8526 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–STD– 

0048] 

RIN 1904–AC07 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Standby 

Mode and Off Mode for Microwave 

Ovens 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR) and 

public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes 

energy conservation standards for 

various consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment. 

Microwave ovens are covered products 

under EPCA, although there are no 

existing microwave oven standards. 

EPCA requires the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) to determine whether 

amended, more stringent, standards are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. 

Additionally, the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) 

amended EPCA to require any final rule 

adopted after July 1, 2010 establishing 

or revising energy conservation 

standards for covered products, 

including microwave ovens, to address 

standby mode and off mode energy use. 

On October 17, 2008, DOE issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 

in which DOE proposed amendments to 

the energy conservation standards for 

several residential and commercial 

products, including microwave ovens. 

In response to the NOPR, DOE received 

comment expressing concern and 

encouraging the Department to reexamine standby mode and off mode of 

microwave ovens as a part of DOE’s 

rulemaking analyses. Additionally, DOE 

received comment alleging certain data 

problems affecting DOE’s rulemaking 

analyses. DOE’s preliminary assessment 

suggested that the concerns might be 

valid, thereby necessitating additional, 

supplemental rulemaking analyses. In 

this notice, DOE responds to the 

comments received on the NOPR and 

proposes amended energy conservation 

standards for microwave oven standby 

mode and off mode. The notice also 

announces a public meeting to receive 

comment on these proposed standards 

and associated analyses and results. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

on March 14, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting 

will also be broadcast as a Webinar. See 

section VIII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to Webinar participants. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this SNOPR 

before and after the public meeting, but 

no later than April 16, 2012. See section 

VIII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. Please note that foreign 

nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 

subject to advanced security screening 

procedures. Any foreign national 

wishing to participate in the meeting 

should advise DOE as soon as possible 

by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945 to initiate the necessary 

procedures. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the SNOPR for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Microwave 

Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode and 

must provide docket number EERE– 

2011–BT–STD–0048 and/or regulatory 

information number (RIN) 1904–AC07. 

Comments may be submitted using any 

of the following methods. 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: MWO-2011-BT-STD0048@ee.doe.gov Include the docket 

number and/or RIN in the subject line 

of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy through the methods listed 

above and by email to 

ChristinelJ.lKymn@omb.eop.gov. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section VIII of this document 

(‘‘Public Participation’’). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at regulations.gov, including 

Federal Register notices, framework 

documents, public meeting attendee 

lists and transcripts, comments, and 

other supporting documents/materials. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;

rpp=10;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT–STD–

0048. This Web page will contain a link 

to the docket for this notice on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page will contain simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section VIII for 

information on how to submit 

comments through regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit or review public comments or 

participate in the public meeting, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Wes Anderson, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7335. Email: 

wes.anderson@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Ari Altman, Esq., U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email: 

Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Microwave Ovens 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8527 

1 DOE considered energy use in off mode for 

microwave ovens, but is not proposing a maximum 

allowable off mode power because it is unaware of 

any current microwave ovens that are capable of 

operating in such a mode. 

2 DOE uses discount rates of 7 and 3 percent 

based on guidance from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB Circular A–4, section E, 

September 17, 2003). See section IV.E for further 

information. 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Energy Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Revisions to the 

Analyses Employed in the October 2008 

Proposed Rule 

A. Product Classes 

B. Technology Assessment 

1. Cooking Sensors 

2. Display Technologies 

3. Power Supply and Control Boards 

4. Power-Down Options 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Energy Use Metric 

2. Standby Power Levels 

3. Manufacturing Costs 

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Product Costs 

2. Annual Energy Consumption 

3. Energy Prices 

4. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

5. Product Lifetime 

6. Discount Rates 

7. Effective Date of New Standards 

8. Product Energy Efficiency in the Base 

Case 

9. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

10. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

E. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. General 

2. Shipments 

3. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and 

Income Impacts 

4. Other Inputs 

5. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices 

F. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

H. Employment Impact Analysis 

I. Utility Impact Analysis 

J. Emissions Analysis 

K. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

L. Discussion of Other Comments 

1. Off Mode Power Consumption 

2. Proposed Standards for Microwave Oven 

Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Use 

3. Manufacturer Tax Credits Impact on 

Market Adoption of More Efficient 

Products 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Consumers 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

3. National Impact Analysis 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Product 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

C. Proposed Standard 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Microwave Ovens 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Proposed Standards 

VI. Additional Technical Corrections to 10 

CFR 430.32 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

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 

VIII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; EPCA or the 

Act), as amended, provides that any 

amended energy conservation standard 

DOE prescribes for certain consumer 

products, such as microwave ovens, 

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)) The new or amended 

standard must ‘‘result in significant 

conservation of energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these 

and other statutory provisions discussed 

in this notice, DOE proposes amended 

energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode. The proposed standards, which 

prescribe the maximum allowable 

energy use when a product is in standby 

mode, are shown in Table I.1.1 These 

proposed standards, if adopted, would 

apply to all products listed in Table I.1 

and manufactured in, or imported into, 

the United States on or after April 1, 

2014. 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE

[Compliance Starting in 2014] 

Product classes Proposed energy conservation 

standard 

Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens ........................................................ Maximum Standby Power = 1.0 

watt. 

Built-In and Over-the-Range Combination Microwave Ovens .......................................................................... Maximum Standby Power = 2.2 

watts. 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed standards would save a 

significant amount of energy–an 

estimated 0.41 quads over 30 years 

(2014 through 2043). According to the 

Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 

(AEO 2010), total residential energy 

consumption is projected to be 21.3 

quads in 2015. The amount of energy 

saved per year is equivalent to 0.06 

percent of the projected household 

energy use. 

The cumulative national net present 

value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards for 

products shipped in 2014–2043, in 

2010$, ranges from $1.82 billion (at a 7- 

percent discount rate) to $3.59 billion 

(at a 3-percent discount rate).2 The NPV 

is the estimated total value of future 

operating-cost savings during the 

analysis period, minus the estimated 

increased product costs, discounted to 

2011. The industry net present value 

(INPV) is the sum of the discounted 

cash flows to the industry from the base 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8528 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short 

tons. A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

4 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to 

the most recent version of the Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO) Reference case forecast. This 

forecast accounts for emissions reductions from inplace regulations, including the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but not 

the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 28606 

(May 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, including 

the Cross-State Air Pollution rule issued on July 6, 

2011, do not appear in the forecast at this time. 

5 DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to 

determine the appropriate range of values used in 

evaluating the potential economic benefits of 

reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent valuation and 

reporting of Hg emissions before it once again 

monetizes Hg in its rulemakings. 

6 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in the same year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. To 

calculate the present value, DOE used discount 

rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits 

except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the 

latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown 

in Table I.2. From the present value, DOE then 

calculated the corresponding time-series of fixed 

annual payments over a 30-year period starting in 

the same year used for discounting the NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings. The fixed annual 

payment is the annualized value. Although DOE 

calculated annualized values, this does not imply 

that the time-series of cost and benefits from which 

the annualized values were determined would be a 

steady stream of payments. 

year through the end of the analysis 

period (2014 to 2043). Using a real 

discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE 

estimates that INPV for manufacturers of 

all microwave ovens in the base case is 

$1.1 billion in 2010$. If DOE adopts the 

proposed standard, it expects 

manufacturers will lose 4.7 to 6.5 

percent of their INPV, or approximately 

$52.9 million to $73.6 million. Using a 

7-percent discount rate, the NPV of 

consumer costs and savings from 

today’s proposed standards would 

amount to 25 to 34 times the total 

estimated industry losses. Using a 3- 

percent discount rate, the NPV would 

amount to 49 to 68 times the total 

estimated industry losses. 

The projected economic impacts of 

the proposed standards on individual 

consumers are positive. For example, for 

Microwave-Only and Countertop 

Combination Microwave Ovens 

(Product Class 1), the estimated average 

life-cycle cost (LCC) savings in 2010$ 

are $13, and all consumers of these 

products would have positive economic 

impacts. For Built-In and Over-theRange Combination Microwave Ovens 

(Product Class 2), the estimated average 

LCC savings in 2010$ are $4, and most 

consumers of this product would have 

positive economic impacts. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy savings projected 

from the proposed standards would 

result in cumulative greenhouse gas 

emission reductions of 31.48 million 

metric tons (Mt) 3 of carbon dioxide 

(CO2) in 2014–2043. During this period, 

the proposed standards would result in 

emissions reductions of 25.6 tons of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and have a 

negligible impact on emissions of 

mercury (Hg).4 DOE estimates the 

present monetary value of the CO2

emissions reduction is between $139 

million and $2,118 million, expressed 

in 2010$. DOE also estimates the 

present monetary value of the NOX

emissions reduction, expressed in 

2010$, is between $3.82 million and 

$39.3 million at a 7-percent discount 

rate, and between $7.44 million and 

$76.4 million at a 3-percent discount 

rate.5

The benefits and costs of today’s 

proposed standards can also be 

expressed in terms of annualized values 

over a 30-year period. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the proposed standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in product purchase costs, 

which is another way of representing 

consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary 

value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.6 The value of the CO2

reductions, otherwise known as the 

Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent 

interagency process. The monetary costs 

and benefits of cumulative emissions 

reductions are reported in 2010$ to 

permit comparisons with the other costs 

and benefits in the same dollar units. 

The derivation of the SCC values is 

discussed in section IV.K. 

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 reductions 

provides a useful perspective, two 

issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating savings are domestic 

U.S. consumer monetary savings that 

occur as a result of market transactions, 

whereas the value of CO2 reductions is 

based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings 

and CO2 savings are performed with 

different methods that use different time 

frames for analysis. The national 

operating cost savings is measured for 

the lifetime of microwave ovens 

shipped in 2014–2043. The SCC values, 

on the other hand, reflect the present 

value of all future climate-related 

impacts resulting from the emission of 

one ton of CO2 in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100. 

Table I.2 shows the annualized values 

for today’s proposed standards, 

expressed in 2010$. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

benefits and costs other than CO2

reductions, for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate along with the 

SCC series corresponding to a value of 

$22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the 

standards proposed in today’s rule is 

$20.3 million per year in increased 

product costs, while the annualized 

benefits are $167 million in reduced 

product operating costs, $35.4 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $1.74 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $184 million per 

year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for 

all benefits and costs and the SCC series 

corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 

2010, the cost of the standards proposed 

in today’s rule is $21.6 million per year 

in increased product costs, while the 

annualized benefits are $205 million in 

reduced operating costs, $35.4 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $2.14 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $221 million per 

year. 

TABLE I.2—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND

OFF MODE FOR PRODUCTS SOLD IN 2014–2043 

Discount rate Primary 

estimate * 

Low benefits 

estimate * 

High benefits 

estimate * 

Monetized (million 2010$/year) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ......................................................................... 7% 167 150 185 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8529 

7Products in the Microwave-Only Ovens and 

Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens product 

class that meet the proposed standards are currently 

commercially available. The Built-In and Over-theRange Combination Microwave Ovens class does 

not currently comprise products that meet the 

proposed standards, primarily because of the larger 

components necessary for the convection system 

and the more complex displays. However, DOE 

believes it is technologically feasible for all 

microwave ovens to meet the proposed standards. 

8For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

TABLE I.2—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND

OFF MODE FOR PRODUCTS SOLD IN 2014–2043—Continued 

3% 205 182 229 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t ** ..................................................................... 5% 9.02 8.49 9.55 

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t ** ................................................................... 3% 35.4 33.3 37.6 

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t ** ................................................................... 2.5% 55.9 52.5 59.3 

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t ** ................................................................... 3% 108.0 101.5 114.6 

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t ** ................................................................ 7% 1.74 1.65 1.82 

3% 2.14 2.02 2.26 

Total† .............................................................................................. 7% plus CO2 range 178 to 277 160 to 253 196 to 301 

7% 204 185 224 

3% 243 217 269 

3% plus CO2 range 216 to 315 193 to 286 241 to 346 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs .................................................................... 7% 20.32 23.39 20.25 

3% 21.59 25.48 21.48 

Total Net Benefits 

Total† .............................................................................................. 7% plus CO2 range 157 to 256 137 to 230 176 to 281 

7% 184 162 204 

3% 221 192 247 

3% plus CO2 range 195 to 294 167 to 260 219 to 324 

* The Primary, Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, 

Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a declining trend (default learning rate) for product prices in the Primary Estimate, constant prices (no learning rate) for product prices in the Low Estimate, and a declining trend (high learning rate) in the High Estimate. The derivation and application of learning rates for product prices is explained in section 

IV.D.1. 

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, 

$22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for 

NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. †Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is 

$22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are 

calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

DOE has made an initial 

determination that the proposed 

standards represent the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, while 

maintaining product utility in the form 

of a continual clock display, and would 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy. DOE further notes that products 

achieving these standard levels are 

already commercially available for one 

of the product classes covered by 

today’s proposal.7 Based on the analyses 

described above, DOE found the benefits 

of the proposed standards to the Nation 

(energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, consumer LCC 

savings, and emission reductions) 

outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for 

manufacturers). 

Based on consideration of the public 

comments DOE receives in response to 

this supplemental notice and related 

information collected and analyzed 

during the course of this rulemaking 

effort, DOE may adopt energy use levels 

presented in this notice that are either 

higher or lower than the proposed 

standards, or some combination of 

level(s) that incorporate the proposed 

standards in part. In particular, DOE is 

proposing TSL 3 for built-in products as 

the level which it has tentatively 

concluded meet the applicable statutory 

criteria (i.e., the highest level that is 

technologically feasible, economically 

justified, and would result in significant 

conservation of energy). Based upon 

public comments and any 

accompanying data submissions, DOE 

would consider finalizing other TSLs (as 

presented in this NOPR or at some level 

in between), including the option of not 

finalizing the standard for built-ins 

proposed in this rule. Accordingly, DOE 

is presenting a variety of issues 

throughout today’s notice upon which it 

is seeking comment, which will bear 

upon its consideration of standards for 

built-ins in the final rule. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s proposal as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode. 

A. Authority 

Title III of EPCA sets forth various 

provisions designed to improve energy 

efficiency. Part B of Title III (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309) provides for the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles.8

EPCA covers consumer products and 

certain commercial equipment (referred 

to collectively hereafter as ‘‘covered 

products’’), including the microwave 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8530 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9 DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the 

agency must periodically review its already 

established energy conservation standards for a 

covered product. Under this requirement, the next 

review that DOE would need to conduct would 

occur no later than 6 years from the issuance of a 

final rule establishing or amending a standard for 

a covered product. 

ovens that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) 9

Under the Act, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) is primarily 

responsible for labeling, and DOE 

implements the rest of the program. 

Section 323 of the Act authorizes DOE, 

subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, to develop test procedures 

to measure the energy efficiency, energy 

use, or estimated annual operating cost 

of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6293) The National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 

Public Law 100–12, amended EPCA to 

establish prescriptive standards for 

cooking products, specifically gas 

cooking products. No standards were 

established for microwave ovens. 

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 (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Similarly, 

DOE must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the products comply 

with standards adopted under EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The test procedure 

for microwave ovens currently appears 

at title 10, Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), part 430, subpart B, appendix I. 

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing 

amended standards for covered 

products. As indicated above, any 

amended standard for a covered product 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, 

EPCA precludes DOE from adopting any 

standard for certain products, including 

microwave ovens, if no test procedure 

has been established for the product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) Moreover, DOE 

may not prescribe a standard: (1) If it 

would not result in the significant 

conservation of energy, or (2) if DOE 

determines by rule that the proposed 

standard is not technologically feasible 

or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) The Act also provides 

that, in deciding whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must do so 

after receiving comments on the 

proposed standard, and by considering, 

to the greatest extent practicable, the 

following seven factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy, or as applicable, water, savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard if the Secretary finds 

that interested persons have established 

by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States at the time of the 

Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii). 

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

specifies requirements when 

promulgating a standard for a type or 

class of covered product that has two or 

more subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to such type or class 

of products for any group of covered 

products which have the same function 

or intended use, if products within such 

group—(A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard than applies or 

will apply to the other products within 

that type or class. Id. In determining 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard for a group 

of products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

such a feature and other factors DOE 

deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 

prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE 

can, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions of 

section 327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

Finally, section 310(3) of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110–140) amended 

EPCA to require that energy 

conservation standards address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)) Specifically, when DOE 

adopts a standard for a covered product 

after July 1, 2010, it must, pursuant to 

criteria for adoption of standards at 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o), incorporate standby 

mode and off mode energy use into the 

standard, if feasible, or adopt a separate 

standard for such energy use for that 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) These 

provisions in EISA 2007 do not 

preclude DOE from considering 

standards for standby mode and off 

mode energy use in a rulemaking that 

does not consider standards for active 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8531 

10This document is available on the DOE Web 

site at: www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliancelstandards/residential/ 

dehumidifiers.html. (Last accessed March 18, 2011.) 

11These spreadsheets are available on the DOE 

Web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential_products.html. 

(Last accessed March 18, 2011.) 

12 IEC standards are available for purchase at: 

http://www.iec.ch/. 

mode energy use. In this rulemaking, 

DOE intends to incorporate standby 

mode and off mode energy use into any 

standard it adopts in the final rule. 

It is pursuant to the authority set forth 

above that DOE is conducting the 

present SNOPR rulemaking for standby 

mode and off mode electricity 

consumption of microwave ovens. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563. (76 

FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 

13563 is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

‘‘to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible.’’ In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) has emphasized that such 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE believes that today’s 

proposed rule is consistent with these 

principles, including the requirement 

that, to the extent permitted by law, 

benefits justify costs and that net 

benefits are maximized. Consistent with 

Executive Order 13563, and the range of 

impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, 

the energy efficiency standards 

proposed herein by DOE achieve 

maximum net benefits. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

Section 310 of EISA 2007 amends 

section 325 of EPCA to require DOE to 

regulate standby mode and off mode 

energy use for all covered products, 

including microwave ovens, as part of 

energy conservation standards for which 

a final rule is adopted after July 10, 

2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)) 

Based on its ongoing analyses and 

comments from interested parties, DOE 

decided not to amend energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

oven energy factor (microwave oven 

operation in active mode), but instead 

develop a separate energy use metric for 

standby mode and off mode. 74 FR 

16040 (Apr. 8, 2009). 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Microwave Ovens 

On March 15, 2006, DOE published 

on its Web site a document titled, 

‘‘Rulemaking Framework for 

Commercial Clothes Washers and 

Residential Dishwashers, 

Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products’’ 

(Framework Document).10 71 FR 15059. 

The Framework Document described 

the procedural and analytical 

approaches that DOE anticipated using 

to evaluate energy conservation 

standards for these products, and 

identified various issues to be resolved 

in conducting the rulemaking. On 

December 4, 2006, DOE posted on its 

Web site two spreadsheet tools for this 

rulemaking.11 The first tool calculates 

life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback 

periods (PBPs). The second tool—the 

national impact analysis (NIA) 

spreadsheet—calculates the impacts on 

shipments and the national energy 

savings (NES) and NPV at various 

candidate standard levels. DOE 

subsequently published the advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) 

for this rulemaking (72 FR 64432 (Nov. 

15, 2007), the November 2007 ANOPR) 

and on December 13, 2007, held a 

public meeting to present and seek 

comment on the analytical methodology 

and results in the ANOPR (the 

December 2007 Public Meeting). 

At the December 2007 Public Meeting, 

DOE invited comment in particular on 

the following issues concerning 

microwave ovens: (1) Incorporation of 

the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) test standard IEC 

Standard 62301 12 into DOE’s 

microwave oven test procedure to 

measure standby mode and off mode 

power; (2) IEC Standard 62301 test 

conditions; and (3) a requirement that if 

the measured standby mode power 

varies as a function of the time 

displayed, the standby mode power test 

would run for 12 hours, with an initial 

clock setting of 12:00. 

Interested parties’ comments 

presented during the December 2007 

Public Meeting and submitted in 

response to the November 2007 ANOPR 

addressed the standby mode and off 

mode energy use of microwave ovens 

and the ability to combine that energy 

use into a single metric with cooking 

energy use. Those concerns lead DOE to 

thoroughly investigate standby mode, 

off mode, and active mode power 

consumption of microwave ovens. 

On October 17, 2008, DOE published 

a NOPR (the October 2008 NOPR) for 

cooking products and commercial 

clothes washers in the Federal Register 

proposing amended energy conservation 

standards. 73 FR 62034. In the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded 

that a standard for microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

would be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Id. at 62120. 

Therefore, concurrent with the 

standards NOPR, DOE published in the 

Federal Register a test procedure NOPR 

for microwave ovens to incorporate a 

measurement of standby mode and off 

mode power and to consider inclusion 

of such power as part of the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 73 

FR 62134 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

In conjunction with the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE posted on its Web site the 

associated technical support document 

(TSD). The TSD included the results of 

DOE’s analyses, including: (1) The 

market and technology assessment, (2) 

screening analysis, (3) engineering 

analysis, (4) energy and water use 

determination, (5) markups analysis to 

determine product price, (6) LCC and 

PBP analyses, (7) shipments analysis, (8) 

NES and NIA, and (9) manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA). The engineering 

analysis spreadsheet, the LCC 

spreadsheets, the national and regional 

impact analysis spreadsheets, and the 

MIA spreadsheet were all made 

available at www.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliancelstandards/ 

commercial/clotheslwashers.html. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8532 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

13A notation in the form ‘‘Whirlpool, No. 50 at 

p. 2’’ identifies a written comment that DOE has 

received and has included in the docket of the 

standards rulemaking for microwave ovens (Docket 

No. EE–2006–STD–0127). This particular notation 

refers to a comment (1) submitted by Whirlpool, (2) 

recorded in document number 50 in the docket of 

this rulemaking, and (3) which appears on page 2 

of document number 50. A notation in the form 

‘‘Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 

p. 63’’ identifies an oral comment that DOE 

received during the November 13, 2008 NOPR 

public meeting and which was recorded in the 

public meeting transcript in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket No. EE–2006–STD–0127), 

available on www.regulations.gov. This particular 

notation refers to a comment (1) made by Whirlpool 

during the public meeting, (2) recorded in 

document number 40.5, which is the public 

meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of this 

rulemaking, and (3) which appears on page 63 of 

document number 40.5. 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

concluded based on its additional 

investigations that, ‘‘although it may be 

mathematically possible to combine 

energy consumption into a single metric 

encompassing active (cooking), standby, 

and off modes, it is not technically 

feasible to do so at this time * * *.’’ 73 

FR 62034, 62043 (Oct. 17, 2008). The 

separate prescriptive standby mode and 

off mode energy conservation standards 

proposed in the October 2008 NOPR for 

microwave ovens were as shown in 

Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—OCTOBER 2008 NOPR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY

MODE AND OFF MODE

Product class Proposed energy conservation 

standard 

Microwave Ovens ............................................................................................................................................... Maximum Standby Power = 1.0 

watt 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

described and sought further comment 

on the analytical framework, models, 

and tools (e.g., LCC and NIA 

spreadsheets) it was using to analyze the 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards for this product. DOE held a 

public meeting in Washington, DC, on 

November 13, 2008 (the November 2008 

Public Meeting), to present the 

methodologies and results for the 

October 2008 NOPR analyses. 

Multiple interested parties 

commented in response to the October 

2008 NOPR that insufficient data and 

information were available to complete 

this rulemaking, and requested that it be 

postponed to allow DOE to gather such 

inputs on which to base its analysis. 

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) 

commented that DOE should work with 

industry to gather comprehensive data. 

Whirlpool stated that DOE and industry 

must ensure the product is useful to the 

consumer at the standards adopted, 

which could mean delaying standards 

until the next round of rulemaking. 

(Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 2; Whirlpool, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 

63) 13 GE Consumer & Industrial (GE) 

stated that DOE’s approach could have 

important implications for how standby 

power is approached for other covered 

products, and thus it is essential that 

DOE take the time to address these 

issues. GE commented that DOE should 

postpone the microwave oven standby 

mode and off mode energy conservation 

standards rulemaking to allow standby 

power issues for covered products to be 

addressed either through negotiation or 

through a rulemaking that considers 

how the definition of standby power 

would affect all appliances, not just 

microwave ovens. GE further 

commented that if the microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode energy 

conservation standards rulemaking was 

not postponed, DOE should issue a ‘‘no 

standard’’ standard for microwave oven 

standby power. (GE, No. 48, at pp. 2, 4) 

DOE agreed with these commenters 

that additional information would 

improve its analysis and, in April 2009, 

it concluded that it should defer a 

decision regarding amended energy 

conservation standards for standby 

mode and off mode energy use for 

microwave ovens pending further 

rulemaking. FR 16040, 16042 (Apr. 8, 

2009). In the interim, DOE proceeded 

with consideration of energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

oven active mode energy use based on 

its proposals in the October 2008 NOPR, 

and its analysis determined that no new 

standards for microwave oven active 

mode (as to cooking efficiency) were 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Therefore, in a 

final rule published on April 8, 2009, 

DOE maintained the ‘‘no standard’’ 

standard for microwave oven active 

mode energy use. Id. at 16087. The final 

rule is available on DOE’s Web site at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliancelstandards/residential/pdfs/ 

74fr16040.pdf. 

After continuing its analysis of 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode through additional testing, 

research, and consideration of an 

updated version of IEC Standard 62301, 

DOE developed this SNOPR to enable 

interested parties to comment on the 

revised standby power levels proposed 

for microwave oven standby mode and 

off mode energy use. 

The effective date of any new energy 

conservation standards for this product 

would be 3 years after the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

The test procedures for cooking 

products including microwave ovens 

initially appeared at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix I. Those test 

procedures were part of a May 10, 1978 

final rule that first established test 

procedures for conventional ranges, 

cooktops, and ovens (including 

microwave ovens). 43 FR 20108. DOE 

later revised its test procedures for 

cooking products to measure their 

efficiency and energy use more 

accurately, publishing a final rule on 

October 3, 1997. 62 FR 51976. The 1997 

rule incorporated parts of IEC Standard 

705–1998 and Amendment 2–1993, 

‘‘Methods for Measuring the 

Performance of Microwave Ovens for 

Households and Similar Purposes.’’ It 

measured microwave oven cooking 

efficiency, but did not address energy 

use in the standby mode or off mode. 

Section 310 of EISA 2007 amended 

EPCA to require DOE to amend the test 

procedures for covered products to 

address energy consumption of standby 

mode and off mode. If technically 

infeasible, DOE must prescribe a 

separate standby mode and off mode 

energy use test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

As discussed previously, DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking in October 2008 to amend 

the microwave oven test procedure to 

provide for measuring standby mode 

and off mode power consumption, (73 

FR 62134 (Oct. 17, 2008)) and held a 

public meeting on the proposed 

rulemaking on November 14, 2008. DOE 

received comments from interested 

parties both in written responses to the 

October 2008 NOPR and at the 

November 2008 Public Meeting. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8533 

14As noted previously, DOE is unaware of any 

microwave ovens currently available that can 

operate in off mode. Therefore, efficiency levels for 

the purposes of evaluating standby mode and off 

mode energy use in microwave ovens are defined 

on the basis of standby power only. 

After considering stakeholder 

comments and additional information, 

DOE issued an SNOPR for the test 

procedure for measuring microwave 

oven standby mode and off mode power 

consumption. 75 FR 42612 (July 22, 

2010). In that SNOPR, DOE proposed 

adopting definitions of modes based on 

relevant provisions from IEC Standard 

62301 Second Edition, Committee Draft 

for Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV), as 

well as language to clarify application of 

those provisions for measuring 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode power consumption. Id. Also on 

July 22, 2010, DOE issued a repeal final 

rule (the July 2010 TP Final Rule) 

eliminating the active mode cooking 

efficiency provisions in the microwave 

oven test procedure after it determined 

that those provisions did not produce 

accurate and repeatable results. 75 FR 

42579. DOE held a public meeting on 

September 16, 2010, and accepted 

comments, data, and information 

regarding the test procedure SNOPR no 

later than October 4, 2010. DOE also 

invited inputs on microwave active 

mode test procedures for a potential 

new test procedure rulemaking. After 

consideration of these comments, an 

interim final rule for a microwave oven 

test procedure addressing standby mode 

and off mode power was published in 

the Federal Register on March 9, 2011 

(the March 2011 TP Interim Final Rule). 

76 FR 12825. DOE provided a 180-day 

comment period on the March 2011 TP 

Interim Final Rule, during which it 

received several comments on potential 

improvements to the microwave oven 

test procedure recently adopted. DOE is 

currently considering these comments, 

but does not believe that any of the 

suggested amendments would impact 

the analysis in today’s notice. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

DOE considers a design option to be 

technologically feasible if it is in use by 

the associated industry or if research 

has progressed to development of a 

working prototype. In each standards 

rulemaking, therefore, DOE conducts a 

screening analysis, based on 

information it has gathered regarding 

existing technology options and 

prototype designs. In consultation with 

manufacturers, design engineers, and 

other stakeholders, DOE develops a list 

of design options for consideration in 

the rulemaking. After DOE determines 

that particular design options are 

technologically feasible, the first of the 

screening criteria, it evaluates each 

option in light of the following three 

additional criteria: (a) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (b) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (c) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(3) 

and (4). All technologically feasible 

design options that pass the three 

additional screening criteria are 

candidates for further assessment in the 

engineering and subsequent analyses in 

the NOPR stage. DOE may amend the 

list of retained design options in SNOPR 

analyses based on comments received 

on the NOPR and on further research. 

DOE published a list of evaluated 

microwave oven technologies in the 

November 2007 ANOPR. 72 FR 64432 

(Nov. 15, 2007). DOE identified lowerpower display technologies, improved 

power supplies and controllers, and 

alternative cooking sensor technologies 

as options to reduce standby power. 

DOE conducted this research when it 

became aware of the likelihood of EISA 

2007 being signed, which DOE 

understood was to contain provisions 

pertaining to standby mode and off 

mode energy use. Therefore, DOE 

presented details of each design option 

to stakeholders at the December 2007 

Public Meeting even though the results 

were not available in time for 

publication in the November 2007 

ANOPR. DOE believes all of these 

options are technologically feasible, and 

in the ANOPR invited comment on 

technology options that reduce standby 

power in microwave ovens. 72 FR 

64432, 64513 (Nov. 15, 2007). For more 

details of these technology options and 

stakeholder comments, see section IV.B 

of this notice. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt, or to 

decline to adopt, an amended or new 

standard for a type (or class) of product 

such as microwave ovens, 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)) Using 

the design parameters that lead to 

creation of the highest available product 

efficiencies, in the engineering analysis 

DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

standby power levels 14 for microwave 

ovens, as shown in Table III.1. (See 

chapter 3 in the SNOPR TSD.) The maxtech microwave oven standby power 

level corresponds to a unit equipped 

with a default automatic power-down 

function that shuts off certain powerconsuming components after a specified 

period of user inactivity. The max-tech 

microwave oven standby power level 

was determined in the October 2008 

NOPR to be 0.02 watts (W). 73 FR 62052 

(Oct. 17, 2008). Based upon additional 

analyses for today’s SNOPR, DOE is 

proposing that this max-tech level 

applies to the product class of 

microwave-only ovens and countertop 

combination microwave ovens. For 

built-in and over-the-range combination 

microwave ovens, DOE proposes, based 

on its analysis, a max-tech standby 

power level of 0.04 W. For more details 

of the max-tech levels and stakeholder 

comments, see section IV.C of this 

notice. 

TABLE III.1—PROPOSED MAX-TECH MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY POWER LEVELS

Product class Max-Tech standby power level 

Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens ..................................................................................... 0.02 watts 

Built-In and Over-the-Range Combination Microwave Ovens ....................................................................................................... 0.04 watts 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Energy Savings 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet tool to 

estimate energy savings from amended 

standards for standby mode and off 

mode energy use for microwave ovens. 

(Section IV.E of today’s supplemental 

notice and chapter 10 of the SNOPR 

TSD describe the NIA spreadsheet 

model.) DOE forecasted energy savings 

throughout the period of analysis 

(beginning in 2014, the year that 

amended standards would go into effect, 

and ending in 2043) for each TSL, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

relative to the base case, which 

represents the forecast of energy 

consumption in the absence of amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

quantified the energy savings 

attributable to amended energy 

conservation standards as the difference 

in energy consumption between each 

standards case and the base case. The 

base case incorporates market demand 

for more efficient products. 

The NIA spreadsheet tool calculates 

the electricity savings in ‘‘site energy’’ 

expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site 

energy is the energy consumed directly 

on location by an individual product. 

DOE reports national energy savings on 

an annual basis in terms of the 

aggregated source energy savings, which 

is the savings in energy used to generate 

and transmit the energy consumed at 

the site. To convert site energy to source 

energy, DOE derived conversion factors, 

which change with time, from the AEO 

2010. (See SNOPR TSD chapter 10 for 

further details.) 

2. Significance of Savings 

EPCA, as amended, prohibits DOE 

from adopting a standard for a product 

if that standard would not result in 

‘‘significant’’ energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) Although EPCA does not 

define the term ‘‘significant,’’ the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit, in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 

1355, 1373 (DC Cir. 1985), indicated 

that Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ 

energy savings in this context to be 

savings that were not ‘‘genuinely 

trivial.’’ The energy savings for energy 

conservation standards at the TSL 

considered in this rulemaking are 

nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE 

considers them ‘‘significant’’ within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted earlier, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)) The 

following sections describe how DOE 

has addressed each of those seven 

factors in this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of an 

amended standard on manufacturers, 

DOE first determines the quantitative 

impacts using an annual cash-flow 

approach. This step includes both a 

short-term assessment—based on the 

cost and capital requirements during the 

period between the issuance of a 

regulation and when entities must 

comply with the regulation—and a longterm assessment over a 30-year analysis 

period. The industry-wide impacts 

analyzed include INPV (which values 

the industry on the basis of expected 

future cash flows), cash flows by year, 

changes in revenue and income, and 

other measures of impact, as 

appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and 

reports the impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, paying particular 

attention to impacts on small 

manufacturers. Third, DOE considers 

the impact of standards on domestic 

manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of different DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. For 

more details on the MIA, see section 

IV.G and chapter 12 of the SNOPR TSD. 

For consumers, measures of economic 

impact include the changes in life-cycle 

cost (LCC) and payback period for the 

product at each TSL. Under EPCA, the 

LCC is one of seven factors to be 

considered in determining economic 

justification. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) It is discussed in 

detail in the following section. 

b. Life-Cycle Cost 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of product (including any 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy and maintenance 

expenditures), discounted over the 

lifetime of the product. 

In this rulemaking, DOE calculated 

both LCC and LCC savings for various 

power consumption levels in standby 

and off modes. DOE established the 

variability and uncertainty in energy use 

by defining the uncertainty and 

variability in the standby and off modes 

(hours per day) of the product. The 

variability in energy prices was 

characterized by use of regional energy 

prices. To account for uncertainty and 

variability in other inputs, such as 

product lifetime and discount rate, DOE 

used a distribution of values with 

probabilities attached to each value. For 

each consumer with a microwave oven, 

DOE sampled the values of those inputs 

from the probability distributions. 

DOE’s analysis produced a range of 

LCCs. In addition to providing the 

average LCC savings or average payback 

for a standard, this approach enables 

DOE to identify the percentage of 

consumers achieving LCC savings or 

attaining certain payback values due to 

an energy conservation standard. DOE 

presents the LCC savings as a 

distribution, with a mean value and a 

range. In the analysis prepared for the 

October 2008 NOPR, DOE assumed that 

consumers will purchase the product in 

2012. For today’s SNOPR, that 

assumption has been changed to 2014, 

as this is the expected first year of 

compliance. See section IV.D for more 

details on the LCC and PBP analysis. 

c. Energy Savings 

Significant conservation of energy is a 

separate statutory requirement for 

imposing an energy conservation 

standard. Additionally, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a proposed standard, to 

consider the total energy savings that 

are projected to result directly from a 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) 

As noted in the October 2008 NOPR, 

DOE used the NIA spreadsheet to 

estimate total energy savings 

attributable to the considered standard 

levels. 73 FR 62034, 62046 (Oct. 17, 

2008). See section IV.E and chapter 10 

of the SNOPR TSD for more details on 

this analysis. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Product 

In preparing the NOPR, DOE 

considered whether the evaluated 

design options likely would lessen the 

utility or performance of the standby 

mode and off mode of microwave ovens. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) In the 

October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined 

that none of the considered TSLs would 

reduce the utility or performance of 

microwave ovens; all consumer utility 

features that affect standby power, such 

as a clock display and a cooking sensor, 

would be retained. 73 FR 62034, 62047 

(Oct. 17, 2008). 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from standards. It directs the Attorney 

General of the United States (Attorney 

General) to determine the impact, if any, 

of any lessening of competition likely to 

result from a proposed standard and to 

transmit such determination to the 

Secretary within 60 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)). DOE 

received the Attorney General’s 

determination, dated December 16, 

2008, on standards proposed in the 

October 2008 NOPR. The Attorney 

General’s determination for October 

2008 NOPR did not mention microwave 

oven standards. (DOJ, No. 53 at pp. 1– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8535 

15The EIA approves the use of the name NEMS 

to describe only an AEO version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

the present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

assumptions, the model used here has been named 

NEMS–BT. (‘‘BT’’ stands for DOE’s Building 

Technologies Program.) For more information on 

NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling 

System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb. 

1998) (available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ 

FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf). (Last accessed 

March 18, 2011.) 

2). DOE has transmitted a copy of 

today’s proposed rule to the Attorney 

General and has requested that the 

Department of Justice provide its 

determination on this issue. 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

The non-monetary benefits of 

proposed standards are likely to be 

reflected in improvements to the 

reliability of the Nation’s energy 

system—namely, reductions in the 

demand for energy will result in 

reduced costs for maintaining reliability 

of the Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may impact the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. This analysis captures the 

effects of efficiency improvements on 

electricity consumption by the product 

that is the subject of this rulemaking. 

Proposed standards also likely result 

in improvements to the environment. In 

quantifying those improvements, DOE 

has calculated emission reductions 

based on the estimated level of power 

generation displaced by each TSL for 

microwave oven standby power. DOE 

reports the environmental effects from 

the proposed standards in an 

environmental assessment in chapter 15 

of the SNOPR TSD. (42. U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a)) See 

section IV.J for more details on this 

analysis. 

g. Other Factors 

The Secretary, in determining 

whether a standard is economically 

justified, may consider other factors that 

the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In 

considering amended standards for 

today’s supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking, the Secretary found no 

relevant factors other than those 

identified elsewhere in today’s SNOPR. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), there is a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased installed cost 

for a product that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first-year energy savings resulting from 

the standard. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values that calculate 

the payback period for consumers of 

products that meet potential energy 

conservation standards. Included is the 

3-year payback period contemplated 

under the rebuttable presumption test. 

DOE routinely conducts a full economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts, however, including those to 

the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, 

and environment, as required under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of 

this analysis serve as the basis for DOE 

to definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). Section V.B.1.c of today’s 

supplemental notice and chapter 8 of 

the SNOPR TSD address the calculation 

of rebuttable-presumption payback. 

IV. Methodology and Revisions to the 

Analyses Employed in the October 2008 

Proposed Rule 

In weighing the benefits and burdens 

of amended standards for microwave 

oven standby mode and off mode energy 

use, DOE used economic models to 

estimate the impacts of each TSL. The 

life-cycle cost (LCC) spreadsheet 

calculates the LCC impacts and payback 

periods for potential amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE used the 

engineering spreadsheet to develop the 

relationship between cost and efficiency 

and to calculate the simple payback 

period for purposes of addressing the 

rebuttable presumption that a standard 

with a payback period of less than 3 

years is economically justified. The NIA 

spreadsheet provides shipments 

forecasts and then calculates NES and 

NPV impacts of potential amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

also assessed manufacturer impacts, 

largely through use of the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). 

Additionally, DOE estimated the 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on utilities and 

the environment. DOE used a version of 

the EIA’s National Energy Modeling 

System (NEMS) for the utility and 

environmental analyses. The EIA has 

developed the NEMS model, which 

simulates the energy economy of the 

United States, over several years 

primarily for the purpose of preparing 

the AEO. The NEMS produces forecasts 

for the United States energy situation 

that are available in the public domain. 

The version of NEMS used for appliance 

standards analysis is called NEMS– 

BT.15 The NEMS–BT offers a 

sophisticated picture of the effect of 

standards, because it accounts for the 

interactions among the various energy 

supply and demand sectors and the 

economy as a whole. 

A. Product Classes 

In general, when evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides covered 

products into classes by the type of 

energy used, capacity, or other 

performance-related features that affect 

consumer utility and efficiency. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q); 6316(a)) Different energy 

conservation standards may apply to 

different product classes. Id. 

At the time of the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE’s regulations codified at 10 

CFR 430.2 defined a microwave oven as 

a class of kitchen ranges and ovens 

which is a household cooking appliance 

consisting of a compartment designed to 

cook or heat food by means of 

microwave energy. In the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE proposed a single product 

class for microwave ovens that would 

encompass microwave ovens with and 

without browning (thermal) elements, 

but would not include microwave ovens 

that incorporate convection systems. 73 

FR 62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

Whirlpool commented that DOE’s 

proposed definition of covered products 

creates a new product definition 

without proper engagement of interested 

parties by covering microwave ovens 

with or without thermal elements 

designed for surface browning of food. 

Whirlpool also commented that DOE 

stated combination microwave ovens, 

which were previously undefined, are 

not products covered by the microwave 

oven test procedure or standard. 

Whirlpool stated that DOE’s proposed 

definition of covered products is 

inconsistent with the regulatory 

definition of a microwave oven 

provided in 10 CFR part 430 because 

there is no mention of thermal elements 

designed for browning food, and 

furthermore is not clear and should be 

clarified. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at pp. 1–2; 

Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at p. 29) GE also commented 

that DOE should clarify what products 

are considered covered products. GE 

stated that DOE should review data for 

different product types, and exclude 

those for which there is insufficient data 

to support DOE’s analysis. (GE, No. 48 

at pp. 2–3) 

As part of its microwave oven test 

procedure rulemaking, DOE reassessed 

what products would be considered 

microwave ovens under the regulatory 

definition, and whether multiple 

product classes would be appropriate. 

As discussed in the March 2011 TP 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8536 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Interim Final Rule, DOE amended the 

definition of microwave oven in 10 CFR 

430.2 to clarify that it includes 

microwave ovens with or without 

thermal elements designed for surface 

browning of food and combination 

ovens. DOE also discussed its 

determination that all ovens equipped 

with microwave capability would be 

considered a covered product, 

regardless of which cooking mode (i.e., 

radiant heating or microwave energy) is 

primary. Based on its preliminary 

analysis, DOE concluded that the 

general standby mode and off mode 

operation for microwave ovens that 

incorporate other means of cooking food 

does not differ from that of microwaveonly units. As a result, DOE amended 

the microwave oven test procedure to 

require that the same standby mode and 

off mode testing methods be used for all 

microwave ovens. 76 FR 12825, 12828– 

30 (Mar. 9, 2011). 

In order to determine whether specific 

types of microwave ovens should be 

separated into different product classes, 

DOE investigated whether there are any 

performance related features that would 

justify the establishment of a separate 

energy conservation standard. As 

discussed in the October 2008 NOPR, 

DOE tested a sample of 32 countertop 

microwave-only units and measured 

standby mode power ranging from 1.2 

W to 5.8 W. 73 FR 62034, 62042 (Oct. 

17, 2008). None of these units was 

capable of operation in off mode, nor, as 

noted previously, is DOE aware of any 

other current microwave ovens capable 

of such operation. As discussed below 

in section IV.B, DOE noted that standby 

power consumption for microwave-only 

units largely depended on the presence 

of a cooking sensor, the display 

technology, the power supply and 

control board, and implementation of a 

power-down feature. With regards to 

display technologies, DOE noted that 

microwave-only units incorporated 

Light Emitting Diode (LED) displays, 

Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs), and 

Vacuum Fluorescent Displays (VFDs). 

Based on comments received in 

response to the October 2008 NOPR 

(Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM), No. 47 at p. 6; 

Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 1), DOE 

conducted a survey of over-the-range 

microwave-only units available on the 

U.S. market. DOE determined that the 

display technologies used are similar to 

those used in countertop microwaveonly units (i.e., LED displays, LCDs, and 

VFDs). DOE also conducted in-store 

standby mode testing on a limited 

sample of over-the-range microwaveonly units which showed similar 

standby power consumption as 

countertop microwave-only units. For 

these reasons, DOE tentatively 

concludes that over-the-range 

microwave-only units would not 

warrant a separate product class. DOE 

understands that over-the-range 

microwave-only units may have 

additional components that are 

energized during active mode operation 

(i.e., exhaust fan motors). However, 

DOE’s testing showed that the presence 

of such features did not increase the 

standby power consumption to warrant 

establishing a separate product class. 

DOE also conducted standby power 

testing on a sample of 13 representative 

combination microwave ovens, 

including 5 countertop combination 

microwave ovens, 6 over-the-range 

combination microwave ovens, and 2 

built-in combination microwave ovens. 

DOE’s testing showed that the 

countertop combination microwave 

ovens use similar display technologies 

as countertop microwave-only units 

(i.e., LED displays, LCDs, and VFDs), 

and had standby power consumption 

ranging from 1.2 W to 4.7 W, which is 

similar to the standby power 

consumption for countertop microwaveonly units. As a result, DOE tentatively 

concludes that countertop combination 

microwave ovens would not warrant a 

product class separate from microwaveonly ovens. 

DOE’s testing of built-in and over-therange combination microwave ovens 

showed that the standby power 

consumption for these products ranged 

from 4.1 W to 8.8 W, which is higher 

than the standby power consumption 

for other microwave oven product types 

(i.e., countertop microwave-only, overthe-range microwave-only, and 

countertop combination microwave 

ovens). DOE’s reverse-engineering 

analysis suggests that the additional 

features in built-in and over-the-range 

combination microwave ovens required 

to handle the thermal loads associated 

with their installation and to provide 

consumer utility, such as additional 

exhaust fan motors, convection fan 

motors and heaters, and additional 

lights, require a significant number of 

additional relays on the control board, 

and thus require a larger power supply 

for the control of such relays. While the 

relays themselves do not consume 

power in standby mode, they increase 

the total power supply requirements of 

the control board and thus increase the 

standby losses of the power supply. As 

a result, DOE believes that a separate 

product class should be established for 

built-in and over-the-range combination 

microwave ovens. DOE recognizes that 

built-in and over-the-range microwaveonly units may similarly require some 

additional relays for exhaust fans and 

lights, and that countertop combination 

microwave ovens would require some 

additional relays for convection fans 

and heaters. However, DOE’s product 

testing and reverse-engineering analyses 

indicated that these product types use 

similar-sized power supplies as those 

found in countertop microwave-only 

units, and as a result would not warrant 

a separate product class from countertop 

microwave-only units. Details of 

standby power testing for the 

determination of product classes is 

presented in chapter 5 of the SNOPR 

TSD. 

In summary, DOE proposes to 

establish the following two product 

classes for microwave ovens: 

TABLE IV.1—MICROWAVE OVEN

PRODUCT CLASSES

Product class 

1. Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop 

Combination Microwave Ovens. 

2. Built-in and Over-the-Range Combination 

Microwave Ovens. 

DOE determined that separate product 

classes for the purposes of setting 

energy conservation standards 

addressing standby mode and off mode 

energy use are warranted on the basis of 

different standby power performance. 

DOE did not evaluate whether the same 

product class distinction would also be 

appropriate for any active mode energy 

use standards because DOE eliminated 

the regulatory provisions establishing 

the cooking efficiency test procedure for 

microwave ovens in the July 2010 TP 

Final Rule. 75 FR 42579 (July 22, 2010). 

If DOE adopts amendments to the 

microwave oven test procedure to 

include provisions for measuring active 

mode cooking efficiency, DOE may 

reevaluate these product classes as part 

of a future microwave oven energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. At 

that time, DOE may consider dividing 

countertop combination microwave 

ovens and over-the-range/built-in 

microwave-only units into separate 

product classes to account for the 

energy performance of heating 

components other than the microwave 

portion. 

B. Technology Assessment 

Product teardowns performed by DOE 

for this and past rulemakings gave DOE 

an insight into the strategies a 

manufacturer could adopt to achieve 

higher energy conservation standards. In 

the October 2008 NOPR, DOE asked 

stakeholders to provide data and 

information that would help DOE 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8537 

evaluate the utility provided by specific 

features that contribute to microwave 

oven standby power. In addition, DOE 

conducted additional research on 

several microwave oven technologies 

that significantly affect standby power, 

including cooking sensors, display 

technologies, and control strategies and 

associated control boards. In the 

October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined 

that control strategies are available that 

enable manufacturers to make design 

tradeoffs between incorporating features 

that consumer standby power (such as 

displays or cooking sensors) and 

including a function to turn power off 

to those components during standby 

mode. 73 FR 62034, 62052 (Oct. 17, 

2008). 

As discussed above, DOE believes that 

the standby power characteristics for 

countertop combination microwave 

ovens and over-the-range microwaveonly units are similar to that of countertop microwave-only units, and 

therefore, the same technology options 

would apply to these products. 

Additional testing on over-the range 

combination microwave ovens 

conducted by DOE also showed that 

standby power in these products 

depends largely on the same factors. 

The following sections discuss each of 

these technology options. 

1. Cooking Sensors 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

reported that its teardown analysis had 

revealed one cooking sensor technology 

with no standby power consumption 

used in microwave ovens on the U.S. 

market: A piezoelectric steam sensor. 

DOE also found that infrared and weight 

sensors, which require little to no warmup time or standby power, had been 

applied successfully in Japanese-market 

microwave ovens. Furthermore, DOE 

identified relative humidity sensors 

with no standby power consumption as 

a feasible microwave oven cooking 

sensor technology, but found no 

microwave ovens using these sensors at 

the time. Finally, DOE learned that a 

major microwave oven supplier to the 

U.S. market was preparing to introduce 

microwave ovens using a new type of 

absolute humidity sensor with no 

standby power requirement and no cost 

premium over that of a conventional 

absolute humidity sensor. 73 FR 62034, 

62051 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE requested 

input and data on the utility provided 

by specific microwave oven features, 

including in relevant part cooking 

sensors that do not require standby 

power. Id. at 62133. 

AHAM agreed with DOE that some 

manufacturers in certain areas of the 

world have already started to 

incorporate some of the cooking sensor 

design options into microwave ovens. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at pp. 78–79) AHAM expressed two 

concerns about these sensors: That 

reliability and accuracy of the sensors 

have not been fully proved through 

testing, and that there is limited 

availability of those sensors to 

microwave oven manufacturers due to 

intellectual property protections. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at pp. 69–70) AHAM further 

requested that DOE provide data on the 

availability, reliability, and 

functionality of the cooking sensors that 

consume no standby power. AHAM 

stated that data collection for such 

sensors provides an additional rationale 

for postponing the rulemaking or not 

adopting a standby power standard for 

microwave ovens. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 

5) 

Whirlpool agreed with DOE that 

cooking sensors with no standby power 

consumption are becoming available, 

though experience with them is limited. 

According to Whirlpool, there is a lack 

of necessary data regarding reliability, 

accuracy and intellectual property 

status. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 7) 

GE similarly commented that cooking 

sensors with no standby power 

consumption, while in limited use at 

that time, had not been fully tested and 

evaluated as appropriate alternatives. 

GE also requested that DOE provide data 

on the availability, reliability, and 

functionality of the sensors discussed in 

the October 2008 NOPR, relative to 

sensors currently in use. (GE, No. 48 at 

p. 3) GE also commented that absolute 

humidity sensors with standby power 

consumption offer greater resolution 

than relative humidity sensors with no 

standby power consumption and 

therefore offer consumer utility. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 

pp. 74–75) Furthermore, GE suggested 

that some of the sensor technologies 

described in the October 2008 NOPR, 

such as infrared and weight sensors, are 

not feasible alternatives to the absolute 

humidity sensors used today. For 

instance, infrared sensors are easily 

fouled by contaminants and 

condensation. GE commented that DOE 

should provide further information 

about absolute humidity sensors with 

no standby power consumption and no 

cost premium over that of a 

conventional absolute humidity sensor. 

GE stated that it needed to review 

performance parameters and any 

associated intellectual property issues 

associated with these sensors. (GE, No. 

48, pp. 3–4) 

DOE requested comment on whether 

any intellectual property or patent 

infringement issues are associated with 

the cooking sensor technologies 

discussed above; however, DOE did not 

receive any such data. In addition, DOE 

is not currently aware of any intellectual 

property or patent infringement issues 

for infrared sensors, weight sensors, 

piezoelectric sensors, or relative 

humidity sensors. With respect to the 

accuracy and reliability of low- and 

zero-standby power cooking sensors, 

DOE notes that a significant number of 

microwave oven models using the 

alternate cooking sensor technologies 

discussed above are available on the 

international market, and have been 

available for a number of years. As 

discussed above, DOE is also aware of 

one zero-standby power cooking sensor 

technology used in microwave ovens on 

the U.S. market. DOE is not aware of 

any data indicating that the reliability 

and accuracy associated with these lowand zero-standby power cooking sensors 

significantly differs from that of the 

absolute humidity sensors currently 

employed in microwave ovens on the 

U.S. market. DOE is also unaware of 

data showing that fouling of infrared 

cooking sensors, as commented by GE, 

would significantly differ from that of 

absolute humidity sensors, or data on 

the decreased accuracy due to fouling as 

compared to the fouling of absolute 

humidity sensors. DOE recognizes GE’s 

concern regarding the use of relative 

humidity sensors in microwave ovens. 

Because DOE is not aware of any 

relative humidity cooking sensors used 

in microwave ovens currently on the 

market, DOE is not aware of any data 

regarding the accuracy of these sensors 

for detecting the state of the cooking 

load to adjust the cooking time. 

However, DOE notes that multiple other 

cooking sensor technology options exist 

that have been employed in microwave 

ovens in place of an absolute humidity 

cooking sensor. For these reasons, DOE 

tentatively concludes that the low- and 

zero-standby-power cooking sensor 

technologies discussed above are viable 

design options, and has analyzed them 

for this SNOPR. DOE requests data and 

information on the accuracy and 

reliability of low- and zero-standby 

power cooking sensors as compared to 

absolute humidity cooking sensors 

currently used in microwave ovens on 

the U.S. market, and whether these 

technologies would affect how 

consumers use their microwave ovens 

or their satisfaction in using them due 

to any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of microwaves imposed by 

the standard. DOE also seeks 

information on the current commercial 

availability of this technology, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8538 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

likelihood of future adoption, and the 

potential impact on the lessening of 

competition amongst manufacturers. 

DOE also continues to request comment 

on whether any intellectual property or 

patent infringement issues are 

associated with the cooking sensor 

technologies discussed above. 

With respect to GE’s comment that 

DOE should provide further information 

on absolute humidity sensors with no 

standby power consumption and no cost 

premium over that of a conventional 

absolute humidity sensor, because DOE 

was made aware of this information 

during interviews with microwave oven 

manufacturers, DOE is unable to 

provide further information regarding 

this absolute humidity cooking sensor. 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) stated 

that due to the reduction in cooking 

time and thus energy consumption 

made possible by use of a cooking 

sensor, it is important to retain this 

feature in microwave ovens. (EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No 40.5 at pp. 71– 

72) Also, EEI expressed concern about 

the recovery time of a cooking sensor 

after a full microwave oven power-down 

and the impacts on consumer utility of 

a slow recovery time. (EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 77– 

78) As discussed in the October 2008 

NOPR, low- and zero-standby-power 

cooking sensor technologies require 

little to no warm-up time. 73 FR 62034, 

62050–51 (Oct. 17, 2008). As a result, 

DOE believes that low- and zerostandby-power cooking sensor 

technologies can be used in microwave 

ovens without impacting consumer 

utility. 

2. Display Technologies 

DOE stated in the October 2008 NOPR 

that it would consider three display 

technologies for reducing microwave 

oven standby power consumption: LED 

displays, LCDs with and without 

backlighting, and VFDs. DOE stated that 

LED displays and LCDs consume less 

power than VFDs. DOE also stated that 

each identified display technology 

provides acceptable consumer utility, 

including brightness, viewing angle, and 

ability to display complex characters. 73 

FR 62034, 62051 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE 

requested input and data on the utility 

provided by specific microwave oven 

features, including, in relevant part, 

display technologies. Id. at 62133. 

EEI commented that consumer utility 

is associated with an electronic display 

and timer rather than a mechanical 

timer. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at pp. 63–64). As discussed in 

the October 2008 NOPR, DOE was not 

aware of any microwave ovens currently 

available on the U.S. market using 

electromechanical controls (73 FR 

62034, 62051 (Oct. 17, 2008)), and thus 

has considered only electronic controls 

(including displays) in determining 

standby power levels. In addition, DOE 

is not considering electromechanical 

controls as a design option to reduce 

standby power consumption. 

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool suggested 

that not all microwave oven display 

technologies considered by DOE will 

maintain consumer utility in all 

applications. Whirlpool stated that 

limiting the information displayed and/ 

or reducing the size of the clock reduces 

standby power consumption at the 

expense of consumer utility. AHAM and 

Whirlpool expressed concerns about the 

reliability of LED displays, particularly 

in over-the-range microwave oven 

applications. According to AHAM, GE, 

and Whirlpool, for over-the-range 

microwave oven applications, VFDs are 

generally preferred over other display 

technologies such as backlit LCDs or 

LED displays, as VFDs: (1) Have greater 

reliability when exposed to the higher 

heat encountered above a cooking 

surface; (2) allow a wider viewing angle 

and have greater visibility; and (3) are 

available in more sizes and colors as 

demanded by the consumers of higherend products, also allowing a 

manufacturer to provide a ‘‘family look’’ 

to product suites. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 

5; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at pp. 70–71; GE, No. 48 at p. 

3; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No 

40.5, p. 75; Whirlpool, No. 50 at pp. 6– 

7). 

As discussed above, DOE’s research 

suggests that multiple over-the-range 

microwave ovens with low power 

displays, including the LED and LCD 

types, are currently available on the U.S. 

market. DOE has also found that 

manufacturer temperature ratings for the 

three types of displays are comparable. 

Furthermore, DOE has found that LED 

displays and LCDs in both countertop 

and over-the-range microwave ovens 

offer acceptable consumer utility 

features, including brightness, viewing 

angle, and ability to display complex 

characters. DOE found no microwave 

oven display technologies with 

intermittent backlighting or other 

features that impair consumer utility. As 

a result, DOE believes that LED displays 

and LCDs can be integrated into any 

countertop or over-the-range microwave 

oven, with proper heat shielding and 

without significant loss of consumer 

utility. 

3. Power Supply and Control Boards 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

found several technologies available to 

increase power supply and control 

board efficiency that would reduce 

microwave oven standby power 

consumption. DOE found some 

microwave ovens on the U.S. market 

using switching power supplies with up 

to 75-percent conversion efficiencies 

and 0.2 W or less no-load standby 

losses, though these models came with 

a higher cost, higher part count, and 

greater complexity. DOE stated that 

switching power supplies are as yet 

unproven in long-term microwave oven 

applications, and the greater complexity 

of these power supplies may also lower 

overall reliability. DOE was also aware 

of high efficiency power supply and 

control board components that could be 

used to reduce standby power 

consumption, but these were not found 

on commercially available microwave 

ovens at the time. 73 FR 62034, 62051 

(Oct. 17, 2008). DOE requested 

comments on the ability of switching or 

similar modern power supplies to 

operate successfully inside a microwave 

oven and on the impacts of the 

efficiency of such power supplies on 

microwave oven standby power. Id. at 

62133. 

AHAM commented that switching 

power supplies can operate successfully 

in microwave ovens, but that associated 

reliability is still relatively unknown. 

(AHAM, No. 47 at p. 6) Whirlpool cited 

limited data suggesting that the costs 

and potential reliability issues 

associated with switching power 

supplies do not support their economic 

viability. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 8) 

Nevertheless, Whirlpool stated that it 

sells products with switching power 

supplies outside of the U.S. (Whirlpool, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 

pp. 81–82) DOE observes that switching 

power supplies are found in products 

such as computers, battery chargers, 

clothes washers, and clothes dryers, 

suggesting that the reliability and 

durability of switching power supplies 

has been proven in residential appliance 

applications. DOE notes that microwave 

ovens incorporating switching power 

supplies have been available for 

multiple years and are still used, as 

evidenced by such power supplies being 

observed in DOE’s most recent test 

sample of combination microwave 

ovens. DOE is also unaware of data 

indicating that the reliability of 

switching power supplies is 

significantly worse than conventional 

linear power supplies over the lifetime 

of the product. 

Whirlpool suggested that switching 

power supplies are modestly more 

efficient than conventional power 

supplies. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 8) 

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 

commented that switching power 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8539 

16 Information on the design and efficiency of 

switch mode power supplies can be found at 

http://www.powerint.com/en/applications/majorappliances. 

17 Information can be found at http:// 

www.plugloadsolutions.com/ 

80PlusPowerSupplies.aspx. 

supplies can have efficiency exceeding 

90 percent and those in computers are 

routinely exceeding 95 percent. (PG&E, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 

81) DOE believes that the application of 

power supplies is very different for 

computers and microwave ovens, and 

DOE research indicates that switching 

power supplies for appliance 

applications in sizes similar to those 

utilized in microwave ovens achieve no 

greater than 75-percent efficiency.16

Furthermore, DOE notes that the most 

efficient power supplies available for 

consumer computer use typically do not 

exceed 92-percent efficiency.17

AHAM expressed concern that 

electromechanical controls may be 

necessary in order to meet standby 

power requirements. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 58) As 

discussed above, DOE is not aware of 

any microwave ovens currently on the 

market with electromechanical controls. 

As a result, DOE has considered only 

microwave ovens with electronic 

controls in determining standby power 

levels. DOE does not believe that 

electromechanical controls would be 

required to achieve any of the standby 

power levels presented in section IV.D. 

4. Power-Down Options 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

determined that control strategies are 

available that allowed microwave oven 

manufacturers to make design tradeoffs 

between incorporating powerconsuming features such as displays or 

cooking sensors and including a 

function to cut power to those 

components during standby. DOE found 

that a large number of microwave ovens 

incorporating this automatic powerdown feature were available in other 

markets such as Japan. 73 FR 62034, 

62051–52 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE 

requested input and data on these 

control strategies as well as comments 

on the viability and cost of microwave 

oven control board circuitry that could 

accommodate transistors to switch off 

cooking sensors and displays. Id. at 

62133. 

AHAM commented that the industry 

lacks data on control board circuitry to 

allow for a function to cut off power 

during standby mode. According to 

AHAM, such features must be reliable 

in high-temperature environments. 

AHAM noted that DOE has allowed no 

time for manufacturers to evaluate the 

viability or feasibility of the proposed 

technologies. (AHAM, No. 47 at pp. 3, 

6) DOE research has not identified any 

technical barrier that would prevent 

microwave oven manufacturers from 

successfully integrating such control 

board circuitry with proper heat 

shielding and other design elements. 

DOE is also aware of similar automatic 

power-down control technologies 

incorporated in products such as clothes 

washers and clothes dryers, which 

utilize an additional transformerless 

power supply to provide just enough 

power to maintain the microcontroller 

chip while the unit is powered down, 

resulting in very low standby power 

levels. Therefore, DOE continues to 

believe that an automatic power-down 

feature is technically feasible in 

microwave applications. 

AHAM commented that it is 

concerned with a reduction in consumer 

utility and how the consumer interfaces 

with the unit. AHAM added that 

evaluating the impacts on consumer 

utility will require substantial consumer 

research. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 6) AHAM 

suggested that an indicator light may be 

desirable in a microwave oven with the 

automatic power-down feature to 

communicate the product’s status to the 

user. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 59) Whirlpool 

stated that an automatic power-down 

feature in microwave ovens may cause 

consumer confusion and complaints 

and could require significant consumer 

education efforts. (Whirlpool, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 65– 

66) Whirlpool commented that control 

technologies are available to dim or turn 

off a display after a period of inactivity 

has elapsed but that Whirlpool does not 

currently incorporate such a technology 

into its products. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at 

p. 7) Whirlpool and ASAP both 

commented that there could be a variety 

of ways to implement a power-down 

feature, including consumer-activated or 

fuzzy logic-based power response. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at p. 79; Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 80) DOE has 

considered consumer utility issues in 

the determination of the proposed 

standby mode and off mode energy 

conservation standards. (See section V.C 

of today’s supplemental notice and 

chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD for 

additional discussion of this topic.) DOE 

welcomes further comments regarding 

consumer utility issues associated with 

each of the technology options, and in 

particular the low- and zero-standby 

power cooking sensors and display 

technologies, considered in this 

analysis. 

The comment filed jointly (hereafter, 

the Joint Comment) by ASAP, American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, American Rivers, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Northeast 

Energy Efficiency Partnerships, 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council, Southern California Gas 

Company, San Diego Gas and Electric 

Company, Southern California Edison, 

and Earthjustice (EJ), stated that DOE 

should analyze user-activated controls 

to turn the display on and off, in 

addition to automatic power-down 

features. According to these 

commenters, a microwave oven 

equipped with such controls would 

meet the EPCA definition of operating 

in standby or off mode, and would give 

consumers the ability to reduce energy 

use below the proposed standby power 

standard level. The Joint Comment 

asserted that this type of switch is 

similar to power switches found on 

many computers, copiers, printers, 

televisions, and other products sold 

outside of the U.S. (Joint Comment, No. 

44 at p. 10) 

ASAP requested clarification whether 

an on/off switch, particularly a 

consumer-activated one, would be 

considered as a design option. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 

pp. 66, 73–74) GE questioned whether a 

microwave oven would be in standby 

mode or off mode if the display is 

turned off. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 73) 

Under the mode definitions adopted 

by the amended microwave oven test 

procedure (76 FR 12825, 12834–37 

(Mar. 9, 2011)), a product for which an 

on/off switch has turned off the display 

would be considered to be in off mode, 

unless other energy consuming features 

associated with standby mode remain 

energized (i.e., features to facilitate the 

activation of other modes by remote 

switch, internal sensor, or timer; or 

continuous functions, including other 

information or status displays or sensorbased features). In the latter case, the 

microwave oven would remain in 

standby mode even with the display 

turned off. 

DOE is not aware of any products 

incorporating a user-activated control to 

turn the display on or off. Further, DOE 

does not have information to evaluate 

how often consumers might make use of 

this feature. Therefore, at this time DOE 

is unable to analyze such a control as a 

design option. DOE agrees that such a 

feature, if provided, could result in 

decreased energy usage in standby mode 

or off mode, and remains open to 

consideration of such a design option in 

future rulemakings. DOE also notes that 

manufacturers would not be precluded 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8540 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

from incorporating such a feature in 

their products under the proposed 

standards. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to characterize the 

relationship between the energy use and 

the cost of standby mode features of 

microwave ovens. DOE used this 

standby power/cost relationship as 

input to the payback period, LCC, and 

NIA analyses. The engineering analysis 

provides data that can be used to 

establish the manufacturer selling price 

of more efficient products. Those data 

include manufacturing costs and 

manufacturer markups. 

DOE has identified three basic 

methods for generating manufacturing 

costs: (1) The design-option approach, 

which provides the incremental costs of 

adding to a baseline model design 

options that will improve its efficiency 

(i.e., lower its energy use in standby 

mode and off mode); (2) the efficiencylevel approach, which provides the 

incremental costs of moving to higher 

energy efficiency levels (in this case, 

levels of reduced standby power), 

without regard to the particular design 

option(s) used to achieve such 

increases; and (3) the cost-assessment 

(or reverse engineering) approach, 

which provides ‘‘bottom-up’’ 

manufacturing cost assessments for 

achieving various levels of increased 

efficiency, based on detailed data on 

costs for parts and material, labor, 

shipping/packaging, and investment for 

models that operate at particular 

efficiency levels. DOE conducted the 

engineering analysis for this rulemaking 

using the efficiency-level approach. For 

this analysis, DOE relied on laboratory 

testing of representative microwave 

ovens. DOE supplemented the standby 

power data with data gained through 

reverse-engineering analysis and 

primary and secondary research, as 

appropriate. To identify microwave 

oven design options, DOE performed a 

reverse engineering analysis on a 

representative sample of microwave 

ovens. Details of the engineering 

analysis are in chapter 5 of the SNOPR 

TSD. 

1. Energy Use Metric 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

explored whether it would be 

technically feasible to combine the 

existing measure of energy efficiency 

during the cooking cycle per use with 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

over time to form a single metric, as 

required by EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE tentatively 

concluded that, although it may be 

mathematically possible to combine 

energy consumption into a single metric 

encompassing active, standby, and off 

modes, it is not technically feasible to 

do so due to the high variability in the 

cooking efficiency measurement based 

on the microwave oven test procedure at 

that time and because of the significant 

contribution of standby power to overall 

microwave oven energy use. Therefore, 

DOE proposed a separate metric to 

measure standby power as provided by 

EISA 2007. 73 FR 62034, 62042–43 (Oct. 

17, 2008). 

ASAP, EEI, the Joint Comment, and 

Whirlpool agree with DOE’s 

determination that it is not technically 

feasible to integrate standby and off 

mode energy use into a single efficiency 

metric for microwave ovens. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 

pp. 53; EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at p. 55; Joint Comment, No. 44 

at p. 10; Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4; 

Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at p. 29) AHAM stated that an 

integrated energy descriptor, while 

technically feasible, is not practical. 

(AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4; AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 27, 

54–55) ASAP questioned whether there 

was any legal prohibition on a 

prescriptive standard for microwave 

oven standby power, especially since 

DOE was at that time proposing a 

prescriptive standard for standing pilots 

in gas cooking products. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 64– 

65) 

As noted previously, DOE eliminated 

the active mode cooking efficiency 

provisions in the July 2010 TP Final 

Rule after it determined that those 

provisions did not produce accurate and 

repeatable results. 75 FR 42579 (July 22, 

2010). Therefore, the absence of active 

mode provisions results in a de facto 

separate energy use descriptor for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode energy use. 

2. Standby Power Levels 

DOE is considering standby mode and 

off mode standards based on a 

maximum average standby power, in W, 

for microwave ovens. For the reasons 

noted previously, the standards do not 

include off mode power. For the 

October 2008 NOPR, DOE’s analysis 

estimated the incremental 

manufacturing cost for microwave ovens 

having standby power consumption less 

than the baseline level of 4 W. For the 

purposes of that analysis, a baseline 

microwave oven was considered to 

incorporate an absolute humidity 

cooking sensor. To analyze the costenergy use relationship for microwave 

oven standby power, DOE defined 

standby power levels expressed as a 

maximum average standby power in W. 

To analyze the impacts of standards, 

DOE defined the following four standby 

power levels for analysis: (1) The 

Federal Energy Management Program 

(FEMP) procurement efficiency 

recommendation; (2) the International 

Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) 1-Watt Plan; (3) 

a standby power level as a gap-fill 

between the FEMP Procurement 

Efficiency Recommendation and IEA 1- 

Watt Plan; and (4) the current maximum 

microwave oven standby technology 

(max-tech; i.e., lowest standby power) 

that DOE believes is or could be 

commercially available when the energy 

conservation standards become 

effective, based on a review of 

microwave ovens currently on the 

market worldwide. Table IV.2 provides 

the microwave oven standby power 

levels and the reference source for each 

level that DOE analyzed for the October 

2008 NOPR. For more details on the 

determination of standby power levels, 

see chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.2—OCTOBER 2008 NOPR PROPOSED MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY POWER LEVELS

Standby 

power level 

(TSL) 

Source Standby 

power (W) 

Baseline .................................................................... Baseline ............................................................................................................. 4 .0 

1 ................................................................................ FEMP Procurement Efficiency Recommendation .............................................. 2 .0 

2 ................................................................................ Gap Fill ............................................................................................................... 1 .5 

3 ................................................................................ IEA 1-Watt Program ........................................................................................... 1 .0 

4 ................................................................................ Max Tech ........................................................................................................... 0 .02 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8541 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

requested comments and views of 

interested parties concerning the 

selection of microwave oven standby 

power levels for the engineering 

analysis. 73 FR 62034, 62133 (Oct. 17, 

2008). As discussed in section V.A, due 

to the definition of only four standby 

power levels, a TSL was defined for 

each standby power level and thus 

standby power levels may also be 

referred to as TSLs. 

AHAM commented that the 

microwave oven standby power TSLs 

are appropriate. In particular, AHAM 

asserted that much of the worldwide 

industry is moving towards the IEA 1- 

Watt Program, which corresponds to 

one of the TSLs. However, AHAM stated 

that DOE’s engineering analysis based 

on these TSLs is incomplete and 

inaccurate. For example, none of the 32 

units tested by DOE were over-the-range 

units, whereas six of the 21 units in the 

AHAM sample were over-the-range 

units. According to AHAM, it is 

important to include over-the-range 

microwave ovens in the analysis 

because most of these units likely 

include a VFD, which is the most 

reliable display type in high 

temperature conditions. (AHAM, No. 47 

at p. 3; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 83) 

As previously discussed, DOE 

research found that multiple over-therange microwave ovens are currently 

available on the market that incorporate 

low-power display technologies, 

including LEDs and LCDs. DOE has also 

found that manufacturer temperature 

ratings for the three types of displays are 

comparable, and that LED displays and 

LCDs in both countertop and over-therange microwave ovens offer acceptable 

consumer utility features, including 

brightness, viewing angle, and ability to 

display complex characters. Due to 

these findings, DOE believes that the 

TSLs and the associated analyses are 

still valid. 

Additionally, AHAM stated that each 

microwave oven standby power TSL 

should be set in a way that allows 

manufacturers a variety of pathways to 

reduce standby power consumption to 

that level. While some manufacturers 

are already starting to incorporate some 

of the standby power consumptionreducing design options identified by 

DOE, little or no data is available on 

some of the design trade-offs and 

reliability. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 78–79) DOE 

believes that multiple pathways exist, 

based on the selection of the (1) display 

technology, (2) power supply/control 

boards, (3) cooking sensors, and (4) the 

possible incorporation of algorithms to 

automatically reduce standby power 

after a period of inactivity, as stated in 

the October 2008 NOPR. 

Whirlpool commented that it is 

unaware of technologies that would 

allow microwave ovens equipped with 

VFDs to meet the 1-W standby power 

consumption limit of TSL 3 while 

keeping the display energized during 

standby mode. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 

7) GE stated that it has significant 

concerns about retaining all features 

associated with VFDs that impact 

consumer utility while reducing 

microwave oven standby power 

consumption to TSL 3. As a result, GE 

believes TSL 3 would reduce the utility 

or performance of microwave ovens. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 

at p. 89) DOE has determined that 

microwave oven manufacturers can 

meet TSL 3 in microwave ovens with 

VFDs by incorporating an automatic 

power-down feature. In addition, DOE 

research suggests that LED displays and 

LCDs in both countertop and over-therange microwave ovens offer acceptable 

consumer utility features, including 

brightness, viewing angle, and ability to 

display complex characters. Additional 

issues related to consumer utility are 

addressed in section V.C, which 

discusses the TSLs considered for 

proposed standby mode and off mode 

standards. 

AHAM requested additional 

information about the functionality 

associated with the microwave oven 

max-tech level, including response time 

from power-down. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 84) 

EEI also requested information about the 

max-tech level, such as whether it has 

as many display features and includes 

all the features of the baseline model. 

(EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at p. 84) 

As discussed in the October 2008 

NOPR, the max-tech microwave oven 

standby power level of 0.02 W 

corresponds to a unit equipped with a 

default automatic power-down function 

that shuts off certain power-consuming 

components after a specified period of 

user inactivity. The standby power at 

max-tech was obtained from a 

microwave oven currently on the market 

in Korea which incorporates such a 

feature. 73 FR 62034, 62045 (Oct. 17, 

2008). Although DOE does not have 

operational information on this specific 

model, DOE has analyzed the 

components necessary to achieve an 

automatic power-down function, and 

does not believe such a feature would 

limit the selection of display 

technologies or other features that 

provide consumer utility. DOE analysis 

suggests that response times for startup 

will be short enough (less than 1 

second) to be acceptable to consumers. 

For the reasons discussed above in 

section IV.A, DOE also analyzed a 

separate product class for over-the-range 

combination microwave ovens. DOE’s 

analysis estimates the incremental 

manufacturing cost for built-in and 

over-the-range combination microwave 

ovens having standby power 

consumption less than the baseline 

value of 4.5 W. To determine that 

baseline level, DOE measured the 

standby power consumption of a 

representative sample of built-in and 

over-the-range combination microwave 

ovens currently on the market. For the 

purpose of this standby power analysis, 

a baseline built-in/over-the-range 

combination microwave oven is 

considered to incorporate an absolute 

humidity cooking sensor. In order to 

analyze the cost-energy use relationship 

for this product class, DOE defined each 

standby power level as a maximum 

average standby power in watts. 

To determine the maximum average 

standby power at each level, DOE 

reverse-engineered a representative 

sample of built-in and over-the-range 

combination microwave ovens to 

analyze the various components that 

contribute to the standby power 

consumption of the unit. DOE also 

measured the standby power consumed 

by these components individually. In its 

analysis, DOE observed that the absolute 

humidity cooking sensor used in these 

combination microwave ovens on 

average consume 0.9 W of standby 

power. For Standby Power Level (SL) 1, 

DOE believes that standby power can be 

reduced by incorporating a zero-standby 

cooking sensor. For SL 2, DOE analyzed 

potential improvements to the power 

supply design. DOE noted that 

microwave ovens at the baseline 

standby energy use incorporate a linear 

power supply. DOE measured the 

standby power consumption of the 

power supply and found that the 

transformer used to step down the line 

input voltage contributes most 

significantly to the standby power 

consumption. DOE then performed a 

power budget analysis to determine the 

size of the transformer needed to 

operate a microwave at full load, and 

the results suggest that replacing the 

conventional linear power supply with 

a more efficient switch mode power 

supply will eliminate the need for a 

large transformer and effectively reduce 

the standby power associated with the 

power supply. DOE thus estimated the 

standby power for SL 2 based on the 

improvement associated with changing 

from a conventional linear power 

supply with an efficiency of 55 percent 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8542 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

18 Information on the design and efficiency of 

switch mode power supplies can be found at http:// 

www.powerint.com/en/applications/majorappliances. 

to a switch mode power supply with an 

efficiency of 75 percent. DOE developed 

this estimate for the efficiency of a 

switch mode power supply based on 

research of such power supply designs 

for appliance applications.18 For SL 3, 

DOE analyzed the impact relays have in 

determining the size of a power supply. 

DOE compared the power budget of a 

control board with electromechanical 

relays to that with solid state relays, and 

observed that the power requirement of 

a control board, with similar input and 

load, is lower with solid state relays 

than with electromechanical relays. 

Therefore, DOE estimated the standby 

power at SL 3 based on design 

improvements associated with using 

more efficient components in a switch 

mode power supply that incorporates 

solid state relays. For SL 4, DOE 

analyzed an automatic function that 

turns off power to standby power 

consuming components after a certain 

period of inactivity and that uses a 

transformerless power supply to 

maintain the microcontroller chip while 

the microwave oven is not powered on. 

DOE estimated the standby power at SL 

4 based on the standby power 

requirements of the controller 

microcontroller chip. 

Table IV.3 provides the proposed 

standby power levels for the two 

product classes considered for today’s 

SNOPR. Details of the engineering 

analysis are in chapter 5 of the SNOPR 

TSD. 

TABLE IV.3—PROPOSED MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY POWER LEVELS

Standby power level 

Standby power (W) 

Microwave-only 

and countertop 

combination 

Built-in and 

over-the-range 

combination 

Baseline ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 .0 4 .5 

1 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 .0 3 .7 

2 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 .5 2 .7 

3 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 .0 2 .2 

4 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .02 0 .04 

3. Manufacturing Costs 

In this rulemaking DOE estimates a 

manufacturing cost for microwave ovens 

at each standby power level. The 

manufacturing costs are the basis of 

inputs for other analyses, including the 

LCC, national impact, and GRIM 

analyses. 

For microwave oven standby mode 

and off mode energy use, DOE estimated 

a cost-energy use relationship (or 

‘‘curve’’) in the form of the incremental 

manufacturing costs associated with 

incremental reductions in baseline 

standby power. In the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE determined that microwave 

oven standby power depends on, among 

other factors, the display technology 

used, the associated power supplies and 

controllers, and the presence or lack of 

a cooking sensor. From testing and 

reverse engineering, DOE observed 

correlations between (1) specific 

components and technologies, or 

combinations thereof, and (2) measured 

standby power. DOE obtained 

preliminary incremental manufacturing 

costs associated with standby power 

levels by considering combinations of 

those components as well as other 

technology options identified to reduce 

standby power. In the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE presented manufacturing 

cost estimates based on quotes obtained 

from suppliers, interviews with 

manufacturers, interviews with subject 

matter experts, research and literature 

review, and numerical modeling. 73 FR 

62034, 62055 (Oct. 17, 2008). They are 

shown in Table IV.4. 

TABLE IV.4—OCTOBER 2008 NOPR 

PROPOSED MICROWAVE OVEN

STANDBY POWER INCREMENTAL

MANUFACTURING COSTS

Standby 

power 

level 

Standby 

power (W) 

Incremental 

cost 

2007$) 

Baseline .......... 4 .0 NA 

1 ...................... 2 .0 0.30 

2 ...................... 1 .5 0.67 

3 ...................... 1 .0 1.47 

4 ...................... 0 .02 5.13 

Based on DOE’s research, interviews 

with subject matter experts, and 

discussions with manufacturers, DOE 

believes that all consumer utility 

(display, cooking sensor, etc.) could be 

maintained by standby power 

consumption down to SL 3 (1.0 W). At 

the max-tech level, DOE would expect 

implementation of an automatic powerdown feature that would, among other 

things, shut off the display after a period 

of inactivity, potentially impacting 

consumer utility. 

DOE observed several different 

cooking sensor technologies. Follow-on 

testing after the December 2007 public 

meeting showed that some sensors are 

zero-standby (relative humidity) 

cooking sensors. During the MIA 

interview for the NOPR, one 

manufacturer indicated that its supplier 

of cooking sensors had developed zerostandby absolute humidity cooking 

sensors that would have the same 

manufacturing cost as the higherstandby power devices they would 

replace. Based on the number of 

available approaches to zero-standby 

cooking sensors from which 

manufacturers can choose, DOE believes 

that all manufacturers can and likely 

will implement zero-standby cooking 

sensors by the effective date of standby 

mode and off mode energy conservation 

standards, and maintain the consumer 

utility of a cooking sensor without 

affecting unit cost. DOE believes that a 

standard at standby power levels of 1 or 

2 W would not affect consumer utility, 

because all display types could continue 

to be used. At SL 3 for VFDs and SL 4 

for all display technologies, DOE 

analysis suggests the need for a separate 

controller (automatic power-down) that 

automatically turns off all other powerconsuming components during standby 

mode. Such a feature would affect the 

consumer utility of having a clock 

display only if the consumer could not 

opt out of auto power-down. 

DOE requested input and data from 

interested parties on the estimated 

incremental manufacturing costs, as 

well as the assumed approaches, to 

achieve each microwave oven standby 

power level. DOE also requested 

comment on whether any intellectual 

property or patent infringement issues 

are associated with the design options 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8543 

19 Information on the PPI databases can be found 

at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm. (Last accessed 

March 18, 2011.) 

presented in the NOPR TSD to achieve 

each standby power level. 73 FR 62034, 

62133 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

AHAM questioned the source of the 

incremental cost data associated with 

each standby power level presented by 

DOE, since some microwave oven 

manufacturers cannot recall providing 

this information to DOE. AHAM 

commented on the need for incremental 

manufacturing costs to reflect both a 

one-time cost as well as the possibility 

of multiple paths to achieve each TSL. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at p. 87) GE commented that the 

cost associated with upgrading power 

supplies to reach TSL 3 is a question. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 

at pp. 75–76) 

As described in chapter 5 of the TSD 

published with the October 2008 NOPR, 

DOE developed incremental cost 

estimates for each standby power level 

using the design-option approach. (Onetime costs are evaluated as part of the 

MIA.) DOE estimated costs for each of 

the components and technologies based 

on quotes from component suppliers, 

interviews with manufacturers, 

interviews with subject matter experts, 

research and literature review, and 

numerical modeling. The incremental 

manufacturing costs for each standby 

power level were determined by 

considering different combinations of 

these components as well as other 

technology options identified to reduce 

standby power. 

DOE is aware that manufacturers may 

employ a number of strategies to 

achieve the different standby power 

levels. The estimated manufacturing 

costs for each standby power level 

represent the approach DOE believes 

manufacturers would most likely use to 

achieve the standby power at each level. 

For each level, DOE assumed 

manufacturers would implement design 

options with the lowest associated 

manufacturing cost. If DOE determined 

there were multiple paths with similar 

costs to reach a certain level, it assumed 

manufacturers would be equally likely 

to choose either strategy. 

Whirlpool commented that its market 

research suggests high costs associated 

with consumer education on proper 

operation of microwave ovens with 

automatic power-down features. 

Whirlpool clarified that the marketing 

costs it submitted for the ANOPR did 

not include these costs, estimated at $10 

million, including retailer training, 

point-of-purchase material, product 

tags, telephone support, and possibly 

more. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 7) AHAM 

also commented that DOE did not 

complete a rigorous analysis on 

manufacturing costs. According to 

AHAM, DOE obtained component costs, 

but did not account for the cost 

implications on appliance 

manufacturers. AHAM stated that this 

includes variables such as component 

reliability and/or utility, both of which 

will impact manufacturer cost. (AHAM, 

No. 47 at p. 6) 

DOE considered any conversion costs 

associated with changes to consumer 

utility and reliability in the 

manufacturer impact analysis, discussed 

in section IV.G. However, as previously 

discussed, DOE found no reliability or 

consumer utility concerns with 

switching from VFD to LCD or LED 

displays. Through discussions with 

manufacturers and OEMs, DOE believes 

that zero-standby cooking sensors could 

be implemented with no effect on 

consumer utility or reliability. DOE is 

aware that an automatic power-down 

feature required at SL 3 for VFDs and at 

SL 4 for all display types could affect 

consumer utility, and considered these 

impacts in the selection of the proposed 

standards. 

For the reasons described above, DOE 

believes the standby power levels and 

corresponding incremental 

manufacturing costs presented in the 

October 2008 NOPR remain 

fundamentally valid for the microwaveonly and countertop combination 

microwave oven product class. DOE is 

unaware of any technologies that have 

become available since the publishing of 

the October 2008 NOPR that would alter 

the incremental cost for any standby 

power level. However, the costs 

presented in the October 2008 NOPR are 

in 2008 dollars. DOE scaled these costs 

to 2010 dollars using the producer price 

index (PPI) to reflect more current 

values.19 The relevant PPI for 

microwave ovens is a subset of the 

household cooking appliance 

manufacturing industry, specifically for 

electric (including microwave) 

household ranges, ovens, surface 

cooking units, and equipment. Table 

IV.5 shows the revised incremental 

costs for each standby power level for 

Product Class 1, scaled to 2010 dollars. 

TABLE IV.5—MICROWAVE OVEN

PRODUCT CLASS 1 STANDBY

POWER INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS

Standby 

power level 

Standby 

power (W) 

Incremental 

cost (2010$) 

Baseline ........ 4 .0 NA 

1 .................... 2 .0 $0.27 

2 .................... 1 .5 0.60 

TABLE IV.5—MICROWAVE OVEN

PRODUCT CLASS 1 STANDBY

POWER INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS—Continued 

Standby 

power level 

Standby 

power (W) 

Incremental 

cost (2010$) 

3 .................... 1 .0 1.31 

4 .................... 0 .02 4.58 

As discussed in section IV.A, for 

today’s SNOPR, DOE is proposing two 

product classes for microwave ovens. 

While the analysis presented in the 

October 2008 NOPR remains relevant 

for the microwave-only and countertop 

combination microwave oven product 

class, DOE conducted analyses on a test 

sample of 13 combination microwave 

ovens for this SNOPR to evaluate the 

built-in and over-the-range combination 

microwave oven product class. DOE 

again used the design-option approach 

to determine the incremental 

manufacturing costs of combination 

microwave ovens for each standby 

power level. 

DOE estimated the incremental cost 

associated with reductions in baseline 

standby power of built-in and over-therange combination microwave ovens. 

DOE performed engineering teardowns 

and control board cost analyses to 

determine the cost of the baseline 

control board used in these units. DOE 

estimated the cost associated with each 

standby power level by using quotes 

from various component suppliers to 

determine the cost of the components 

used in each design option. 

For SL 1, DOE estimated that the 

manufacturing cost of a zero-standby 

cooking sensor would be the same as 

that of the cooking sensor with high 

standby power. To estimate the 

manufacturing cost for SL 2, DOE used 

reverse engineering to determine the 

cost of the components used in a design 

of a switch mode power supply capable 

of delivering the same output power as 

the baseline conventional linear power 

supply. In its analysis for the 

manufacturing cost of SL 3, DOE 

determined the cost of the components 

used to design a control board with a 

switch mode power supply and solid 

state relays capable of driving the same 

loads as the electromechanical relays. 

DOE estimated the manufacturing cost 

for SL 4 based on the cost of the 

components needed to design an 

automatic power-down function that 

uses a transformerless power supply. 

The results of these new analyses are 

summarized in Table IV.6. For the 

detailed cost-energy use analysis, 

including descriptions of design options 

and design changes to meet standby 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8544 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

power levels, see chapter 5 of the 

SNOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.6—MICROWAVE OVEN

PRODUCT CLASS 2 STANDBY

POWER INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS

Standby 

power level 

Standby 

power (W) 

Incremental 

cost (2010$) 

Baseline ........ 4 .5 NA 

1 .................... 3 .7 $0 

2 .................... 2 .7 2.29 

3 .................... 2 .2 9.44 

4 .................... 0 .04 5.18 

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

In response to the requirements of 

section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, DOE 

conducted LCC and PBP analyses to 

evaluate the economic impacts of 

possible amended energy conservation 

standards for consumers of microwave 

ovens having standby mode and off 

mode features. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE conducted the 

analyses using a spreadsheet model 

developed in Microsoft (MS) Excel for 

Windows 2007. (See chapter 8 of the 

SNOPR TSD.) 

The LCC represents the total 

consumer expense over the life of a 

product, including purchase and 

installation expense and operating costs 

(energy expenditures, repair costs, and 

maintenance costs). The PBP is the 

number of years it would take for the 

consumer to recover the increased costs 

of a higher-efficiency product through 

energy savings. To calculate the LCC, 

DOE discounts future operating costs to 

the time of purchase and sums them 

over the lifetime of the product. DOE 

forecasts the change in LCC and the 

change in PBP associated with a given 

efficiency level relative to the base-case 

product efficiency. The base-case 

forecast reflects the market in the 

absence of amended mandatory energy 

conservation standards. As part of the 

LCC and PBP analyses, DOE develops 

data that it uses to establish product 

prices, annual energy consumption, 

energy prices, maintenance and repair 

costs, product lifetime, and discount 

rates. 

DOE developed a consumer sample 

for microwave ovens having standby 

mode and off mode features from EIA’s 

2005 Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey (RECS). It used this sample to 

establish the variability and uncertainty 

in microwave oven electricity use. The 

variability in electricity pricing was 

characterized by incorporating regional 

energy prices. DOE calculated the LCC 

associated with a baseline microwave 

oven having standby mode and off mode 

features. To calculate the LCC savings 

and PBP associated with products that 

could meet potential amended energy 

conservation standards, DOE substituted 

the baseline unit with more efficient 

designs. 

Table IV.7 summarizes the 

approaches and data DOE used to derive 

the inputs to the LCC and PBP 

calculations for the October 2008 NOPR, 

and the changes it made for today’s 

SNOPR. DOE did not introduce changes 

to the LCC and PBP analysis 

methodology described in the October 

2008 NOPR. As the following sections 

discuss in more detail, however, DOE 

revised some of the inputs to the 

analysis. Chapter 8 of the SNOPR TSD 

contains a detailed discussion of the 

methodology utilized for the LCC and 

PBP analysis as well as the inputs 

developed for the analysis. 

TABLE IV.7—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN LCC AND PBP ANALYSES

Inputs October 2008 NOPR Changes for the SNOPR 

Affecting Installed Costs 

Product Cost ....................................................... Derived by multiplying manufacturer cost by 

manufacturer, distributor markups and sales 

tax.

Used experience curve fits to forecast a price 

scaling index to forecast product costs. 

Affecting Operating Costs 

Annual Energy Use ............................................ Annual energy use determined from the annual usage (average daily use cycles).No change. 

Energy Prices ..................................................... Electricity: Updated using EIA’s 2006 Form 

861 data. Variability: Regional energy 

prices determined for 13 regions.

Electricity: Updated using EIA’s 2009 Form 

861 data. Variability: No change. 

Energy Price Trends .......................................... Energy: Forecasts updated with EIA’s Annual 

Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO 2008).

Reference Case, High Growth, and Low 

Growth forecasts updated with EIA’s AEO 

2010 May Release. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs .......................... Assumed no repair or maintenance costs ....... No change. 

Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings 

Product Lifetime ................................................. Estimated using survey results from RECS 

(1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005) and the 

U.S. Census American Housing Survey 

(2005, 2007), along with historic data on 

appliance shipments.

No change. 

Discount Rates ................................................... Variability: Characterized using Weibull probability distributions.No change. 

Affecting Installed and Operating Costs 

Effective Date of New Standard ......................... 2012 ................................................................. 2014. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8545 

1. Product Costs 

To calculate the product costs paid by 

microwave oven purchasers, DOE 

multiplied the manufacturing selling 

prices developed from the engineering 

analysis by the supply chain markups it 

developed (along with sales taxes). DOE 

used the same supply chain markups for 

today’s SNOPR that were developed for 

the October 2008 NOPR. See chapter 6 

of the SNOPR TSD for additional 

information. For the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE analyzed only countertop 

models of microwave ovens and 

considered installation costs to be zero. 

For today’s SNOPR, DOE analyzed both 

countertop and over-the-range 

microwave ovens and considered 

installation costs to be zero. 

On February 22, 2011, DOE published 

a Notice of Data Availability (NODA, 76 

FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider 

improving regulatory analysis by 

addressing equipment price trends. 

Consistent with the NODA, DOE 

examined historical producer price 

indices (PPI) for electric cooking 

equipment generally and microwave 

ovens specifically and found a 

consistent, long-term declining real 

price trend. Consistent with the method 

proposed in the NODA, DOE used 

experience curve fits to develop a price 

scaling index to forecast product costs 

for this rulemaking. 

DOE also considered the public 

comments that were received in 

response to the NODA and refined its 

experience curve trend forecasting 

estimates. Many commenters were 

supportive of DOE moving from an 

assumption-based equipment price 

trend forecasting method to a datadriven methodology for forecasting 

price trends. Other commenters were 

skeptical that DOE could accurately 

forecast price trends given the many 

variables and factors that can 

complicate both the estimation and the 

interpretation of the numerical price 

trend results and the relationship 

between price and cost. DOE evaluated 

these concerns and determined that 

retaining the assumption-based 

approach of a constant real price trend 

was not consistent with the historical 

data for the products covered in this 

rule (though this scenario does 

represent a reasonable upper bound on 

the future equipment price trend). DOE 

also performed an initial evaluation of 

the possibility of other factors 

complicating the estimation of the longterm price trend, and developed a range 

of potential price trend values that was 

consistent with the available data and 

justified by the amount of data that was 

available to DOE at this time. DOE 

recognizes that its price trend 

forecasting methods are likely to be 

modified as more data and information 

becomes available to enhance the 

statistical certainty of the trend estimate 

and the completeness of the model. 

Additional data should enable an 

improved evaluation of the potential 

impacts of more of the factors that can 

influence equipment price trends over 

time. 

To evaluate the impact of the 

uncertainty of the price trend estimates, 

DOE performed price trend sensitivity 

calculations in the national impact 

analysis to examine the dependence of 

the analysis results on different 

analytical assumptions. DOE also 

included a constant real price trend 

assumption as a sensitivity scenario 

representing an upper bound on the 

forecast price trend. 

A more detailed discussion of DOE’s 

price trend modeling and calculations is 

provided in appendix 8–E of the SNOPR 

TSD. 

2. Annual Energy Consumption 

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 or off mode the rest of the 

time. DOE estimated the number of 

operating hours relative to the baseline 

of 71 hours calculated in the NOPR. 

DOE subtracted the number of 

calculated operating hours from the 

total number of hours in a year and 

multiplied by the standby mode and off 

mode power usage to determine yearly 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption. 

3. Energy Prices 

DOE derived average electricity prices 

for 13 geographic areas consisting of the 

nine U.S. Census divisions, with four 

large States (New York, Florida, Texas, 

and California) treated separately. DOE 

estimated residential electricity prices 

for each of the 13 geographic areas 

based on data from EIA Form 861, 

‘‘Annual Electric Power Industry 

Report.’’ DOE calculated an average 

residential electricity price by first 

estimating an average residential price 

for each utility, and then calculating a 

regional average price by weighting each 

utility having customers in a region by 

the number of residential customers 

served in that region. The calculations 

for today’s SNOPR used the most recent 

available data (2009). 

To estimate trends in electricity prices 

for the October 2008 NOPR, DOE used 

the price forecasts in EIA’s AEO 2008. 

To arrive at prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average prices described 

above by the forecast of annual average 

price changes in AEO 2008. For today’s 

supplemental notice, DOE updated its 

energy price forecasts using those in the 

AEO 2010 May Release. Because the 

AEO forecasts prices only to 2035, DOE 

followed past guidelines that EIA 

provided to the Federal Energy 

Management Program and used the 

average rate of change during 2020– 

2035 to estimate price trends beyond 

2035. 

The spreadsheet tools used to conduct 

the LCC and PBP analysis allow users to 

select energy price forecasts for either 

the AEO’s High economic growth case 

or Low economic growth case to 

estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and 

PBP to different energy price forecasts. 

DOE received comment regarding the 

inputs to the energy price forecasts. The 

Joint Comment recommended that DOE 

conduct a sensitivity analysis using a 

basket of other forecasts besides the 

AEO. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 11) 

As mentioned above, DOE considered 

price forecasts from the AEO’s High and 

Low economic growth cases to estimate 

the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP 

results to different energy price 

forecasts. The alternative forecasts from 

the AEO provide a suitable range to 

examine the sensitivity of LCC and PBP 

results to different energy price 

forecasts. 

The Joint Comment also stated that to 

realistically depict energy prices in the 

future, DOE must consider the impact of 

carbon control legislation, because such 

legislation is likely. It also noted that 

there are regional cap-and-trade 

programs in effect in the Northeast 

(Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

[RGGI]) and the West (Western Climate 

Initiative [WCI]) that will affect the 

price of electricity, which was not yet 

reflected in the AEO energy price 

forecasts. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 

12) EJ stated that caps likely will be in 

place by the time new standards become 

effective, so DOE should increase its 

electricity prices to reflect the cost of 

complying with emission caps. (EJ, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 

pp. 105–106) 

In response, DOE believes that the 

shape of Federal carbon control 

legislation, and the ensuing cost to 

electricity generators of carbon 

mitigation, is too uncertain to 

incorporate into the energy price 

forecasts that DOE uses. The costs to 

electricity generators of carbon 

mitigation resulting from the regional 

programs are also uncertain over the 

forecast period for this rulemaking. That 

being said, EIA included the effect of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8546 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the RGGI in its energy price forecasts for 

the AEO 2010 May Release. (WCI did 

not provide sufficient detail to EIA in 

order for them to model WCI’s impact 

on energy price forecasts.) Therefore, 

the energy price forecasts used in 

today’s supplemental notice include the 

impact of one of the two regional capand-trade programs in the United States. 

4. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

Repair costs are those associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in an appliance; 

maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the operation of the 

product. For the October 2008 NOPR, 

DOE did not include repair or 

maintenance costs in its analyses. DOE 

maintained the same approach for this 

SNOPR. 

5. Product Lifetime 

For the October 2008 NOPR and 

today’s SNOPR, DOE used a variety of 

sources to establish low, average, and 

high estimates for product lifetime. The 

average microwave oven lifetime used 

was 9.3 years. DOE used a Weibull 

probability distribution to characterize 

microwave oven lifetime. 

6. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates to estimate the 

present value of future operating costs. 

DOE estimated a distribution of 

residential discount rates for microwave 

ovens. See chapter 8 in the SNOPR TSD 

for further details on the development of 

consumer discount rates. 

To establish residential discount rates 

for the LCC analysis in the October 2008 

NOPR and today’s SNOPR, DOE 

identified all debt or asset classes that 

consumers might use to purchase 

household appliances, including 

household assets that might be affected 

indirectly. It estimated average 

percentage shares of the various debt or 

asset classes for the average U.S. 

household using data from the Federal 

Reserve Board’s ‘‘Survey of Consumer 

Finances’’ (SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 

1998, 2001, 2004, and 2007. Using the 

SCF and other sources, DOE then 

developed a distribution of rates for 

each type of debt and asset to represent 

the rates that may apply in the year in 

which new standards would take effect. 

DOE assigned each sample household a 

specific discount rate drawn from one of 

the distributions. The average rate 

across all types of household debt and 

equity, weighted by the shares of each 

class, is 5.1 percent. DOE used the same 

approach for today’s supplemental 

notice. 

7. Effective Date of New Standards 

The effective date is the future date 

when parties subject to the requirements 

of a new energy conservation standard 

must begin compliance. For the NOPR, 

DOE assumed that any new standards 

adopted in this rulemaking would 

become effective in March 2012, 3 years 

after the month when it expected the 

final rule would be published in the 

Federal Register. For today’s SNOPR, 

DOE expects that the final rule will be 

published in 2011, with new standards 

requiring compliance three years later. 

Thus, DOE calculated the LCC for 

appliance consumers as if they would 

purchase new products in 2014. 

8. Product Energy Efficiency in the Base 

Case 

For the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

analyzes higher efficiency levels relative 

to a base case (i.e., the case without new 

energy conservation standards). 

However, some consumers may already 

purchase products having efficiencies 

greater than the baseline product levels. 

Thus, to accurately estimate the 

percentage of consumers that would be 

affected by a particular standard level, 

DOE estimates the distribution of 

product efficiencies that consumers are 

expected to purchase under the base 

case. DOE refers to this distribution of 

product energy efficiencies as a basecase efficiency distribution. For the 

October 2008 NOPR and today’s 

SNOPR, DOE used the current shares of 

available models at specific standby 

power levels to establish the base-case 

efficiency distributions. Table IV.8 

presents the market shares of the 

standby power levels in the base case 

for standby mode and off mode energy 

use of microwave ovens. 

TABLE IV.8—MICROWAVE OVENS: BASE-CASE MARKET SHARES

Level 

Product Class 1 Product Class 2 

Standby 

power (W) 

2005 Share 

(%) 

Standby 

power (W) 

2005 Share 

(%) 

Baseline ........................................................................................................................... 4.00 46.2 4.50 100.0 

TSL1 * ............................................................................................................................... 2.00 34.6 3.70 0.0 

TSL 2 ............................................................................................................................... 1.50 19.2 2.70 0.0 

TSL 3 ............................................................................................................................... 1.00 0.0 2.20 0.0 

TSL 4 ............................................................................................................................... 0.02 0.0 0.04 0.0 

* TSL = Trial Standard Level. 

9. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

The PBP is the amount of time 

(expressed in years) it takes the 

consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of a more efficient product 

through operating cost savings, 

compared to the baseline product. The 

simple payback period does not account 

for changes in operating expenses over 

time or the time value of money. The 

inputs to the PBP calculation are the 

total installed cost of the product to the 

consumer for each efficiency level and 

the annual (first-year) operating 

expenditures for each efficiency level. 

For the October 2008 NOPR and today’s 

SNOPR, the PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 

that energy price trends and discount 

rates are not needed. 

10. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

As noted above, EPCA, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) establishes 

a rebuttable presumption that a standard 

is economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that ‘‘the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard,’’ 

as calculated under the test procedure 

in place for that standard. For each TSL, 

DOE determined the value of the first 

year’s energy savings by calculating the 

quantity of those savings in accordance 

with DOE’s test procedure, and 

multiplying that amount by the average 

energy price forecast for the year in 

which a new standard first would be 

effective—in this case, 2014. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8547 

DOE received comments addressing 

the topic of using a rebuttablepresumption payback period to 

establish the economic justification of 

an energy conservation standard. The 

Joint Comment and EJ stated that DOE’s 

view that it is necessary to consider a 

full range of impacts because the 

rebuttable presumption criterion is 

insufficient for determining economic 

justification does not reflect the extent 

to which the rebuttable-presumption 

analysis constrains DOE’s authority to 

reject standards based on economic 

impacts. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at 

appendix B, p. 1; EJ, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 130) The Joint 

Comment stated that in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), Congress erected a 

significant barrier to DOE’s rejection, on 

the basis of economic justifiability, of 

standard levels to which the rebuttable 

presumption applies. Further, EJ and 

the Joint Comment stated DOE’s 

preference to proceed under the sevenfactor test contained in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) is not pertinent. The 

Joint Comment agreed with DOE that 

analysis under the seven-factor test is 

necessary and typically has supported 

standards having paybacks longer than 

3 years. However, the Joint Comment 

stated that DOE’s decision making must 

reflect the expressed intent of Congress 

that the highest standard level resulting 

in cost recovery within 3 years 

constitutes the presumptive lowest 

standard level that DOE must adopt. 

(Joint Comment, No. 44 at appendix B, 

pp. 1–2) 

In response, when examining 

potential standard levels DOE considers 

both the rebuttable-presumption 

payback criteria, as well as a full 

analysis that includes all seven relevant 

statutory criteria under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). DOE believes, however, 

that the commenters are misinterpreting 

the statutory provision in question. The 

Joint Comment and EJ state that DOE 

need not look beyond the results of the 

rebuttable-presumption analysis, but 

DOE believes that the statute contains 

no such restriction, and following this 

approach would potentially force the 

agency to ignore other relevant 

information that would bear on the 

selection of the most stringent standard 

level that meets all applicable statutory 

criteria. Similarly, DOE believes that the 

Joint Comment misreads the statute in 

calling for a level that meets the 

rebuttable-presumption test to serve as a 

minimum level when setting the final 

energy conservation standard. To do so 

would not only eliminate the 

‘‘rebuttable’’ aspect of the presumption 

but also would lock in place a level that 

may not be economically justified based 

on a full review of statutory criteria. 

EPCA already obligates DOE to select 

the most stringent standard level that 

meets the applicable statutory criteria. 

E. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. General 

DOE’s NIA assesses the national 

energy savings, as well as the national 

NPV, of total consumer costs and 

savings expected to result from new or 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels. DOE applied the NIA 

spreadsheet to calculate energy savings 

and NPV, using the annual energy 

consumption and total installed cost 

data from the LCC analysis. DOE 

forecasted the energy savings, energy 

cost savings, product costs, and NPV for 

the two product classes from 2014 to 

2043. The forecasts provide annual and 

cumulative values for all four 

parameters. In addition, DOE 

incorporated into its NIA spreadsheet 

the capability to analyze sensitivity of 

the results to forecasted energy prices 

and product efficiency trends. Table 

IV.9 summarizes the approach and data 

DOE used to derive the inputs to the 

NES and NPV analyses for the October 

2008 NOPR and the changes made in 

the analyses for today’s SNOPR. A 

discussion of the 2008 inputs and the 

changes follows. (See chapter 10 of the 

SNOPR TSD for further details.) 

TABLE IV.9—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NPV ANALYSES

Inputs 2008 NOPR Description Changes for the SNOPR 

Shipments ........................................................... Annual shipments from shipments model ....... See Table IV.10. 

Compliance Date of Standard ............................ 2012 ................................................................. 2014. 

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies ................... Shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) determined in 2005. SWEF held constant over 

forecast period.

No change. 

Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies ........... Analyzed as one product class. Roll-up scenario used for determining SWEF in the 

year that standards become effective for 

each standards case. SWEF held constant 

over forecast period.

Analyzed as two product classes. Roll-up scenario used for determining SWEF in the 

year that standards become effective for 

each standards case. SWEF held constant 

over forecast period 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................ Annual weighted-average values as a function 

of SWEF.

No change. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ............................... Annual weighted-average values as a function 

of SWEF.

Incorporated learning rate to forecast product 

prices. 

Energy Cost per Unit .......................................... Annual weighted-average values as a function 

of the annual energy consumption per unit 

and energy (and water) prices.

No change. 

Repair Cost and Maintenance Cost per Unit ..... Incorporated changes in repair costs as a 

function of standby power.

No change. 

Escalation of Energy Prices ............................... AEO 2008 forecasts (to 2030); extrapolated to 

2042.

Updated to AEO 2010 May release forecasts 

(to 2035); extrapolated to 2043. 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion ..................... Conversion varies yearly and is generated by 

DOE/EIA’s NEMS program (a time-series 

conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses).

No change. 

Discount Rate ..................................................... 3 and 7 percent real ........................................ No change. 

Present Year ...................................................... Future expenses discounted to 2007 .............. Future expenses discounted to 2011. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8548 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2. Shipments 

The shipments portion of the NIA 

spreadsheet is a model that uses 

historical data as a basis for projecting 

future shipments of the products that 

are the subject of this rulemaking. In 

projecting microwave oven shipments, 

DOE accounted for two market 

segments: (1) New construction; and (2) 

replacement of failed products. Because 

shipments for new construction and 

replacements were not enough to 

account for all product shipments, DOE 

developed another market segment to 

calibrate its shipments model. In 

addition to normal replacements, DOE’s 

shipments model also assumed that a 

small fraction of the stock would be 

replaced early. It also considered retired 

units not replaced. DOE used the nonreplacement market segment to calibrate 

the shipments model to historical 

shipments data. 

To estimate the impacts of 

prospective standards on product 

shipments (i.e., to forecast standardscase shipments), DOE considered the 

combined effects of changes in purchase 

price, annual operating cost, and 

household income on the magnitude of 

shipments. 

Table IV.10 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the shipments analysis for the 

October 2008 NOPR, and the changes it 

made for today’s SNOPR. The general 

approach for forecasting microwave 

shipments for today’s SNOPR remains 

unchanged from the NOPR. 

TABLE IV.10—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE INPUTS TO THE SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs 2008 NOPR description Changes for the SNOPR 

Number of Product Classes ............................... One product class. Market share data provided by AHAM.Two product classes: (1) All microwave ovenonly and countertop microwave oven-combination; (2) over-the-range microwave 

oven-combination. Market share data provided by AHAM; 99% product class #1 and 

1% product class #2. Product class market 

shares held constant over forecast period. 

New Construction Shipments ............................. Housing forecasts updated with EIA AEO 

2009 April release forecasts for the Reference case, High growth case, and Low 

growth case.

No change in approach. Housing forecasts 

updated with EIA AEO 2010 forecasts for 

the Reference case, High growth case, and 

Low growth case. 

Replacements ..................................................... Determined by tracking total product stock by 

vintage and establishing the failure of the 

stock using retirement functions from the 

LCC and PBP analysis. Retirement functions revised to be based on Weibull lifetime distributions.

No change. 

Retired Units not Replaced (i.e., non-replacements).Used to calibrate shipments model to historical shipments data.No change. 

Historical Shipments ........................................... Data sources include AHAM data submittal 

and Appliance magazine.

No change. 

Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and Household Income Impacts due to Efficiency Standards.Developed ‘‘relative price’’ elasticity, which accounts for the purchase price and the 

present value of operating cost savings divided by household income. Used purchase 

price and efficiency data specific to residential refrigerators, clothes washers, and dishwashers between 1980 and 2002 to determine a ‘‘relative price’’ elasticity of demand 

of ¥0.34.

No change. 

Fuel Switching .................................................... Not applicable .................................................. No change. 

a. New Construction Shipments 

To estimate shipments for new 

construction, DOE used forecasts of 

housing starts coupled with microwave 

oven saturation data. In other words, to 

forecast the shipments for new 

construction in any given year, DOE 

multiplied the housing forecast by the 

forecasted saturation of microwave 

ovens for new housing. 

New housing comprises single- and 

multi-family units (also referred to as 

‘‘new housing completions’’) and 

mobile home placements. DOE 

forecasted new housing based on EIA’s 

AEO 2010 for 2005–2035. AEO 2010 

provides three sets of forecasts: the 

Reference case, the High economic 

growth case, and the Low economic 

growth case. DOE used the forecasts 

from the Reference case for the NIA 

results reported in this notice. For the 

Reference case, the forecast shows a 

decline in housing completions from 2.2 

million in 2005 to 1.7 million by 2030. 

For 2035–2043, DOE froze completions 

at the level in 2035. 

b. Replacements and Non-Replacements 

To determine shipments for the 

replacement market, DOE used an 

accounting method that tracks the total 

stock of units by vintage. DOE estimated 

a stock of microwave ovens by vintage 

by integrating historical shipments 

starting from 1972. Over time, some 

units are retired and removed from the 

stock, triggering the shipment of a 

replacement unit. Depending on the 

vintage, a certain percentage of each 

type of unit will fail and need to be 

replaced. To determine when a 

microwave oven fails, DOE used data 

from RECS and AHS to estimate a 

product survival function. This function 

was modeled as a Weibull distribution. 

Based on this method, the average 

calculated microwave oven lifetime is 

9.3 years. For a more complete 

discussion of microwave lifetimes, refer 

to section 8.2.3 of chapter 8 of the 

SNOPR TSD. 

3. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and 

Income Impacts 

To estimate the combined effects of 

increases in product purchase price and 

decreases in product operating costs on 

microwave oven shipments, for the 

October 2008 NOPR DOE used a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8549 

literature review and a statistical 

analysis on a limited set of appliance 

price, efficiency, and shipments data. 

DOE used purchase price and efficiency 

data specific to microwave ovens 

between 1980 and 2002 to conduct 

regression analyses. DOE’s analysis 

suggested that the relative short-run 

price elasticity of demand is ¥0.34. 

Because DOE’s forecast of shipments 

and national impacts attributable to 

standards spans more than 30 years, 

DOE also considered how the relative 

price elasticity is affected once a new 

standard takes effect. After the purchase 

price changes, price elasticity becomes 

more inelastic over the years until it 

reaches a terminal value. For the 

October 2008 NOPR and today’s 

SNOPR, DOE incorporated a relative 

price elasticity change that resulted in a 

terminal value of approximately onethird of the short-run elasticity. In other 

words, DOE determined that consumer 

purchase decisions, in time, become less 

sensitive to the initial change in the 

product’s relative price. 

4. Other Inputs 

a. Forecasted Efficiencies 

A key input to the calculations of NES 

and NPV are the energy efficiencies that 

DOE forecasts for the base case (without 

new standards). The forecasted 

efficiencies represent the annual 

shipment-weighted energy efficiency 

(SWEF) of the product under 

consideration during the forecast period 

(i.e., from the estimated effective date of 

a new standard to 30 years after that 

date). Because DOE had no data to 

reasonably estimate how microwave 

oven standby power levels might change 

during the next 30 years, it assumed that 

forecasted efficiencies will stay at the 

2014 standby power levels until the end 

of the forecast period. 

For its determination of the cases 

under alternative standard levels 

(‘‘standards cases’’), DOE used a ‘‘rollup’’ scenario in the October 2008 NOPR 

to establish the SWEF for 2012. For 

today’s SNOPR, DOE established the 

SWEF for 2014 and assumed that 

product efficiencies in the base case that 

do not meet the standard level under 

consideration would roll-up to meet the 

new standard level. DOE assumed that 

all product efficiencies in the base case 

that were above the standard level 

under consideration would not be 

affected by the standard. 

DOE made the same assumption 

regarding forecasted standards-case 

efficiencies as for the base case; namely, 

that efficiencies will remain at the 2014 

standby power level until the end of the 

forecast period. By maintaining the 

same rate of increase for forecasted 

efficiencies in the standards case as in 

the base case (i.e., no change), DOE 

retained a constant efficiency difference 

between the two cases throughout the 

forecast period. Although the no-change 

trends may not reflect what would 

happen to base-case and standards-case 

product efficiencies in the future, DOE 

believes that maintaining a constant 

efficiency difference between the base 

case and each standards case provides a 

reasonable estimate of the impact that 

standards would have on product 

efficiency. It is more important to 

accurately estimate the efficiency 

difference between the standards case 

and base case than to accurately 

estimate the actual product efficiencies 

in the standards and base cases. DOE 

retained the approach used in the 

October 2008 NOPR for today’s SNOPR. 

Because the effective date of the 

standard is now assumed to be 2014, 

DOE applied the ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario in 

the year 2014 to establish the SWEF for 

each standards case. 

b. Annual Energy Consumption 

The annual energy consumption per 

unit depends directly on product 

efficiency. For the October 2008 NOPR 

and today’s SNOPR, DOE used the 

SWEFs associated with the base case 

and each standards case, in combination 

with the annual energy use data, to 

estimate the shipment-weighted average 

annual per-unit energy consumption 

under the base case and standards cases. 

The national energy consumption is the 

product of the annual energy 

consumption per unit and the number 

of units of each vintage, which depends 

on shipments. 

As noted above, DOE used a relative 

price elasticity to estimate standardscase shipments for microwave ovens. To 

avoid the inclusion of energy savings 

from any reduction in shipments 

attributable to a standard, DOE used the 

standards-case shipments projection 

and the standards-case stock to calculate 

the annual energy consumption in the 

base case. For microwave ovens, DOE 

assumed that any drop in shipments 

caused by standards would result in the 

purchase of used machines. DOE 

retained the use of the base-case 

shipments to determine the annual 

energy consumption in the base case for 

today’s SNOPR. 

c. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion 

To estimate the national energy 

savings expected from appliance 

standards, DOE uses a multiplicative 

factor to convert site energy 

consumption (energy use at the location 

where the appliance is operated) into 

primary or source energy consumption 

(the energy required to deliver the site 

energy). For the October 2008 NOPR, 

DOE used annual site-to-source 

conversion factors based on the version 

of NEMS that corresponds to AEO 2008. 

For today’s SNOPR, DOE used AEO 

2010. For electricity, the conversion 

factors vary over time because of 

projected changes in generation sources 

(i.e., the types of power plants projected 

to provide electricity to the country). 

Because the AEO does not provide 

energy forecasts beyond 2035, DOE used 

conversion factors that remain constant 

at the 2035 values throughout the rest of 

the forecast. 

d. Total Installed Costs and Operating 

Costs 

The increase in total annual installed 

cost is equal to the difference in the perunit total installed cost between the 

base case and standards case, multiplied 

by the shipments forecasted in the 

standards case. 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE assumed 

that the manufacturer costs and retail 

prices of products meeting various 

efficiency levels remain fixed, in real 

terms, throughout the period of the 

analysis. As discussed in section IV.F.1, 

examination of historical price data for 

certain appliances that have been 

subject to energy conservation standards 

indicates that the assumption of 

constant real prices and costs may, in 

many cases, over-estimate long-term 

appliance price trends. 

For the SNOPR, DOE applied a 

learning rate of 28.9 percent to forecast 

the prices of microwave ovens sold in 

each year in the forecast period (2014– 

2043). The learning rate expresses the 

change in price associated with a 

doubling in cumulative production. The 

price in each year is a function of the 

learning rate and the cumulative 

production of microwave ovens forecast 

in each year. DOE applied the same 

values to forecast prices for each 

product class at each considered 

efficiency level. Learning curve analysis 

characterizes the reduction in 

production cost mainly associated with 

labor-based performance improvement 

and higher investment in new capital 

equipment at the microeconomic level. 

Experience curve analysis tends to focus 

more on entire industries and aggregates 

over various casual factors at the 

macroeconomic level: ‘‘Experience 

curve’’ and ‘‘progress function’’ 

typically represent generalizations of 

the learning concept to encompass 

behavior of all inputs to production and 

cost (i.e., labor, capital, and materials).’’ 

The economic literature often uses these 

two terms interchangeably. The term 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8550 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘learning’’ is used here to broadly cover 

these general macroeconomic concepts. 

The ‘‘experience’’ curve developed for 

microwave ovens is based solely on 

shipments and PPI data specific to the 

United States. Because all microwave 

ovens are manufactured outside of the 

country, the changes observed in the PPI 

data are a result of efficiency gains 

realized in production outside of the 

country. In other words, ‘‘experience’’ is 

currently a dynamic of global 

production and distribution and is the 

cause for the changes observed in the 

PPI data. 

To evaluate the impact of the 

uncertainty of the price trend estimates, 

DOE performed price trend sensitivity 

calculations to examine the dependence 

of the analysis results on different 

analytical assumptions. DOE considered 

four learning rate sensitivities: (1) A 

‘‘high learning’’ rate (34.7 percent); (2) 

a ‘‘low learning’’ rate (21.3 percent); (3) 

a ‘‘no learning’’ rate (constant real 

prices); and (4) a ‘‘microwave oven 

only’’ rate. The ‘‘microwave oven only’’ 

is based on a limited set of historical 

price data specifically for microwave 

ovens, and the learning rate is 39.6 

percent. 

The annual operating cost savings per 

unit include changes in energy, repair, 

and maintenance costs. DOE forecasted 

energy prices for the October 2008 

NOPR based on AEO 2008; it updated 

the forecasts for the SNOPR using data 

from AEO 2010. For the October 2008 

NOPR and today’s SNOPR, DOE 

assumed no increases in repair and 

maintenance costs for more efficient 

standby mode and off mode features of 

microwave ovens. 

e. Discount Rates 

DOE multiplies monetary values in 

future years by a discount factor to 

determine their present value. DOE 

estimated national impacts using both a 

3-percent and a 7-percent real discount 

rate, in accordance with guidance 

provided by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies 

on the development of regulatory 

analysis (OMB Circular A–4 (Sept.17, 

2003), section E, ‘‘Identifying and 

Measuring Benefits and Costs’’). The 

Joint Comment stated that DOE should 

use a 2-percent to 3-percent real 

discount rate for national impact 

analyses. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 

11) It noted that societal discount rates 

are the subject of extensive academic 

research, and the weight of academic 

opinion is that the appropriate societal 

discount rate is 3 percent or less. It 

urged DOE to give primary weight to 

results based on the lower of the 

discount rates recommended by OMB. 

In response, DOE notes that OMB 

Circular A–4 references an earlier 

Circular A–94, which states that a real 

discount rate of 7 percent should be 

used as a base case for regulatory 

analysis. The 7-percent rate is an 

estimate of the average before-tax rate of 

return to private capital in the U.S. 

economy. It approximates the 

opportunity cost of capital, and, 

according to Circular A–94, it is the 

appropriate discount rate whenever the 

primary effect of a regulation is to 

displace or alter the use of capital in the 

private sector. OMB later found that the 

average rate of return to capital remains 

near the 7-percent rate estimated in 

1992. Circular A–4 also states that when 

regulation primarily and directly affects 

private consumption, a lower discount 

rate is appropriate. ‘‘The alternative 

most often used is sometimes called the 

social rate of time preference * * * the 

rate at which ‘society’ discounts future 

consumption flows to their present 

value.’’ It suggests that the real rate of 

return on long-term government debt 

may provide a fair approximation of the 

social rate of time preference, and states 

that during the past 30 years, this rate 

has averaged around 3 percent in real 

terms on a pre-tax basis. It concludes 

that ‘‘for regulatory analysis, [agencies] 

should provide estimates of net benefits 

using both 3 percent and 7 percent.’’ In 

accordance with the guidance from 

OMB Circular A–4, DOE did not give 

primary weight to results derived using 

a 3-percent discount rate. 

5. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices 

The Joint Comment stated that the 

proposed standard’s mitigation effects 

on electricity prices should be 

documented and the value of reduced 

electricity bills to all consumers 

quantified as a benefit. (Joint Comment, 

No. 44 at p. 11) For the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE examined the impact of 

reduced energy demand associated with 

possible cooking products standards on 

prices of electricity. DOE found that 

reductions in electricity demand 

resulting from possible standards for 

cooking products would produce no 

detectable change on the average user 

price of electricity in the United States. 

DOE concluded that microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode standards 

will not provide additional economic 

benefits resulting from lower energy 

prices. Thus, for today’s SNOPR DOE 

has made no change to its assumptions 

about the effects of microwave oven 

standards on energy prices. 

F. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

analyzed the potential effects of 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode standards on two subgroups: 

(1) Low-income consumers, and 

(2) consumers living in senior-only 

households. DOE used the same 

approach for today’s SNOPR. 

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impact of standby mode 

and off mode energy conservation 

standards on microwave oven 

manufacturers, and to calculate the 

impact of such standards on domestic 

employment and manufacturing 

capacity. The MIA has both quantitative 

and qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA primarily relies on the 

GRIM—an industry-cash-flow model 

customized for this rulemaking. The 

GRIM inputs are data characterizing the 

industry cost structure, shipments, and 

revenues. The key output is the industry 

net present value. Different sets of 

assumptions (scenarios) will produce 

different results. The qualitative part of 

the MIA addresses factors such as 

product characteristics, characteristics 

of particular firms, and market and 

product trends, and it also includes an 

assessment of the impacts of standards 

on subgroups of manufacturers. DOE 

outlined its methodology for the MIA in 

the October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 

62075–81 (Oct. 17, 2008). The complete 

MIA is presented in chapter 12 of the 

SNOPR TSD. 

For today’s SNOPR, DOE updated the 

MIA results based on several changes to 

other analyses that impact the MIA. 

DOE revised the analysis to account for 

the impacts on manufacturers resulting 

from standby mode and off mode 

standards for Product Class 1 

(Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop 

Combination Microwave Ovens) and 

Product Class 2 (Built-In and Over-theRange Combination Microwave Ovens). 

As discussed in section IV.C.3, based on 

the engineering analysis, DOE included 

updated manufacturer production costs 

(MPCs) for Product Class 1 and new 

MPCs for Product Class 2. For the 

SNOPR DOE updated its engineering 

analysis to 2010$ using the PPI. DOE 

also incorporated price trends into the 

analysis. Incorporating prices trends 

rather than assuming prices remain 

fixed in real terms throughout the 

analysis also impacts the MIA results. 

DOE used the default prices trends in 

the NIA starting in the base year of the 

analysis (2011) and continuing through 

the end of the analysis period (2043). 

DOE also assumed that MPCs and MSPs 

were similarly impacted by price trends 

in both the base case and standards 

cases. See section IV.D.1 for a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8551 

20See Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘‘Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 

Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II),’’ 

Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1992. 

description of how DOE implemented 

prices trends into the analysis. 

The total shipments and efficiency 

distributions were updated using the 

new estimates outlined in the SNOPR 

NIA. The MIA also uses the new 

analysis period in the NIA (2013–2043) 

and has updated the base year to 2011. 

See section IV.E for a description of the 

changes to the NIA. 

To segment total product and capital 

conversion costs between Product Class 

1 and Product Class 2, DOE used the 

same split between these two product 

classes as used in the NIA. DOE used 

the same per-platform costs at each 

standby power level for both product 

classes, but converted these product and 

capital conversion costs to 2010$ using 

the PPI. As described below, DOE also 

updated the product conversion costs in 

response to comments from interested 

parties. 

As noted in section IV.C.2, Whirlpool 

commented that its market research 

suggests high costs associated with 

consumer education on proper 

operation of microwave ovens with 

automatic power-down features. 

Whirlpool clarified that the marketing 

costs it submitted for the ANOPR did 

not include these costs, estimated at $10 

million, including retailer training, 

point-of-purchase material, product 

tags, telephone support, and possibly 

more. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 7) AHAM 

also commented that DOE did not 

account for the all cost implications on 

appliance manufacturers, including 

variables such as component reliability 

and/or utility, both of which will impact 

manufacturer cost. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 

6) 

As part of the MIA conducted for the 

October 2008 NOPR, DOE considered 

product and capital conversion costs 

associated with the analyzed TSLs. 

Product conversion costs are one-time 

investments in research, development, 

testing, and marketing, focused on 

making product designs comply with 

new energy conservation standards. 

DOE investigated available product 

information to estimate the number of 

product platforms that would need to be 

updated at each TSL to determine 

conversion costs for the entire industry. 

DOE also used manufacturer interviews 

to verify the estimates used to determine 

product conversion costs. For each TSL, 

DOE assumed that most of the product 

conversion costs would be used for 

product development expenses. To 

account for the majority of the cost to 

upgrade the designs of product 

platforms that did not meet the standby 

power requirements at each TSL, DOE 

estimated a per-platform cost for 

engineering time, reliability testing, and 

product development that varied 

depending on the complexity of the 

design options. In response to 

Whirlpool’s comment, DOE notes that 

the normal product cycle of microwave 

ovens is less the 3-year period between 

the announcement and the compliance 

date of the final rule, and some of these 

marketing costs for rolling-out new 

products would have been incurred 

without standards. However, to 

conservatively account for any of these 

extraordinary marketing costs in that 

period, DOE also estimated for the 

SNOPR a per-platform cost where it 

analyzed a power-down design option 

to achieve the required standby power 

level. The marketing cost equaled half 

the estimated engineering expense per 

platform. Chapter 12 of the SNOPR TSD 

contains more detailed information on 

the product conversion costs for 

microwave oven manufacturers. 

DOE also received a comment about 

the MIA results during the October 2008 

NOPR public meeting. In response to a 

discussion about different possible 

design paths that might be taken by 

manufacturers to reach higher 

efficiencies, LG questioned why the 

range of impacts on INPV was great if 

DOE had trouble contacting some 

overseas manufacturers. (LG, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 167– 

169). 

Additional information and 

interviewing a greater number of 

manufacturers would not affect the 

range of INPV impacts shown in the 

NOPR. Rather, the range of potential 

impacts on microwave oven 

manufacturers in the NOPR MIA 

analysis depended on two factors: The 

magnitude of the conversion costs and 

the ability of manufacturers to pass 

through the additional production costs 

to consumers at higher TSLs. The 

production cost at the max-tech standby 

power level (TSL 4) in the NOPR added 

$5.13 to the baseline MPC. If 

manufacturers could fully pass through 

these additional production costs to 

consumers for lower standby power, the 

additional cash flow from operations in 

the NOPR MIA analysis would still not 

be enough to overcome the substantial 

product and capital conversion costs, 

resulting in a loss of $35 million in 

INPV. If manufacturers could only pass 

through a portion of the increased 

production costs, the lower per-unit 

profit lowered cash flow from 

operations and resulted in a loss of $172 

million in INPV. 73 FR 62034, 62096– 

99 (Oct. 17, 2008). Hence, feedback from 

manufacturers was valuable to 

determine the standby power 

conversion costs and to determine 

which scenarios were appropriate to 

calculate the potential impacts on INPV. 

H. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts include direct and 

indirect impacts. Direct employment 

impacts are changes in the number of 

employees for manufacturers of the 

products subject to standards, their 

suppliers, and related service firms. The 

MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the jobs created or eliminated 

in the national economy, other than in 

the manufacturing sector being 

regulated, due to: (1) Reduced spending 

on energy by end users, (2) reduced 

spending on new energy supply by the 

utility industry, (3) increased consumer 

spending on the purchase of new 

products, and (4) the effects of those 

three factors throughout the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects such shifts in economic activity 

may have on the demand for labor is to 

compare sectoral employment statistics 

developed by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly publishes 

its estimates of the number of jobs per 

million dollars of economic activity in 

different sectors of the economy, as well 

as the jobs created elsewhere in the 

economy by that same economic 

activity. Data from BLS indicate that 

expenditures in the utility sector 

generally create fewer jobs (both directly 

and indirectly) than do expenditures in 

other sectors of the economy.20 There 

are many reasons for the differences, 

including wage differences and the fact 

that the utility sector is more capitalintensive and less labor-intensive than 

many other sectors. Energy conservation 

standards have the effect of reducing 

consumer utility bills. Because reduced 

consumer expenditures for energy likely 

lead to increased expenditures in other 

sectors of the economy, the general 

effect of energy conservation standards 

is to shift economic activity from a less 

labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility 

sector) to more labor-intensive sectors 

(e.g., the retail and manufacturing 

sectors). Thus, based on the BLS data 

alone, DOE believes net national 

employment will increase due to shifts 

in economic activity resulting from new 

standby mode and off mode standards 

for microwave ovens. 

In developing the October 2008 NOPR 

and today’s SNOPR, DOE estimated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8552 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

indirect national employment impacts 

using an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET). 

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput (I–O) model designed to 

estimate the national employment and 

income effects of energy-saving 

technologies. The ImSET software 

includes a computer-based I–O model 

having structural coefficients to 

characterize economic flows among 187 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and 

understands the uncertainties involved 

in projecting employment impacts, 

especially changes in the later years of 

the analysis.4 Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rule. Because 

ImSET predicts small job impacts 

resulting from this rule, regardless of 

these uncertainties, the actual job 

impacts are likely to be negligible in the 

overall economy. DOE may consider the 

use of other modeling approaches for 

examining long run employment 

impacts. DOE also notes that the 

employment impacts estimated with 

ImSET for the entire economy differ 

from the employment impacts in the 

microwaves manufacturing sector 

estimated using the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) in 

chapter 12 of the TSD. The 

methodologies used and the sectors 

analyzed in the ImSET and GRIM 

models are different. Please see chapter 

13 of the TSD for additional details on 

the range of results generated from the 

ImSET model. 

EJ and the Joint Comment stated that 

DOE must consider its own projections 

that an increase in employment will 

result from the adoption of standards in 

weighing the economic costs and 

benefits of more stringent energy 

conservation standards. (EJ Comment, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 

186; Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 13) As 

described above, when evaluating 

alternative standard levels DOE 

considers the indirect employment 

impacts estimated using ImSet. Direct 

employment impacts on the 

manufacturers that produce microwave 

ovens are analyzed in the MIA, as 

discussed in section IV.G. For today’s 

SNOPR, DOE made no change to its 

method for estimating employment 

impacts. EEI requested clarification on 

the methodology used to estimate the 

national employment impacts when the 

majority of microwave ovens are 

manufactured overseas. (EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript at p. 185) The 

employment impacts analysis considers 

only the indirect employment impacts 

expected to result from appliance 

standards. The employment impacts in 

the affected appliance manufacturing 

industry are assessed in the MIA. For 

the purposes of the employment 

impacts analysis described in this 

section, the location of the 

manufacturing facilities is not relevant. 

For further details, see chapter 13 of the 

SNOPR TSD. 

I. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the change in the forecasted power 

generation capacity for the Nation that 

would be expected to result from 

adoption of new or amended standards. 

The analysis determines the changes to 

electricity supply as a result of 

electricity consumption savings due to 

standards. For the October 2008 NOPR 

and today’s SNOPR, DOE used the 

NEMS–BT computer model to calculate 

these changes. The analysis output 

provides a forecast for the needed 

generation capacities at each TSL. The 

estimated net benefit of a standard is the 

difference between the generation 

capacities forecasted by NEMS–BT and 

the AEO Reference case. DOE obtained 

the energy savings inputs from the NIA. 

Those inputs reflect the effects of 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

reduction on electricity consumption of 

microwave ovens. Chapter 14 of the 

SNOPR TSD presents results of the 

utility impact analysis. 

J. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, and Hg from 

energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode energy use. DOE used the NEMS– 

BT computer model, which is run 

similarly to the AEO NEMS, except that 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode energy use is reduced by the 

amount of energy saved at each TSL. 

The inputs of national energy savings 

come from the NIA spreadsheet model, 

while the output is the forecasted 

physical emissions. The net benefit of 

each TSL in today’s proposed rule is the 

difference between the forecasted 

emissions estimated by NEMS–BT at 

each TSL and the AEO 2010 Reference 

case. NEMS–BT tracks CO2 emissions 

using a detailed module that provides 

results with broad coverage of all sectors 

and inclusion of interactive effects. For 

today’s SNOPR, DOE used AEO 2010. 

For the final rule, DOE intends to revise 

the emissions analysis using the most 

current version of NEMS. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions cap 

and trading programs, and DOE has 

preliminarily determined that these 

programs create uncertainty about the 

standards’ impact on SO2 emissions. 

Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an 

annual emissions cap on SO2 for 

affected EGUs in all 50 States and the 

District of Columbia (DC). SO2

emissions from 28 eastern States and DC 

are also limited under the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 

12, 2005)), which created an allowancebased trading program that would 

gradually replace the Title IV program 

in those States and DC. Although CAIR 

was remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (DC Circuit), see North Carolina 

v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008), 

it remained in effect temporarily, 

consistent with the DC Circuit’s earlier 

opinion in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). On July 6, 

2010, EPA issued the Transport Rule 

proposal, a replacement for CAIR (75 FR 

45210 (Aug. 2, 2010)); and on July 6, 

2011 EPA issued the final Transport 

Rule, entitled the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 

2011). On December 30, 2011, however, 

the DC Circuit stayed the new rules 

while a panel of judges reviews them, 

and told EPA to continue enforcing 

CAIR (see EME Homer City Generation 

v. EPA, No. 11–1302, Order at *2 (DC 

Cir. Dec. 30, 2011)). The AEO 2011 

NEMS–BT used for today’s NOPR 

assumes the implementation of CAIR. 

The attainment of emissions caps 

typically is flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, any excess 

SO2 emissions allowances resulting 

from the lower electricity demand 

caused by the imposition of an energy 

conservation standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. 

However, if the standard resulted in a 

permanent increase in the quantity of 

unused emissions allowances, there 

would be an overall reduction in SO2

emissions from the standards. While 

there remains some uncertainty about 

the ultimate effects of energy 

conservation standards on SO2

emissions covered by the existing capand-trade system, the NEMS–BT 

modeling system that DOE uses to 

forecast emissions reductions currently 

indicates that no physical reductions in 

power sector emissions would occur for 

SO2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8553 

21National Research Council. ‘‘Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use.’’ National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC 2009. 

As discussed above, the version of 

NEMS–BT used for today’s SNOPR 

assumes the implementation of CAIR, 

which established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia. With CAIR in 

effect, the energy conservation 

standards for microwave oven standby 

mode and off mode energy use are 

expected to have little or no physical 

effect on these emissions in those States 

covered by CAIR, for the same reasons 

that they may have little effect on SO2

emissions. However, the standards 

would be expected to reduce NOX

emissions in those 22 States not affected 

by the CAIR. For these 22 States, DOE 

used NEMS–BT to estimate NOX

emission reductions from the standards 

that are considered in today’s SNOPR. 

On December 21, 2011, EPA 

announced national emissions 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAPs) for mercury and certain 

other pollutants emitted from coal and 

oil-fired EGUs. (See http://epa.gov/ 

mats/pdfs/20111216MATSfinal.pdf.) 

The NESHAPs do not include a trading 

program and, as such, DOE’s energy 

conservation standards would likely 

reduce Hg emissions. For the emissions 

analysis for this rulemaking, DOE 

estimated mercury emissions reductions 

using NEMS–BT based on AEO2010, 

which does not incorporate the 

NESHAPs. DOE expects that future 

versions of the NEMS–BT model will 

reflect the implementation of the 

NESHAPs. 

K. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and 

Other Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits likely to 

result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 and NOX that are expected to result 

from each of the TSLs considered. In 

order to make this calculation similar to 

the calculation of the NPV of consumer 

benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the 

lifetime of products shipped in the 

forecast period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

monetary values used for each of these 

emissions and presents the values 

considered in this rulemaking. 

For today’s SNOPR, DOE is relying on 

a set of values for the SCC that was 

developed by an interagency process. A 

summary of the basis for those values is 

provided below, and a more detailed 

description of the methodologies used is 

provided as an appendix to chapter 16 

of the SNOPR TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive 

Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 

1993), agencies must, to the extent 

permitted by law, ‘‘assess both the costs 

and the benefits of the intended 

regulation and, recognizing that some 

costs and benefits are difficult to 

quantify, propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that the benefits of the intended 

regulation justify its costs.’’ The purpose 

of the SCC estimates presented here is 

to allow agencies to incorporate the 

monetized social benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses 

of regulatory actions that have small, or 

‘‘marginal,’’ impacts on cumulative 

global emissions. The estimates are 

presented with an acknowledgement of 

the many uncertainties involved and 

with a clear understanding that they 

should be updated over time to reflect 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed the SCC estimates, technical 

experts from numerous agencies met on 

a regular basis to consider public 

comments, explore the technical 

literature in relevant fields, and discuss 

key model inputs and assumptions. The 

main objective of this process was to 

develop a range of SCC values using a 

defensible set of input assumptions 

grounded in the existing scientific and 

economic literatures. In this way, key 

uncertainties and model differences 

transparently and consistently inform 

the range of SCC estimates used in the 

rulemaking process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide. 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a 

number of serious challenges. A recent 

report from the National Research 

Council 21 points out that any 

assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information 

about (1) future emissions of greenhouse 

gases, (2) the effects of past and future 

emissions on the climate system, (3) the 

impact of changes in climate on the 

physical and biological environment, 

and (4) the translation of these 

environmental impacts into economic 

damages. As a result, any effort to 

quantify and monetize the harms 

associated with climate change will 

raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. Consistent with the 

directive quoted above, the purpose of 

the SCC estimates presented here is to 

make it possible for agencies to 

incorporate the social benefits from 

reducing carbon dioxide emissions into 

cost-benefit analyses of regulatory 

actions that have small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ 

impacts on cumulative global emissions. 

Most Federal regulatory actions can be 

expected to have marginal impacts on 

global emissions. 

For such policies, the agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced (or 

costs from increased) emissions in any 

future year by multiplying the change in 

emissions in that year by the SCC value 

appropriate for that year. The net 

present value of the benefits can then be 

calculated by multiplying each of these 

future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all 

affected years. This approach assumes 

that the marginal damages from 

increased emissions are constant for 

small departures from the baseline 

emissions path, an approximation that 

is reasonable for policies that have 

effects on emissions that are small 

relative to cumulative global carbon 

dioxide emissions. For policies that 

have a large (non-marginal) impact on 

global cumulative emissions, there is a 

separate question of whether the SCC is 

an appropriate tool for calculating the 

benefits of reduced emissions. This 

concern is not applicable to this notice, 

and DOE does not attempt to answer 

that question here. 

At the time of the preparation of this 

supplemental notice, the most recent 

interagency estimates of the potential 

global benefits resulting from reduced 

CO2 emissions in 2010, expressed in 

2010$, were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and 

$67.6 per metric ton avoided. For 

emissions reductions that occur in later 

years, these values grow in real terms 

over time. Additionally, the interagency 

group determined that a range of values 

from 7 percent to 23 percent should be 

used to adjust the global SCC to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8554 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

22 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 

23The models are described in appendix 15–A of 

the SNOPR TSD. 

calculate domestic effects,22 although 

preference is given to consideration of 

the global benefits of reducing CO2

emissions. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. Specifically, the 

interagency group has set a preliminary 

goal of revisiting the SCC values within 

2 years or at such time as substantially 

updated models become available, and 

to continue to support research in this 

area. In the meantime, the interagency 

group will continue to explore the 

issues raised by this analysis and 

consider public comments as part of the 

ongoing interagency process. 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

To date, economic analyses for 

Federal regulations have used a wide 

range of values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. In the model year 2011 CAFE 

final rule, the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) used both a 

‘‘domestic’’ SCC value of $2 per ton of 

CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of $33 per 

ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions 

(in 2007$), increasing both values at 2.4 

percent per year. It also included a 

sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of 

CO2. See Average Fuel Economy 

Standards Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks Model Year 2011, 74 FR 14196 

(March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards, Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 3–90 

(Oct. 2008) (Available at: http:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A 

domestic SCC value is meant to reflect 

the value of damages in the United 

States resulting from a unit change in 

carbon dioxide emissions, while a 

global SCC value is meant to reflect the 

value of damages worldwide. 

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT 

assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 

ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission 

reductions (with a range of $0 to $14 for 

sensitivity analysis), also increasing at 

2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Passenger Cars 

and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011– 

2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) 

(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger 

Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015 at 3–58 (June 2008) 

(Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

fuel-economy). A regulation for 

packaged terminal air conditioners and 

packaged terminal heat pumps finalized 

by DOE in October of 2008 used a 

domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton 

CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 

2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 

2008). In addition, EPA’s 2008 Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Under the Clean Air Act identified what 

it described as ‘‘very preliminary’’ SCC 

estimates subject to revision. 73 FR 

44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA’s global 

mean values were $68 and $40 per ton 

CO2 for discount rates of approximately 

2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 

2006$ for 2007 emissions). 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible 

method, specifically designed for the 

rulemaking process, to quantify avoided 

climate change damages from reduced 

CO2 emissions. The interagency group 

did not undertake any original analysis. 

Instead, it combined SCC estimates from 

the existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: Global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO2. 

These interim values represent the first 

sustained interagency effort within the 

U.S. government to develop an SCC for 

use in regulatory analysis. The results of 

this preliminary effort were presented in 

several proposed and final rules and 

were offered for public comment in 

connection with proposed rules, 

including the joint EPA–DOT fuel 

economy and CO2 tailpipe emission 

proposed rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim 

values, the interagency group 

reconvened on a regular basis to 

generate improved SCC estimates, 

which were considered for this 

proposed rule. Specifically, the group 

considered public comments and 

further explored the technical literature 

in relevant fields. The interagency group 

relied on three integrated assessment 

models (IAMs) commonly used to 

estimate the SCC: The FUND, DICE, and 

PAGE models.23 These models are 

frequently cited in the peer-reviewed 

literature and were used in the last 

assessment of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Each model 

was given equal weight in the SCC 

values that were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three values are based on the 

average SCC from three integrated 

assessment models, at discount rates of 

2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. 

The fourth value, which represents the 

95th percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount 

rate, is included to represent higherthan-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. For emissions (or 

emission reductions) that occur in later 

years, these values grow in real terms 

over time, as depicted in Table IV.11. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8555 

24Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. 

For DOE’s calculation, it derived values after 2050 

using the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by 

the interagency group. 

25For additional information, refer to U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on 

the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 

Entities, Washington, DC 

26OMB, Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 

17, 2003). 

TABLE IV.11—SOCIAL COST OF CO2, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton] 

Year 

Discount Rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2010 ..................................................................................................................................... 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ..................................................................................................................................... 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ..................................................................................................................................... 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ..................................................................................................................................... 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ..................................................................................................................................... 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ..................................................................................................................................... 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ..................................................................................................................................... 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ..................................................................................................................................... 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of carbon and the limits 

of existing efforts to model these effects. 

There are a number of concerns and 

problems that should be addressed by 

the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of 

the agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

DOE recognizes the uncertainties 

embedded in the estimates of the SCC 

used for cost-benefit analyses. As such, 

DOE and others in the U.S. Government 

intend to periodically review and 

reconsider those estimates to reflect 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. In this 

context, statements recognizing the 

limitations of the analysis and calling 

for further research take on exceptional 

significance. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

most recent values identified by the 

interagency process, adjusted to 2010$ 

using the GDP price deflator. For each 

of the four cases specified, the values 

used for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, 

$22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton 

avoided (values expressed in 2010$).24

To monetize the CO2 emissions 

reductions expected to result from 

amended standards for microwave 

ovens, DOE used the values identified 

in Table A1 of the ‘‘Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866,’’ which 

is reprinted in appendix 16–A of the 

SNOPR TSD, appropriately escalated to 

2010$. To calculate a present value of 

the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SCC values in each case. 

Several parties provided comments 

regarding the economic valuation of CO2

for the October 2008 NOPR. Whirlpool 

does not support an attempt to value 

those emissions as part of this 

rulemaking. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 8) 

DOE believes that, in keeping with 

Executive Order 12866, placing an 

economic value on avoided CO2

emissions is necessary for a proper 

assessment of the costs and benefits of 

energy efficiency standards. For this 

SNOPR, DOE has updated its valuation 

of emission reductions based on the 

most recent recommendations from the 

interagency group. DOE has considered 

a wide range of values per ton of 

avoided CO2. As stated previously, the 

estimates are presented with an 

acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear 

understanding that they should be 

updated over time to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX

emissions from the TSLs it considered. 

As noted above, new or amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

NOX emissions in those 22 States that 

are not affected by the CAIR. DOE 

estimated the monetized value of NOX

emissions reductions resulting from 

each of the TSLs considered for today’s 

SNOPR based on environmental damage 

estimates found in the relevant 

scientific literature. Available estimates 

suggest a very wide range of monetary 

values, ranging from $370 per ton to 

$3,800 per ton of NOX from stationary 

sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent 

to a range of $450 to $4,623 per ton in 

2010$).25 In accordance with OMB 

guidance, DOE conducted two 

calculations of the monetary benefits 

derived using each of the economic 

values used for NOX, one using a real 

discount rate of 3 percent and the other 

using a real discount rate of 7 percent.26

DOE is aware of multiple agency 

efforts to determine the appropriate 

range of values used in evaluating the 

potential economic benefits of reduced 

Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent 

valuation and reporting of Hg emissions 

before it once again monetizes Hg in its 

rulemakings. 

L. Discussion of Other Comments 

1. Off Mode Power Consumption 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

determined that a microwave oven 

would be considered to be in off mode 

if it is plugged in to a main power 

source, is not being used for an active 

function such as cooking or defrosting, 

and is not consuming power for any 

standby mode function. 73 FR 62034, 

62042 (Oct. 17, 2008). Hypothetically, a 

microwave with mechanical controls 

and no display or cooking sensor but 

that consumes power for components 

such as a power supply when the unit 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

27Harmonics are waveforms of voltage or current 

that are multiples of the fundamental main power 

frequency. Harmonics can cause disruption to 

equipment connected to the main power and lead 

to component failures. 

is not activated would be considered to 

be in off mode. DOE believed no such 

microwave ovens were available on the 

market, and was unaware of any 

microwave ovens available that could 

operate in off mode. Therefore, DOE 

proposed no off-mode power 

consumption energy conservation 

standard. DOE requested input and data 

regarding off mode power for 

microwave ovens. 

Despite DOE’s test results indicating 

that no current microwave oven can 

operate in off mode, AHAM 

recommended that some level of power 

should be allowed in off mode for the 

following reasons: 

(1) Harmonization, particularly with 

Europe, which is implementing a 0.5 W 

standard on off mode in 2013; 

(2) Consistency in standby mode and 

off mode definitions among all NAECAcovered products; 

(3) Off mode and standby mode are 

linked, in that standby power 

requirements may result in previously 

unused features, such as a small LED 

indicating that power is running to the 

unit, but the unit is in standby mode; 

and 

(4) Power use and conversion 

concerns (i.e., harmonics 27) may 

necessitate some protective capability, 

which falls into the definition of off 

mode. 

AHAM urged DOE to consider 

adopting AHAM’s proposed 

clarifications and examples for off mode 

power included in Exhibit 1. These 

guidelines allow for a single definition 

to be used for all products. (AHAM, No. 

47 at p. 5) 

Whirlpool commented that the 

addition of off mode to the proposed 

rule is very important to assure that all 

power consumption is properly 

accounted for. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 

4) 

DOE generally agrees with the topics 

addressed in these comments. 

Consistency between covered products 

and international harmonization are 

important issues to be considered in 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings, as is properly accounting 

for all power consumption. However, 

DOE received no comments indicating 

that any microwave ovens with off 

mode capability are currently available 

or expected to become available on the 

market. In the concurrent microwave 

oven test procedure rulemaking, DOE 

investigated the potential for microwave 

ovens with an on/off switch to operate 

in off mode. DOE determined that 

microwave ovens with such a 

configuration would be capable of 

operating in off mode, but that operation 

in off mode due to the activation of an 

on/off switch would be associated with 

zero energy consumption. Therefore, 

DOE continues to propose no standard 

for off mode power in microwave ovens 

because it believes there would be no 

benefit associated with such a standard. 

2. Proposed Standards for Microwave 

Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Energy Use 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

made the preliminary determination 

that a maximum standby power 

standard of 1.0 W for microwave ovens 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 73 FR 62034, 

62120 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE requested 

comments and views of interested 

parties on the proposed standards for 

microwave ovens. Id. at 62133. 

EEI stated that the proposed standard 

of 1.0 W is too aggressive because 

typical microwave ovens have standby 

power consumption of 2 to 4 W. This 

power is used for functions that 

consumers find useful (such as clocks 

and cooking sensors). EEI noted that 

DOE should work with AHAM to set a 

different standard that does not 

compromise functionality. EEI 

suggested a standard of 2.0 to 3.0 W, 

which should provide more flexibility 

to manufacturers and provide national 

energy savings. (EEI, No. 56 at p. 2) 

As discussed in the October 2008 

NOPR and this SNOPR, DOE is aware of 

various strategies manufacturers could 

employ to reduce standby power 

consumption while maintaining 

consumer utility. DOE’s analysis in 

today’s SNOPR indicates that a 1–W 

standard for microwave-only ovens and 

countertop combination microwave 

ovens would be technically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE is not 

proposing a 1–W standard for built-in 

and over-the-range combination 

microwave ovens because such a level 

was not found to be technically feasible 

while maintaining consumer utility (i.e., 

automatic power-down would be 

necessary to meet that standby power 

level). 

The Joint Comment and ASAP 

support the proposed standard. 

According to the Joint Comment, the 

proposal is in keeping with national and 

international efforts to limit product 

standby power. (Joint Comment, No. 44 

at p. 10; ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 32) 

AHAM stated that it believes all the 

TSLs are appropriate, including the TSL 

on which the proposed standard is 

based. AHAM stated that much of the 

world is moving towards the IEA 1– 

Watt Program. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 83) 

Nevertheless, AHAM stated its 

opposition to the proposed standard, 

due in part to the lack of sufficient time 

for manufacturers to evaluate the 

viability or feasibility of the proposed 

technologies. AHAM proposed that DOE 

issue a ‘‘no standard’’ standard on 

microwave ovens or postpone the 

current rulemaking on microwave oven 

standby power until a robust test 

procedure is published and data are 

collected using the clarified test 

procedure to define potential standby 

power requirements. If the ‘‘no 

standard’’ standard is issued, standby 

power may be addressed during the next 

cooking products rulemaking or through 

negotiation. (AHAM, No. 47 at pp. 3–4) 

AHAM also commented that the 

proposed standard’s effective date of 

2012 is inconsistent with the timing in 

the rest of the world. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 27) 

GE recommended that DOE should 

postpone the microwave oven standby 

power rulemaking until a robust test 

procedure is published or, in the 

alternative, issue a ‘‘no standard’’ 

standard on microwave ovens. GE 

further stated that it believes there are 

critical gaps in the engineering analysis 

used to justify the proposed standard. 

(GE, No. 48 at p. 2) GE commented that 

if the microwave oven standby and off 

mode rulemaking is not postponed, DOE 

should issue a ‘‘no standard’’ standard 

on microwave ovens. (GE, No. 48 at p. 

2) 

Whirlpool commented that it does not 

support the proposed standard. 

(Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 1) Further, 

Whirlpool stated that DOE’s rulemaking 

timeline should take into account 

international changes in microwave 

oven standards. According to 

Whirlpool, any changes in U.S. policy 

that coincided with changes in policy 

around the world would be significantly 

advantageous to manufacturers. 

(Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at p. 29) 

Since the publication of the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE has amended the 

microwave oven test procedure for 

microwave ovens to measure standby 

mode and off mode power consumption. 

These amendments appear in the March 

2011 TP Interim Final Rule. 76 FR 

12825 (Mar. 9, 2011). The amendments 

incorporate by reference certain 

provisions of IEC Standard 62301 First 

Edition, 2005–06, which is an 

international test procedure addressing 

standby mode and off mode power 

measurement. In addition, in order to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8557 

ensure that the amended test procedure 

adequately addresses the EISA 2007 

requirement to consider the most recent 

version of IEC Standard 62301 (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)), and recognizing 

that the IEC was expected to issue IEC 

Standard 62301 (Second Edition) in the 

same timeframe as DOE was planning to 

publish the amended test procedure, 

DOE issued the microwave oven test 

procedure on an interim final basis. The 

March 2011 TP Interim Final Rule 

offered a 180-day comment period, and 

to the extent necessary, DOE is 

considering appropriate adjustments 

based on comments received. Also since 

the publication of the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE conducted further analyses 

in support of this energy conservation 

standards rulemaking, including the 

evaluation of combination microwave 

ovens. 

In considering standards for today’s 

SNOPR, DOE is proposing two product 

classes for microwave ovens: (1) 

Microwave-only ovens and countertop 

combination microwave ovens; and (2) 

built-in and over-the-range combination 

microwave ovens. DOE believes the 

analyses conducted for microwave 

ovens in the October 2008 NOPR 

remains valid for the microwave-only 

oven and countertop combination 

microwave oven product class. 

However, these analyses have been 

updated to reflect more current results, 

where applicable. DOE conducted 

additional analyses for the built-in and 

over-the-range combination microwave 

oven product class. The approach and 

results for proposed standard levels for 

today’s SNOPR are discussed in section 

IV. 

3. Manufacturer Tax Credits Impact on 

Market Adoption of More Efficient 

Products 

Whirlpool commented that the 

analysis cites dated studies which 

suggest that the consumer sees little 

economic benefit of manufacturer tax 

credits. Not covered in this analysis is 

that the tax credits provide 

manufacturers some of the cash flow 

necessary to invest in the development 

of ever more efficient products. Thus, 

the consumer sees significant benefit in 

the form of increasingly energy and 

water efficient products in the 

marketplace. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 9) 

As described in chapter 17 of the 

SNOPR TSD on the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA), DOE analyzed nonregulatory alternatives to minimum 

energy conservation standards, 

including manufacturer tax credits. The 

RIA assesses the national energy savings 

and economic impacts (i.e., NPV) of the 

non-regulatory alternatives relative to 

the national impacts from minimum 

energy conservation standards. In the 

case of manufacturer tax credits, DOE 

agrees that they provide manufacturers 

the financial means to develop and sell 

more efficient products and that the 

resulting consumer purchase price 

would be partially mitigated by the tax 

credits. However, DOE estimated that 

tax credits would be paid for by 

consumers in another form (such as 

additional taxes), and therefore did not 

include them as a consumer benefit for 

the purposes of calculating the national 

NPV. DOE did estimate that 

manufacturer tax credits will lead to an 

increase in the sales of more energyefficient products. DOE determined, 

however, that the rate of adoption of 

more efficient products due to 

manufacturer tax credits is not as great 

as that from mandatory minimum 

energy conservation standards. For more 

details on DOE’s analysis of 

manufacturer tax credits and all nonregulatory alternatives, refer to chapter 

17 of the SNOPR TSD. 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of a number of TSLs for the 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode energy use that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. For the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE based the TSLs on 

standby power levels explored in the 

November 2007 ANOPR, and selected 

the TSLs on consideration of economic 

factors and current market conditions. 

As discussed previously in section IV, 

given the small number of standby 

power levels analyzed, DOE maintained 

all four of the standby power levels to 

consider as TSLs. 

Table V.1 shows the TSLs for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode energy use. In all, DOE has 

considered four TSLs. TSL 1 

corresponds to the first candidate 

standard level from each product class 

and represents the standby power level 

for each class with the least significant 

design change. TSL 4 corresponds to the 

max-tech efficiency levels. TSLs 2 and 

3 are intermediate levels between TSL 1 

and TSL 4. 

TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE ENERGY USE

Trial standard level 

Standby power (W) 

Product Class 1: 

Microwave-only and 

countertop combination 

Product Class 2: 

Built-in and overthe-range combination 

TSL 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2.00 3.70 

TSL 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.50 2.70 

TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.00 2.20 

TSL 4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.02 0.04 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

To evaluate the net economic impact 

of standards on consumers, DOE 

conducted LCC and PBP analyses for 

each TSL. In general, a higher-efficiency 

product would affect consumers in two 

ways: (1) Annual operating expense 

would decrease; and (2) purchase price 

would increase. Section IV.D of this 

notice discusses the inputs DOE used 

for calculating the LCC and PBP. 

The key outputs of the LCC analysis 

are a mean LCC savings relative to the 

baseline product design, as well as a 

probability distribution or likelihood of 

LCC reduction or increase, for each TSL 

and product class. The LCC analysis 

also estimates the fraction of consumers 

for which the LCC will decrease (net 

benefit), increase (net cost), or exhibit 

no change (no impact) relative to the 

base-case product forecast. No impacts 

occur when the product efficiencies of 

the base-case forecast already equal or 

exceed the efficiency at a given TSL. 

Table V.2 and Table V.3 show the 

LCC and PBP results for both microwave 

oven product classes. Note that for builtin and over-the-range combination 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

microwave ovens, 100 percent of 

consumers of such products in 2014 are 

assumed to be using a combination 

microwave oven in the base case. Any 

decrease in standby power would affect 

100 percent of the market. 

TABLE V.2—MICROWAVE-ONLY OVENS AND COUNTERTOP COMBINATION MICROWAVE OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND

PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL Standby 

power (W 

Life-cycle cost ($) Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period 

(years) 

Median 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings $ 

% Households with 

Net 

cost 

No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

Baseline ................................................................... 4.00 $223 $31 $254 NA 0 100 0 NA 

1 .............................................................................. 2.00 224 15 239 7 0 54 46 0.2 

2 .............................................................................. 1.50 224 12 236 10 0 19 81 0.4 

3 .............................................................................. 1.00 225 8 233 13 0 0 100 1.1 

4 .............................................................................. 0.02 230 0 230 15 0 0 100 2.4 

TABLE V.3—BUILT-IN AND OVER-THE-RANGE COMBINATION MICROWAVE OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD

RESULTS

TSL 

Standby 

power 

(W) 

Life-cycle cost ($) Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period 

(years) 

median 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

Savings 

% Households with 

Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

Baseline ................................................................... 4.50 $482 $35 $517 NA 0 100 0 NA 

1 .............................................................................. 3.70 482 29 511 $6 0 0 100 0.0 

2 .............................................................................. 2.70 486 21 506 11 0 0 100 1.9 

3 .............................................................................. 2.20 496 17 513 4 21 0 79 6.3 

4 .............................................................................. 0.04 490 0 490 27 0 0 100 1.8 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

Using the LCC spreadsheet model, 

DOE determined the impact of the 

standards on the following microwave 

oven consumer subgroups: senior-only 

households and low-income 

households. Table V.4 and Table V.5 

compare the average LCC savings for 

senior-only households and low-income 

households with those for all 

households. The LCC impacts for 

senior-only and low-income households 

are essentially the same as they are for 

the general population. 

TABLE V.4—MICROWAVE-ONLY OVENS AND COUNTERTOP COMBINATION MICROWAVE OVENS: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE

LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

TSL Standby 

power (W) 

Senior-only 

households 

Low-income 

households 

All 

households 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 2.00 $7 $7 $7 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.50 10 10 10 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.00 12 12 13 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.02 15 15 15 

TABLE V.5—BUILT-IN AND OVER-THE-RANGE COMBINATION MICROWAVE OVENS: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC 

SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

TSL Standby 

power (W) 

Senior-only 

households 

Low-income 

households 

All 

households 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 3.70 $6 $6 $6 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 2.70 10 10 11 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 2.20 4 4 4 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.04 27 27 27 

c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

As discussed above, EPCA establishes 

a rebuttable presumption that, in 

essence, an energy conservation 

standard is economically justified if the 

increased purchase cost for product that 

meets the standard is less than three 

times the value of the first-year energy 

savings resulting from the standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE calculated 

a rebuttable-presumption payback 

period for each TSL to determine 

whether DOE could presume that a 

standard at that level is economically 

justified. Table V.6 shows the 

rebuttable-presumption payback periods 

for the microwave oven standby mode 

and off mode TSLs. Because only a 

single, average value is necessary for 

establishing the rebuttable-presumption 

payback period, rather than using 

distributions for input values, DOE used 

discrete values. As required by EPCA, 

DOE based the calculation on the 

assumptions in the DOE test procedures 

for microwave ovens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) As a result, DOE 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8559 

calculated a single rebuttablepresumption payback value, and not a 

distribution of payback periods, for each 

TSL. 

TABLE V.6—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND

OFF MODE

TSL 

Payback period (years) 

Microwave-only 

ovens and 

countertop combination ovens 

Built-in and 

over-the-range 

combination 

microwave ovens 

1 ........ 0.2 0.0 

2 ........ 0.3 1.8 

3 ........ 0.6 5.6 

4 ........ 1.6 1.6 

With the exception of TSL 3 for builtin and over-the-range combination 

microwave ovens, all the TSLs in the 

above tables have rebuttablepresumption payback periods of less 

than 3 years. DOE believes that the 

rebuttable-presumption payback period 

criterion (i.e., a limited payback period) 

is not sufficient for determining 

economic justification. Therefore, DOE 

has considered a full range of impacts, 

including those to consumers, 

manufacturers, the Nation, and the 

environment. Section IV.D provides a 

complete discussion of how DOE 

considered the range of impacts to select 

its proposed standards. 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

used INPV to compare the financial 

impacts of different TSLs on microwave 

oven manufacturers. 73 FR 62034, 

62096–99 (Oct. 17, 2008). The INPV is 

the sum of all net cash flows discounted 

by the industry’s cost of capital 

(discount rate). DOE used the GRIM to 

compare the INPV of the base case (no 

new energy conservation standards) to 

that of each TSL for the microwave oven 

industry. To evaluate the range of cashflow impacts on the microwave oven 

industry, DOE constructed different 

scenarios using different markups that 

correspond to the range of anticipated 

market responses. Each scenario results 

in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding industry value at each 

TSL. These steps allowed DOE to 

compare the potential impacts on the 

industry as a function of TSLs in the 

GRIM. The difference in INPV between 

the base case and the standards case is 

an estimate of the economic impacts 

that implementing that standard level 

would have on the entire industry. For 

today’s supplemental notice, DOE 

continues to use the above methodology 

and presents the results in the 

subsequent sections. See chapter 12 for 

additional information on MIA 

methodology and results. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

To assess the lower end of the range 

of potential impacts for the microwave 

oven industry, DOE considered the 

scenario reflecting the preservation of 

gross margin percentage. As production 

cost increases with efficiency, this 

scenario implies manufacturers will be 

able to maintain gross margins as a 

percentage of revenues. To assess the 

higher end of the range of potential 

impacts for the microwave oven 

industry, DOE considered the scenario 

reflecting preservation of gross margin 

in absolute dollars. Under this scenario, 

DOE assumed that the industry can 

maintain its gross margin in absolute 

dollars after the compliance date of the 

energy conservation standard. The 

industry would do so by lowering their 

gross margin as a percentage of revenue 

so that the gross margin in absolute 

dollars does not increase above the basecase gross margin. Table V.7 through 

Table V.12 show MIA results for 

standby mode and off mode energy 

conservation standards using both 

markup scenarios described above for 

microwave oven manufacturers. 

TABLE V.7—PRODUCT CLASS 1 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... 1,103.4 1,076 .6 1,058 .6 1,050 .6 1,013 .9 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ (26 .8) (44 .9) (52 .8) (89 .6) 

% ........................................... ¥ (2 .4) (4 .1) (4 .8) (8 .1) 

Product Conversion Costs ..... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 39 .2 70 .5 89 .1 172 .3 

Capital Conversion Costs ...... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 3 .9 4 .3 4 .7 7 .8 

Total Investment Required .... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 43 .1 74 .8 93 .8 180 .1 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V.8—PRODUCT CLASS 1 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN IN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... 1,103.4 1,074 .4 1,051 .8 1,031 .6 939 .5 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ (29 .0) (51 .7) (71 .9) (163 .9) 

% ........................................... ¥ (2 .6) (4 .7) (6 .5) (14 .9) 

Product Conversion Costs ..... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 39 .2 70 .5 89 .1 172 .3 

Capital Conversion Costs ...... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 3 .9 4 .3 4 .7 7 .8 

Total Investment Required .... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 43 .1 74 .8 93 .8 180 .1 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.9—PRODUCT CLASS 2 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... 24.0 23 .8 23 .7 23 .9 23 .2 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ (0 .3) (0 .4) (0 .1) (0 .9) 

% ........................................... ¥ (1 .2) (1 .5) (0 .3) (3 .6) 

Product Conversion Costs ..... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 0 .4 0 .7 0 .9 1 .7 

Capital Conversion Costs ...... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .1 

Total Investment Required * .. 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 0 .4 0 .8 0 .9 1 .8 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product conversion costs and capital conversion costs due to the rounding to one decimal 

place. 

TABLE V.10—PRODUCT CLASS 2 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN IN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... 24.0 23 .8 23 .3 22 .3 22 .3 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ (0 .3) (0 .8) (1 .7) (1 .8) 

% ........................................... ¥ (1 .2) (3 .1) (7 .1) (7 .3) 

Product Conversion Costs ..... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 0 .4 0 .7 0 .9 1 .7 

Capital Conversion Costs ...... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .1 

Total Investment Required * .. 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 0 .4 0 .8 0 .9 1 .8 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product conversion costs and capital conversion costs due to the rounding to one decimal 

place. 

TABLE V.11—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP

SCENARIO FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1 AND 2 COMBINED

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... 1,127.5 1,100 .4 1,082 .2 1,074 .5 1,037 .0 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ (27 .1) (45 .2) (52 .9) (90 .4) 

% ........................................... ¥ (2 .4) (4 .0) (4 .7) (8 .0) 

Product Conversion Costs ..... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 39 .6 71 .2 90 .0 174 .0 

Capital Conversion Costs ...... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 4 .0 4 .4 4 .7 7 .9 

Total Investment Required* ... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 43 .5 75 .5 94 .7 181 .9 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product conversion costs and capital conversion costs due to the rounding to one decimal 

place. 

TABLE V.12—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN IN ABSOLUTE DOLLARS

MARKUP SCENARIO FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1 AND 2 COMBINED

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... 1,127.5 1,098 .2 1,075 .0 1,053 .9 961 .8 

Change in INPV ..................... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ (29 .3) (52 .4) (73 .6) (165 .7) 

% ........................................... ¥ (2 .6) (4 .6) (6 .5) (14 .7) 

Product Conversion Costs ..... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 39 .6 71 .2 90 .0 174 .0 

Capital Conversion Costs ...... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 4 .0 4 .4 4 .7 7 .9 

Total Investment Required* ... 2010$ millions ....................... ¥ 43 .5 75 .5 94 .7 181 .9 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8561 

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product conversion costs and capital conversion costs due to the rounding to one decimal 

place. 

TSL 1 represents an improvement in 

standby power from the baseline level of 

4.0 W to 2.0 W for Product Class 1 and 

an improvement in standby power from 

the baseline level of 4.5 W to 3.7 W for 

Product Class 2. At TSL 1, the impact 

on INPV and cash flow varies 

depending on the manufacturers’ ability 

to pass on increases in MPCs to their 

customers. DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV at TSL 1 to range ¥$27.1 

million to ¥$29.3 million, or a change 

in INPV of ¥2.4 percent to ¥2.6 

percent. At this level, the industry cash 

flow decreases by approximately 14.0 

percent, to $72.3 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $84.2 million in 

the year leading up to the standards. 

TSL 2 represents an improvement in 

standby power from the baseline level of 

4.0 W to 1.5 W for Product Class 1 and 

an improvement in standby power from 

the baseline level of 4.5 W to 2.7 W for 

Product Class 2. At TSL 2, the impact 

on INPV and cash flow would be similar 

to TSL 1 and depend on whether 

manufacturers can fully recover the 

increases in MPCs from their customers. 

DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at 

TSL 2 to range from ¥$45.2 million to 

¥$52.4 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥4.0 percent to ¥4.6 percent. At this 

level, the industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 24.0 percent, to $64.0 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $84.2 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. 

TSL 3 represents an improvement in 

standby power from the baseline level of 

4.0 W to 1.0 W for Product Class 1 and 

an improvement in standby power from 

the baseline level of 4.5 W to 2.2 W for 

Product Class 2. At TSL 3, the impact 

on INPV and cash flow continues to 

vary depending on the manufacturers 

and their ability to pass on increases in 

MPCs to their customers. DOE estimated 

the impacts in INPV at TSL 3 to range 

from approximately ¥$52.9 million to 

¥73.6 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥4.7 percent to ¥6.5 percent. At this 

level, the industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 29.9 percent, to $59.0 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $84.2 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. 

TSL 4 represents an improvement in 

standby power from the baseline level of 

4.0 W to 0.02 W for Product Class 1 and 

an improvement in standby power from 

the baseline level of 4.5 W to 0.04 W for 

Product Class 2. At TSL 4, DOE 

estimated the impacts in INPV to range 

from approximately ¥$90.4 million to 

¥$165.7 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥8.0 percent to ¥14.7 percent. At 

this level, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 57.3 

percent, to $35.9 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $84.2 million in 

the year leading up to the standards. At 

higher TSLs, manufacturers have a 

harder time fully passing on larger 

increases in MPCs to their customers. At 

TSL 4, the conversion costs are higher 

than the other TSLs because the design 

of all microwave platforms must be 

more significantly altered. 

For new standby mode and off mode 

energy conservation standards, 

conversion costs increase at higher TSLs 

as the complexity of further lowering 

standby power increases, substantially 

driving up engineering time and also 

increasing the testing and product 

development time. If the increased 

production costs are fully passed on to 

consumers (the preservation of gross 

margin percentage scenario), the 

operating revenue from higher prices is 

still not enough to overcome the 

negative impacts from the substantial 

conversion costs. The incremental costs 

are small for each TSL, meaning the 

positive impact on cash flows is small 

compared to the conversion costs 

required to achieve these efficiencies. 

As a result of the small incremental 

costs and large conversion expenses, 

INPV is negative for all TSLs under the 

preservation of gross margin percentage 

scenario. If the incremental costs are not 

fully passed along to customers (the 

preservation of gross margin (absolute 

dollars) scenario), the negative impacts 

on INPV are amplified at each TSL. 

b. Employment Impacts 

DOE discussed the domestic 

employment impacts on the microwave 

oven industry in the October NOPR. 

DOE concluded that since more than 95 

percent of microwave ovens are already 

imported and the employment impacts 

in the GRIM are small, the actual 

impacts on domestic employment 

would depend on whether any U.S. 

manufacturer decided to shift remaining 

U.S. production to lower-cost countries. 

73 FR 62034, 62101–02 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

As stated in the NOPR, minor tooling 

changes would be necessary at all TSLs 

for standby mode and off mode 

standards. For all standby power levels, 

the most significant conversion costs are 

the research and development, testing, 

and certification of products with moreefficient components, which does not 

affect production line capacity. Thus, 

DOE believes manufacturers will be able 

to maintain manufacturing capacity 

levels and continue to meet market 

demand under new energy conservation 

standards. 73 FR 62034, 62103 (Oct. 17, 

2008). 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

DOE used the results of the industry 

characterization to group manufacturers 

exhibiting similar characteristics. 

However, DOE did not identify any 

manufacturer subgroups for microwave 

ovens that would justify a separate 

manufacturer subgroup. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

During previous stages of this 

rulemaking DOE identified a number of 

requirements with which manufacturers 

of these microwave ovens must comply 

and which take effect within 3 years of 

the anticipated compliance date of the 

proposed new standards. DOE discusses 

these and other requirements, and 

includes the full details of the 

cumulative regulatory burden, in 

chapter 12 of the SNOPR TSD. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

through 2043 attributable to potential 

standards for microwave oven standby 

mode and off mode, DOE compared the 

energy consumption of those products 

under the base case to their energy 

consumption under each TSL. Table 

V.13 presents the forecasted NES for 

each TSL for microwave oven standby 

mode and off mode. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.E. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8562 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

28OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

circulars_a004_a-4. (Last accessed March 18, 2011.) 

TABLE V.13—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE POWER

IN 2014–2043 

TSL 

Microwave-only 

ovens and 

countertop combination ovens 

(quads) 

Built-in and overthe-range combination microwave ovens 

(quads) 

Total * 

(quads) 

.

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.21 0.00 0.21 

2 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.30 0.00 0.30 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.41* 0.01* 0.41 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.62 0.01 0.63 

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product class sub-totals due to the rounding to two decimal places. 

Chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD 

provides additional details on the NES 

values reported in Table V.13, and also 

presents tables that show the magnitude 

of the energy savings discounted at rates 

of 3 percent and 7 percent. Discounted 

energy savings represent a policy 

perspective in which energy savings 

realized farther in the future are less 

significant than energy savings realized 

in the nearer term. 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to 

the Nation of the total costs and savings 

for consumers that would result from 

particular standard levels for microwave 

oven standby mode and off mode. In 

accordance with the OMB’s guidelines 

on regulatory analysis,28 DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. The 7-percent 

rate is an estimate of the average beforetax rate of return on private capital in 

the U.S. economy, and reflects the 

returns on real estate and small business 

capital as well as corporate capital. DOE 

used this discount rate to approximate 

the opportunity cost of capital in the 

private sector, because recent OMB 

analysis has found the average rate of 

return on capital to be near this rate. 

DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture 

the potential effects of standards on 

private consumption (e.g., through 

higher prices for products and reduced 

purchases of energy). This rate 

represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value. This rate can be 

approximated by the real rate of return 

on long-term government debt (i.e., 

yield on Treasury notes minus annual 

rate of change in the Consumer Price 

Index), which has averaged about 3 

percent on a pre-tax basis for the past 30 

years. 

Table V.14 shows the consumer NPV 

results for each TSL DOE considered for 

both product classes of microwave 

ovens, using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent discount rate. In each case, the 

impacts, i.e., discounted operating cost 

savings and discounted incremental 

equipment costs, cover the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2014–2043. For 

Product Class 1 (microwave-only and 

countertop combination microwave 

ovens), the benefit-to-cost ratio is greater 

than or equal to nine for TSLs 1, 2, and 

3 and greater than three for TSL 4, 

irrespective of discount rate. For 

Product Class 2 (built-in and over-therange combination microwave ovens), 

TSLs 2 and 4 have benefit-to-cost ratios 

of approximately five, irrespective of 

discount rate, while TSL 1, which 

incurs no additional cost relative to the 

baseline, has a limitless benefit-to-cost 

ratio. At TSL3, the benefits are 30 

percent and 50 percent greater than the 

costs at discount rates of 7-percent and 

3-percent, respectively. See chapter 10 

of the SNOPR TSD for more detailed 

NPV results. 

TABLE V.14—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND

OFF MODE FOR UNITS SOLD 2014–2043 

TSL 

Net present value (billion 2010$) 

Microwave-only ovens 

and countertop combination microwave 

ovens 

Built-in and over-therange combination 

microwave ovens 

Total* 

7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................... 1.01 1.97 0.01 0.02 1.02 1.98 

2 ................................................................................................... 1.41 2.75 0.02 0.03 1.42 2.78 

3 ................................................................................................... 1.81 3.58 0.01 0.02 1.82 3.59 

4 ................................................................................................... 2.21 4.53 0.04 0.08 2.25 4.60 

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product class sub-totals due to the rounding to two decimal places. 

The NPV results presented in Table 

V.14 are based on a learning rate of 28.9 

percent, which is referred to as the 

‘‘default’’ learning rate. DOE 

investigated the impact of different 

learning rates for product prices for the 

TSLs considered for microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode. DOE 

considered four learning rate 

sensitivities: (1) A ‘‘high learning’’ rate 

(37.0 percent); (2) a ‘‘low learning’’ rate 

(19.2 percent); (3) a ‘‘no learning’’ rate 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8563 

(constant real prices); and (4) a 

‘‘microwave oven only’’ rate. The 

‘‘microwave oven only’’ is based on 

limited set of historical price data 

specifically for microwave ovens. DOE 

also analyzed a sensitivity based on the 

‘‘chained price index—other consumer 

durable goods except ophthalmic’’ that 

was forecasted for use in AEO2010. This 

index is the most disaggregated category 

that includes appliances. Refer to 

appendix 8–E of the SNOPR TSD for 

details on the development of the above 

learning sensitivities. 

Table V.15 provides the annualized 

NPV of consumer benefits at a 3-percent 

discount rate, combined with the 

annualized present value of monetized 

benefits from CO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions, for each of the TSLs for the 

‘‘default’’ learning rate and the 

sensitivity cases. Table V.16 provides 

the annualized NPVs using a 7-percent 

discount rate for consumer NPV. 

Section V.B.6 provides a complete 

description and summary of the 

monetized benefits from CO2 and NOX

emissions reductions. For most of the 

TSLs, the difference between the default 

results and the sensitivities is 

insignificant. 

TABLE V.15—MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER

BENEFITS (3 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND

NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043* 

Trial standard level Default 

LR =28.9% 

Low 

learning 

LR =19.2% 

High 

learning 

LR =37.0% 

No 

learning 

LR = 0% 

(constant 

real 

prices) 

Microwave 

ovens only 

LR = 39.6% 

AEO2010 

chained 

price 

index 

forecast 

Billion 2010$ 

1 ....................................................................................... 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 

2 ....................................................................................... 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 

3 ....................................................................................... 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 

4 ....................................................................................... 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.27 0.30 0.30 

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.3/metric ton in 2010 (in 2010$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of 

$2,537/ton (in 2010$), which is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 3-percent discount rate. Because the discounted equipment cost increases at each TSL are very small relative to the discounted operating cost savings and the discounted monetized 

benefits of the emission reductions, the NPV as a function of learning rate does not change appreciably. In fact, the learning rate has a significant effect only on the NPV for TSL 4 where discounted equipment cost increases are relatively more significant. 

TABLE V.16—MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER

BENEFITS (7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND

NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043* 

Trial standard level Default LR 

=28.9% 

Low learning LR 

=19.2% 

High learning LR 

=37.0% 

No learning 

LR = 0% 

(constant 

real prices) 

Sensitivity 

(microwave 

ovens only) 

LR = 39.6% 

AEO2010 

chained 

price index 

forecast 

Billion 2010$ 

1 ....................................................................................... 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 

2 ....................................................................................... 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 

3 ....................................................................................... 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 

4 ....................................................................................... 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.24 

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.3/metric ton in 2010 (in 2010$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of 

$2,537/ton (in 2010$), which is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 7-percent discount rate. Because the discounted equipment cost increases at each TSL are very small relative to the discounted operating cost savings and the discounted monetized 

benefits of the emission reductions, the NPV as a function of learning rate does not change appreciably. In fact, the learning rate has a significant effect only on the NPV for TSL 4 where discounted equipment cost increases are relatively more significant. 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE develops estimates of the 

indirect employment impacts of 

proposed standards on the economy in 

general. As discussed above, DOE 

expects energy conservation standards 

for microwave ovens to reduce energy 

bills for consumers of those products, 

and the resulting net savings to be 

redirected to other forms of economic 

activity. Those shifts in spending and 

economic activity could affect the 

demand for labor. As described in 

section IV.H, to estimate those effects, 

DOE used an input/output model of the 

U.S. economy. DOE estimated the 

indirect employment impacts for the 

TSLs for both product classes of 

microwave ovens that DOE considered 

in this rulemaking. DOE understands 

that there are uncertainties involved in 

projecting employment impacts, 

especially changes in the later years of 

the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 

results for intermediate timeframes, 

such as 2015, where these uncertainties 

are reduced. 

The results suggest the proposed 

standards are likely to have negligible 

impact on the net demand for labor in 

the economy. The net change in jobs is 

so small that it would be imperceptible 

in national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. Chapter 13 of the SNOPR 

TSD presents the detailed results. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8564 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Product 

For the reasons stated in section 

III.D.1.d, DOE believes that for purposes 

of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV), the 

standby power level considered in this 

supplemental notice does not reduce the 

utility or performance of the microwave 

oven products under consideration in 

this rulemaking. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

In weighing the promulgation of any 

proposed standards, DOE is required to 

consider any lessening of competition 

that is likely to result from the adoption 

of those standards. The determination of 

the likely competitive impacts 

stemming from a proposed standard is 

made by the Attorney General, who 

transmits this determination, along with 

an analysis of the nature and extent of 

the impact, to the Secretary of Energy. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 

(B)(ii)) 

The Attorney General’s determination 

for the October 2008 NOPR included 

cooking products but did not mention 

microwave oven standards. (DOJ, No. 53 

at pp. 1–2). To assist the Attorney 

General in making such a determination 

for the proposed standby mode and off 

mode standards, DOE has provided the 

Attorney General with copies of this 

notice and the TSD for review. DOE will 

consider the Attorney General’s opinion 

on the proposed rule in preparing the 

final rule. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Improving the energy consumption of 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode, where economically justified, 

would likely improve the security of the 

Nation’s energy system by reducing 

overall demand for energy. Reduced 

electricity demand may also improve 

the reliability of the electricity system. 

As a measure of this reduced demand, 

Table V.17 presents the estimated 

reduction in national generating 

capacity for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. 

TABLE V.1717—REDUCTION IN NATIONAL INSTALLED ELECTRICITY

GENERATION CAPACITY UNDER

MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE

AND OFF MODE TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS

TSL 

Gigawatts 

2030 2043 

1 ................................ 0.190 0.196 

2 ................................ 0.274 0.284 

3 ................................ 0.377 0.390 

4 ................................ 0.581 0.601 

Energy savings from more stringent 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode standards would also produce 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with 

electricity production. Table V.18 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

CO2 and NOX emissions reductions that 

would result from the TSLs considered 

in this rulemaking. (Hg emission 

impacts are negligible and therefore not 

reported here.) In the environmental 

assessment (chapter 15 of the SNOPR 

TSD), DOE reports estimated annual 

changes in CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions 

attributable to each TSL. 

TABLE V.18—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS IN 2014–2043 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

.

CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................................................................... 15.84 22.88 31.48 48.46 

NOX (1,000 tons) ............................................................................................................. 12.88 18.61 25.60 39.42 

Mt = million metric tons. Values for NOX emissions reductions refer to short tons. 

As discussed in section IV.J of this 

supplemental notice, DOE has not 

reported SO2 emissions reductions from 

power plants because there is 

uncertainty about the effect of energy 

conservation standards on the overall 

level of SO2 emissions in the United 

States due to SO2 emissions caps. DOE 

also did not include NOX emissions 

reduction from power plants in States 

subject to CAIR because an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of NOX emissions in 

those States due to the emissions caps 

mandated by CAIR. 

DOE also estimated monetary benefits 

likely to result from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and NOX that DOE 

estimated for each of the TSLs 

considered for microwave oven standby 

mode and off mode. In order to make 

this calculation similar to the 

calculation of the NPV of consumer 

benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the 

lifetime of products shipped in 2014– 

2043. Thus, the emissions reductions 

extend past 2043. 

As discussed in section IV.K, DOE 

used values for the SCC developed by 

an interagency process. The four values 

for CO2 emissions reductions resulting 

from that process (expressed in 2010$) 

are $4.9/ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 5-percent 

discount rate), $22.3/ton (the average 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate), $36.5/ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$67.6/ton (the 95th-percentile value 

from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate). These values correspond 

to the value of emission reductions in 

2010; the values for later years are 

higher due to increasing damages as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. 

For each of the four cases, DOE 

calculated a present value of the stream 

of annual values using the same 

discount rate as was used in the studies 

upon which the dollar-per-ton values 

are based. Table V.19 presents the global 

values of CO2 emissions reductions at 

each TSL. DOE calculated domestic 

values as a range from 7 percent to 23 

percent of the global values, and these 

results are presented in chapter 16 of 

the SNOPR TSD. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8565 

TABLE V.19—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY

MODE AND OFF MODE TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR PRODUCTS SOLD IN 2014–2043 

TSL 

Million 2010$ 

5% discount 

rate, average* 

3% discount 

rate, average* 

2.5% discount 

rate, average* 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile* 

1 ....................................................................................................................... $70 $349 $589 $1,066 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 101 505 851 1,539 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 139 694 1,170 2,118 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 213 1,069 1,801 3,259 

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed in this rulemaking on 

reducing CO2 emissions is subject to 

change. DOE, together with other 

Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this proposed rule the most recent 

values resulting from the ongoing 

interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

emissions reductions anticipated to 

result from new standby mode and off 

mode standards for microwave ovens. 

The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used 

are discussed in section IV.K. Table 

V.20 presents the cumulative present 

values for each TSL calculated using 7- 

percent and 3-percent discount rates. 

TABLE V.20—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY

MODE AND OFF MODE TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR PRODUCTS SOLD IN 2014–2043 

TSL 

3% discount 

rate 

Million 2010$ 

7% discount 

rate 

Million 2010$ 

1 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3.74 to 38.46 ... 1.92 to 19.76 

2 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5.41 to 55.56 ... 2.78 to 28.55 

3 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7.44 to 76.44 ... 3.82 to 39.28 

4 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11.45 to 117.7 5.89 to 60.5 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table V.21 and Table V.22 

presents the NPV values that result from 

adding the estimates of the potential 

economic benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 and NOX emissions in each 

of four valuation scenarios to the NPV 

of consumer savings calculated for each 

TSL considered in this rulemaking, at 

both a 7-percent and 3-percent discount 

rate. The CO2 values used in the 

columns of each table correspond to the 

four scenarios for the valuation of CO2

emission reductions presented in 

section IV.K. 

TABLE V.21—RESULTS OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) TO

NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR MICROWAVE

OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2* and low 

value for 

NOX** 

billion 2010$ 

SCC Value of 

$22.3/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

billion 2010$ 

SCC Value of 

$36.5/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

billion 2010$ 

SCC Value of 

$67.6/metric 

ton CO2* and 

high value for 

NOX** 

billion 2010$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 1.09 1.38 1.62 2.10 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 1.52 1.94 2.29 2.99 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 1.96 2.53 3.01 3.98 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 2.47 3.35 4.08 5.57 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2010, in 2010$. The present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8566 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

29Refer to: http://www.kemco.or.kr/new_eng/ 

pg02/pg02100300.asp. (Last accessed March 18, 

2011.) 

30Refer to: http://www.energyrating.gov.au/ 

standby.html. (Last accessed March 18, 2011.) 

31Refer to: http://www.eccj.or.jp/top_runner/ 

index.html. (Last accessed March 18, 2011.) 

32 IEA Energy Information Centre. Standby Power 

Use and the IEA ‘‘1-Watt Plan.’’ Available at: 

http://www.iea.org/subjectqueries/standby.asp. 

(Last accessed March 18, 2011.) 

** Low value corresponds to $450 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium value corresponds to $2,537 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,623 per ton of NOX emissions. 

TABLE V.22—RESULTS OF ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) TO

NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR MICROWAVE

OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2* and low 

value for 

NOX** 

billion 2010$ 

SCC Value of 

$22.3/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

billion 2010$ 

SCC Value of 

$36.5/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

billion 2010$ 

SCC Value of 

$67.6/metric 

ton CO2* and 

high value for 

NOX** 

billion 2010$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 2.06 2.35 2.59 3.09 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 2.89 3.31 3.66 4.37 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 3.74 4.33 4.81 5.79 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 4.83 5.74 6.47 7.98 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2010, in 2010$. The present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. 

** Low value corresponds to $450 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium value corresponds to $2,537 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,623 per ton of NOX emissions. 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and the SCC are 

performed with different methods that 

use quite different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

products shipped in 2014–2043. The 

SCC values, on the other hand, reflect 

the present value of future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one ton of CO2 in each year. 

These impacts continue well beyond 

2100. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))) DOE has not 

considered other factors in development 

of the proposed standards in this 

SNOPR. 

C. Proposed Standard 

When considering proposed 

standards, the new or amended energy 

conservation standard that DOE adopts 

for any type (or class) of covered 

product shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary determines 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens to the greatest extent 

practicable, in light of the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 

amended standard must also ‘‘result in 

significant conservation of energy.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

For today’s SNOPR, DOE considered 

the impacts of standards at each TSL, 

beginning with the maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then 

considered the next most efficient level 

and undertook the same evaluation until 

it reached the highest efficiency level 

that is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader in understanding 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

Table V.24 summarizes the quantitative 

analytical results for each TSL, based on 

the assumptions and methodology 

discussed herein. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the 

table, DOE also considers other burdens 

and benefits that affect economic 

justification. These include the impacts 

on identifiable subgroups of consumers, 

such as low-income households and 

seniors, who may be disproportionately 

affected by a national standard. Section 

V.B.1 presents the estimated impacts of 

each TSL for these subgroups. 

In addition to the quantitative results, 

DOE also considered harmonization of 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode standards with international 

standby power programs such as Korea’s 

e-standby program,29 Australia’s 

standby program,30 and Japan’s Top 

Runner Program.31 Those programs seek 

to establish standby power ratings 

through the International Energy 

Agency’s (IEA) 1-Watt Program, which 

seeks to lower standby power below 1 

W for microwave ovens.32 Korea 

published a mandatory standby power 

standard of 1 W that became effective in 

2010 and Australia will publish 

mandatory standby power standards of 

1 W by 2012. In accordance with Japan’s 

Top Runner Program, Japanese 

appliance manufacturers made a 

voluntary declaration to reduce standby 

power of microwave ovens that lack a 

timer to as close to zero as possible and 

that of microwave ovens that have a 

timer to 1 W or lower. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. This undervaluation 

suggests that regulation that promotes 

energy efficiency can produce 

significant net private gains (as well as 

producing social gains by, for example, 

reducing pollution). There is evidence 

that consumers undervalue future 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8567 

energy savings as a result of (1) a lack 

of information; (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases (for example, an inefficient 

ventilation fan in a new building or the 

delayed replacement of a water pump); 

(4) excessive focus on the short term, in 

the form of inconsistent weighting of 

future energy cost savings relative to 

available returns on other investments; 

(5) computational or other difficulties 

associated with the evaluation of 

relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence 

in incentives (that is, renter versus 

owner; builder vs. purchaser). Other 

literature indicates that with less than 

perfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. 

In its current regulatory analysis, 

potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in 

consumer purchase decisions are 

included in two ways: (1) If consumers 

forego a purchase of a product in the 

standards case, this decreases sales for 

product manufacturers and the cost to 

manufacturers is included in the MIA, 

and (2) DOE accounts for energy savings 

attributable only to products actually 

used by consumers in the standards 

case; if a regulatory option decreases the 

number of products used by consumers, 

this decreases the potential energy 

savings from an energy conservation 

standard. DOE provides detailed 

estimates of shipments and changes in 

the volume of product purchases in 

chapter 9 of the SNOPR TSD. 

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an energy 

conservation standard, DOE seeks 

comments on how to more fully assess 

the potential impact of energy 

conservation standards on consumer 

choice and how to quantify this impact 

in its regulatory analysis in future 

rulemakings. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Microwave Ovens 

Table V.23 summarizes the 

quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for microwave ovens. The 

efficiency levels contained in each TSL 

are described in section V.A. 

TABLE V.23—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF

MODE ENERGY USE

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

National Energy Savings (quads) ...................................... 0.21 ....................... 0.30 ....................... 0.41 ....................... 0.63 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2010$ billion) 

7% discount rate ......................................................... 1.02 ....................... 1.42 ....................... 1.82 ....................... 2.25 

3% discount rate ......................................................... 1.98 ....................... 2.78 ....................... 3.59 ....................... 4.60 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (2010$ million) ...................................... (27.1) to (29.3) ...... (45.2) to (52.4) ...... (52.9) to (73.6) ...... (90.4) to (165.7) 

Industry NPV (% change) ........................................... (2.4) to (2.6) .......... (4.0) to (4.6) .......... (4.7) to (6.5) .......... (8.0) to (14.7) 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (Mt) ............................................................................. 15.84 ..................... 22.88 ..................... 31.48 ..................... 48.46 

NOX (thousand tons) ......................................................... 12.88 ..................... 18.61 ..................... 25.60 ..................... 39.42 

Value of Emissions Reductions 

CO2 (2010$ million)* ................................................... 70 to 1,066 ............ 101 to 1,539 .......... 139 to 2,118 .......... 213 to 3,259 

NOX—3% discount rate (2010$ million) ..................... 3.74 to 38.5 ........... 5.41 to 55.6 ........... 7.44 to 76.4 ........... 11.5 to 118 

NOX—7% discount rate (2010$ million) ..................... 1.92 to 19.8 ........... 2.78 to 28.6 ........... 3.82 to 39.3 ........... 5.89 to 60.5 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2010$) 

Product Class 1 .......................................................... 7 ............................ 10 .......................... 13 .......................... 15 

Product Class 2 .......................................................... 6 ............................ 11 .......................... 4 ............................ 27 

Consumer Median PBP (years) 

Product Class 1 .......................................................... 0.2 ......................... 0.4 ......................... 1.1 ......................... 2.4 

Product Class 2 .......................................................... 0.0 ......................... 1.9 ......................... 6.3 ......................... 1.8 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Product Class 1 

Net Cost (%) ........................................................ 0 ............................ 0 ............................ 0 ............................ 0 

No Impact (%) ..................................................... 54 .......................... 19 .......................... 0 ............................ 0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................... 46 .......................... 81 .......................... 100 ........................ 100 

Product Class 2 

Net Cost (%) ........................................................ 0 ............................ 0 ............................ 21 .......................... 0 

No Impact (%) ..................................................... 0 ............................ 0 ............................ 0 ............................ 0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................... 100 ........................ 100 ........................ 79 .......................... 100 

Reduction in Generation Capacity in 2043 (GW) .............. 0.196 ..................... 0.284 ..................... 0.390 ..................... 0.601 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. For NPVs, a negative value means a decrease in NPV. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

First, DOE considered TSL 4, the maxtech level for microwave oven standby 

mode and off mode energy use. TSL 4 

likely would save 0.63 quads of energy 

through 2043, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 4, the estimated 

NPV of consumer benefit is $2.25 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $4.60 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 48.46 Mt of CO2 and 39.42 

thousand tons of NOX, with a negligible 

impact on Hg emissions. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $213 

million to $3,259 million. Total 

generating capacity in 2043 is estimated 

to decrease by 0.601 GW. 

DOE projects that at TSL 4 for 

microwave-only ovens and countertop 

combination microwave ovens (Product 

Class 1), the average microwave oven 

consumer would experience a decrease 

in LCC of $15. DOE also estimates that 

all consumers who purchase these 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8568 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

33 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2011, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits 

except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the 

latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown 

in Table V.26. From the present value, DOE then 

calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year 

period, starting in 2011, that yields the same 

present value. The fixed annual payment is the 

annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined would be a 

steady stream of payments. 

microwave ovens would realize some 

LCC savings. The median payback 

period at TSL 4 is projected to be 2.4 

years, substantially shorter than the 

lifetime of the product. DOE projects 

that at TSL 4 for built-in and over-therange combination microwave ovens 

(Product Class 2), the average 

microwave oven consumer would 

experience a decrease in LCC of $27, 

and all consumers who purchase these 

microwave ovens would realize some 

LCC savings. The median payback 

period at TSL 4 is projected to be 1.8 

years, substantially shorter than the 

lifetime of the product. 

Although DOE estimates that all 

microwave oven consumers would 

benefit economically from TSL 4, the 

reduction in standby power 

consumption at TSL 4 would result in 

the loss of certain functions that provide 

utility to consumers, specifically the 

continuous clock display. Because it is 

uncertain how greatly consumers value 

this function, DOE is concerned that 

TSL 4 may result in significant loss of 

consumer utility. 

For manufacturers of microwave 

ovens, DOE estimated a decrease in 

INPV that ranges from $90.4 million to 

$165.7 million. DOE recognizes that 

TSL 4 poses the risk of large negative 

impacts if manufacturers’ expectations 

about reduced profit margins are 

realized. In particular, if the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached, as DOE 

expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss 

of 14.7 percent in INPV to microwave 

oven manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 4, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL 4, the benefits of energy savings, 

NPV of consumer benefit, positive 

consumer LCC impacts, and emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

potential burden on consumers from 

loss of product utility and the large 

capital conversion costs that could 

result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. 

DOE then considered TSL 3. Primary 

energy savings are estimated to be 0.41 

quads of energy through 2043, which 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, 

the estimated NPV of consumer benefit 

is $1.82 billion, using a discount rate of 

7 percent, and $3.59 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 31.48 Mt of CO2 and 25.60 

thousand tons of NOX, with a negligible 

impact on Hg emissions. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $139 

million to $2,118 million. Total 

generating capacity in 2043 under TSL 

3 is estimated to decrease by 0.390 GW. 

For microwave-only ovens and 

countertop combination microwave 

ovens, DOE projects that at TSL 3 the 

average consumer would experience a 

decrease in LCC of $13, and all 

consumers who purchase these 

microwave ovens would realize some 

LCC savings. At TSL 3 the median 

payback period is projected to be 1.1 

years, substantially shorter than the 

lifetime of the product. In addition, DOE 

estimates that the reduction in standby 

power consumption under TSL 3 (to no 

greater than 1.0 W) would not impact 

consumer utility. The continuous clock 

display that would be lost under TSL 4 

would be retained at TSL 3. 

For built-in and combination 

microwave ovens, DOE projects that at 

TSL 3 the average consumer would 

experience a decrease in LCC of $4, and 

79 percent of consumers who purchase 

these microwave ovens would realize 

some LCC savings. At TSL 3 the median 

payback period is projected to be 6.3 

years, shorter than the lifetime of the 

product. 

For manufacturers of microwave 

ovens, DOE estimated that the projected 

decrease in INPV under TSL 3 would 

range from $52.9 million to $73.6 

million. DOE recognizes the risk of large 

negative impacts at TSL 3 if 

manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, 

TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 6.5 

percent in INPV to microwave oven 

manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

benefits of energy savings, NPV of 

consumer benefit, positive consumer 

LCC impacts, and emissions reductions 

would outweigh the capital conversion 

costs that could result in a reduction in 

INPV for manufacturers. In particular, 

the Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 

would save a significant amount of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. Therefore, 

DOE today proposes to adopt the energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

oven standby mode and off mode at TSL 

3. Table V.23 presents the proposed 

standby mode and off mode energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

ovens. 

TABLE V.23—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY AND OFF MODE

Product classes Proposed energy conservation standard 

Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens Maximum Standby Power = 1.0 watt. 

Built-In and Over-the-Range Combination Microwave Ovens ................. Maximum Standby Power = 2.2 watts. 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Proposed Standards 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

proposed standards can also be 

expressed in terms of annualized values. 

The annualized monetary values are the 

sum of (1) the annualized national 

economic value, expressed in 2010$, of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the proposed standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in equipment purchase costs, 

which is another way of representing 

consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary 

value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.33 The value of the CO2

reductions is calculated using a range of 

values per metric ton of CO2 developed 

by a recent interagency process. The 

monetary costs and benefits of 

cumulative emissions reductions are 

reported in 2010$ to permit 

comparisons with the other costs and 

benefits in the same dollar units. 

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 reductions 

provides a useful perspective, two 

issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating savings are domestic 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8569 

U.S. consumer monetary savings that 

occur as a result of market transactions 

while the value of CO2 reductions is 

based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings 

and SCC are performed with different 

methods that use different time frames 

for analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

products shipped in 2014–2043. The 

SCC values, on the other hand, reflect 

the present value of future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one ton of CO2 in each year. 

These impacts continue well beyond 

2100. 

Table V.24 shows the annualized 

values for the proposed standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode energy use. The results for the 

primary estimate are as follows. Using a 

7-percent discount rate for benefits and 

costs other than CO2 reductions, for 

which DOE used a 3-percent discount 

rate along with the SCC series 

corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 

2010, the cost of the standards proposed 

in today’s rule is $20.3 million per year 

in increased product costs, while the 

annualized benefits are $167 million in 

reduced product operating costs, $35.4 

million in CO2 reductions, and $1.74 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$184 million per year. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate for all benefits and costs 

and the SCC series corresponding to a 

value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of 

the standards proposed in today’s rule 

is $21.6 million per year in increased 

product costs, while the annualized 

benefits are $205 million in reduced 

operating costs, $35.4 million in CO2

reductions, and $2.14 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $221 million per 

year. 

TABLE V.24—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS (TSL 3) FOR MICROWAVE OVENS SOLD IN

2014–2043 

Benefits Discount rate 

Monetized 

(million 2010$/year) 

Primary estimate* Low benefits estimate*

High benefits estimate*

Operating Cost Savings ..................................................... 7% ......................... 167 ........................ 150 ........................ 185 

3% ......................... 205 ........................ 182 ........................ 229 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t ** ................................................. 5% ......................... 9.02 ....................... 8.49 ....................... 9.55 

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t ** ............................................... 3% ......................... 35.4 ....................... 33.3 ....................... 37.6 

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t ** ............................................... 2.5% ...................... 55.9 ....................... 52.5 ....................... 59.3 

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t ** ............................................... 3% ......................... 108.0 ..................... 101.5 ..................... 114.6 

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t ** ............................................. 7% ......................... 1.74 ....................... 1.65 ....................... 1.82 

3% ......................... 2.14 ....................... 2.02 ....................... 2.26 

Total† .................................................................................. 7% plus CO2 range 178 to 277 ............. 160 to 253 ............. 196 to 301 

7% ......................... 204 ........................ 185 ........................ 224 

3% ......................... 243 ........................ 217 ........................ 269 

3% plus CO2 range 216 to 315 ............. 193 to 286 ............. 241 to 346 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ................................................ 7% ......................... 20.32 ..................... 23.39 ..................... 20.25 

3% ......................... 21.59 ..................... 25.48 ..................... 21.48 

Total Net Benefits 

Total† .................................................................................. 7% plus CO2 range 157 to 256 ............. 137 to 230 ............. 176 to 281 

7% ......................... 184 ........................ 162 ........................ 204 

3% ......................... 221 ........................ 192 ........................ 247 

3% plus CO2 range 195 to 294 ............. 167 to 260 ............. 219 to 324 

* The Primary, Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO 2010 Reference case, 

Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, the Low estimate uses incremental product costs that reflects constant prices (no learning rate) for product prices, and the High estimate uses incremental product costs that reflects a declining trend 

(high learning rate) for product prices. 

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, 

$22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of 

$67.6 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. †Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 

(in 2010$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the 

labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

VI. Additional Technical Corrections to 

10 CFR 430.32 

In today’s SNOPR, DOE is also 

proposing the following technical 

corrections to the language contained in 

10 CFR 430.32. DOE notes that the title 

of 10 CFR 430.32, ‘‘Energy and water 

conservation standards and their 

effective dates’’ contains dates required 

for compliance with energy and water 

conservation standards rather than the 

effective dates of such standards. As a 

result, DOE is proposing to revise the 

title of 10 CFR 430.32 to read ‘‘Energy 

and water conservation standards and 

their compliance dates.’’ DOE also notes 

that the current energy conservation 

standards for cooking products found at 

10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)–(2) should be 

revised to more accurately reflect the 

date required for compliance with 

energy conservation standards. DOE is 

proposing to revise the language in 10 

CFR 430.32(j)(1)–(2) to state that 

products manufactured on or after the 

compliance date must meet the required 

energy conservation standard. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8570 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that today’s 

proposed standards address are as 

follows: 

(1) There is a lack of consumer 

information and/or information 

processing capability about energy 

efficiency opportunities in the home 

appliance market. 

(2) There is asymmetric information 

(one party to a transaction has more and 

better information than the other) and/ 

or high transactions costs (costs of 

gathering information and effecting 

exchanges of goods and services). 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of microwave ovens that are 

not captured by the users of such 

equipment. These benefits include 

externalities related to environmental 

protection and energy security that are 

not reflected in energy prices, such as 

reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order 

requires that DOE prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule 

and that OIRA review this rule. DOE 

presented to OIRA for review the draft 

rule and other documents prepared for 

this rulemaking, including the RIA, and 

has included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the TSD for this 

rulemaking, available at 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

cooking_products.html. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, 

Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

‘‘to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible.’’ In its guidance, OIRA has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include ‘‘identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s SNOPR is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of 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 Executive Order 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 Web site (www.gc.doe.gov). 

For manufacturers of microwave 

ovens, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 

2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 

53545 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 

CFR part 121. The size standards are 

listed by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description and are available at 

http://www.sba.gov/content/table-smallbusiness-size-standards. DOE used the 

size standards the SBA published on 

November 5, 2010, as amended, to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be required to comply with the 

rule. Microwave oven manufacturing is 

classified under NAICS 335221, 

‘‘Manufacturers of Household Cooking 

Appliances.’’ The SBA sets a threshold 

of 750 employees or less for an entity to 

be considered as a small business for 

this category. 

The microwave oven industry 

consists of seven manufacturers that 

have a market share greater than 3 

percent. Most are large, foreign 

companies that import microwave ovens 

into the United States. There are U.S. 

facilities that partly assemble 

microwave ovens. However, no 

domestic facilities are small businesses. 

Furthermore none of the microwave 

oven manufacturers are small business 

manufacturers. Thus, DOE did not 

conduct an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of microwave ovens 

must certify to DOE that their product 

complies with any applicable energy 

conservation standard. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test 

their product according to the DOE test 

procedure for microwave ovens, 

including any amendments adopted for 

that test procedure. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

microwave ovens. 75 FR 56796 (Sept. 

16, 2010). 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 20 hours per 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8571 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), DOE has determined that the 

proposed rule fits within the category of 

actions included in Categorical 

Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise 

meets the requirements for application 

of a CX. (See 10 CFR 1021.410(b) and 

Appendix B to Subpart D) The proposed 

rule fits within this category of actions 

because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, and for which 

none of the exceptions identified in CX 

B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made 

a CX determination for this rulemaking, 

and DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this proposed rule. DOE’s CX 

determination for this proposed rule is 

available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. EPCA governs and prescribes 

Federal preemption of State regulations 

as to energy conservation for the 

products that are the subject of today’s 

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) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

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 small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

Although today’s proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Specifically, the proposed rule 

will likely result in a final rule that 

could require expenditures of $100 

million or more. Such expenditures may 

include (1) investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by microwave oven 

manufacturers in the years between the 

final rule and the compliance date for 

the new standard, and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by consumers 

to purchase higher-efficiency 

microwave ovens, starting in 2014. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an 

agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking and the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis,’’ chapter 17 of the TSD for this 

supplemental proposed rule, respond to 

those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(h) and (o), today’s proposed 

rule would establish energy 

conservation standards for microwave 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8572 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

oven standby mode and off mode that 

are designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy use that DOE 

has determined to be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for 

today’s supplemental proposed rule. 

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 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

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 agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s SNOPR under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

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 

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. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

today’s regulatory action, which sets 

forth energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode, is not a significant energy action 

because the proposed standards are not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator at OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects on the 

proposed rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology (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.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin and as 

more fully set forth in the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE conducted formal inprogress peer reviews of the energy 

conservation standards development 

process and analyses and has prepared 

a Peer Review Report pertaining to the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking analyses. Generation of this 

report involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

VIII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As 

explained in the ADDRESSES section, 

foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via Webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to Webinar 

participants will be published on the 

following Web site https:// 

www1.gotomeeting.com/register/ 

507099585. 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 plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make a follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8573 

(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 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the 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 

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 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

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 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov, the 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 or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to 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 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site 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 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 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. Email 

submissions are preferred. If you submit 

via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and 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. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery 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 or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
8574 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. Input and data regarding off mode 

power for microwave ovens; 

2. Input and data on the utility 

provided by specific features that 

contribute to microwave oven standby 

power. In particular, DOE seeks 

information on any lessening of the 

utility or the performance of microwave 

display technologies and low- and zerostandby power cooking sensors as 

compared to absolute humidity cooking 

sensors currently used in microwave 

ovens on the U.S. market. 

3. Input and data on control strategies 

available to enable manufacturers to 

make design tradeoffs between 

incorporating standby-powerconsuming features such as displays or 

cooking sensors and including a 

function to turn power off to these 

components during standby mode. DOE 

also seeks comment on the viability and 

cost of microwave oven control board 

circuitry that could accommodate 

transistors to switch off cooking sensors 

and displays; 

4. Whether switching or similar 

modern power supplies can operate 

successfully inside a microwave oven 

and the associated efficiency impacts on 

standby power; 

5. Input and data on the estimated 

incremental manufacturing costs, as 

well as the assumed approaches to 

achieve TSL 3 for microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode. DOE also 

seeks comment on whether any 

intellectual property or patent 

infringement issues are associated with 

the design options presented in the 

SNOPR TSD to achieve TSL 3. In 

particular, DOE seeks comment on any 

lessening of competition due to 

intellectual property or patent 

infringement issues associated with 

low- and zero-standby power cooking 

sensors; 

6. Input and data on the estimated 

market share of microwave ovens at the 

standby power consumption stipulated 

by TSL 3. 

7. Information on any utility or 

performance impacts to built-ins at the 

standard level proposed by DOE. 

IX. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 31, 

2012. 

Henry Kelly, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 

429 and 430, of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below. 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

2. In § 429.23 revise paragraph (b)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§ 429.23 Conventional cooking tops, 

conventional ovens, microwave ovens. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following public product-specific 

information: For conventional cooking 

tops and conventional ovens: the type of 

pilot light and a declaration that the 

manufacturer has incorporated the 

applicable design requirements. For 

microwave ovens, the average standby 

power in watts. 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

2. In § 430.23 revise paragraph (i)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(3) The standby power for microwave 

ovens shall be determined according to 

3.2.4 of appendix I to this subpart. The 

standby power shall be rounded off to 

the nearest 0.1 watt. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 430.32 revise the heading and 

paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(j) Cooking Products (1) Gas cooking 

products with an electrical supply cord 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

1990, shall not be equipped with a 

constant burning pilot light. 

(2) Gas cooking products without an 

electrical supply cord manufactured on 

or after April 9, 2012, shall not be 

equipped with a constant burning pilot 

light. 

(3) Microwave-only ovens and 

countertop combination microwave 

ovens manufactured on or after [date 3 

years after final rule Federal Register 

publication] shall have an average 

standby power not more than 1.0 watt. 

Built-in and over-the-range combination 

microwave ovens manufactured on or 

after [date 3 years after final rule 

Federal Register publication] shall have 

an average standby power not more than 

2.2 watts. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–2784 Filed 2–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3