further 
information

[[Page 44299]]

on how to submit comments through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Microwave Ovens
III. General Discussion
    A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
    B. Test Procedure
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    E. Cost Effectiveness
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Active Mode Standards
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes
    2. Technology Options
    3. Screening Analysis
    a. Screened-Out Technologies
    b. Remaining Technologies
    4. Product Classes
    a. Existing Product Classes
    b. Additional Product Classes
    c. Summary
    C. Engineering Analysis
    D. Energy Use Analysis
    E. National Energy Savings
    1. Product Efficiency Trends
    2. National Energy Savings
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
V. Conclusions
    A. Technological Feasibility
    B. Significant Conservation of Energy
    C. Cost-Effectiveness
    D. Summary
VI. 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 of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Webinar
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\2\ established the Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These 
products include kitchen ranges and ovens, which encompass microwave 
ovens, the subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not 
later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or 
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of 
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, 
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed 
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
    For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed microwave ovens 
subject to standards specified in 10 CFR 430.32(j)(3).
    DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of microwave ovens 
with lower energy use. For those microwave ovens for which DOE 
determined higher standards to be technologically feasible, DOE 
estimated energy savings that would result from potential energy 
conservation standards by using the same approach as when it conducts a 
national impacts analysis.
    Based on the results of the analyses, summarized in section V of 
this document, DOE has tentatively determined that current standards 
for microwave ovens do not need to be amended.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the 
historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for 
microwave ovens.

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include kitchen ranges 
and ovens, which include microwave ovens, the subject of this document. 
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards 
for kitchen ranges and ovens and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of 
rulemakings to determine whether to amend standards for these products. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)(A)-(B))
    The energy conservation program for covered products under EPCA 
consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 
establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) 
certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA 
specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 
U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information 
and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, 
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products 
comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.

[[Page 44300]]

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for microwave ovens appear 
at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430.23(i) 
and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I (``Appendix I'').
    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140, any final 
rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after 
July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy 
use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard 
for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the 
criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), 
incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single 
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for 
such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's 
current test procedures for microwave ovens address standby mode and 
off mode energy use. In this analysis, DOE considers such energy use in 
its determination of whether energy conservation standards need to be 
amended.
    DOE must periodically review its already established energy 
conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from 
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a 
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back provision 
requires that DOE publish either a determination that standards do not 
need to be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards 
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 
EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance 
of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish 
either a notification of determination that standards for the product 
do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy 
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a 
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity 
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
    A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based 
on consideration of whether amended standards will result in 
significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and 
are cost-effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) 
Additionally, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
prescribed by the Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product 
shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors 
DOE considers in evaluating whether a proposed standard level is 
economically justified includes whether the proposed standard at that 
level is cost-effective, as defined under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an 
evaluation of cost-effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in 
operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered 
products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, 
initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that 
are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing this NOPD in 
satisfaction of the 6-year review requirement in EPCA.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In a final rule published on June 17, 2013 (``June 2013 Final 
Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for 
microwave ovens manufactured on or after June 17, 2016. 78 FR 36316. 
These energy conservation standards address standby mode and off mode 
energy use and prescribe the maximum allowable average standby power in 
watts (``W'') as set forth in 10 CFR 430.32(j)(3) and repeated in Table 
II-1 of this document.

  Table II-1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Microwave Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                                                               allowable
                        Product class                           average
                                                                standby
                                                              power  (w)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave             1.0
 Ovens......................................................
Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens......         2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Microwave Ovens
    EPCA prescribed an energy conservation standard for kitchen ranges 
and ovens,\3\ and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 
determine whether to amend standards for these products. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(h)(2)(A)-(B)) DOE completed the first of these rulemaking cycles 
by publishing a final rule on September 8, 1998, that codified the 
prescriptive design standard for gas cooking products established in 
EPCA, but found that no standards were justified for electric cooking 
products, including microwave ovens, at that time. 63 FR 48038, 48053-
48054. DOE completed the second rulemaking cycle and published a final 
rule on April 8, 2009, in which it determined, among other things, that 
standards for microwave oven active mode energy use were not 
economically justified. 74 FR 16040 (``April 2009 Final Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPCA prescribed that gas kitchen ranges and ovens having an 
electrical supply cord shall not be equipped with a constant burning 
pilot for products manufactured on or after January 1, 1990. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most recently, DOE published the June 2013 Final Rule, adopting 
energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. 78 FR 36316. In the 
June 2013 Final Rule, DOE maintained its prior determination that 
active mode standards are not warranted for microwave ovens and 
prescribed energy conservation standards that address the standby and 
off mode energy use of microwave ovens. 78 FR 36316, 36317.
    In support of the present review of the microwave oven energy 
conservation standards, DOE published a request for information 
(``RFI'') on August 13, 2019 (``August 2019 RFI''), which identified 
various issues on which DOE sought comment to inform its determination 
of whether the standards need to be amended. 84 FR 39980.
    DOE received six comments in response to the August 2019 RFI from 
the interested parties listed in Table II-2.

[[Page 44301]]



              Table II-2--August 2019 RFI Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Reference in this
         Organization(s)                 NOPD          Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation...........  Whirlpool.........  Manufacturer.
GE Appliances...................  GE Appliances.....  Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness     ASAP and CEC......  Energy Efficiency
 Project and the California                            Advocate and
 Energy Commission.                                    State Energy
                                                       Agency.
Edison Electric Institute.......  EEI...............  Investor Owned
                                                       Utility
                                                       Association.
Association of Home Appliance     AHAM..............  Industry
 Manufacturers.                                        Association.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company  CA IOUs...........  Investor Owned
 (``PG&E''), San Diego Gas and                         Utility
 Electric (``SDG&E''), and                             Association.
 Southern California Edison
 (``SCE'').
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the comments in the public 
record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-
0023, which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023). The references are arranged as 
follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that 
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

    DOE developed this proposed determination after considering 
comments and information from interested parties that represent a 
variety of interests. This NOPD addresses issues raised by these 
commenters.

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such 
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors 
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) The microwave oven 
classes for this proposed determination are discussed in further detail 
in section IV.B.4 of this document. This proposed determination covers 
microwave ovens defined as household cooking appliances consisting of a 
compartment designed to cook or heat food by means of microwave energy, 
including microwave ovens with or without thermal elements designed for 
surface browning of food and convection microwave ovens. This includes 
any microwave oven components of a combined cooking product. 10 CFR 
430.2. The scope of coverage is discussed in further detail in section 
IV.B.1 of this document.

B. Test Procedure

    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation 
standards and to quantify the energy use of their product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) DOE's current energy conservation 
standards for microwave ovens are expressed in terms of average watts 
of standby mode power consumption. See 10 CFR 430.23(j)(3). DOE 
originally established test procedures for microwave ovens in an 
October 3, 1997 final rule that addressed active mode energy use only. 
62 FR 51976. Those procedures were based on the International 
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 705--Second Edition 1998 
and Amendment 2-1993, ``Methods for Measuring the Performance of 
Microwave Ovens for Households and Similar Purposes'' (``IEC Standard 
705''). On July 22, 2010, DOE published in the Federal Register a final 
rule for the microwave oven test procedures (``July 2010 Repeal Final 
Rule''), in which it repealed the regulatory test procedures for 
measuring the cooking efficiency of microwave ovens. 75 FR 42579. In 
the July 2010 Repeal Final Rule, DOE determined that the existing 
microwave oven test procedure did not produce representative and 
repeatable test results. 75 FR 42579, 42580. DOE stated at that time 
that it was unaware of any test procedures that had been developed that 
address these concerns. 75 FR 42579, 42581.
    On March 9, 2011, DOE published an interim final rule establishing 
test procedures for microwave ovens regarding the measurement of the 
average standby mode and average off mode power consumption that 
incorporated by reference specific clauses from the IEC Standard 62301, 
``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' 
First Edition 2005-06 (``IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition)''). 76 FR 
12825. On January 18, 2013, DOE published a final rule amending the 
microwave oven test procedure to incorporate by reference certain 
provisions of the revised IEC Standard 62301 Edition 2.0 2011-01, along 
with clarifying language for the measurement of standby mode and off 
mode energy use. 78 FR 4015.
    On December 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule (``December 2016 
TP Final Rule'') amending the cooking products test procedure to, in 
part, incorporate methods for calculating the annual standby mode and 
off mode energy consumption of the microwave oven component of a 
combined cooking product by allocating a portion of the combined low-
power mode energy consumption measured for the combined cooking product 
to the microwave oven component using the estimated annual cooking 
hours for the given components comprising the combined cooking product. 
81 FR 91418, 91438-91439. That final rule, which resulted in the most 
recent version of the microwave oven test procedure, was codified in 
the CFR at Appendix I.
    On January 18, 2018, DOE published an RFI (``January 2018 RFI'') 
initiating a data collection process to assist in its evaluation of the 
test procedure for microwave ovens. 83 FR 2366. On November 14, 2019, 
DOE published a NOPR (``November 2019 TP NOPR'') proposing amendments 
to the existing test procedure with requirements for both the clock 
display and network functionality when testing standby mode and off 
mode power consumption and certain technical corrections. 84 FR 61836. 
DOE subsequently published an SNOPR on August 3, 2021 (``August 2021 TP 
SNOPR'') providing additional clarification on the requirements for 
testing microwave ovens with network functionality. 86 FR 41759.

[[Page 44302]]

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation 
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information 
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that 
could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the 
subject of the determination. As the first step in such an analysis, 
DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in 
consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested 
parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving 
efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies 
incorporated in commercially available products or in working 
prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1).
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(ii)-(v) and 
7(b)(2)-(5). Section IV.B.3 of this document discusses the results of 
the screening analysis for microwave ovens, particularly the designs 
DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for 
the standards considered in this proposed determination.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    As when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or 
class of covered product, in this analysis it must determine the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy 
use that is technologically feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined 
the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in 
energy efficiency for microwave ovens, using the design parameters for 
the most efficient products available on the market or in working 
prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis 
are described in section IV.C of this proposed determination.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each efficiency level (``EL'') evaluated using the tools 
developed for the June 2013 Final Rule,\5\ DOE projected energy savings 
from application of the EL to the microwave ovens purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the assumed year of compliance with the 
potential standards (2024-2053). The savings are measured over the 
entire lifetime of the microwave ovens purchased in the 30-year period. 
DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each EL as the 
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the 
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a 
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a 
product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy 
conservation standards. DOE used the methodology from its national 
impact analysis to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from 
potential amended standards for microwave ovens. The methodology 
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy 
directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2013-06-17 Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Standby Mode 
and Off Mode for Microwave Ovens; Final Rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0048-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must 
consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation 
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 
Although the term ``significant'' is not defined in the EPCA, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit in Natural 
Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 
1985), opined that Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings in 
the context of EPCA to be savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.''
    Historically, DOE did not provide specific guidance or a numerical 
threshold for determining what constitutes significant conservation of 
energy. Instead, DOE determined on a case-by-case basis whether a 
particular rulemaking would result in significant conservation of 
energy. In a final rule published February 14, 2020, DOE adopted a 
numerical threshold for significant conservation of energy. 85 FR 8626, 
8670. Specifically, the threshold requires that an energy conservation 
standard result in a 0.30 quadrillion British thermal units (``quads'') 
reduction in site energy use over a 30-year analysis period or a 10-
percent reduction in site energy use over that same period. Id. 
Although a numeric threshold may serve as an informative guide, the 
significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy 
conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the 
specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. For example, the 
United States has now rejoined the Paris Agreement and will exert 
leadership in confronting the climate crisis.\6\ Additionally, some 
covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption 
occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these 
products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with relatively constant demand. Further establishing a set, 
numerical site energy threshold for all covered products and equipment 
does not allow DOE to account for differences in primary energy and 
full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') effects for different covered products and 
equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. 
Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in 
electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and 
transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary 
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a 
more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 
Accordingly, in a two part NOPR process, the first of which published 
on April 12, 2021 and part two on July 7, 2021, DOE reconsidered the 
numerical threshold process for determining significance of energy 
savings and whether to revert to its prior practice of making such 
determinations on a case-by-case basis. 86 FR 18901, 35668. Currently, 
under section 6(b) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C 
(``Process Rule''), if DOE determines that a more stringent energy 
conservation standard would not result in an additional 0.3 quads of 
site energy savings or an additional 10-percent reduction in site 
energy use over a 30-year period, DOE would propose to make a no-new 
standards determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021) 
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Cost Effectiveness

    Under EPCA's six-year-lookback review provision for existing energy

[[Page 44303]]

conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of 
potential amended standards is a relevant consideration both where DOE 
proposes to adopt such standards, as well as where it does not. In 
considering cost-effectiveness when making a determination of whether 
existing energy conservation standards do not need to be amended, DOE 
considers the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the 
price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, 
the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)(referencing 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))) Additionally, 
any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the 
Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed 
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the 
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2(A) Cost-effectiveness is one of the 
factors that DOE must ultimately consider under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) 
to support a finding of economic justification, if it is determined 
that amended standards are appropriate under the applicable statutory 
criteria. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)))

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE performed for this proposed 
determination regarding microwave ovens. Separate subsections address 
components of DOE's analyses as performed for the June 2013 Final Rule. 
DOE used a national impact analysis methodology and calculated the NES 
expected to result from potential energy conservation standards.

A. Active Mode Standards

    As part of the January 2018 RFI, DOE requested information on the 
feasibility of establishing an active mode test procedure for microwave 
ovens, including convection microwave ovens. 83 FR 2566, 2570. 
Similarly, in the August 2019 RFI, DOE requested comment and 
information on whether standards for microwave ovens in active mode 
were justified and on the feasibility of incorporating active mode, 
standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard if DOE were 
to develop an active mode test procedure. 84 FR 39980, 39983.
    In response to the August 2019 RFI, DOE received several comments 
related to active mode energy conservation standards. GE Appliances 
stated that there is no justification for active mode energy 
conservation standards due to the insufficient energy savings and lack 
of economic benefit. (GE Appliances, No. 5 at p. 2) GE Appliances and 
AHAM also stated that no other country currently requires active mode 
testing for microwave oven energy conservation standards, with AHAM 
adding that a requirement for active mode measurement would put the 
United States at odds with other countries, be unduly burdensome, and 
would require 5-6 times the current test time. (GE Appliances, No. 5 at 
p. 2 and AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2) AHAM stated that if DOE were to amend the 
test procedure to address active mode energy use, DOE would need to 
seek information again on energy conservation standards for microwave 
ovens as the test procedure affects the standards analysis. (AHAM No. 
5, at p. 2)
    AHAM further commented that it does not believe that standards 
would be justified for active mode because, to AHAM's knowledge, there 
is no technology currently available to reduce energy use in the active 
mode for either microwave-only ovens or convection microwave ovens. 
AHAM stated that there is no evidence to indicate that DOE's prior 
analysis and determination in the April 2009 Final Rule that active 
mode standards for microwave ovens would not be economically justified 
would be different today. The CA IOUs provided comments in support of 
incorporating active mode energy usage into microwave oven efficiency 
standards, stating that active mode accounts for 80 percent of 
annualized unit energy consumption for microwave ovens. (CA IOUs, No. 7 
at p. 3) ASAP and CEC encouraged DOE to adopt an active mode test 
procedure for microwave ovens, stating that active mode energy 
consumption is almost 90 percent of the total annual energy consumption 
for microwave ovens, and that there is significant variation in active 
mode energy use among models. ASAP and CEC added that it likely is not 
technically feasibility to incorporate active mode, standby mode, and 
off mode into a single energy use metric. (ASAP and CEC, No. 8 at p. 1)
    As stated, the DOE test procedure does not measure active mode 
energy use of microwave ovens. DOE considered in the most recent 
microwave oven test procedure rulemaking whether to adopt provisions 
for measuring the energy use of microwave ovens in active mode. In the 
November 2019 TP NOPR, DOE made an initial determination that an active 
mode measurement for microwave ovens would be unduly burdensome at this 
time due to the expected increase in testing cost resulting from 
increased testing time and the potential need for new laboratory 
equipment and facility upgrades that would not be justified. 84 FR 
61838. Therefore, DOE did not propose an active mode test procedure in 
the November 2019 TP NOPR. Accordingly, DOE did not consider energy 
conservation standards for active mode energy use of microwave ovens in 
this NOPD.
    Additionally, consistent with AHAM's comment, DOE is unaware of 
changes to the market or available technology that would suggest DOE's 
previous determination in the April 2009 Final Rule that an energy 
conservation standard for microwave oven active mode would not be 
technologically feasible and economically justified would be different 
at the present time. See 74 FR 16040, 16087.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products 
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry 
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used 
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and 
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available 
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology 
assessment for this proposed determination include (1) a determination 
of the scope and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry 
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, 
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options 
that could improve the energy efficiency of microwave ovens. The key 
findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following 
sections.
1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes
    In this analysis, DOE relied on the definition of microwave ovens 
in 10 CFR 430.2, which defines ``microwave oven'' as household cooking 
appliances consisting of a compartment designed to cook or heat food by 
means of microwave energy, including microwave ovens with or without 
thermal elements designed for surface browning of food and convection 
microwave ovens. This includes any microwave oven components of a 
combined cooking product. Any product meeting the definition of 
microwave oven is included in DOE's scope of coverage.

[[Page 44304]]

    For this proposed determination, DOE considered the two product 
classes of microwave ovens prescribed in the current energy 
conservation standards: (1) Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop 
Convection Microwave Ovens, and (2) Built-In and Over-the-Range 
Convection Microwave Ovens. Section IV.B.4 of this document describes 
the two product classes in additional detail.
    As previously stated in section III.B of this document, for these 
two classes of microwave ovens, DOE's current test procedure measures 
the energy consumption in standby mode and off mode only. Consequently, 
DOE's current energy conservation standards for microwave ovens are 
also expressed in terms of standby mode and off mode power. There are 
currently no active mode energy conservation standards nor a prescribed 
test procedure for measuring the active mode energy use or efficiency 
(e.g., cooking efficiency) of microwave ovens.
    GE Appliances stated that using the microwave oven standards to 
regulate combined cooking products would improperly regulate the non-
microwave portion of the combined product. (GE Appliances, No. 5 at p. 
2) AHAM stated that there is no technological method to accurately 
measure the standby mode and off mode power consumption of the 
microwave oven portion of a combined cooking product, as a combined 
cooking product typically has one power source. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4)
    In a final rule published on August 18, 2020 (``August 2020 TP 
Final Rule), DOE withdrew the test procedure for conventional cooking 
tops, determining that it was not representative of energy use or 
efficiency during an average use cycle and was overly burdensome to 
conduct. 85 FR 50757. As part of the August 2020 TP Final Rule, DOE 
removed provisions for measuring the energy use of combined cooking 
products, which are household cooking appliances that combine a cooking 
product with other appliance functionality (e.g., microwave/
conventional cooking tops, microwave/conventional ovens, and microwave/
conventional ranges.) Id. The current test procedure for measuring 
standby mode and off mode power consumption for microwave ovens 
excludes the microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. 
Appendix I, Section 3.2.1.
    DOE also received several comments related to microwave ovens 
equipped with connected functionality in response to the August 2019 
RFI. EEI stated that DOE should update the current microwave oven 
standby mode requirements to account for new technologies, including 
the integration of ``smart'' devices with demand response 
functionality. (EEI, No. 4 at p. 2) EEI stated that, to the extent that 
energy use of a ``connected'' function is measured, the current energy 
conservation standards for microwave ovens may impede the inclusion of 
such functions. Id. EEI suggested DOE should revise the microwave oven 
standby power requirements to contain three categories of microwave 
oven operation: standby and non-connected, standby and connected, and 
standby and disconnected. (EEI, No. 3 at p. 2) AHAM urged DOE not to 
revise the microwave oven test procedure or standards to account for 
the energy consumed while performing connected functions to avoid 
stifling innovation and potential energy saving benefits. (AHAM, No. 6 
at p. 7) Based on a review of manufacturer websites and user manuals of 
various appliances, as well as testing conducted at DOE and third-party 
laboratories, connected features continue to be implemented in a 
variety of ways across different brands. Further, the design and 
operation of these features is continuously evolving as the market 
continues to grow for these products. Because there are a lack of 
available data to establish a representative test configuration for 
assessing the energy consumption of network functionality for microwave 
ovens, DOE, in the August 2021 TP SNOPR, proposed explicit language to 
generally require network functions to be disabled during testing. 86 
FR 41759. As such, DOE is not addressing energy consumption specific to 
connected functions in this proposed determination.
2. Technology Options
    To develop a list of technology options, DOE uses information about 
existing and past technology options and prototype designs to help 
identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or 
exceed a given set of energy conservation standards under 
consideration.
    In the August 2019 RFI, DOE identified several technology options 
that would be expected to reduce the energy consumption of microwave 
ovens in standby mode and off mode, as measured by the DOE test 
procedure. 84 FR 39980, 39984-39985.

              Table IV-1--Microwave Oven Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Mode                           Technology option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standby...........................  Lower-power display technologies.
Standby...........................  Cooking sensors with no standby
                                     power requirement.
Standby...........................  Improved power supply and control
                                     board options.
Standby...........................  Automatic power-down of most power-
                                     consuming components, including the
                                     clock display.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Screening Analysis
    DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing 
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the 
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the 
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is 
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.

[[Page 44305]]

    (5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option 
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to 
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be 
considered further.
    10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b). 
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of 
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it 
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis.
    Regarding impacts of technology options on costs, DOE does not 
consider cost as a factor for screening out technology options. DOE 
considers the economic impacts and costs on individual customers, 
manufacturers, and the nation in later analyses.
    DOE received several comments on technology options in response to 
the August 2019 RFI. Whirlpool stated that all feasible technology 
options are currently used in microwave ovens to meet DOE's current 
energy conservation standards. (Whirlpool, No. 3 at p. 1) GE Appliances 
stated that all available and economically feasible technologies are 
being used in microwave ovens. (GE Appliances, No. 5 at p. 2) AHAM 
commented that all technology options are being employed to meet 
current energy conservation standards, and that it is not aware of any 
new technologies that increase the efficiency of microwave ovens 
without decreasing consumer utility. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) AHAM also 
stated that most microwave ovens on the market are minimally compliant 
with the current standards, and that these units are already using the 
available technology options. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) Whirlpool stated 
that additional reduction in standby mode power consumption would 
jeopardize key functionalities demanded by consumers, would be 
technologically impractical, and would be cost prohibitive. (Whirlpool, 
No. 3 at p. 1) CA IOUs urged DOE to investigate more stringent 
microwave oven standby mode standards, stating that there is evidence 
that technological limitations have changed since the last rulemaking. 
The CA IOUs commented that 33 percent of microwave-only ovens and 
countertop convection microwave ovens and 11 percent of built-in and 
over-the-range convection microwave ovens are performing better than 
the current standards. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 1) ASAP and CEC commented 
that there are a range of potential intermediate efficiency levels 
between the current standards and the max-tech levels from the previous 
final rule, citing data from DOE's Compliance Certification 
Database,\7\ which shows that for microwave-only and countertop 
convection microwave ovens, the models with the lowest standby power 
consumption consume just 0.10-0.19 W and for built-in and over-the-
range convection microwave ovens, the models with the lowest standby 
power consumption consume 0.50-0.59 W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available for 
review at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html (accessed on October 17, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that nearly 30 percent of microwave-only ovens and 
countertop convection microwave ovens and 20 percent of built-in and 
over-the-range convection microwave ovens certified in the Compliance 
Certification Database exceed the minimum requirements for standby mode 
and off mode energy use (i.e., have standby power consumption that is 
lower than the applicable standard). The Compliance Certification 
Database data indicates that technology options to achieve efficiencies 
higher than the current DOE standard readily exists without 
jeopardizing key functionalities. Consistent with the screening 
criteria previously discussed, DOE's engineering analysis considered 
technologies that are technologically feasible and that do not have 
significant adverse impacts on the utility of the microwave ovens to 
significant subgroups of consumers or that would result in the 
unavailability of any microwave oven with performance characteristics 
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that 
are substantially the same as products generally available in the 
United States.
a. Screened-Out Technologies
    As discussed, DOE takes into account whether a technology option 
will adversely impact consumer utility and product availability. In 
response to the August 2019 RFI, GE Appliances stated that clock 
displays are a critical function of microwave ovens. (GE Appliances, 
No. 5 at p. 2) Similarly, AHAM stated that an automatic power-down 
feature that shuts off the clock display decreases consumer utility, 
and that maintaining the clock display is critical. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 
6)
    DOE has previously stated it is uncertain how greatly consumers 
value the function of a continuous display clock, but that loss of such 
function may result in significant loss of consumer utility. 78 FR 
36316, 36362. Consistent with this prior concern and with comments 
provided by AHAM, DOE has screened out ``automatic power-down'' as a 
technology option due to its impact on consumer utility.
b. Remaining Technologies
    After reviewing each technology, DOE did not screen out the 
following technology options and considers them as design options in 
the engineering analysis:

(1) Lower-power display technologies
(2) Cooking sensors with no standby power requirement
(3) Improved power supply and control board options

    AHAM stated that cooking and humidity sensors identified by DOE 
take longer to re-energize, pre-condition, and calibrate, and are not 
applicable for the on-demand operational requirements of microwave 
ovens. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5)
    In the June 2013 Final Rule, DOE concluded that cooking sensors are 
a viable design option for reducing microwave oven standby power 
consumption. 78 FR 36316, 36331. Interviews with microwave oven 
manufacturers and cooking sensor manufacturers and DOE's own research 
at the time confirmed that cooking sensors that are able to energize in 
a period of time that is small (5-10 seconds) compared to the duration 
of the cooking cycle had already been successfully deployed in 
commercially available products with no reliability concerns, and 
little to no cost premiums and impact on consumer utility. Id. AHAM 
provided no more than a generalized statement as to the operation of 
such sensors and DOE has no indication that its prior consideration and 
determination of such sensors are no longer valid. As such, DOE 
included such cooking sensors in its analysis.
    DOE also tentatively finds that all of the remaining technology 
options meet the other screening criteria (i.e., practicable to 
manufacture, install, and service; do not result in adverse impacts on 
consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety; and are not 
a proprietary technology providing a unique pathway).
4. Product Classes
    In general, when evaluating and establishing energy conservation 
standards, DOE divides the covered product into classes by (1) the type 
of energy used; (2) the capacity of the product; or (3) any other 
performance-related feature that affects energy efficiency and 
justifies different standard levels, considering factors such as 
consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

[[Page 44306]]

a. Existing Product Classes
    For microwave ovens, the current energy conservation standards 
specified in 10 CFR 430.32(j)(3) are based on two product classes 
determined according to the following performance-related features that 
provide utility to the consumer, in terms of locations where the 
product may be installed and availability of additional cooking 
functions: Intended installation (i.e., countertop, built-in, or over-
the-range) and presence of convection heating components. The two 
existing product classes are listed below.

(1) Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens
(2) Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens
b. Additional Product Classes
    AHAM stated that there is no need to merge existing product classes 
or create additional product classes for microwave ovens currently. 
(AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3) DOE did not identify any additional product 
classes for microwave ovens based on (1) the type of energy used, (2) 
the capacity of the product, or (3) any other performance-related 
feature that affects energy efficiency and justifies different standard 
levels. Further, DOE did not identify any rationale to merge the 
existing product classes. Accordingly, DOE's analysis is based on the 
two existing product classes.
c. Summary
    In summary, DOE assesses the product classes shown in the following 
list in its analysis.

(1) Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens
(2) Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens

C. Engineering Analysis

    In the engineering analysis, DOE establishes the relationship 
between the manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') and improved 
microwave oven efficiency. There are two dimensions to consider in the 
engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze 
(i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and the determination of product 
cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In 
determining the performance of microwave ovens that use less power, DOE 
considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by 
the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the 
baseline manufacturer cost, as well as the incremental cost for the 
product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the 
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are 
used in downstream analyses.
    DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy 
efficiency levels for the Engineering Analysis: (1) Relying on observed 
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), 
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated 
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., 
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on 
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on 
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that 
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through 
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the 
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that 
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on 
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended 
using the design option approach to interpolate and define ``gap-fill'' 
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency 
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (the level that DOE 
determines is the maximum achievable efficiency level, particularly in 
cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level 
currently available on the market).
    For this proposed determination, DOE applied a combination of the 
efficiency-level approach and the design level approach. For microwave-
only ovens and countertop convection microwave ovens (``Product Class 
1''), the standby power consumption at each efficiency level were 
initially derived from review of the DOE Compliance Certification 
Database and comparison to the levels from the June 2013 Final Rule. 78 
FR 36316, 36317. The baseline standby power level, EL 0, is equal to 
the current standard of 1.0 W. To develop EL 1, which is 0.84 W, DOE 
purchased and evaluated countertop microwave-only ovens with a more 
efficient power supply. DOE analyzed two representative units: One that 
just meets the current standard of 1.0 W and another that has a lower 
standby power consumption. The two units otherwise share similar design 
characteristics such as cooking mode power, cavity size and 
installation configuration (i.e. both were countertop microwave-only 
ovens). In testing, DOE measured each of the internal power supply 
units' no-load power consumption, which is the power consumption with 
all other components disconnected. The first representative unit that 
just meets DOE's current standards had a no-load power consumption of 
0.3 W, while the second unit had a 0.14 W no-load power consumption. 
DOE estimated that the difference between these two units (i.e., 0.16 
W) is the direct consequence of implementing an improved power supply. 
DOE, therefore, subtracted this value from the current 1.0 W standard 
to produce an EL 1 at 0.84 W that represents a microwave oven with an 
upgraded internal power supply. For Product Class 1, DOE determined 
that this EL 1 is also the max-tech level. DOE had previously 
identified a max-tech efficiency level based on automatic power-down as 
the technology option in the June 2013 Final Rule, with a corresponding 
standby power consumption of 0.02 W. 78 FR 36316, 36325. In the 
analysis for this NOPD, however, this technology option was screened 
out for the reasons discussed in section IV.B.3.a of this document.
    For the built-in and over-the-range convection microwave ovens 
product class (``Product Class 2''), the baseline standby power 
consumption used for the analysis at EL 0 is the current DOE standard 
of 2.2 W. This maximum allowable average standby power consumption is 
higher than that allowed for microwave-only ovens and countertop 
convection microwave ovens because, in the June 2013 Final Rule, DOE 
had concluded that built-in and over-the-range convection microwave 
ovens require a larger power supply to support additional features such 
as an exhaust fan, additional relays, and additional lights, and that 
the larger power supply contributes to a higher standby power 
consumption. 78 FR 36316, 36328. Nonetheless, because consumer utility 
of the microwave oven in standby mode is similar for both product 
classes, DOE expects that the available design options for reducing 
standby power consumption would be similar. From market data, DOE 
observed a large percentage of built-in and over-the-range convection 
microwave oven models at or below the 1.0 W level. Given the prevalence 
of such products, DOE expects that all products in Product Class 2 
could meet the 1.0 W level by using the same improved power supply 
design as in EL 1 for Product Class 1. Even though EL 1 for Product 
Class 1 is at 0.84 W, DOE

[[Page 44307]]

expects the larger power supply needed for Product Class 2 microwave 
ovens would only allow these products to achieve 1.0 W using the same 
power supply design. Furthermore, similar to Product Class 1, the 
previous max-tech level that had been identified in the June 2013 Final 
Rule for built-in and over-the-range convection microwave ovens based 
on an automatic power-down feature was removed due to concerns over 
consumer utility. DOE, therefore, analyzed 1.0 W as the max-tech level 
for this product class (in this case, EL 2, because as discussed, DOE 
also evaluated a gap-fill level for Product Class 2 that it designated 
as EL 1).
    For the gap-fill EL 1 in Product Class 2, DOE analyzed a standby 
power level at 1.16 W, which represents a built-in and over-the-range 
convection microwave oven with less efficient power supplies, albeit of 
the same type as analyzed at max-tech. DOE estimated the standby power 
consumption for this EL 1 by adding the difference in wattage between 
an efficient and inefficient power supply's no-load consumption 
previously determined for Product Class 1 (i.e., 0.16 W) to the 1.0 W 
standby power consumption of the Product Class 2 max-tech level. DOE 
used this approach because the improvements needed to make the power 
supply more efficient would be nearly identical for both product 
classes. Since both Product Class 2, EL 2 and Product Class 1, EL 1 
utilizes the same power supply efficiency improvements, removing the 
improvements results in the baseline power supply design of Product 
Class 1. DOE therefore determined that for Product Class 2, EL 1 
standby levels can be readily achieved using the Product Class 1 
baseline power supply.
    For both product classes, DOE tested and tore down additional 
microwave ovens with standby power consumptions that are lower than the 
max-tech values established in this rulemaking. DOE was, however, 
unable to isolate further technology options that resulted in the 
improved standby power consumption of these models other than automatic 
power-down.
    In summary, DOE analyzed the following efficiency levels for this 
NOPD:

   Table IV-2--Analyzed Efficiency Levels for Microwave-Only Ovens and
                  Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Standby power level     Standby power
        Efficiency level                  source                (W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................  Baseline (current                  1.00
                                  standard).
1..............................  Improved Power Supply              0.84
                                  (Max-Tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table IV-3--Analyzed Efficiency Levels for Built-In and Over-the-Range
                       Convection Microwave Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Standby power level     Standby power
        Efficiency level                  source                (W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................  Baseline (current                  2.20
                                  standard).
1..............................  Standard Power Supply..            1.16
2..............................  Improved Power Supply              1.00
                                  (Max-Tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost analysis portion of the Engineering Analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost 
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
product, and availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on 
the market. The cost approaches are summarized as:
     Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically 
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to 
develop a detailed bill of materials (``BOM'') for the product.
     Catalogue teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing 
a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams 
(available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for 
example) to develop the BOM for the product.
     Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalogue 
teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such 
as light-emitting diode (``LED'') bulbs, which are infeasible to 
disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-
prohibitive and otherwise impractical (e.g. large commercial boilers), 
DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data 
published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices 
from distributors and other commercial channels.
    In the present case, after establishing the efficiency levels, DOE 
estimated the MPC of attaining each efficiency level based on the 
technology options identified for that level (i.e., physical tear 
downs). The MPC takes into account the costs for materials, labor, 
depreciation, and overhead. These values were developed based on 
product teardowns that generated BOMs for components and manufacturing 
processes which contribute directly to standby power consumptions. DOE 
uses these BOMs, along with information on material and component 
prices, costs for labor, depreciation, and overhead to derive the MPC. 
For this analysis, the primary component of interest was the control 
board and its associated power supply unit.
    For microwave-only ovens and countertop convection microwave ovens, 
DOE calculated the difference in manufacturing cost between a standard 
and improved power supply from BOM analysis and found the cost 
difference to be $0.16.
    For Product Class 2, DOE modeled EL 1 using the same power supply 
design and cost as in the baseline products for Product Class 1. The 
overall teardown costs of these power supplies were on the order of 
$0.70, and DOE estimated that these power supplies could be used with 
near-zero differential cost in Product Class 2, noting that the 
slightly larger power supply requirement of Product Class 2 would not 
result in a measurable cost increase. DOE therefore applied the same 
incremental manufacturing cost to Product Class 2, EL 1 as Product 
Class 1, EL 0 (i.e. $0). Similarly, DOE modeled EL 2 for Product Class 
2 as utilizing the same efficiency improvements made to the baseline 
power supply of Product Class 1 and therefore applied the same 
incremental cost of $0.16.

[[Page 44308]]



 Table IV-4--Analyzed Efficiency Levels and Incremental Costs for Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection
                                                 Microwave Ovens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Standby power    Incremental
              Efficiency level                    Standby power level source            (W)         MPC (2019$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................................  Baseline (current standard)........            1.00  ..............
1..........................................  Improved Power Supply (Max-Tech)...            0.84          $ 0.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table IV-5--Analyzed Efficiency Levels and Incremental Costs for Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection
                                                 Microwave Ovens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Standby power    Incremental
              Efficiency level                    Standby power level source            (W)        MPC  ($2019)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................................  Baseline (current standard)........            2.20  ..............
1..........................................  Standard Power Supply..............            1.16             $ 0
2..........................................  Improved Power Supply (Max-Tech)...            1.00            0.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of microwave ovens at different efficiencies in 
representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and 
manufactured homes, and to assess the energy savings potential of 
increased microwave oven efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates 
the range of energy use of microwave ovens in the field (i.e., as they 
are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the 
basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the 
energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could 
result from adoption of amended or new standards.
    For this NOPD, DOE used the same methodology as that described in 
chapter 7 of the June 2013 Final Rule technical support document 
(``TSD'').\8\ DOE primarily used data from the Energy Information 
Administration (``EIA'')'s Residential Energy Consumption Survey 
(``RECS''). RECS is a national sample survey of housing units that 
collects statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures 
for energy in housing units, along with data on energy-related 
characteristics of the housing units and occupants. RECS was 
constructed by EIA to be a national representation of the household 
population in the United States. For the June 2013 Final Rule, DOE used 
RECS2009.\9\ For this NOPD, DOE updated the household sample to 
RECS2015. RECS2015 includes data specific to microwave oven use 
frequency, whereas RECS2009 frequency usage was estimated from overall 
numbers of cooked meals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2013-06-17 Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Standby Mode 
and Off Mode for Microwave Ovens; Final Rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0048-0027.
    \9\ U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2013-06-17 Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Standby Mode 
and Off Mode for Microwave Ovens; Final Rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0048-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each household, RECS2015 provides information on the frequency 
of microwave oven usage per week. DOE calculated the RECS usage factor 
for each household in the sample by multiplying the frequency of use by 
52 weeks per year and dividing by the weighted-average usage based on 
the entire RECS sample. The weighted-average usage was calculated by 
summing the average microwave use frequency per week as reported in 
RECS and multiplying by 52 weeks per year and by the housing record 
weight before dividing by the sum of housing record weights for the 
housing sample.
    DOE determined the annual energy consumption of the standby mode 
and off mode of microwave ovens by estimating the number of hours of 
operation throughout the year and assuming that the unit would be in 
standby mode and off mode the rest of the time. For the June 2013 Final 
Rule, DOE determined the average hours of operation for microwaves to 
be 44.9 hours per year. DOE subtracted the number of calculated 
operating hours from the total number of hours in a year and multiplied 
that difference by the standby mode power usage at each efficiency 
level to determine annual standby mode and off mode energy consumption.
    CA IOUs stated that microwave ovens spend approximately 53 hours 
annually in active mode. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3) DOE reviewed CA IOU's 
2014 study \10\ and found the sample size to be relatively small at 122 
households and geographically limited, as compared to RECS. DOE 
acknowledges the benefit of using field-metered studies for energy use; 
however, DOE concluded that a larger study with greater geographic area 
would be helpful before amending the active hours used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CALMAC Study ID: SCE0360.01. 2014. Literature Review of 
Miscellaneous Energy Loads (MELs) in Residential Buildings. https://www.calmac.org/publications/MEL_Literature_Review_6_10_14.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 7 of the June 2013 Final Rule TSD provides details on DOE's 
energy use analysis for microwave ovens.

E. National Energy Savings

    For the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, over 
the lifetime of microwave ovens sold from 2024 through 2053. DOE 
evaluates the effects of new or amended standards by comparing a case 
without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-new-
standards case characterizes energy use for each microwave oven class 
in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. For 
this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and 
various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over 
time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections 
characterizing the market for each microwave oven class if DOE adopted 
new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., 
the standards cases) for that class. For the standards cases, DOE 
considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of 
microwave oven with efficiencies greater than the standard.

[[Page 44309]]

    For the June 2013 Final Rule, DOE used a methodology consistent 
with the national impact analysis to calculate the energy savings from 
each EL.
1. Product Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the national energy savings analysis is the 
trend in energy efficiency projected for the no-new-standards case and 
each of the standards cases. To accurately estimate the share of 
consumers that would be affected by a potential energy conservation 
standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE's analysis considered 
the projected distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies 
under the no-new-standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new 
energy conservation standards).
    To estimate the energy efficiency distribution for microwave oven 
standby power, DOE used the same methodology as presented in the June 
2013 Final Rule TSD and updated the model counts from the Compliance 
Certification Management System. The estimated market shares for the 
no-new-standards case for microwave ovens are shown in Table IV-6. See 
chapter 8 of the June 2013 Final Rule TSD for further information on 
the derivation of the efficiency distributions.

                Table IV-6--Efficiency Distributions: No-New-Standards-Case Market Shares in 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Microwave-only and countertop convection microwave ovens     Built-in and over-the-range convection microwave
--------------------------------------------------------------                       ovens
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Standard level          Standby power   Market share                       Standby power   Market share
                                     (W)             (%)         Standard level         (W)             (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.....................            1.00           78.38  Baseline.........            2.20           81.25
1............................            0.84           21.62  1................            1.16            0.00
                                                               2................            1.00           18.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to 
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards 
are assumed to become effective. In this scenario, the market shares of 
products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard 
under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard level, 
and the market share of products above the standard would remain 
unchanged.
2. National Energy Savings
    The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy 
consumption of the considered products between each potential standards 
case and the case with no new or amended energy conservation standards. 
DOE calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the 
number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the unit 
energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based 
on the difference in national energy consumption for the no-new-
standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. DOE 
estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and 
converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy 
(i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site 
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from the U.S. 
Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2019. \11\ 
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the 
timeframe of the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy 
Outlook 2019. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo19/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    In evaluating cost-effectiveness, DOE typically conducts life-cycle 
cost (``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analyses to evaluate the 
economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy 
conservation standards for microwave ovens. The effect of new or 
amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually 
involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase 
cost. DOE uses the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
     The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or 
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales 
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy 
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE 
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them 
over the lifetime of the product.
     The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it 
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for 
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the 
estimated efficiency distribution of microwave ovens in the absence of 
new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for 
a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
    One input to the LCC analysis is the repair and maintenance cost. 
AHAM stated that LED and liquid crystal display (``LCD'') technologies 
are more expensive and could result in higher repair and maintenance 
costs for the consumer. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6) AHAM also stated that LED 
and LCD displays have lower reliability compared to vacuum fluorescent 
displays (``VFDs''), especially in high temperature over-the-range 
conditions. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) GE Appliances stated that there are 
no existing over-the-range microwave ovens using LCD technology due to 
extreme temperature conditions. They also indicated that previous GE 
Appliances over-the-range microwave ovens with an LCD screen are no 
longer being produced due to quality issues related to LCD screen heat 
exposure. (GE Appliances, No. 5 at p. 2)
    As discussed in section V of this document, DOE has initially 
determined that the amended energy conservation standards for microwave 
ovens would not result in significant energy savings as required by 
EPCA. As such, DOE did not conduct the LCC and PBP analyses. Therefore, 
DOE considers the comments from AHAM and GE Appliances regarding the 
repair costs related to LED and LCD technologies moot.

V. Conclusions

    As required by EPCA, this NOPD analyzes whether the Secretary 
should issue a notification of determination not to amend standards for 
microwave ovens based on DOE's consideration of

[[Page 44310]]

whether amended standards would be technologically feasible, result in 
significant conservation of energy, and be cost-effective. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Any new or amended standards 
issued by the Secretary would be required to comply with the economic 
justification and other requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

A. Technological Feasibility

    EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation 
standards for microwave ovens would be technologically feasible. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has tentatively 
determined that there are technology options that would improve the 
efficiency of microwave ovens. These technology options are being used 
in commercially available microwave ovens and therefore are 
technologically feasible. (See section IV.B.2 of this document for 
further information.) Hence, DOE has tentatively determined that 
amended energy conservation standards for microwave ovens are 
technologically feasible.

B. Significant Conservation of Energy

    EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy 
conservation standards for microwave oven standby power would result in 
significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(A))
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended 
standards for microwave ovens, DOE compared their energy consumption 
under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption 
under each potential standard level. The savings are measured over the 
entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins 
in the year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2024-
2053).
    DOE analyzed the energy savings of two potential standards levels 
(``PSLs'') for microwave ovens (see Table V-1). The PSLs were derived 
from the energy efficiency levels for microwave ovens that DOE 
developed in engineering analysis. For this NOPD, PSL 1 represents the 
max-tech level for microwave-only ovens and countertop convection 
microwave ovens and an efficiency level above the baseline efficiency 
level for built-in and over-the-range convection microwave ovens. PSL 2 
represents the max-tech level for standby power for both product 
classes.

  Table V-1--Potential Standard Levels for Microwave Oven Standby Power
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Standby power (W)
                                               -------------------------
                                                  Product      Product
                                                  class 1:     class 2:
                                                 microwave-    built-in
                      PSL                         only and    and over-
                                                 countertop   the-range
                                                 convection   convection
                                                 microwave    microwave
                                                   ovens        ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................         0.84         1.16
2.............................................         0.84         1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V-2 presents DOE's projections of the NES for each potential 
standard level considered for microwave ovens.

    Table V-2--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Microwave Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Potential standard
                                                            level
                                                   ---------------------
                                                        1          2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Quads
                                                   ---------------------
Site energy savings...............................       0.01       0.01
Primary energy....................................       0.03       0.03
FFC energy........................................       0.03       0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------


              Table V-3--Percentage Reduction in Energy Use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Potential standards
                                                           level
           Percent of energy reduction           -----------------------
                                                    1  (%)      2  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site energy savings.............................        7.9         8.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimates that amended standards for microwave oven standby 
power would result in energy savings of 0.01 quads at PSL 2, the max-
tech level, which is under the 0.3-quads threshold currently provided 
in Section 6(b)(3) of the Process Rule. Additionally, DOE estimates 
that the percentage reduction in standby power energy use at PSL 2, the 
max-tech level, is 8 percent over the 30-year analysis period, which is 
under the 10-percent threshold currently provided in Section 6(b)(4) of 
the Process Rule. (See results in Table V-3). Therefore, DOE has 
tentatively determined that amended energy conservation standards for 
microwave oven standby power would not result in significant 
conservation of energy.

C. Cost-Effectiveness

    DOE did not conduct an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of 
amended standards for microwave ovens. As stated, DOE has tentatively 
determined that amended standards would not result in significant 
energy savings as required by EPCA. Absent the necessary energy 
savings, DOE is prohibited from establishing amended standards 
regardless of the cost-effectiveness of such standards. As such, DOE 
did not consider further the cost-effectiveness of amended standards.

D. Summary

    Based on DOE's tentative determination that amended energy 
conservation standards for microwave oven standby power would not 
result in significant conservation of energy, DOE has tentatively 
determined that energy conservation standards for microwave oven 
standby power do not need to be amended. DOE will consider all comments 
received on this proposed determination in issuing any final 
determination.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    This proposed determination has been determined to be not 
significant for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a 
result, the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') did not review 
this proposed determination.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless 
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website (https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures 
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend 
standards for microwave ovens, if adopted, the determination would not 
amend any energy conservation standards. On the basis of the foregoing, 
DOE certifies that

[[Page 44311]]

the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, 
DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this proposed determination. DOE will 
transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of microwave ovens 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 microwave ovens. 
(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.
    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

    DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or 
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart 
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for 
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling 
regarding an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements 
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 
will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed determination 
and has tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 
Therefore, no further action is required by E.O. 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at 
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    This proposed determination does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures 
of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, 
the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

[[Page 44312]]

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). 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 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this NOPD 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

    E.O. 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 the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a Statement of 
Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor Executive Order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Because this proposed determination does not propose to amend 
energy conservation standards for microwave ovens, it is not a 
significant regulatory action, nor has it been designated as such by 
the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and has prepared a Peer Review report 
pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking 
analyses.\12\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, 
and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and 
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the 
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. 
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues 
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process 
for considering amended energy conservation standards in the case of 
the present action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 
Report.'' 2007. Available at https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at 
the beginning of this document. If no participants register for the 
webinar then it will be cancelled. Webinar registration information, 
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities 
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website: 
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=33. Participants are responsible for ensuring 
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this 
document, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that 
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an 
oral presentation at the webinar. Requests may be sent by email to the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, or 
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak 
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes 
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they 
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone 
number where they can be reached.
    Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of 
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for 
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to 
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before 
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot 
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those

[[Page 44313]]

persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building 
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral 
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public 
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. 
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, 
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the 
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to 
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures 
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be 
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, 
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After 
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period, 
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and 
any aspect of the rulemaking.
    The webinar/public meeting will be conducted in an informal, 
conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received 
before the webinar/public meeting, allow time for prepared general 
statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to 
share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant 
will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits 
determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will 
permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any 
general statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE 
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the 
webinar/public meeting will accept additional comments or questions 
from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will 
announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above 
procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar/
public meeting.
    A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the 
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the 
beginning of this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of 
the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

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

[[Page 44314]]

provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from 
public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    DOE welcomes comments and views on any aspect of this proposal from 
all interested parties.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this 
notification of proposed determination.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 6, 
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. 
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by 
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with 
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE 
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit 
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official 
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no 
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on August 6, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-17123 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P