Vol. 78 Monday, 

No. 116 June 17, 2013 

Part III 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Standby 

Mode and Off Mode for Microwave Ovens; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36316 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment. 

Microwave ovens are covered products 

under EPCA, although there are no 

existing microwave oven standards. 

DOE has already previously determined 

that active mode standards are not 

warranted. 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. 

In this final rule, DOE is only adopting 

energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode. It has determined that the 

amended energy conservation standards 

for these products in standby mode and 

off mode would result in significant 

conservation of energy, and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

August 16, 2013. Compliance with the 

amended standards established for 

microwave ovens in this final rule is 

June 17, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking is available for review at 

www.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;rpp=10;po=0;D=EERE2011-BT-STD-0048. The regulations.gov 

Web page will contain simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1692. Email: 

microwave_ovens@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 Final Rule and Its Benefits 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits 

D. Conclusion 

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 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Revisions to the 

Analyses Employed in the February 2012 

Proposed Rule 

A. Covered Products 

B. Product Classes 

C. Technology Assessment 

1. Cooking Sensors 

2. Display Technologies 

3. Power Supply and Control Boards 

4. Power-Down Options 

D. Engineering Analysis 

1. Energy Use Metric 

2. Standby Power Levels 

3. Manufacturing Costs 

E. 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. Compliance Date of New Standards 

8. Product Energy Efficiency in the Base 

Case 

9. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

10. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

F. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. General 

2. Shipments 

a. New Construction Shipments 

b. Replacements and Non-Replacements 

3. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and 

Income Impacts 

4. Other Inputs 

a. Forecasted Efficiencies 

b. Annual Energy Consumption 

c. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion 

d. Total Installed Costs and Operating 

Costs 

e. Discount Rates 

G. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

I. Employment Impact Analysis 

J. Utility Impact Analysis 

K. Emissions Analysis 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

M. Discussion of Other Comments 

1. Significance of Energy Savings for the 

Built-In and Over-the-Range Product 

Class 

2. Standard Levels 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

b. Employment Impacts 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

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. Conclusion 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36317 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 2 DOE considered energy use in off mode for 

microwave ovens, but is not adopting a maximum 

allowable off mode power at this time because DOE 

is aware of less than 1 percent of microwave oven 

models in Product Class 1 and no models in 

Product Class 2 that are capable of operating in 

such a mode. DOE has already previously 

determined that active mode standards are not 

warranted. 74 FR 16040 (Apr. 8, 2009). 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Microwave Oven Standby 

Mode and Off Mode Energy Use 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

VI. Additional Technical Corrections to 10 

CFR 430.32 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

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 

M. Congressional Notification 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its 

Benefits 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA, any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE prescribes for certain 

products, such as microwave ovens, 

shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, 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 rulemaking, DOE is 

adopting amended energy conservation 

standards for microwave ovens to 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use. The amended standards, 

which are the maximum allowable 

energy use when a product is in standby 

mode or off mode, are shown in Table 

I–1.2 These amended standards apply to 

all products listed in Table I–1 and 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States on or after June 17, 2016. 

TABLE I–1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS

[Compliance Starting June 17, 2016] 

Product classes Effective June 17, 2016 

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

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

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I–2 presents DOE’s evaluation 

of the economic impacts of today’s 

standards on consumers of microwave 

ovens, as measured by the average lifecycle cost (LCC) savings and the median 

payback period. The average LCC 

savings are positive for 88 percent of 

consumers of microwave-only ovens 

and countertop convection microwave 

ovens and for all consumers of built-in 

and over-the-range convection 

microwave ovens. 

TABLE I–2—IMPACTS OF TODAY’S STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF MICROWAVE OVENS

Product class 

Average LCC 

savings 

(2011$) 

Median payback 

period 

(years) 

Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens .................................................... 11 3.5 

Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens ...................................................................... 12 3.3 

Note: Average microwave oven lifetime is estimated at 10.9 years. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2013 to 2045). Using a real discount 

rate of 8.0 percent, DOE estimates that 

the INPV for manufacturers of 

microwave ovens is $1.4 billion in 

2011$. Under today’s standards, DOE 

expects that manufacturers may lose up 

to 7.0 percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $96.6 million. 

Additionally, based on DOE’s 

interviews with the manufacturers of 

microwave ovens, DOE does not expect 

any plant closings or significant loss of 

employment. 

C. National Benefits 

DOE’s analyses indicate that today’s 

standards would save a significant 

amount of energy. The lifetime savings 

for microwave ovens purchased in the 

30-year period that begins in the year of 

compliance with amended standards 

(2016–2045) amount to 0.48 quads. The 

average annual primary energy savings 

in 2016–2045 is equivalent to the 

annual primary energy use of 70,000 

households. 

The cumulative net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of today’s standards in 2011$ 

ranges from $3.38 billion (at a 3-percent 

discount rate) to $1.53 billion (at a 7- 

percent discount rate) for microwave 

ovens. This NPV expresses the 

estimated total value of future 

operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased product costs for 

products purchased in 2016–2045, 

discounted to 2013. 

In addition, today’s standards would 

have significant environmental benefits. 

The energy savings would result in 

cumulative greenhouse gas emission 

reductions of approximately 38.11 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36318 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons. 

4 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2012 Reference 

case, which generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, including recent 

government actions, for which implementing 

regulations were available as of December 31, 2011. 

5 DOE has not monetized SO2 and Hg emissions 

in this rulemaking. 

million metric tons (Mt) 3 of carbon 

dioxide (CO2), 27.14 thousand tons of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), 32.67 thousand 

tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 0.095 

tons of mercury (Hg).4

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed by an interagency process. 

The derivation of the SCC values is 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

rulemaking. Using the most recent 

(2013) SCC values from the interagency 

group, DOE estimates that the present 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions is between $255 million and 

$3,615 million, expressed in 2011$ and 

discounted to 2013. DOE estimates that 

the present monetary value of the NOX

emissions reductions, expressed in 

2011$ and discounted to 2013, is $21.8 

million at a 7-percent discount rate, and 

$44.5 million at a 3-percent discount 

rate.5

Table I–3 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from today’s standards for 

microwave ovens. The monetary value 

of the CO2 emissions reductions using 

the previous (2010) SCC estimates, and 

the benefits using those estimates, are 

presented for information purposes. 

Using the updated 2013 social cost of 

carbon estimates, the net benefits from 

the microwave oven standby power 

rule, discounted at 3 percent, are 

projected to be $4.6 billion (2011 

dollars). For comparison purposes, the 

net benefits, discounted at 3 percent, are 

projected to be $4.2 billion using the 

2010 SCC estimates. When discounted 

at 7 percent, the net benefits of the rule 

are projected to be $2.7 billion using the 

2013 SCC estimates, compared with 

$2.3 billion using the 2010 SCC 

estimates. 

TABLE I–3—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF MICROWAVE OVEN ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS

Category Present value 

(million 2011$) 

Discount rate 

(%) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................... 2,306 7 

4,717 3 

Using 2013 Social Cost of Carbon Values 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.6/t case) * ....................................................................................... 255 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($41.1/t case) * ....................................................................................... 1,179 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($63.2/t case) * ....................................................................................... 1,876 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119.1/t case) * ..................................................................................... 3,615 3 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................................ 3,507 7 

5,941 3 

Using 2010 Social Cost of Carbon Values 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($6.2/t case) ** ........................................................................................ 150 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($25.6/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 740 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($41.1/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 1,243 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($78.4/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 2,257 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,567/ton) ** .................................................................................... 21.8 7 

44.5 3 

Total Benefits †† .......................................................................................................................................... 3,069 7 

5,503 3 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ......................................................................................................................... 776 7 

1,341 3 

Net Benefits (using 2013 SCC values) 

Including CO2 and NOX Reduction Monetized Value † ............................................................................... 2,731 7 

4,600 3 

Net Benefits (using 2010 SCC values) 

Including CO2 and NOX Reduction Monetized Value †† ............................................................................. 2,293 7 

4,162 3 

* The CO2 values represent global values (in 2011$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2016 under several scenarios. The values of $12.6, 

$41.1, and $63.2 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of 

$119.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2011$) is the 

average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36319 

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 2013, 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 I–3. From the present value, DOE then 

calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year 

period (2016 through 2045) 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 is a steady 

stream of payments. 

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2011$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2016 under several scenarios. The values of $6.2, 

$25.6, and $41.1 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of 

$78.4 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2011$) 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 series corresponding to SCC value of $41.1/t in 2016 (derived from the 

3% discount rate value for SCC). 

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to SCC value of $25.6/t in 2016 (derived from the 

3% discount rate value for SCC). 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

standards, for products sold in 2016– 

2045, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from operating the product 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in equipment purchase and 

installation costs, which is another way 

of representing consumer NPV), plus (2) 

the annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.6

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the value 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 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 2016– 

2045. The SCC values, on the other 

hand, reflect the present value of all 

future climate-related impacts resulting 

from the emission of one metric ton of 

carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of today’s standards are shown in 

Table I–4. (All monetary values below 

are expressed in 2011$). The results 

under the primary estimate, using the 

2013 SCC values from the interagency 

group, are as follows. Using a 7-percent 

discount rate for benefits and costs other 

than CO2 reduction, for which DOE 

used a 3-percent discount rate along 

with the SCC series corresponding to a 

value of $41.1/ton in 2016, the cost of 

the standards in today’s rule is $58.4 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the benefits are $174 

million per year in reduced equipment 

operating costs, $58.4 million in CO2

reductions, and $1.64 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $175 million per 

year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for 

all benefits and costs and the SCC series 

corresponding to a value of $41.1/ton in 

2016, the cost of the standards in 

today’s rule is $66.4 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $234 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $58.4 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $2.20 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $228 million per 

year. The monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions using the previous 

(2010) SCC estimates, and the benefits 

using those estimates, are presented for 

information purposes. 

TABLE I–4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS

Million 2011$/year 

Discount rate Primary 

estimate * 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate 

High net 

benefits 

estimate 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ............................................................... 7% ............................................. 174 .............. 162 .............. 191. 

3% ............................................. 234 .............. 215 .............. 261. 

Using 2013 Social Cost of Carbon Values 

CO2 Reduction ($12.6/t case) ** .................................................. 5% ............................................. 15.8 ............. 14.7 ............. 17.4. 

CO2 Reduction ($41.1/t case) ** .................................................. 3% ............................................. 58.4 ............. 54.1 ............. 64.5. 

CO2 Reduction ($63.2/t case) ** .................................................. 2.5% .......................................... 87.4 ............. 80.9 ............. 96.7. 

CO2 Reduction ($119/t case) ** ................................................... 3% ............................................. 179 .............. 166 .............. 198. 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................ 7% plus CO2 range .................. 191 to 354 ... 178 to 329 ... 210 to 391. 

7% ............................................. 234 .............. 218 .............. 258. 

3% ............................................. 294 .............. 271 .............. 328. 

3% plus CO2 range .................. 252 to 415 ... 232 to 383 ... 281 to 462. 

Using 2010 Social Cost of Carbon Values 

CO2 Reduction ($6.2/t case) *** ................................................... 5% ............................................. 9.29 ............. 8.62 ............. 17.4. 

CO2 Reduction ($25.6/t case) *** ................................................. 3% ............................................. 36.7 ............. 34.0 ............. 40.6. 

CO2 Reduction ($41.1/t case) *** ................................................. 2.5% .......................................... 57.9 ............. 53.6 ............. 64.1. 

CO2 Reduction ($78.4/t case) *** ................................................. 3% ............................................. 111.8 ........... 103.5 ........... 123.6. 

NOX Reduction at $2,567/ton ** .................................................. 7% ............................................. 1.64 ............. 1.54 ............. 1.79. 

3% ............................................. 2.20 ............. 2.05 ............. 2.42. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36320 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

7For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

TABLE I–4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS—Continued 

Million 2011$/year 

Discount rate Primary 

estimate * 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate 

High net 

benefits 

estimate 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................ 7% plus CO2 range .................. 185 to 287 ... 172 to 267 ... 203 to 317. 

7% ............................................. 212 .............. 198 .............. 234. 

3% ............................................. 273 .............. 251 .............. 304. 

3% plus CO2 range .................. 245 to 348 ... 226 to 321 ... 274 to 388. 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ......................................................... 7% ............................................. 58.4 ............. 59.6 ............. 57.5. 

3% ............................................. 66.4 ............. 67.8 ............. 64.3. 

Net Benefits (using 2013 SCC values) 

Total † .......................................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range .................. 133 to 296 ... 119 to 270 ... 153 to 334. 

7% ............................................. 175 .............. 158 .............. 200. 

3% ............................................. 228 .............. 203 .............. 264. 

3% plus CO2 range .................. 185 to 349 ... 164 to 315 ... 217 to 398. 

Net Benefits (using 2010 SCC values) 

Total †† ........................................................................................ 7% plus CO2 range .................. 126 to 229 ... 113 to 208 ... 146 to 259. 

7% ............................................. 154 .............. 138 .............. 176. 

3% ............................................. 206 .............. 183 .............. 240. 

3% plus CO2 range .................. 179 to 281 ... 158 to 253 ... 210 to 323. 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with microwave ovens shipped in 2016–2045. These results include benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2016 from the microwave ovens purchased from 2016–2045. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which 

may be incurred prior to 2016 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment 

costs. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO 2012 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate for product 

prices in the Primary Estimate, constant product price in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for product prices in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section 0 of this rulemaking. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2011$, in 2016 under several scenarios. The values of $12.6, $41.1, and

$63.2 per metric ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $119/t 

represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series increase over time. The value 

for NOX (in 2011$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

*** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2011$, in 2016 under several scenarios. The values of $6.2, $25.6, and 

$41.1 per metric ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $78.4/t 

represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series increase over time. The value 

for NOX (in 2011$) 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 series corresponding to SCC value of $41.1/t in 2016. In the 

rows labeled ‘‘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. 

†† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to SCC value of $25.6/t in 2016. In the 

rows labeled ‘‘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. 

D. Conclusion 

Based on the analyses culminating in 

this final rule, DOE found the benefits 

to the nation of the standards (energy 

savings, consumer LCC savings, positive 

NPV of consumer benefit, and emission 

reductions) (see section V.B.1.a. of this 

rulemaking) outweigh the burdens (loss 

of INPV and LCC increases for a very 

small percentage of users of these 

products) (see section V.B.2.a and 

section V.B.1.a.). DOE has concluded 

that the standards in today’s final rule 

represent the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant conservation 

of energy. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s final rule, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for microwave ovens. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified) established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles,7 a program covering most 

major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’), which includes the types of 

microwave ovens that are the subject of 

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

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. 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 must occur 

no later than 6 years from the issuance 

of a final rule establishing or amending 

a standard for a covered product. 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36321 

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 remainder of the 

program. Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers 

of covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 

6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the products comply with standards 

adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE 

test procedures for microwave ovens 

currently appear at title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, 

subpart B, appendix I. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

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, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, 

DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) 

for certain products, including 

microwave ovens, if no test procedure 

has been established for the product, or 

(2) if DOE determines by rule that the 

amended standard is not technologically 

feasible or economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) In deciding 

whether an amended 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 make this 

determination 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)(I)–(VII)) 

EPCA, as codified, 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 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

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 that have the same function or 

intended use if DOE determines that 

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. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) 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 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)). 

Finally, pursuant to the amendments 

contained in section 310(3) of EISA 

2007, any final rule for new or amended 

energy conservation standards 

promulgated after July 1, 2010, are 

required to address standby mode and 

off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE 

adopts a standard for a covered product 

after that date, it must, if justified by the 

criteria for adoption of standards under 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

into the standard, or, if that is not 

feasible, adopt a separate standard for 

such energy use for that product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current 

test procedure for microwave ovens 

addresses standby mode and off mode 

energy use, as do the amended 

standards adopted in this final rule. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011). EO 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36322 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

8 DOE repealed the microwave oven active mode 

provisions from its test procedure on July 22, 2010, 

after determining that the active mode methodology 

did not produce repeatable and representative 

results. 75 FR 42579. 

9This document is available on the DOE Web site 

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

#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE-2006-STD0127. (Last accessed December 2012.) 

10These spreadsheets are available on the DOE 

Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE-2006-STD0127. (Last accessed December 2012.) 

11 IEC standards are available for purchase at: 

http://www.iec.ch/. 

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 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 section I of this rulemaking, 

DOE determines that today’s final 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 EO 13563, 

and the range of impacts analyzed in 

this rulemaking, the energy efficiency 

standard adopted herein by DOE 

achieves maximum net benefits. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

Currently, there are no DOE energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

oven active mode, standby mode, or off 

mode energy consumption. Based on 

analyses and comments from interested 

parties, DOE decided in 2009 not to 

adopt energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven energy factor 

(microwave oven operation in active 

mode), but to develop a separate energy 

use metric for standby mode and off 

mode. 74 FR 16040 (Apr. 8, 2009).8 As 

discussed in section II.A of this 

rulemaking, if DOE adopts amended 

standards for microwave ovens after 

July 1, 2010, it must, if justified by the 

criteria for adoption of standards under 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

into the standard, or, if that is not 

feasible, adopt a separate standard for 

such energy use for that product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) Because there 

is currently no test procedure or 

standard for microwave oven active 

mode, DOE has determined that 

proposing a combined metric for 

standby and active mode energy use is 

not feasible at this time. If DOE amends 

the test procedure to incorporate 

measurement of microwave oven active 

mode energy use, DOE will consider 

whether it is technically feasible to 

incorporate active mode, standby mode, 

and off mode energy use into a single 

metric for future energy conservation 

standards. 

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).9 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.10 The first tool calculates 

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 11 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). DOE 

concluded, however, 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 are 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36323 

12A notation in the form ‘‘AHAM, No. 16 at p. 

4’’ identifies a written comment that DOE has 

received and has included in the docket of the 

standards rulemaking for microwave ovens (Docket 

No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0048). This particular 

notation refers to a comment (1) submitted by the 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM), (2) recorded in document number 16 in 

the docket of this rulemaking, and (3) which 

appears on page 4 of document number 16. 

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. 

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 that would 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use for microwave ovens 

pending further rulemaking. 74 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/ 

appliance_standards/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 published an SNOPR on February 

14, 2012 (77 FR 8526) (hereafter referred 

to as the February 2012 SNOPR) to 

enable interested parties to comment on 

revised product class definitions and 

standby power levels proposed for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode energy use. As discussed further 

in section IV.B of this rulemaking, DOE 

determined that built-in and over-the 

range convection microwave ovens 

incorporate features required to handle 

the thermal loads associated with their 

installation and to provide consumer 

utility, thereby resulting in higher 

standby power consumption than for 

other microwave oven product types. 

DOE’s product testing and reverseengineering analysis additionally 

determined that over-the-range 

microwave-only ovens did not require 

features with higher standby power 

consumption than countertop 

microwave-only units, and thus DOE 

proposed the following two product 

classes and standby power levels for 

microwave oven energy conservation 

standards: 

TABLE II–2—FEBRUARY 2012 SNOPR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN

STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE

Product class Proposed energy conservation 

standard 

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

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

* In earlier stages of this rulemaking, DOE referred to microwave ovens that incorporate convection features and any other means of cooking 

in a single compartment as ‘‘combination microwave ovens’’. In the final rule for DOE’s microwave oven test procedure (78 FR 4015, 4017–4018 

(Jan. 18, 2013), DOE defined such products as ‘‘convection microwave ovens’’, and DOE accordingly uses this terminology consistently in today’s final rule rulemaking and amended microwave oven standards. 

The compliance date for the amended 

energy conservation standards for 

microwave ovens is June 17, 2016. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

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)) 

In the final rule published on January 

18, 2013 (hereafter referred to as the 

January 2013 TP Final Rule), DOE 

amended the microwave oven test 

procedure to incorporate by reference 

certain provisions of IEC Standard 

62301 Edition 2.0 2011–01 (IEC 

Standard 62301 (Second Edition)), along 

with clarifying language, for the 

measurement of standby mode and off 

mode energy use. In the narrow case of 

microwave ovens with power 

consumption that varies as a function of 

the time displayed, DOE maintained the 

existing use of IEC Standard 62301 

(First Edition) for measuring standby 

mode power to minimize manufacturer 

burden. DOE also determined that 

microwave ovens combined with other 

appliance functionality are covered 

under the definition of ‘‘microwave 

oven’’ at 10 CFR 430.2, but due to a lack 

of data and information, did not adopt 

provisions in the microwave oven test 

procedure to measure the standby mode 

and off mode energy use of the 

microwave component. 78 FR 4015 (Jan. 

18, 2013). 

The Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) and GE 

Consumer & Industrial (GE) commented 

that they support incorporation by 

reference of IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition) in the DOE microwave 

oven test procedure, but stated that DOE 

cannot determine appropriate standard 

levels in this rulemaking without testing 

based on the final test procedure to be 

used to determine compliance. (AHAM, 

No. 16 at p. 4; 12 GE, No. 19 at p. 1) 

DOE reviewed its testing that it had 

conducted in support of various stages 

of the microwave oven test procedure 

rulemaking, and determined that there 

were six microwave oven models that 

had been tested according to both the 

First and Second Editions of IEC 

Standard 62301. In order to supplement 

this sample, DOE additionally tested 

eight more microwave ovens as part of 

its final rule analysis so that a 

comparison could be made between the 

standby power consumption 

measurements obtained with the First 

Edition and Second Edition for various 

installation configurations, display 

types, and manufacturers/brands. Table 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36324 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

III–1 presents the results of the 

comparison between testing to the First 

Edition and the Second Edition, which 

showed results for the two 

methodologies varying by no more than 

5.5 percent, which DOE concludes 

demonstrates close enough agreement 

that manufacturers could apply the 

same design option pathways (see 

section IV.C.3 of this rulemaking) to 

achieve the varying standby power 

levels when measuring according to IEC 

Standard 62301 (Second Edition) as 

DOE’s analysis identified based on 

testing to IEC Standard 62301 (First 

Edition). 

TABLE III–1—COMPARISON OF STANDBY POWER MEASUREMENTS ACCORDING TO IEC STANDARD 62301 (FIRST EDITION) 

AND IEC STANDARD 62301 (SECOND EDITION) 

Configuration Display * 

Standby power 

(W), first 

edition 

Standby power 

(W), second 

edition 

Percent 

difference 

Countertop Microwave-Only .................................................... Backlit LCD ............................ 3.84 3.66 ¥4.7 

Countertop Microwave-Only .................................................... Backlit LCD ............................ 2.18 2.18 ¥0.3 

Countertop Microwave-Only .................................................... Backlit LCD ............................ 3.81 3.78 ¥1.0 

Countertop Microwave-Only .................................................... LED ........................................ 1.06 1.07 0.3 

Countertop Microwave-Only .................................................... LED ........................................ 1.76 1.77 0.8 

Countertop Microwave-Only .................................................... LED ........................................ 1.27 1.27 ¥0.4 

Countertop Microwave-Only .................................................... VFD ........................................ 3.44 3.42 ¥0.6 

Countertop Microwave-Only .................................................... VFD ........................................ 3.14 3.12 ¥0.7 

Countertop Convection Microwave ......................................... LED ........................................ 1.20 1.24 3.2 

Countertop Convection Microwave ......................................... VFD ........................................ 4.14 4.13 ¥0.1 

Countertop Convection Microwave ......................................... VFD ........................................ 3.23 3.05 ¥5.5 

Over-the-Range Microwave-Only ............................................ VFD ........................................ 1.66 1.67 0.4 

Over-the-Range Microwave-Only ............................................ LED ........................................ 0.78 0.78 0.0 

Over-the-Range Convection Microwave ................................. VFD ........................................ 4.50 4.48 ¥0.4 

* LCD = Liquid Crystal Display, LED = Light Emitting Diode, VFD = Vacuum Fluorescent Display. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each standards rulemaking, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current 

technology options and prototype 

designs that could improve the 

efficiency of the products or equipment 

that are the subject of the rulemaking. 

As the first step in such an analysis, 

DOE develops a list of technology 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(i). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, or service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) 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. 

Section 0 of this rulemaking discusses 

the results of the screening analysis for 

microwave ovens, particularly the 

designs DOE considered, those it 

screened out, and those that are the 

basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) 

in this rulemaking. For further details 

on the screening analysis for this 

rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final 

rule TSD. 

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 interested parties at the December 

2007 Public Meeting even though the 

results were not available in time for 

publication in the November 2007 

ANOPR. DOE determined that all of 

these options were 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 the October 2008 NOPR, 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. DOE 

determined that control strategies are 

available that enable manufacturers to 

make design tradeoffs between 

incorporating features that consume 

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). 

DOE received comments on each of 

these technology options in response to 

the October 2008 NOPR, and 

determined through additional research 

conducted for the February 2012 

SNOPR and today’s final rule that each 

of these technologies and control 

strategies are feasible means to reduce 

standby power for both product classes 

of microwave ovens. 77 FR 8526, 8537– 

40 (Feb. 14, 2012). For more details of 

these technology options and comments 

from interested parties, see chapter 3 of 

the final rule TSD and section 0 of this 

rulemaking. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36325 

13As noted elsewhere in today’s final rule, DOE 

is aware of fewer than 1 percent of microwave oven 

models 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 at this time. 

14 In the past DOE presented energy savings 

results for only the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance. In the calculation of economic 

impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost 

savings measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has 

chosen to modify its presentation of national energy 

savings to be consistent with the approach used for 

its national economic analysis. 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such 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 13 for 

microwave ovens, as shown in Table 

III–2. The max-tech microwave oven 

standby power level corresponds to a 

unit equipped with a default automatic 

power-down function that disables 

certain power-consuming 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 the February 2012 SNOPR, 

DOE determined that this max-tech 

level is applicable to the product class 

of microwave-only ovens and 

countertop convection microwave 

ovens. For built-in and over-the-range 

convection microwave ovens, DOE 

identified, based on its analysis, a maxtech standby power level of 0.04 W. 77 

FR 8526, 8541–42 (Feb. 14, 2012). DOE 

has retained these max-tech levels for 

today’s final rule. For more details of 

the max-tech levels, see chapter 5 of the 

final rule TSD and section IV.D.2 of this 

rulemaking. 

TABLE III–2—MAX-TECH MICROWAVE

OVEN STANDBY POWER LEVELS

Product class 

Max-tech 

standby 

power level 

Microwave-Only Ovens and 

Countertop Convection 

Microwave Ovens.

0.02 watts. 

Built-In and Over-the-Range 

Convection Microwave 

Ovens.

0.04 watts. 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings from the products that are the 

subject of this rulemaking purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance with amended 

standards (2016–2045). The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year 

period.14 DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. The base case represents a 

projection of energy consumption in the 

absence of amended mandatory 

efficiency standards, and considers 

market forces and policies that affect 

demand for more efficient products. 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model 

to estimate energy savings from 

amended standards for the products that 

are the subject of this rulemaking. The 

NIA spreadsheet model (described in 

section IV.F of this rulemaking) 

calculates energy savings in site energy, 

which is the energy directly consumed 

by products at the locations where they 

are used. DOE reports national energy 

savings on an annual basis in terms of 

the source (primary) energy savings, 

which is the savings in the energy that 

is used to generate and transmit the site 

energy. To convert site energy to source 

energy, DOE derived annual conversion 

factors from the model used to prepare 

the Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2012 

(AEO 2012). 

2. Significance of Savings 

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from 

adopting a standard for a covered 

product unless such standard would 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not 

defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 

1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that 

Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ energy 

savings in this context to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy 

savings for all of the TSLs considered in 

this rulemaking (presented in section 

V.C of this rulemaking) are nontrivial, 

and, therefore, DOE considers them 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 

section 325 of EPCA. 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

EPCA provides seven factors to be 

evaluated in determining whether a 

potential energy conservation standard 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections 

discuss how DOE has addressed each of 

those seven factors in this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of an 

amended standard on manufacturers, 

DOE first uses an annual cash-flow 

approach to determine the quantitative 

impacts. This step includes both a shortterm assessment—based on the cost and 

capital requirements during the period 

between when a regulation is issued and 

when entities must comply with the 

regulation—and a long-term assessment 

over a 30-year period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include the 

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, including 

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 various 

DOE regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. For 

more details on the manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA), see section IV.H 

of this rulemaking and chapter 12 of the 

final rule TSD. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and PBP associated with new or 

amended standards. The LCC, which is 

specified separately in EPCA as one of 

the seven factors to be considered in 

determining the economic justification 

for a new or amended standard, 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed 

in the following section. For consumers 

in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the 

national net present value of the 

economic impacts applicable to a 

particular rulemaking. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

savings for the considered efficiency 

levels are calculated relative to a base 

case that reflects projected market 

trends in the absence of amended 

standards. The LCC analysis requires a 

variety of inputs, such as product 

prices, product energy consumption, 

energy prices, maintenance and repair 

costs, product lifetime, and consumer 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36326 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

discount rates. For its analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the considered products in the first year 

of compliance with amended standards. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability in specific inputs, such as 

product lifetime and discount rate, DOE 

uses a distribution of values, with 

probabilities attached to each value. 

DOE identifies the percentage of 

consumers estimated to receive LCC 

savings or experience an LCC increase, 

in addition to the average LCC savings 

associated with a particular standard 

level. DOE also evaluates the LCC 

impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be affected disproportionately 

by a national standard. See section IV.E 

of this rulemaking for more details on 

the LCC and PBP analysis. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

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

As discussed in section IV.F of this 

rulemaking, DOE uses the NIA 

spreadsheet to project national energy 

savings. See chapter 10 of the final rule 

TSD for more details on this analysis. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE evaluates standards that would not 

lessen the utility or performance of the 

considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) The standards 

adopted in today’s final rule will not 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

products under consideration in this 

rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from standards. It also 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 direct final 

rule and simultaneously published 

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. To assist the Attorney 

General in making a determination for 

microwave oven standards, DOE 

provided the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) with copies of the SNOPR and the 

TSD for review. DOJ concluded that the 

energy conservation standards for 

microwave standby power as proposed 

were unlikely to have a significant 

adverse impact on competition. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

The energy savings from amended 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. 

The amended standards also are likely 

to result in environmental benefits in 

the form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases 

associated with energy production. DOE 

reports the emissions impacts from 

today’s standards, and from each TSL it 

considered, in chapter 15 of the final 

rule TSD. (42. U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) See section IV.K of 

this rulemaking for more details on this 

analysis. DOE also reports estimates of 

the economic value of emissions 

reductions resulting from the 

considered TSLs. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

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 

rulemaking, the Secretary found no 

relevant factors other than those 

identified elsewhere in today’s final 

rule. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effect potential amended 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.E.10 of this 

rulemaking and chapter 8 of the final 

rule TSD. 

IV. Methodology and Revisions to the 

Analyses Employed in the February 

2012 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 

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– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36327 

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 

November 10, 2012.) 

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. Covered Products 

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). 

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 test procedure 

interim final rule that published on 

March 9, 2011 (the March 2011 TP 

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 (which at the time was the term 

DOE used to designate convection 

microwave ovens). DOE also determined 

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 

the preliminary analysis it conducted, 

DOE observed that the typical standby 

mode and off mode operation for 

microwave ovens that also incorporate 

other means of cooking food does not 

differ from that of microwave-only 

units. As a result, DOE amended the 

microwave oven test procedure in the 

March 2011 TP Interim Final Rule 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). 

DOE received comments on the topic 

of covered products in response to the 

February 2012 SNOPR on microwave 

oven energy conservation standards. 

AHAM and GE stated that DOE should 

clarify the applicability of the proposed 

standards to products using both 

microwave energy and radiant heating. 

AHAM and GE also commented that the 

definition of ‘‘combination oven’’ as 

established by the March 2011 TP 

Interim Final Rule and proposed to be 

maintained in the February 2012 

SNOPR should be revised to be 

sufficiently broad to include, generally, 

‘‘other means of cooking’’ in order to 

account for current and future cooking 

technologies. According to AHAM and 

GE, DOE’s definition was too vague and 

would lead to confusion as to which 

products are covered. These 

commenters further stated that DOE’s 

proposal that, for products with 

multiple oven compartments but no 

integral cooking top, the compartment(s) 

that cook by means of microwave energy 

in combination with any other cooking 

or heating means would be classified as 

microwave ovens while the 

compartment(s) that cook or heat food 

by means of a gas flame or electric 

resistance heating without the use of 

microwave energy would be classified 

as conventional ovens, is contradictory, 

adds complexity, and is confusing. 

AHAM and GE agreed with DOE that a 

free-standing range with microwave 

capability should be excluded from 

coverage as a microwave oven, but 

stated that a built-in range with 

microwave capability should not be 

classified as a microwave oven either 

because the installation configuration 

does not affect how the product is used. 

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool Corporation 

(Whirlpool) commented that the 

primary use should determine how the 

product is characterized, such that a 

built-in product with two separate 

cavities, one that uses microwave 

energy and one that uses conventional 

thermal energy, should be classified as 

a conventional range, not a microwave 

oven. AHAM and GE stated that this 

would be consistent with the exclusion 

of free-standing ranges with microwave 

capability. These commenters, therefore, 

recommended that DOE define a 

combination oven as ‘‘a microwave oven 

that incorporates means of cooking 

other than microwave energy, and does 

not mean free-standing or built-in 

conventional cooking tops, conventional 

ovens, or conventional ranges that 

include microwave ovens in separate 

cavities.’’ (AHAM, No. 16 at pp. 1, 3– 

4; GE, No. 19 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 15 

at p. 1) Whirlpool commented that not 

all manufacturers produce a built-in 

cooking product with two separate 

cavities, one which uses microwave 

energy and one which uses 

conventional thermal energy, and which 

are controlled by a single control panel. 

Some of Whirlpool’s competitors have 

such built-in products with two separate 

control panels. Whirlpool stated that if 

DOE maintains the definition of 

combination oven, Whirlpool and other 

product manufacturers with similar 

product lines will be placed at a 

competitive disadvantage to those with 

separate control panels. (Whirlpool, No. 

15 at p. 1) 

DOE maintained in the January 2013 

TP Final Rule that the definition of 

microwave oven also includes all 

products that combine a microwave 

oven with other appliance functionality. 

To aid in distinguishing such other 

‘‘combined products’’ from the type of 

microwave oven that incorporates 

convection features and any other 

means of cooking, DOE adopted the 

term ‘‘convection microwave oven’’ to 

more accurately describe the latter, and 

provided a definition of convection 

microwave oven in 10 CFR 430.2. In this 

definition, DOE clarified that the 

microwave capability, convection 

features, and any other cooking means 

are incorporated in a single cavity. 78 

FR 4015, 4017–4018 (Jan. 18, 2013). 

In the January 2013 TP Final Rule, 

DOE further confirmed that all products 

that combine a microwave oven with 

other appliance functionality would be 

considered covered products, including 

microwave/conventional ranges, 

microwave/conventional ovens, 

microwave/conventional cooking tops, 

and other combined products such as 

microwave/refrigerator-freezer/charging 

stations. Regarding microwave/ 

conventional ranges, DOE clarified that 

an appliance need not be free-standing 

to be covered as a microwave/ 

conventional range. DOE, therefore, 

added a definition of ‘‘microwave/ 

conventional cooking top’’ in 10 CFR 

430.2 to state that it is a class of kitchen 

ranges and ovens that is a household 

cooking appliance consisting of a 

microwave oven and a conventional 

cooking top. Similarly, DOE added a 

definition in 10 CFR 430.2 of a 

‘‘microwave/conventional oven’’ as a 

class of kitchen ranges and ovens which 

is a household cooking appliance 

consisting of a microwave oven and a 

conventional oven in separate 

compartments. DOE also clarified in the 

definition of microwave/conventional 

range that the microwave oven and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36328 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

conventional oven are incorporated as 

separate compartments. 78 FR 4015, 

4018 (Jan. 18, 2013). 

DOE determined in the January 2013 

TP Final Rule that the microwave oven 

component of these combined products 

would meet the statutory requirements 

as a covered product for the purposes of 

measuring standby mode and off mode 

energy use under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(B)(vi)) DOE stated that it 

does not believe that the presence of 

additional appliance functionality 

would eliminate the statutory 

requirement to evaluate standby mode 

and off mode energy use in the 

microwave oven component. DOE also 

concluded in the January 2013 TP Final 

Rule that the provisions related to the 

measurement of standby mode and off 

mode energy use in the test procedure 

should only measure such energy use 

associated with the microwave oven 

portion of combined products, and for 

that reason the amendments from the 

January 2013 TP Final Rule do not 

require any determination as to which 

appliance function of a combined 

product with a microwave oven 

component represents the primary usage 

of the product. Id. DOE notes that there 

are currently no active mode provisions 

for microwave ovens in its test 

procedure, although it has initiated a 

separate rulemaking to consider such 

amendments. 

In the microwave oven standby mode 

and off mode test procedure rulemaking, 

DOE confirmed that the microwave 

oven portion of a combined product is 

covered under the definition of 

microwave oven, but due to a lack of 

data and information at the time, did 

not amend its test procedures in the 

January 2013 TP Final Rule to measure 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

for the microwave portion of combined 

products. Id. Therefore, DOE is not 

establishing amended energy 

conservation standards for standby 

mode and off mode energy use for these 

products in today’s final rule. DOE may 

choose to initiate a separate rulemaking 

at a later date that would address 

standby and off mode energy use of 

combined products. 

B. 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. 

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 were 

capable of operation in off mode, nor 

was DOE aware at that time of any other 

microwave ovens capable of such 

operation. In the February 2012 SNOPR, 

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, 

DOE conducted a survey of over-therange microwave-only units available on 

the U.S. market. DOE determined that 

the display technologies used are 

similar to those used in countertop 

microwave-only units (i.e., LED 

displays, LCDs, and VFDs). DOE also 

conducted in-store standby mode testing 

on a limited sample of over-the-range 

microwave-only units which showed 

similar standby power consumption as 

countertop microwave-only units. For 

these reasons, DOE tentatively 

concluded in the February 2012 SNOPR 

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. 77 FR 8526, 8536 

(Feb. 14, 2012). 

DOE also conducted standby power 

testing on a sample of 13 representative 

convection microwave ovens, including 

5 countertop convection microwave 

ovens, 6 over-the-range convection 

microwave ovens, and 2 built-in 

convection microwave ovens. DOE’s 

testing showed that the countertop 

convection microwave ovens use similar 

display technologies as countertop 

microwave-only units, and had standby 

power consumption ranging from 1.2 W 

to 4.7 W, which is similar to the standby 

power consumption for countertop 

microwave-only units. As a result, DOE 

tentatively concluded in the February 

2012 SNOPR that countertop convection 

microwave ovens would not warrant a 

product class separate from microwaveonly ovens. Id. 

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

the February 2012 SNOPR showed that 

the standby power consumption for 

these products ranged from 4.1 W to 8.8 

W, which was higher than the standby 

power consumption for other 

microwave oven product types (i.e., 

countertop microwave-only, over-therange microwave-only, and countertop 

convection microwave ovens). DOE’s 

reverse-engineering analysis suggested 

that the additional features in built-in 

and over-the-range convection 

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 determined that a separate product 

class should be established for built-in 

and over-the-range convection 

microwave ovens. DOE recognized that 

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

additional relays for exhaust fans and 

lights, and that countertop convection 

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. Id. 

Thus, for the February 2012 SNOPR, 

DOE determined that separate product 

classes for the purposes of setting 

energy conservation standards 

addressing standby mode and off mode 

energy use were 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36329 

microwave ovens in the final rule 

published on July 22, 2010 (the July 

2010 TP Final Rule). 75 FR 42579. 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 convection microwave ovens 

and over-the-range/built-in microwaveonly units into separate product classes 

to account for the energy performance of 

heating components other than the 

microwave portion. In the February 

2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to establish 

the following two product classes for 

microwave ovens (77 FR 8526, 8536 

(Feb. 14, 2012)): 

TABLE IV–1—FEBRUARY 2012 

SNOPR PROPOSED MICROWAVE

OVEN PRODUCT CLASSES

Product class 

1. Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop 

Convection Microwave Ovens. 

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

Microwave Ovens. 

The Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, National Consumer Law 

Center, Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, and Northwest Power 

Conservation Council, (hereafter 

referred to as the Joint Commenters), 

jointly supported the inclusion of all 

microwave-only and countertop 

convection microwave ovens in a single 

product class, stating that over-the-range 

microwave-only ovens do not have 

features that necessitate additional 

standby mode energy use. (Joint 

Comment, No. 17 at p. 2) 

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool objected 

to the lack of product class 

differentiation between countertop and 

over-the-range microwave-only ovens in 

Product Class 1. According to these 

commenters, there are significant 

differences in energy consumption and 

consumer utility between countertop 

and over-the-range microwave ovens. 

They stated that a countertop 

microwave oven is typically designed to 

operate at room temperature, whereas 

an over-the-range microwave oven is 

subject to higher temperatures. AHAM, 

GE, and Whirlpool further stated that 

certain features of over-the-range 

microwave ovens, such as a VFD 

display that can reliably withstand 

higher temperatures while still 

providing consumer utility, consumes 

more energy in standby mode than a 

countertop microwave oven display, 

which can use lower-power LED and 

LCD technologies. Whirlpool also noted 

that electronic controls for over-therange microwave ovens must be 

constructed of materials which can 

operate in this environment. (AHAM, 

No. 16 at pp. 1–2; GE, No. 19 at p. 1; 

Whirlpool, No. 15 at p. 2) 

In addition to standby mode 

considerations, AHAM, GE, and 

Whirlpool commented that the 

proposed product classes failed to 

consider the effects of active mode 

differences on a future microwave oven 

active mode test procedure or standard. 

These commenters noted that over-therange units have energy consuming 

features such as air venting and 

circulation, forced cooling, and cooktop 

lighting that are not found in countertop 

units. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; GE, No. 

19 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 15 at pp. 2– 

3) AHAM and GE concluded that overthe-range microwave-only ovens should 

be included in Product Class 2. (AHAM, 

No. 16 at p. 2; GE, No. 19 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees with commenters that 

over-the-range microwave ovens must 

operate under conditions that are 

harsher than countertop microwave 

ovens are typically exposed to, in terms 

of elevated temperatures and humidity 

levels. For the components that are 

associated with standby mode and off 

mode energy use, these conditions have 

the most effect on the displays. Under 

long-term exposure, displays may 

degrade in illuminance over time, 

resulting in a consumer’s perception of 

reduced brightness, a significant 

element of consumer utility. As 

discussed further in section IV.C.2 of 

this rulemaking, DOE conducted 

accelerated lifetime testing of different 

microwave oven display types by 

subjecting a limited sample of 

microwave ovens to high temperatures 

and humidity levels for an extended 

period of operation in standby mode. 

The results of this testing demonstrated 

that the illuminance of each display 

tended to decrease over time to varying 

degrees, but did not reveal any 

correlation between display type and 

rate of illuminance reduction. In 

addition, DOE observed in its test 

sample a unit with an LED display that 

exhibited illuminance that was 

comparable to that of the VFD on 

another unit. Based on this lifetime 

testing, and the existence of multiple 

over-the-range microwave oven models 

on the market with each type of display 

technology, DOE concludes that overthe-range microwave ovens would not 

require certain display technologies 

(i.e., VFD) that have inherently higher 

power consumption than other display 

types that provide similar consumer 

utility. In addition, DOE is not aware of, 

nor did commenters provide 

information on, different standby power 

consumption that would be associated 

with controls that have the same 

functionality but different material 

selection. 

In its final rule engineering analysis, 

DOE also examined more closely 

whether combinations of design options 

are available that would allow over-therange microwave-only ovens to meet the 

same standby power levels as 

countertop microwave ovens. These 

‘‘design pathways’’ are discussed in 

more detail in section 0 of this 

rulemaking. From its analysis, DOE 

concluded that design pathways exist 

for all over-the-range microwave-only 

ovens with LED displays and LCDs to 

meet a 1.0 W standard, so that none of 

these would warrant classification into 

Product Class 2 on the basis of energy 

use characteristics in standby mode. 

DOE further concludes that the range of 

these display technologies allows 

manufacturers to design over-the-range 

products with comparable consumer 

utility and durability of the display as 

for over-the-range microwave ovens 

with VFDs. Therefore, DOE is 

maintaining in today’s final rule the two 

product classes that were proposed in 

the February 2012 SNOPR. 

As noted in the February 2012 

SNOPR, DOE acknowledges that overthe-range microwave ovens contain 

additional relays for components that 

are not found in countertop units, such 

as exhaust or cooling fans and cooktop 

lighting. However, these components 

were not found in DOE’s analysis to 

require larger power supplies that 

would affect standby power 

consumption, and thus would not 

support the definition of a separate 

product class for over-the-range 

microwave-only ovens from countertop 

microwave ovens. In the future, if DOE 

establishes a test procedure that 

measures microwave oven active mode 

energy use and considers whether active 

mode energy conservation standards are 

warranted, it may consider redefining 

the product classes according to utility 

and energy use for both active mode and 

standby mode. Such revised product 

classes would not be precluded by the 

definition of product classes for standby 

mode considerations in today’s final 

rule. 

C. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36330 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the October 2008 NOPR, DOE presented 

information on several microwave oven 

technologies that significantly affect 

standby power, including cooking 

sensors, display technologies, and 

control strategies and associated control 

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

2008). In the February 2012 SNOPR, 

DOE determined that the standby power 

characteristics for countertop 

convection microwave ovens and overthe-range microwave-only units are 

similar to that of counter-top 

microwave-only units, and therefore, 

the same technology options would 

apply to these products. Additional 

testing on over-the-range convection 

microwave ovens conducted by DOE 

also showed that standby power in these 

products depends largely on the same 

factors. 77 FR 8526, 8536–37 (Feb. 14, 

2012). DOE determined in the screening 

analysis for the final rule that all of the 

technology options identified in the 

February 2012 SNOPR meet the 

screening criteria and thus were 

considered as design options in the 

engineering analysis. The following 

sections discuss these technology 

options and additional analysis 

conducted for today’s final rule. 

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). 

In the February 2012 SNOPR, DOE 

noted that it was not 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 lowand zero-standby power cooking 

sensors, DOE noted 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 was 

also aware of one zero-standby power 

cooking sensor technology used in 

microwave ovens on the U.S. market. 

DOE noted in the February 2012 SNOPR 

that it was not aware of any data 

indicating that the reliability and 

accuracy associated with these low- and 

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 was also unaware of 

data showing that fouling of infrared 

cooking sensors 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 stated that because it was 

not aware of any relative humidity 

cooking sensors used in microwave 

ovens currently on the market, it was 

also 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 noted 

that multiple other cooking sensor 

technology options exist that have been 

employed in microwave ovens in place 

of an absolute humidity cooking sensor. 

Based on this information, DOE 

tentatively concluded in the February 

2012 SNOPR that the low- and zerostandby-power cooking sensor 

technologies discussed above are viable 

design options. 77 FR 8526, 8537 (Feb. 

14, 2012). 

DOE requested data and information 

on the accuracy and reliability of lowand 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 sought information on the 

current commercial availability of this 

technology, the likelihood of future 

adoption, and the potential impact on 

the lessening of competition amongst 

manufacturers. DOE also requested 

comment on whether any intellectual 

property or patent infringement issues 

are associated with the cooking sensor 

technologies discussed above. 77 FR 

8526, 8537–38 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

The Joint Commenters stated that 

sensor cooking has previously relied on 

the use of absolute humidity sensors 

that require a warm-up time after a 

period in a lower-power state, which is 

typically avoided by maintaining 

constant power to the sensor. The Joint 

Commenters stated that placing this 

type of cooking sensor into a lower 

power state could affect the consumer 

experience as a result of the necessary 

warm-up time. Based on DOE’s findings 

regarding the availability of zero or 

near-zero standby power cooking 

sensors without such warm-up times, 

the Joint Commenters supported DOE’s 

conclusion that such technologies can 

be used without impacting consumer 

utility. (Joint Comment, No. 17 at pp. 1– 

2) 

GE stated that: 

• Zero-standby power cooking 

sensors, while limited in use at that 

time, had not been fully tested and 

evaluated as appropriate alternatives; 

• DOE should provide data on the 

availability, reliability, and 

functionality of these sensors; 

• Absolute humidity sensors with 

standby power consumption offer 

greater resolution than relative humidity 

sensors with no standby power 

consumption and therefore offer 

consumer utility; 

• Some of the sensor technologies, 

such as infrared and weight sensors, are 

not feasible alternatives to the absolute 

humidity sensors used today; and 

• 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, No. 19 at p. 3) 

GE further commented that industry’s 

experience and research do not support 

considering the same sensor 

technologies for all microwave oven 

platforms, and that different 

technologies are required for a 

countertop versus over-the-range 

application. GE stated that if evidence to 

support this conclusion is not available, 

DOE should determine that absolute 

humidity sensors provide consumers 

with utility that cannot be matched by 

zero-standby power cooking sensors. 

(GE, No. 19 at pp. 1–2) GE also 

commented that DOE should preserve 

the use of absolute humidity sensors for 

over-the-range microwave ovens. (GE, 

No. 19 at p. 3) 

Whirlpool commented that most of its 

new microwave ovens use a humidity 

sensor that can be de-energized in 

standby mode and off mode. According 

to Whirlpool, these absolute humidity 

sensors use the same technology as 

older types of absolute humidity sensors 

and maintain similar performance. 

Whirlpool also stated that, unlike the 

older sensors that require a few minutes 

to stabilize after activation, the newer 

sensors are operational after a wake-up 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36331 

time of approximately 10 seconds, 

which is not noticeable to the consumer. 

Whirlpool commented that its products 

with this type of sensor have been on 

the market in Europe for almost 3 years, 

and there have been no issues with 

them. However, Whirlpool also 

commented that there are limited 

suppliers of these absolute humidity 

sensors and capacity is currently limited 

due to flooding in late 2011 in Thailand 

that destroyed the equipment and 

factory that had been producing sensors 

for Whirlpool. Whirlpool stated that 

adequate lead time and access to capital 

will be required for these suppliers to 

add sufficient capacity if such sensors 

are mandated. (Whirlpool, No. 15 at pp. 

3–4) Whirlpool commented that a 

simple circuit with several transistors to 

shut down a cooking sensor would cost 

approximately $0.10. (Whirlpool, No. 15 

at p. 4) 

DOE contacted multiple cooking 

sensor manufacturers to further evaluate 

zero-standby power absolute humidity 

sensors. DOE identified one sensor 

manufacturer that supplies absolute 

humidity sensors to multiple microwave 

oven manufacturers that comprise a 

significant portion of the market (over 

50 percent). This sensor manufacturer 

noted that all of its sensors are capable 

of short warm-up times (5–10 seconds). 

This sensor manufacturer also noted 

that the control circuits would only 

need to be modified to add transistors 

to de-energize the cooking sensors while 

in standby mode. Because these zerostandby power absolute humidity 

sensors can be energized in a period of 

time that is small compared to the 

duration of a cooking cycle in which 

they would be used, these sensors 

provide the same utility to consumers as 

absolute humidity sensors that must 

remain energized in standby mode. This 

sensor manufacturer also indicated that 

there are no patents on these short 

warm-up time humidity sensors that 

would restrict other sensor 

manufacturers from supplying similar 

products to microwave oven 

manufacturers. 

The absolute humidity sensor 

manufacturer indicated that it has plans 

to expand manufacturing capacity and 

could expand further if market demands 

increase. DOE also determined, based 

on discussions with microwave oven 

manufacturers, that the cooking sensor 

manufacturing facility flooding issue 

discussed above has been resolved. As 

a result, DOE does not believe there are 

any issues limiting the supply of these 

zero-standby power absolute humidity 

sensors. 

Based on microwave oven 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

determined that reliability of these zerostandby power absolute humidity 

sensors has not been an issue. One 

manufacturer noted that the reliability is 

expected to be improved compared to 

previous sensor types because the zerostandby power absolute humidity 

sensors are only energized during the 

cooking cycle, whereas the previous 

sensors are energized continuously for 

the lifetime of the product. 

Additionally, DOE’s research 

confirms that multiple zero-standby 

power cooking sensors other than 

absolute humidity sensors are available 

at a similar cost to zero-standby power 

absolute humidity sensors. These 

include different methods for 

determining the state of the food load 

being cooked, using either piezoelectric 

steam, infrared, or weight sensors. As 

discussed above, DOE notes that 

piezoelectric steam sensors are currently 

used by one microwave oven 

manufacturer. 

Based on this information, DOE has 

determined that zero-standby power 

cooking sensors with equivalent 

reliability and accuracy as the existing 

absolute humidity cooking sensors will 

be available on the scale necessary to 

serve the U.S. microwave oven market 

at the time of new standards. DOE 

concludes, therefore, that zero-standby 

power cooking sensors are a viable 

design option for reducing microwave 

oven standby power consumption. 

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). 

In response to comments received in 

the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

researched microwave oven display 

technologies and found 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 also found that 

manufacturer temperature ratings for the 

three types of displays are comparable. 

Furthermore, DOE 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 stated in the February 

2012 SNOPR 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. 77 FR 8526, 8538 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

AHAM and GE disagreed that LED 

displays and LCDs can be integrated 

into all countertop or over-the-range 

microwave ovens with proper heat 

shielding and without significant loss of 

consumer utility. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 

4; GE, No. 19 at p. 1) GE commented 

that DOE should preserve the use of 

VFDs in over-the-range microwave 

ovens. GE stated that DOE did not 

consider the reliability of low-power 

displays. According to GE, non-VFD 

displays deteriorate when exposed to 

high heat by darkening and becoming 

unreadable. GE stated that this is a 

serious deficiency in components that 

must be included in millions of 

products that operate in the extreme 

heat environments found in most overthe-range applications. GE stated that 

DOE should provide data from life 

testing under high-heat conditions 

before adopting a standard that would 

require low-power displays. (GE, No. 19 

at pp. 2, 3) 

Whirlpool commented that it uses 

LCD, VFD, and LED displays in 

microwave ovens, but that LCDs require 

more attention to cooling than the 

others. (Whirlpool, No. 15 at p. 4) 

Whirlpool also noted that the user 

appearance of LCD, VFD, and LED 

displays is different, and Whirlpool uses 

that to help brand appearance and 

differentiation. According to Whirlpool, 

VFDs allow for the display of bright text 

at a cost and performance level that is 

preferable to the other technologies. 

Whirlpool stated that the power used by 

VFDs is a function of the size of the 

display, and that a typical midrange 

over-the-range microwave oven with a 

VFD with a graphical area of 2 inches 

by 1 inch could meet the 2.2 W standby 

level. Whirlpool commented that very 

large VFDs that can be found in some 

built-in products will have issues 

reaching these levels. Whirlpool noted 

that there is technology available for 

VFDs that allows part of the display area 

to be shut down, while leaving a small 

area (e.g., the clock) to remain on. 

However, Whirlpool also noted that use 

of this technology would place other 

design restrictions on the display, such 

as restrictions on pattern design. 

Whirlpool stated that these restrictions 

would increase costs beyond DOE’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36332 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

16 Information on the design and efficiency of 

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

www.powerint.com/en/applications/majorappliances. (Last accessed December 2012.) 

estimate and/or reduce consumer 

functionality. (Whirlpool, No. 15 at p. 4) 

Whirlpool commented that LCDs face 

more challenges in larger sizes, and the 

backlight intensity may need dimming 

or limiting of the available intensity 

setting. Whirlpool stated that the added 

functions needed to manage the power 

can range from a few cents to dollars, 

depending on the size and technology of 

the display. (Whirlpool, No. 15 at p. 4) 

DOE conducted additional review of 

products available on the U.S. market 

and identified 25 over-the-range 

microwave oven models from multiple 

manufacturers that incorporated LCD or 

LED displays. To further evaluate the 

reliability and consumer utility of LED 

displays, LCDs, and VFDs in over-therange environments, DOE contacted 

display manufacturers to discuss these 

issues. Display manufacturers indicated 

that most LED displays and VFDs have 

maximum operating temperatures of 85 

degrees Celsius (°C), while most LCDs 

have maximum operating temperatures 

of 70 °C. DOE also noted that display 

reliability testing is generally conducted 

at 90-percent relative humidity (RH). 

According to display manufacturers, the 

rated lifetime (i.e., the time at which the 

display brightness will have decreased 

by 50 percent) for most LED displays is 

approximately 50,000 hours, whereas 

the lifetime for VFDs is between 35,000 

and 50,000 hours. Display 

manufacturers also noted that LED 

displays and VFDs can achieve similar 

levels of brightness. For LCDs with LED 

backlighting, display manufacturers 

stated that the lifetime of approximately 

50,000 hours is based on the LED 

backlights, because the LED 

backlighting will fail before the LCD 

itself as long as the display is operated 

within the rated temperature and 

humidity conditions. According to 

display manufacturers, if LED displays, 

LCDs, and VFDs are operated below 

their maximum rated operating 

temperature and humidity, the lifetime 

would not be affected. 

To further investigate reliability under 

the conditions experienced in over-therange installations, DOE conducted 

testing on a sample of over-the-range 

microwave ovens with different display 

types. DOE selected 2 LED, 2 LCD, and 

3 VFD over-the-range microwave oven 

models for testing. For each model, DOE 

purchased two identical units to 

evaluate the reliability under two 

separate temperature and humidity 

conditions. Prior to the start of testing, 

the illuminance for each display was 

measured from a fixed distance under 

dark room conditions. In order to obtain 

consistent and comparable 

measurements, each clock display was 

set to 12:00 prior to the illuminance 

measurements. Because some displays 

may dim after a period of user 

inactivity, the illuminance for each unit 

was measured again after a period of 10 

minutes of inactivity. 

One set of the six microwave oven 

models were then operated in standby 

mode in an environmental chamber for 

twelve 20-hour periods at 82.5 ± 2.5 °C 

and 90 ± 5 percent RH, and the other set 

of six microwave ovens was operated in 

standby mode for twelve 20-hour 

periods at 67.5 ± 2.5 °C and 90 ± 5 

percent RH. The temperature conditions 

were selected based on the maximum 

rated operating conditions for the 

different display types. After each 20- 

hour period at elevated temperature and 

humidity, the environmental chamber 

and microwave ovens were cooled to 

ambient room temperature (23 ± 5 °C), 

at which point the illuminance of each 

display was measured before and after 

a 10-minute period of inactivity using 

the same method described above. Each 

set of microwave ovens was exposed to 

the elevated temperature and humidity 

conditions for a total of 240 hours. DOE 

selected this number of hours based on 

its review of available information on 

the duration of lifetime testing under 

similar ambient conditions that display 

manufacturers conduct. The number of 

hours manufacturers used ranged from 

48 to 240, and DOE selected the 

maximum 240 hours for its testing. The 

illuminance was measured twice at 

ambient room conditions after each 20- 

hour cycle. In addition, power 

consumption and current were 

measured throughout each 20-hour 

cycle and subsequent 10-minute 

illuminance measurement period for 

each test unit. 

The test results showed that display 

illuminance tended to degrade over time 

at these elevated conditions for most of 

the units tested, but the data did not 

reveal a correlation between the rate of 

degradation and display type. VFDs in 

DOE’s test sample degraded both more 

and less rapidly than the LED displays 

under both temperature/humidity 

conditions, including an LED display 

with illuminance comparable to the 

VFDs in the test sample. DOE notes that 

the test units for one of the models with 

a backlit LCD failed after 20 hours at 

82.5 °C and after 60 hours at 67.5 °C. 

Other backlit LCD model had similar 

illuminance levels as two of the VFD 

models and showed little to no 

degradation. Based on these test data, 

DOE concludes that all display types 

can be used in over-the-range 

microwave oven applications without a 

loss in consumer utility. For further 

details on the display reliability testing, 

see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

3. Power Supply and Control Boards 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

discussed 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 switch-mode 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 

switch-mode power supplies were, at 

the time, unproven in long-term 

microwave oven applications, and the 

greater complexity of these power 

supplies could also lower overall 

reliability. DOE was also aware of 

options to improve the energy efficiency 

of linear power supplies, such as lowloss transformers or unregulated 

voltages closer to the voltages used for 

logic and control, but these were not 

found on commercially available 

microwave ovens at the time. 73 FR 

62034, 62051 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

In response to the October 2008 

NOPR, some commenters stated that 

certain switch-mode power supplies 

used in computers have efficiencies 

greater than 90 percent, while others 

questioned the reliability of switchmode power supplies for use in 

microwave ovens, and that 

electromechanical controls will be 

needed to meet standby power 

requirements. In its analysis for the 

February 2012 SNOPR, DOE observed 

that switch-mode power supplies are 

found in products such as computers, 

battery chargers, clothes washers, and 

clothes dryers, suggesting that the 

reliability and durability of switchmode power supplies has been proven 

in residential appliance applications. 

DOE also noted that microwave ovens 

incorporating switch-mode power 

supplies have been available for 

multiple years and are still used, as 

evidenced by such power supplies 

observed in DOE’s most recent test 

sample of convection microwave ovens. 

DOE’s research suggested that switchmode power supplies for appliance 

applications in power capacities similar 

to those utilized in microwave ovens 

achieve no greater than 75-percent 

efficiency,16 and DOE was unaware of 

data indicating that the reliability of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36333 

17Please see: http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/ 

orbit:56806/datastreams/file_4175071/content. 

(Last accessed November 28, 2012). 

switch-mode power supplies is 

significantly worse than conventional 

linear power supplies over the lifetime 

of the product. DOE was also not aware 

at that time of any microwave ovens on 

the market at that time with 

electromechanical controls. As a result, 

in the February 2012 SNOPR, DOE 

proposed considering only microwave 

ovens with electronic controls in 

determining standby power levels, and 

determined that electromechanical 

controls would not be required to 

achieve any of the standby power levels 

proposed in the February 2012 SNOPR. 

77 FR 8526, 8538–39 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

Whirlpool commented that it uses 

switch-mode power supplies in many of 

its microwave ovens. According to 

Whirlpool, such power supplies will 

cost more than conventional linear 

power supplies with traditional 

transformers, depending on the 

particular design and product features. 

For a new design optimized for low 

standby power consumption, Whirlpool 

believes that the cost increase would be 

in the range of DOE’s SNOPR analysis 

for both countertop and built-in/overthe-range microwave ovens. Whirlpool 

also commented, however, that if an 

existing design needs to be modified, 

the incremental manufacturing cost will 

exceed DOE’s estimates for both product 

classes. Whirlpool stated that DOE 

underestimates the impact on 

manufacturers, which will either incur 

greater costs in designing new control 

systems or added product cost to adapt 

existing control systems. Whirlpool 

further stated that although it has not 

investigated the use of solid state relays 

to reduce the power requirements for 

power supplies, it believes that the 

reduction in power consumption would 

be minimal. (Whirlpool, No. 15 at p. 5) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

expanded the scope of its microwave 

oven power supply analysis. First, DOE 

conducted an updated, comprehensive 

survey of microwave oven brands and 

models available on the U.S. market. 

The database contains 459 entries for 

Product Class 1 and 81 for Product Class 

2. The database categorizes each 

microwave oven by installation 

configuration (i.e., built-in, over-therange, or counter-top), heating 

technology (i.e., microwave-only, 

microwave plus thermal heating 

elements, or microwave plus 

convection), magnetron power supply 

type (i.e., conventional or inverter), and 

display type (i.e., LED, LCD, backlit 

LCD, VFD, or none). 

As part of this research, DOE 

identified four countertop microwaveonly models produced by two 

manufacturers that have 

electromechanical rotary dial controls 

and no displays, and which, therefore, 

are capable of operation in off mode. 

Because these units represent less than 

1 percent of the models in Product Class 

1 and because their power consumption 

is already low due to the lack of a 

display, any energy savings associated 

with off mode energy conservation 

standards for microwave ovens would 

be trivial. For these reasons, DOE is not 

adopting standards for microwave oven 

off mode at this time. 

DOE conducted further standby 

power testing on a representative 

sample of built-in and over-the-range 

units from both Product Class 1 and 

Product Class 2 to supplement the 

existing inputs into the analysis. DOE 

determined the portion of overall 

product standby power consumption 

that is associated with baseline power 

supply and control board configurations 

for each product type based on these 

laboratory measurements. 

DOE then identified options for 

reducing power supply and control 

board power consumption, which 

include low-loss transformers, switchmode power supplies, and three 

different relay options of varying energy 

efficiency.17 Based on this new set of 

standby power and design option 

information, DOE identified 39 different 

power supply design pathways for the 

various microwave oven configurations 

that could be used to achieve the 

standby power levels analyzed in this 

final rule. Each pathway comprises the 

combination of power supply and 

control board design options that would 

decrease standby power requirements. 

For each standby power level 

analyzed, DOE took into consideration 

the specific power consumption needs 

for the product type being analyzed. For 

example, DOE confirmed in each case 

that the power supply could power at 

least three 3 ampere (A)-rated relays and 

one 16 A-rated relay concurrently, in 

addition to the other microwave oven 

base loads. MWO control boards may 

contain more relays than that, but DOE 

research suggests that not all relays will 

be active at the same time. The 16 Arated relay is typically used to control 

the power input into the magnetron 

assembly, while the 3 A-rated relays are 

typically used for other functions, such 

as controlling a blower fan, turntable 

motor, or interior light. 

DOE research also suggests that power 

supplies inside microwave ovens 

typically feature multiple direct current 

(DC) voltages with varying levels of line 

regulation. The voltages used to drive 

relays are usually the highest and the 

least regulated, as relays do not need 

very stable voltages. In a microwave 

oven with a linear power supply, 

unregulated power is the result of the 

line voltage being converted to a lower 

voltage by a transformer, rectified via a 

bridge rectifier, and smoothed 

somewhat with a capacitor. On control 

boards with linear power supplies, a 

linear regulator and additional 

capacitors provide a very smooth power 

supply suitable for microprocessors at 

even lower voltages than the 

unregulated supply. Boards featuring 

switch-mode power supplies will 

produce the two DC voltages with 

similar regulation characteristics 

through the use of integrated circuits 

directly from rectified line power. 

Switch-mode power supplies differ 

from linear regulators in conversion 

efficiency. Linear regulators produce a 

constant output voltage by dissipating 

the difference between the target voltage 

and the input voltage times the current 

drawn into heat. Thus, the higher the 

input voltage or the lower the target 

voltage, the higher the power 

dissipation and the lower the power 

supply efficiency. Switch-mode power 

supplies, however, turn line power on 

and off as needed, thus avoiding a 

significant portion of the energy losses 

associated with linear power supplies. 

While switch-mode power supplies 

typically offer higher conversion 

efficiencies, they are more complicated 

and difficult to design, and still not 

widespread in microwave oven 

applications. 

DOE research suggests that inverterbased microwave ovens consume, on 

average, 0.9 W more in standby mode 

than non-inverter microwave ovens 

featuring the same display technology 

and installation configuration. All 

inverter-driven units that DOE reverseengineered originated from one 

manufacturer and featured linear 

regulators supplied by an unregulated 

bus voltage of 18 volts (V). Based on the 

above discussion, one likely 

contributing factor to the higher standby 

power of these units is the high 

unregulated bus voltage. Additionally, 

the inverter board powering the 

magnetron contained a number of 

microprocessors and other components 

that appear to be powered continuously. 

DOE research suggests that the standby 

power requirements of these microwave 

ovens could be reduced substantially by 

reducing the unregulated bus voltage 

and fitting a disconnect relay/transistor 

for the inverter control board. For such 

systems, DOE’s design pathways 

include a relay option to shut down the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36334 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

power to the inverter board altogether 

when in standby mode. Similarly, the 

manufacturer could redesign the units 

to feature a lower unregulated bus 

voltage of 9 V or 12 V, potentially 

doubling the efficiency of the linear 

power supply. 

Since the sample of microwave ovens 

reverse-engineered by DOE research 

only included two units with a switchmode power supply, DOE chose to use 

reference designs published by a major 

power supply manufacturer instead. 

The reference power supplies selected 

by DOE are intended to be drop-in 

replacements for the current linear 

power supplies assumed for the 

baseline. All switch-mode power 

supplies used in the analysis feature 

two typical output voltage options (12 V 

and 5 V) to allow manufacturers to 

continue using the same relay and 

microprocessor families as in their 

present designs. 

DOE research suggests that a small 

percentage of microwave ovens would 

not be able to achieve baseline standby 

power levels without incorporating 

switch-mode power supplies. For 

example, DOE tore down two 

microwave ovens in Product Class 2 

which featured switch-mode power 

supplies for which average standby 

power consumption ranged from 4.1–4.3 

W. DOE research suggests that the same 

microwave oven using a linear power 

supply would draw about twice as 

much standby power. For the purpose of 

the analysis and the potential design 

pathways, the standby requirements 

were adjusted accordingly, and the 

adjusted measurements became an input 

into the average for all standby 

measurements of this particular 

microwave oven sub-type (back-lit LCD, 

over-the-range, with cooking sensor). 

DOE also developed updated costs for 

power supply options that were based 

on additional review of past teardowns, 

inputs from subject matter experts, and 

analysis of reference designs by a major 

supplier of switch-mode power 

supplies. DOE research suggests that the 

component prices for switch-mode 

power supplies and traditional linear 

power supplies are currently nearly 

equivalent. However, DOE concludes 

that the industry will likely transition to 

switch-mode power supplies as it gains 

more experience with them, causing 

switching component prices to fall 

further as volumes increase. 

Additionally, the adoption of switchmode power supplies would facilitate 

standardized control boards for worldwide use, thereby reducing testing and 

development costs. 

For each design pathway for the 

different product types that can be used 

to achieve the various standby power 

levels, DOE determined the 

corresponding manufacturing cost based 

on the cost of the components and the 

typical markups that printed circuit 

board manufacturers charge for the 

manufacture and testing of the control 

boards. Details of the costs at each 

standby power level are presented in the 

engineering analysis in section 0 of this 

rulemaking, and in chapter 5 of the final 

rule TSD. 

4. Power-Down Options 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

determined that control strategies are 

available to allow 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 mode. DOE 

found at that time that a large number 

of microwave ovens incorporating this 

automatic power-down feature were 

available in other markets such as Japan. 

73 FR 62034, 62051–52 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

In response to the October 2008 

NOPR, interested parties commented 

that: (1) The industry lacks data on 

control board circuitry to allow for a 

function to cut off power during standby 

mode, (2) such features must be reliable 

in high-temperature environments, and 

(3) DOE had allowed no time for 

manufacturers to evaluate the viability 

or feasibility of the proposed 

technologies. In the February 2012 

SNOPR, DOE noted that its research had 

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 stated it was also 

aware of similar automatic power-down 

control technologies incorporated in 

products such as clothes washers and 

clothes dryers, which utilize an 

additional transformer-less 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 determined in the 

February 2012 SNOPR that an automatic 

power-down feature is technically 

feasible in microwave applications. 77 

FR 8526, 8539 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

Commenters on the October 2008 

NOPR also requested clarification on 

whether an on/off switch, particularly a 

consumer-activated one, would be 

considered a design option for the 

purpose of standby mode energy use. 

Under the mode definitions adopted by 

the amended microwave oven test 

procedure from the March 2011 TP 

Interim Final Rule (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 sensor-based features). In the 

latter case, the microwave oven would 

remain in standby mode even with the 

display turned off. DOE was not aware 

at the time of the February 2012 SNOPR 

of any products incorporating a useractivated control to turn the display on 

or off, and did not have information to 

evaluate how often consumers might 

make use of such a feature. Therefore, 

DOE determined in the February 2012 

SNOPR that it was unable to analyze 

such a control as a design option. DOE 

however agreed that such a feature, if 

provided, could result in decreased 

energy usage in standby mode or off 

mode, and noted that manufacturers 

would not be precluded from 

incorporating such a feature in their 

products under the proposed standards. 

77 FR 8526, 8539–40 (Feb. 14, 2012). As 

part of the latest market survey, DOE 

noted several microwave ovens which 

allow consumers to turn the display off. 

DOE notes, however, that the power 

savings are highly dependent on the 

type of display, the mechanism by 

which the display is turned off, and the 

power supply. 

Whirlpool commented that certain 

features for the microwave oven may 

not be available if a relay is used to turn 

off a secondary power supply. 

Whirlpool provided an example in 

which the oven cavity light may not 

turn on if the door is opened while the 

control is in standby mode. In this 

scenario, a user may have to press a 

button to wake up part of the control 

first or put food in with the light off. 

According to Whirlpool, consumers 

would likely find this unacceptable. 

Whirlpool commented that the cost of 

adding the relay is under $1 if it is 

added early in the design process, or as 

much as $4 if added to existing designs. 

Whirlpool also commented that 

monitoring only certain keys on the 

keypad or monitoring them at a slower 

rate, especially on glass touch 

interfaces, can reduce standby mode 

energy consumption, although a user 

may have to press an ‘‘on’’ key first 

before pressing other keys. Whirlpool 

stated that the additional cost for this 

feature is approximately $0.25. 

(Whirlpool, No. 15 at p. 5) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36335 

18Please see: http://powerintegrations.com/sites/ 

default/files/PDFFiles/der260.pdf. 

For today’s final rule, DOE further 

examined automatic power-down 

strategies. DOE notes that there are 

many design pathways available to 

implement automatic power-down and 

re-awakening feature. For example, the 

microwave oven could be designed to 

return to a fully-on state every time a 

consumer opens the door, as there are 

at least three micro-switches that 

monitor the state of the door. DOE 

determined that achieving the max-tech 

standby power levels would likely 

require a relay-driven disconnect 

between line power and the power 

filtration board typically incorporated in 

microwave ovens. The automatic powerdown module that DOE included for 

this design option features a 1.5 W 

switch-mode power supply that can 

respond to a simple switch signal to 

power up and enable microwave oven 

operation via a relay on the power 

filtration board.18 If the existing door 

switches do not suffice, an additional 

door switch could provide the necessary 

signal to enable this power supply, for 

which power consumption is otherwise 

nearly 0 W. Thus, the microwave oven 

would power up, enabling a light to be 

energized, with a delay short enough to 

be perceived as instantaneous when the 

consumer opens the door. For such an 

approach, the costs for automatic 

power-down increased slightly 

compared to the costs that were 

included in the analysis for the 

February 2012 SNOPR. Details of the 

costs for this design option are included 

in the engineering analysis in section 0 

of this rulemaking and in chapter 5 of 

the final rule TSD. 

D. 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, and presented the details of the 

engineering analysis in chapter 5 of the 

February 2012 SNOPR TSD. DOE 

updated this analysis for today’s final 

rule through additional teardowns and 

testing that are detailed in chapter 5 of 

the final rule 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 (i.e., 

active mode) 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). 

Interested parties agreed with DOE’s 

determination that it is not technically 

feasible to integrate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into a single 

efficiency metric with the active mode 

energy use for microwave ovens, or 

stated that it would not be practical to 

do so. One commenter questioned if 

there were any legal prohibition on 

establishing a prescriptive standby 

power standard for microwave ovens, 

especially since DOE was at that time 

also proposing a prescriptive standard 

for other cooking products (i.e., standing 

pilots in gas cooking products). 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, in the 

February 2012 SNOPR, DOE determined 

that 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. 77 FR 8526, 8540 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

DOE did not receive any comments in 

response to the February 2012 SNOPR 

regarding the use of a metric for 

measuring standby mode and off mode 

energy use separate from any active 

mode energy use metric for microwave 

ovens. For the reasons discussed above, 

DOE is adopting energy conservations 

based on maximum allowable standby 

power levels in today’s final rule. 

2. Standby Power Levels 

DOE considered standby mode and off 

mode standards based on a maximum 

allowable standby power, in W, for 

microwave ovens. For the reasons noted 

previously, the standards do not include 

off mode power. As discussed in section 

IV.A, 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. 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 allowable 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36336 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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

that DOE determines 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. 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. 

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 

In response to the October 2008 

NOPR, interested parties commented 

that while the microwave oven standby 

power TSLs were appropriate, over-therange microwave ovens that use VFDs 

would not be able to meet the 1.0 W 

standard (TSL 3) proposed in the 

October 2008 NOPR, and that use of 

other display technologies for over-therange microwave ovens would reduce 

consumer utility. Commenters also 

stated that DOE should conduct 

additional testing of over-the-range 

microwave ovens with VFDs, and that 

manufacturers should be allowed a 

variety of pathways to reduce standby 

power consumption to each TSL. 77 FR 

8526, 8541 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

DOE research for the February 2012 

SNOPR established that multiple overthe-range microwave ovens are 

currently available on the market that 

incorporate low-power display 

technologies, including LED displays 

and LCDs. DOE also determined that 

manufacturer temperature ratings for the 

three types of displays are comparable, 

and 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. Based on 

these findings, DOE determined for the 

February 2012 SNOPR that the TSLs 

and the associated analyses from the 

October 2008 NOPR were still valid and 

would apply to the revised product 

class encompassing microwave-only 

ovens (including countertop, built-in, 

and over-the-range units) and 

countertop convection microwave 

ovens. DOE also determined that 

multiple pathways exist to reach each 

TSL, based on the selection of the 

display technology, power supply/ 

control boards, and cooking sensors, 

and the possible incorporation of 

algorithms to automatically reduce 

standby power after a period of 

inactivity, as stated in the October 2008 

NOPR. Id. 

Based on the October 2008 NOPR, 

interested parties also requested 

additional information about the 

functionality associated with a 

microwave oven that meets the maxtech level, including response time from 

power-down, and whether such a model 

has as many display features and 

included all the features of the baseline 

models. In the February 2012 SNOPR, 

DOE stated that 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 disables certain powerconsuming components after a specified 

period of user inactivity. The standby 

power at max-tech was obtained from a 

microwave oven on the market at that 

time in Korea, which incorporated such 

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

2008). Although DOE did not have 

operational information on this specific 

model, DOE analyzed the components 

necessary to achieve an automatic 

power-down function, and determined 

that such a feature would not limit the 

selection of display technologies or 

other features that provide consumer 

utility. DOE analysis suggested that 

response times for startup would be 

short enough (less than 1 second) to be 

acceptable to consumers. 77 FR 8526, 

8541 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

As noted previously, DOE proposed a 

separate product class for built-in and 

over-the-range convection microwave 

ovens in the February 2012 SNOPR, and 

therefore also separately analyzed these 

microwave ovens in the engineering 

analysis. DOE’s analysis estimated the 

incremental manufacturing cost for 

built-in and over-the-range convection 

microwave ovens having standby power 

consumption less than a 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 

convection microwave ovens on the 

market at that time. For the purpose of 

that standby power analysis, a baseline 

built-in/over-the-range convection 

microwave oven was 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 

allowable standby power in watts. Id. 

To determine the maximum allowable 

standby power at each level in Product 

Class 2, DOE reverse-engineered a 

representative sample of built-in and 

over-the-range convection microwave 

ovens to analyze the various 

components that contributed 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 sensors used in these 

convection microwave ovens on average 

consume 0.9 W of standby power. For 

Standby Power Level (SL) 1, DOE 

determined 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 suggested that replacing the 

conventional linear power supply with 

a more efficient switch-mode power 

supply would reduce the standby power 

associated with the power supply. DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36337 

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 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. 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, was 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 switchmode power supply that incorporates 

solid state relays. For SL 4, DOE 

analyzed an automatic function that 

turns off power to standby powerconsuming components after a certain 

period of inactivity and that uses a 

transformer-less 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 microcontroller 

chip. 77 FR 8526, 8541–42 (Feb. 14, 

2012). 

In light of the above analysis, DOE 

proposed in the February 2012 SNOPR 

the standby power levels for the two 

product classes shown in Table IV–3. 

TABLE IV–3—FEBRUARY 2012 

SNOPR PROPOSED MICROWAVE

OVEN STANDBY POWER LEVELS

Standby 

power level 

Standby power (W) 

Microwaveonly and 

countertop 

convection 

Built-in and 

over-the-range 

convection 

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 

DOE did not receive comments on 

these standby power levels in response 

to the February 2012 SNOPR. 

Whirlpool, however, submitted 

information regarding an off mode 

power level. Whirlpool stated that it is 

technically possible to achieve off mode 

power consumption below 0.1 W, but 

that it would add significant cost, as 

well as restrict design choices and 

product functionality, both of which 

would be unacceptable to the consumer. 

Whirlpool commented that it has been 

complying with a 1 W microwave oven 

off mode limit in Europe for several 

years, which will be reduced to 0.5 W 

in 2013. According to Whirlpool, most 

of its European built-in microwave 

ovens currently consume 0.6–0.9 W in 

off mode. Whirlpool expects to reduce 

this power consumption to 0.3–0.45 W 

by the end of 2012, noting the following 

contributors that prevent off mode 

power consumption from being 0 W: 

• Certain circuitry must be powered 

at all times to ‘‘wake up’’ the product 

(power supply circuits, keyboard 

scanning, and micro controller(s)). 

• A mains filter is required to comply 

with electromagnetic interference (EMI) 

regulations. Such filters include certain 

capacitors that must be discharged to 

prevent electric shock if the user 

touches the terminals of the mains plug 

after unplugging the appliance from the 

wall. There is normally a ‘‘bleed 

resistor’’ in the filter design to discharge 

the capacitors, which consumes power 

as soon as the appliance is connected to 

the mains. 

• The filter itself has certain losses, 

and normally it is not possible to 

disconnect the filter in standby mode or 

off mode, as that would impact product 

function in active mode. 

(Whirlpool, No. 15 at p. 3) 

DOE considered these comments, but 

noted that Whirlpool’s inclusion of 

circuitry that is powered at all times to 

sense a user input and ‘‘wake up’’ 

indicates that the product is operating 

in standby mode, as these components 

comprise a sensor to activate other 

mode(s). Furthermore, DOE concludes 

that this particular operating state is 

equivalent to the automatic power-down 

function associated with SL 4. DOE 

research suggests that the filter circuitry 

referenced by Whirlpool serves 

primarily to reduce the interference 

caused by the magnetron and its power 

supply, and that the power supply for 

at least some logic components inside a 

microwave oven do not necessarily have 

to be placed ‘behind’ the filtration 

board. Instead, these logic components 

could derive their inputs directly from 

line power and disconnect the filtration 

board and the rest of the microwave 

oven from line power until a need 

arises. Additionally, DOE notes that at 

least one microchip manufacturer has 

commercialized a product to eliminate 

power losses associated with bleed 

resistors using a single component that 

isolates the bleed resistor(s) as long as 

line power is connected. 

Past reverse-engineering by DOE has 

uncovered several strategies to 

minimize standby power requirements. 

One option is to have a drop-capacitor 

power supply feeding a low-power 

circuit whose sole function is to sense 

user interaction and to then activate the 

(much higher-capacity) regular linear 

power supply for the logic components 

as needed. Thus, the transformer losses 

of the linear power supply are avoided. 

Another option is to have a switchmode power supply that normally is 

‘asleep’ wake and activate the rest of the 

controls when the door is opened. The 

automatic power-down approach at SL 

4 chosen by DOE consists of such a 1.5 

W-capable power supply, a door switch, 

assorted wiring, and a relay that isolates 

the microwave filtration board (and 

hence the rest of the microwave oven) 

from line power whenever it is deep 

sleep mode. 

In addition, DOE’s current research 

indicates that conventional linear power 

supplies have efficiencies of 40 percent 

or less, as compared to the 55-percent 

efficiency that was estimated for the 

February 2012 SNOPR. DOE accounted 

for this relative increase in efficiency 

improvement when changing to a 

switch-mode power supply by 

considering different design pathways 

to reach the standby power levels 

associated with this design option. 

Therefore, for the reasons discussed 

above for the standby power levels 

proposed in the February 2012 SNOPR, 

DOE has retained the same levels for the 

final rule analysis. 

3. Manufacturing Costs 

In this rulemaking, DOE determined 

the estimated 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36338 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

19 Information on the PPI databases can be found 

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

December 2012.) 

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. As noted above, 

for the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

analyzed a single product class for 

microwave ovens encompassing 

microwave ovens with and without 

browning (thermal) elements, but not 

including microwave ovens that 

incorporate convection systems. 

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 

DOE noted that it had observed 

several different cooking sensor 

technologies. Follow-on testing after the 

December 2007 public meeting showed 

that some sensors were zero-standby 

(relative humidity) cooking sensors. 

During the MIA interview for the 

October 2008 NOPR, one manufacturer 

indicated that its supplier of cooking 

sensors had developed zero-standby 

absolute humidity cooking sensors that 

would have the same manufacturing 

cost as the higher-standby power 

devices they would replace. Based on 

the number of available approaches to 

zero-standby cooking sensors from 

which manufacturers can choose, DOE 

concluded at that time that all 

manufacturers can and likely would 

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 also concluded 

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 suggested the need for a 

separate controller (automatic powerdown) that automatically turns off all 

other power-consuming 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. 73 FR 62034, 62055 (Oct. 

17, 2008). 

In response to the October 2008 

NOPR, interested parties questioned the 

source of the incremental cost data 

associated with each standby power 

level, 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, 

and questioned the cost associated with 

upgrading power supplies to reach TSL 

3. 

In the February 2012 SNOPR, DOE 

noted that it had developed incremental 

cost estimates for each standby power 

level using the design-option approach, 

and that one-time 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 stated that it was 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 

determined 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. 77 FR 8526, 8543 (Feb. 14, 

2012). 

Interested parties also commented 

that the analysis did not consider 

consumer education costs on proper 

operation of microwave ovens with 

automatic power-down features, and 

that the manufacturing costs did not 

include cost implications on appliance 

manufacturers for including variables 

such as component readability and/or 

utility. DOE observed that it had 

considered the potential conversion 

costs associated with changes to 

consumer utility and reliability in the 

MIA. 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 determined that zerostandby cooking sensors could be 

implemented with no effect on 

consumer utility or reliability. DOE 

noted 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. Id. 

Therefore, in the February 2012 

SNOPR, DOE determined that the 

standby power levels and corresponding 

incremental manufacturing costs 

presented in the October 2008 NOPR 

remained fundamentally valid for the 

microwave-only and countertop 

convection microwave oven product 

class. DOE was unaware of any 

technologies that became available after 

the October 2008 NOPR that would alter 

the incremental cost for any standby 

power level. However, the costs 

presented in the October 2008 NOPR 

were 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. Thus, 

DOE revised the incremental costs for 

each standby power level for Product 

Class 1, scaled to 2010 dollars, as 

presented in Table IV–5. 

TABLE IV–5—FEBRUARY 2012 

SNOPR PROPOSED 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 

3 ................ 1 .0 1 .31 

4 ................ 0 .02 4 .58 

DOE conducted additional analyses 

on a test sample of 13 convection 

microwave ovens for the February 2012 

SNOPR to evaluate the built-in and 

over-the-range convection microwave 

oven product class. DOE again used the 

design-option approach to determine 

the incremental manufacturing costs of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36339 

convection microwave ovens for each 

standby power level. 

As discussed in the February 2012 

SNOPR, DOE estimated the incremental 

cost associated with reductions in 

baseline standby power of built-in and 

over-the-range convection 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. 

77 FR 8526, 8543 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

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 transformer-less power supply. 

The results of these analyses for the 

February 2012 SNOPR are presented in 

Table IV–6. 

TABLE IV–6—FEBRUARY 2012 

SNOPR PROPOSED 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 

Whirlpool stated that the incremental 

manufacturing costs for SL 3 would 

consist only of component costs and 

would not require additional processing 

and labor costs. Whirlpool estimated the 

total incremental cost at SL 3 as the sum 

of the costs it provided for each of the 

design options it had commented on, 

and stated that the largest contributor 

would be the cost of changing to a 

switch-mode power supply for those 

microwave ovens that don’t currently 

have them. (Whirlpool, No. 15 at pp. 5– 

6) DOE observes that Whirlpool did not 

provide estimated costs for a 

implementing a zero-standby power 

cooking sensor or a switch-mode power 

supply, although, as noted previously in 

section 0 of this rulemaking, Whirlpool 

agreed with DOE’s estimate for the cost 

associated with a switch-mode power 

supply for a new product design but 

stated that the cost would be too low for 

existing designs. The sum of the upper 

range of estimated costs which 

Whirlpool did provide were 

approximately $5.00, which is greater 

than the costs DOE estimated at SL 3 for 

Product Class 1 and approximately half 

DOE’s estimate for Product Class 2. 

DOE, therefore, expanded its 

evaluation of manufacturing costs to 

consider all of the design pathways it 

had identified for each product type and 

class. DOE aggregated and weighted the 

cost results from the design pathway 

studies using the distribution of features 

by stock-keeping-units (SKUs). For 

example, about 22 percent of microwave 

oven SKUs in Product Class 1 

incorporate a VFD and a cooking sensor. 

DOE also conducted additional research 

and interviews with suppliers to update 

the component costs for the individual 

design options. The resulting updated 

incremental manufacturing costs for 

both product classes are presented in 

Table IV–7 and Table IV–8. Because 

DOE’s analysis for today’s final rule was 

based on a more comprehensive model 

database, the greater sample size 

combined with the updated component 

cost estimates and significantly more 

design pathways affected the 

manufacturing cost results. For 

example, at the higher efficiency levels, 

the pathway for some product types 

requires automatic power-down at SL 3 

rather than SL 4. In addition, DOE 

determined that for several product 

types in Product Class 2, the baseline 

model already incorporates a switchmode power supply. As a result, the 

weighted average cost at SL 3 is lower 

than proposed in the February 2012 

SNOPR. For more details of the 

manufacturing costs developed as part 

of the engineering analysis, see chapter 

5 of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE IV–7—FINAL RULE MICROWAVE

OVEN PRODUCT CLASS 1 STANDBY

POWER INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS

Standby 

power level 

Standby power 

(W) 

Incremental 

cost 

(2011$) 

Baseline .... 4 .0 NA 

1 ................ 2 .0 $0 .26 

2 ................ 1 .5 0 .38 

3 ................ 1 .0 3 .28 

4 ................ 0 .02 6 .23 

TABLE IV–8—FINAL RULE MICROWAVE

OVEN PRODUCT CLASS 2 STANDBY

POWER INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS

Standby 

power level 

Standby power 

(W) 

Incremental 

cost 

(2011$) 

Baseline .... 4 .5 NA 

1 ................ 3 .7 $0 .06 

2 ................ 2 .7 0 .08 

3 ................ 2 .2 5 .01 

4 ................ 0 .04 5 .86 

E. 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, 

which is described in chapter 8 of the 

final rule TSD.) 

The LCC represents the total 

consumer expense over the life of a 

product, including purchase and 

installation expenses 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36340 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

costs, product lifetime, and discount 

rates. 

For the February 2012 SNOPR, DOE 

developed a consumer sample for 

microwave ovens having standby mode 

and off mode features from EIA’s 2005 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(RECS). For today’s final rule, it 

developed a consumer sample from the 

2009 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–9 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 final 

rule. 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 final rule 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–9—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN LCC AND PBP ANALYSES

Inputs October 2008 NOPR Changes for the SNOPR Changes for the final rule 

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.

Increased the geographic resolution of 

sales tax data. 

Affecting Operating Costs 

Annual Energy 

Use.

Annual energy use determined from the 

annual usage (average daily use cycles).

No change ............................................... 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 .............................

Electricity: Updated using EIA’s 2010 

Form 861 data. 

Variability: Energy prices determined by 

RECS Reportable Domain (27 individual States or State groupings). 

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.

Reference Case, High Growth, and Low 

Growth forecasts updated with EIA’s 

AEO 2012 June Release. 

Repair and 

Maintenance 

Costs.

Assumed no repair or maintenance 

costs.

No change ............................................... 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 ............................................... Updated LCC lifetime methodology to reflect methodology used in the NIA. 

Discount 

Rates.

Variability: Characterized using Weibull 

probability distributions.

No change ............................................... No change. 

Affecting Installed and Operating Costs 

Compliance 

Date of New 

Standard.

2012 ......................................................... 2014 ......................................................... 2016. 

1. Product Costs 

To calculate the product costs paid by 

microwave oven purchasers, DOE 

multiplied the manufacturing product 

costs (MPCs) developed from the 

engineering analysis by industry 

markups to derive manufacturers’ 

selling prices (MSPs). The MSPs in turn 

are multiplied by supply chain markups 

(along with sales taxes) to estimate the 

initial cost to the consumer. DOE used 

the same supply chain markups for 

today’s final rule that were developed 

for the October 2008 NOPR. These 

include separate markups on the 

baseline MSP and the incremental cost 

of each higher efficiency level 

considered. 

AHAM submitted an attachment to its 

comment in which Shorey Consulting 

argues against using a lower incremental 

retail markup on the added costs of 

higher-efficiency products. (AHAM, No. 

16, Attachment 1; GE, No. 19 at p. 1) 

Shorey Consulting claims that DOE 

ignores relevant, consistent and reliable 

data and attempts to apply pure, 

unconfirmed theory (whose validity and 

applicability Shorey Consulting 

questions). Shorey used retail industry 

data to measure competition in 

appliance retailing and argues that 

DOE’s approach requires a level of 

competition that does not exist. Stating 

that several decades of experience 

provide information about what actually 

happens at the retail level, Shorey 

argues that DOE should base its analyses 

on actual practices rather than theory. It 

notes that retailers have experience with 

the markups on products in the poststandards situation. It states that to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36341 

20Larry Dale, et al. ‘‘Retrospective Evaluation of 

Appliance Price Trends,’’ Energy Policy 37 (2009). 

pp. 597–605. 

21Although electric cooking products represent a 

higher level of aggregation than microwave ovens 

only, because no PPI data specific to microwave 

ovens were available, DOE used PPI data for electric 

cooking products as representative of microwave 

ovens. Additionally, shipments of microwave ovens 

have become a significant part of total shipments 

of electric household cooking products since 1975. 

22 Desroches, L.-B., K. Garbesi, C. Kantner, R. Van 

Buskirk, H.-C. Yang (2012), ‘‘Incorporating 

Experience Curves in Appliance Standards 

Analysis,’’ accepted to Energy Policy. http:// 

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.066. 

extent that manufacturers are aware of 

the markup practices at the retail level, 

those practices seem consistent with the 

long-term pattern of stable gross 

margins. 

DOE continues to believe that 

microwave oven retail markets are 

reasonably competitive, so that an 

increase in the manufacturing cost of 

microwave ovens is not likely to 

contribute to a proportionate rise in 

retail profits, as would be expected to 

happen without incremental markups. 

DOE believes that Shorey’s measure of 

competition is inaccurate for microwave 

ovens, primarily because it assumes that 

the market shares for major appliances 

adequately represent the market shares 

for microwave ovens. Microwave ovens 

are sold in some retail channels not 

included in Shorey’s list of the major 

appliance retailers (e.g., drugstores), as 

well as on the Internet. 

In response to Shorey’s comments 

regarding the lack of empirical evidence 

underlying DOE’s markup analysis, DOE 

has previously examined historical 

retail price data for several appliances.20

The data do not support the use of a 

constant markup. DOE acknowledges 

that detailed information on actual retail 

practices would be helpful in evaluating 

markups on products after appliance 

standards take effect. DOE currently is 

collecting information that would shed 

more light on actual practices by 

retailers selling microwave ovens and 

other appliances. To date, the limited 

evidence DOE has collected provides no 

clear answer, but it does not support the 

idea that retail profits rise as a result of 

efficiency standards. Thus, DOE 

continues to use an approach to 

markups that is consistent with 

economic theory of firm behavior in 

competitive markets. See chapter 6 of 

the final rule TSD for additional 

information. 

In the February 2012 SNOPR, DOE 

examined historical PPIs for electric 

cooking equipment generally and 

microwave ovens specifically and found 

a consistent, long-term declining real 

price trend. Consistent with the method 

used in other rulemakings, DOE used 

experience curve fits to develop a price 

scaling index to project product costs 

for this rulemaking. For the LCC and 

PBP analysis, the experience rate 

(defined as the fractional reduction in 

price expected from each doubling of 

cumulative production) is based on 

historical PPI data for electric cooking 

products from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics,21 along with a time-series of 

annual shipments for 1969–2009 for 

electric household cooking products. 

AHAM and GE continue to oppose the 

use of experience curves. (AHAM, No. 

16 at p. 4; GE, No. 19 at p. 1) AHAM 

submitted an attachment prepared by 

Shorey Consulting that presents 

arguments against using experience 

curves to project product costs. Shorey 

states that DOE has not rebutted the 

comments on the lack of theoretical 

foundation for its experience curve 

analysis made by Shorey Consulting and 

AHAM in response to DOE’s Notice of 

Data Availability (NODA) and Request 

for Comment Regarding Equipment 

Price Forecasting in Energy 

Conservation Standards Analysis. 76 FR 

9696 (Feb. 22, 2011). It claims that DOE 

has identified some data (whose 

reliability and relevance Shorey 

Consulting continues to question) and 

tries to apply it even though its own 

sources question the theoretical 

underpinnings of such usage. Shorey 

recommends that DOE substitute a 

sensitivity analysis for experience curve 

costing in the national impact analysis. 

(AHAM, No. 16, Attachment 1) 

DOE responded to the comments on 

the NODA by AHAM and other 

interested parties in the final rule for 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. 76 FR 57549 (Sep. 15, 2011). 

There is an extensive literature, 

spanning several decades, supporting 

the use of experience curves for a broad 

range of products. As discussed in a 

recent publication by researchers at 

Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory,22 the approach used by DOE 

is consistent with the experience curves 

that have been empirically 

demonstrated in numerous studies. In 

addition, well-known energy models 

such as NEMS already incorporate 

experience curves. DOE is not aware of 

the sources to which Shorey refers. DOE 

believes that the specific sensitivity 

analysis proposed by Shorey would be 

impractical. It also seems unnecessary 

because DOE incorporates sensitivity 

analysis in its current methodology. 

Shorey also suggests that DOE not use 

the experience effect for the period 

preceding the compliance date of 

standards because the engineering 

analysis uses cost projections that 

already have some effects of production 

cost reductions built into them. The 

costs DOE developed in the engineering 

analysis for microwave ovens through 

teardowns and cost modeling reflect the 

year of analysis, not the year of 

compliance. (AHAM, No. 16, 

Attachment 1) DOE estimated costs for 

each of the components and 

technologies that contribute to standby 

power based on quotes from suppliers, 

interviews with manufacturers, 

interviews with subject matter experts, 

review of research and literature, and 

numerical modeling. Preliminary 

incremental manufacturing costs 

associated with various standby levels 

then were obtained by considering 

combinations of those components as 

well as other technology options 

identified to reduce standby power. 

Manufacturer interviews were 

conducted also to obtain greater insight 

into design strategies and the associated 

costs for improving efficiency. Based on 

the incremental manufacturing costs at 

various standby power levels, DOE 

developed cost-efficiency curves. DOE 

did not specifically solicit information 

regarding manufacturing costs at the 

time of the compliance date of any 

standby power standards. Furthermore, 

the AHAM data requests and 

manufacturer interview guides used in 

recent energy conservation standards 

rulemakings for other residential 

products, such as dishwashers, 

dehumidifiers, clothes washers, clothes 

dryers, and room air conditioners, 

reveal that incremental costs were 

solicited from manufacturers in a 

manner consistent with the approach 

taken in the microwave oven standby 

power standards rulemaking. Because 

the costs estimated in the engineering 

analysis are based on the year of 

analysis, DOE believes it is appropriate 

to apply the derived experience rate 

beginning the following year, as was 

done for the February 2012 SNOPR and 

today’s final rule. 

Shorey also questioned DOE’s use of 

the PPI for electric cooking equipment 

in the experience curve derivation for 

microwave ovens. Shorey notes that the 

PPI for electric cooking equipment does 

not measure a significant number of 

microwave ovens, since microwave 

ovens represent only 2 to 3 percent of 

the shipments and value of electric 

cooking products. In addition, 

approximately 99 percent of microwave 

ovens are imported and thus excluded 

from the PPI. (AHAM, No. 16, 

Attachment 1) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36342 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

23The 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. 

In response, DOE acknowledges that 

there is no PPI category specific to 

microwave ovens. DOE investigated an 

experience rate using price data specific 

to microwave ovens, but did not use 

that as the default case because the 

estimate is not particularly robust given 

the limited data. Instead, DOE used the 

most disaggregated category that 

includes microwave ovens, which is 

electric cooking equipment. Although 

this approach may introduce some 

inaccuracy, it more closely reflects real 

price trends (as indicated by the price 

data specific to microwave ovens) than 

an assumption of no price trend. The 

paper cited above explores the role of 

imports and how the PPI compares to 

retail prices have been explored for 

several appliances. It found that PPI 

data track retail prices in a manner that 

lends confidence to the use of PPI data 

when constructing experience curves. 

Although the PPI does not include 

imports, the trend does not appear to be 

systematically biased compared to retail 

prices (for either imports or 

domestically produced products) for the 

appliances analyzed. 

In summary, DOE believes that its use 

of the experience curve approach to 

estimate a future price trend for 

microwave ovens is reasonable and 

appropriate. For the final rule, DOE 

made minor changes to its calculation 

method to match the approach used in 

other recent rulemakings. A more 

detailed discussion of DOE’s price trend 

modeling and the various sensitivity 

analyses is provided in appendix 8–C of 

the final rule TSD. 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

analyzed only countertop models of 

microwave ovens and considered 

installation costs to be zero. For today’s 

final rule, DOE analyzed both 

countertop and over-the-range 

microwave ovens and considered both 

installation and incremental installation 

costs to be zero. 

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. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

determined the average hours of 

operation for microwaves to be 71 hours 

per year. DOE has no reason to believe 

that this number has changed. 

To estimate variability in microwave 

oven hours of operation for each 

household in the RECS sample, DOE 

calculated a relative usage factor (with 

an average of 1.0) for each household. 

DOE multiplied the reported number of 

hot meals by the frequency of 

microwave oven usage and then 

normalized the result as an index value. 

DOE then multiplied the relative usage 

factor for each household by the average 

of 71 hours per year. 

Finally, DOE subtracted the number 

of calculated operating hours from the 

total number of hours in a year and 

multiplied that difference by the 

standby mode and off mode power 

usage at each efficiency level to 

determine annual standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption. 

AHAM and GE continue to strongly 

oppose DOE’s reliance on RECS for 

these analyses, noting that it is difficult 

to compare the results to the energy use 

measured in a controlled test procedure 

situation. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; GE, 

No. 19 at p. 1) Whirlpool claimed that 

use of the RECS data in calculation of 

the LCC and PBP is highly suspect 

because the sample size would be too 

small to be statistically valid. 

(Whirlpool, No. 15 at p. 2) 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to estimate the range of 

product energy use in the field, not the 

energy use in a controlled test 

procedure situation. By so doing, DOE 

is able to estimate how the energy 

savings would vary among households 

for each considered efficiency level. 

This allows DOE to develop a more 

accurate characterization of the impacts 

of potential standards on consumers, as 

required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The sample that DOE 

used contained 11,616 records and is 

large enough to provide statistically 

valid results for microwave oven 

utilization. 

3. Energy Prices 

DOE estimated residential electricity 

prices for each of the 27 geographic 

areas used in RECS 2009 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 an 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 final rule used 

the most recent available data (2010). 

To estimate trends in electricity prices 

for the supplemental notice, DOE used 

the price forecasts in EIA’s AEO 2010. 

For today’s final rule, DOE used the 

forecasts in AEO 2012. To arrive at 

prices in future years, DOE multiplied 

the average prices described above by 

the forecast of annual average price 

changes in AEO 2012. 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 

2035.23

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool objected 

to the inclusion of cap-and-trade 

program impacts in the energy price 

forecasts in the February 2012 SNOPR 

because there are no tangible facts upon 

which to base an analysis. (AHAM, No. 

16 at p. 4; GE, No. 19 at p. 1; Whirlpool, 

No. 15, p. 2) The electric power sector 

module in the NEMS used for AEO 2012 

Reference Case accounts for estimated 

impacts of the Northeast Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the capand-trade program being implemented 

in California as a result of California 

Assembly Bill 32. DOE believes that, 

given the known constraints on CO2

emissions associated with these 

programs, the electric power sector 

module in NEMS provides a reasonable 

estimate of how electricity providers 

would behave with respect to power 

plant construction and dispatch, which 

in turn would affect electricity prices in 

a small way. Thus, DOE believes that 

the energy price forecasts used for the 

final rule are appropriate. 

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 by 

assuming higher efficient products do 

not warrant increased costs for repair or 

maintenance. DOE maintained the same 

approach for this final rule. 

5. Product Lifetime 

Because the lifetime of appliances 

varies depending on utilization and 

other factors, DOE develops a 

distribution of lifetimes from which 

specific values are assigned to the 

appliances in the samples. DOE 

conducted an analysis of microwave 

oven lifetimes in the field based on a 

combination of shipments data and 

RECS data on the ages of the microwave 

ovens reported in the household stock. 

The analysis yielded an estimate of 

mean age for microwave ovens of 

approximately 10.9 years. It also yielded 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36343 

a survival function that DOE 

incorporated as a probability 

distribution in its LCC analysis. See 

chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for 

further details on the method and 

sources DOE used to develop 

microwave oven lifetimes. 

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 final rule 

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 final rule, 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 final rule. 

7. Compliance Date of New Standards 

The compliance date is the future date 

when parties subject to the requirements 

of a new energy conservation standard 

must begin compliance. For the October 

2008 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. 

Today’s final rule is being published 

with new standards requiring 

compliance 3 years later. Thus, DOE 

calculated the LCC for appliance 

consumers as if they would purchase 

new products in 2016. 

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 final 

rule, DOE used recent shares of 

available models at specific standby 

power levels to establish the base-case 

efficiency distributions. Table IV–10 

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–10—MICROWAVE OVENS: BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY MARKET SHARES

Level 

Product Class 1 Product Class 2 

Standby power 

(W) Share (%) Standby power (W) 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 

final rule, 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 projection for the year in 

which a new standard first would be 

effective—in this case, 2016. 

F. 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 2016 to 

2045. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

and product efficiency trends. Table IV– 

11 summarizes the approach and data 

DOE used to derive the inputs to the 

NES and NPV analyses for the October 

2008 NOPR, February 2012 SNOPR, and 

the changes made in the analyses for 

today’s final rule. A discussion of the 

2008 inputs and the changes follows. 

(See chapter 10 of the final rule TSD for 

further details.) 

TABLE IV–11—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NPV ANALYSES

Inputs 2008 NOPR description Changes for the 2012 SNOPR Changes for the Final Rule 

Shipments .............. Annual shipments from shipments 

model.

See Table IV.12 .................................... See Table IV-12. 

Compliance Date of 

Standard.

2012 ...................................................... 2014 ...................................................... 2016. 

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies.Shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) 

determined in 2005. SWEF held constant over forecast period.

No change ............................................ 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. Rollup scenario used for determining 

SWEF in the year that standards become effective for each standards 

case. SWEF held constant over forecast period.

No change. 

Annual Energy 

Consumption per 

Unit.

Annual weighted-average values as a 

function of SWEF.

No change ............................................ No change. 

Total Installed Cost 

per Unit.

Annual weighted-average values as a 

function of SWEF.

Incorporated learning rate to forecast 

product prices.

Product price forecasting updated to 

reflect most current methodology. 

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 ............................................ No change. 

Repair Cost and 

Maintenance 

Cost per Unit.

Incorporated changes in repair costs 

as a function of standby power.

No change ............................................ 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.

Updated to AEO 2012 June release 

forecasts (to 2035); extrapolated to 

2045. 

Energy Site-toSource 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 ............................................ No change. 

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

Present Year .......... Future expenses discounted to 2007 ... Future expenses discounted to 2011 ... Future expenses discounted to 2013. 

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–12 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the shipments analysis for the 

October 2008 NOPR, the February 2012 

SNOPR, and the changes it made for 

today’s final rule. The general approach 

for forecasting microwave shipments for 

today’s final rule remains unchanged 

from the October 2008 NOPR. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36345 

TABLE IV–12—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE INPUTS TO THE SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs 2008 NOPR description Changes for the 2012 SNOPR Changes for the final rule 

Number of Product 

Classes.

One product class. Market share data 

provided by AHAM.

Two product classes: (1) all microwave 

oven-only and countertop convection 

microwave oven; (2) over-the-range 

convection microwave oven. Market 

share data provided by AHAM; 99% 

product class #1 and 1% product 

class #2. Product class market 

shares held constant over forecast 

period.

No change. 

New Construction 

Shipments.

Housing forecasts updated with EIA 

AEO 2008 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.

No change in approach. Housing forecasts updated with EIA AEO 2012 

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 ............................................ No change. 

Retired Units not 

Replaced (i.e., 

non-replacements).

Used to calibrate shipments model to 

historical shipments data.

No change ............................................ No change. 

Historical Shipments.Data sources include AHAM data submittal and Appliance magazine.No change ............................................ 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 ............................................ No change. 

Fuel Switching ....... Not applicable ....................................... No change ............................................ 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. For the final 

rule, DOE forecasted new housing based 

on EIA’s AEO 2012 for 2009–2035. AEO 

2012 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 rulemaking. For 

2035–2045, DOE kept 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 American Housing 

Survey (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 chapter 8 of the final rule 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 

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 final 

rule, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36346 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

product’s relative price. See chapter 9 of 

the final rule TSD for further discussion. 

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 

2016 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 final rule, DOE established the 

SWEF for 2016 and assumed that the 

market share of products in the base 

case that do not meet the standard level 

under consideration (i.e. are less 

efficient than the standard) would shift 

to products that meet the new standard 

level. DOE assumed that all product 

efficiencies in the base case that are 

above the standard level under 

consideration would remain the same in 

the standard case. 

DOE made the same assumption 

regarding forecasted standards-case 

efficiencies as for the base case; namely, 

that efficiencies will remain at the 2016 

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 final 

rule. Because the effective date of the 

standard is now assumed to be 2016, 

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

2016 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 final rule, 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 final rule. 

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 final rule, DOE used AEO 

2012. 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. 

As discussed in section 0 of this 

rulemaking, DOE applied an experience 

rate to project the prices of microwave 

ovens sold in each year in the forecast 

period (2016–2045). The experience 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. 

To evaluate the impact of the 

uncertainty of the price trend estimates, 

DOE performed price trend sensitivity 

calculations in the national impact 

analysis. DOE considered three 

experience rate sensitivities, which are 

described in appendix 8–C of the final 

rule TSD. 

The annual operating cost savings per 

unit include changes in energy, repair, 

and maintenance costs. DOE forecasted 

energy prices for the February 2012 

SNOPR based on AEO 2010; it updated 

the forecasts for the final rule using data 

from AEO 2012. For the February 2012 

SNOPR and today’s final rule, 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’’). 

An individual commenter objected to 

DOE’s use of 3-percent and a 7-percent 

discount rates. The comment stated that, 

according to a holding in NRDC v. 

Herrington (NRDC v. Herrington, 768 

F.2d 1355, 1367 (D.C. Cir. 1985)), DOE 

cannot rely on the OMB alone to justify 

its choice to use 3-percent and 7-percent 

discount rates. (Private Citizen, No. 10 

at pp. 3–4) In response, DOE notes that 

the 7-percent discount 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 it is the 

appropriate discount rate whenever the 

main effect of a regulation is to displace 

or alter the use of capital in the private 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36347 

sector. When regulation primarily and 

directly affects private consumption 

(e.g., through higher consumer prices for 

goods and services), a lower discount 

rate is appropriate. The alternative most 

often used is sometimes called societal 

rate of time preference, which is the rate 

at which society discounts future 

consumption flows to their present 

value. The real rate of return on longterm government debt may provide a 

fair approximation of the societal rate of 

time preference. Over the last 30 years, 

this rate has averaged around 3 percent 

in real terms on a pre-tax basis. 

G. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

consumers, DOE evaluates the impact 

on identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by a national standard. 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 final rule. 

H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

In determining whether an amended 

energy conservation standard for 

microwave ovens subject to this 

rulemaking is economically justified, 

DOE is required to consider the 

economic impact of the standard on the 

manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The statute 

also calls for an assessment of the 

impact of any lessening of competition 

as determined by the Attorney General 

that is likely to result from the adoption 

of a standard. (42 U.S.C. 

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

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 INPV. 

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, as 

well as market and product trends. It 

also includes an assessment of the 

impacts of standards on subgroups of 

manufacturers. DOE outlined its 

methodology for the MIA in the 

February 2012 SNOPR. 77 FR 8526, 

8550–52 (Feb. 14, 2012). The complete 

MIA is presented in chapter 12 of the 

final rule TSD. 

For today’s final rule, DOE updated 

the MIA results in the February 2012 

SNOPR 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 

Convection Microwave Ovens) and 

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

As discussed in section IV.D.3 of this 

rulemaking, based on additional 

research for the engineering analysis, 

DOE included updated MPCs in 2011$ 

for both Product Class 1 and Product 

Class 2. DOE also incorporated updated 

price trends into the analysis rather than 

assuming prices remain fixed in real 

terms throughout the analysis period. 

DOE used the same price trends in the 

NIA starting in the base year of the 

analysis (2013) and continuing through 

the end of the analysis period (2045). 

DOE also assumed that MPCs and MSPs 

were similarly impacted by price trends 

in both the base case and standards 

cases. See section IV.F of this 

rulemaking for a description of how 

DOE implemented price trends into the 

analysis. 

The total shipments and efficiency 

distributions were updated using the 

new estimates described in the final rule 

NIA. The MIA also uses the new 

analysis period in the NIA (2016–2045) 

and has updated the base year of 

analysis to 2013. See section IV.F of this 

rulemaking for a description of the 

changes to the NIA. 

As was done for the February 2012 

SNOPR MIA, DOE considered product 

and capital conversion costs associated 

with the analyzed TSLs in today’s final 

rule. Product conversion costs are onetime investments in research, 

development, testing, and marketing, 

focused on ensuring product designs 

comply with new energy conservation 

standards. DOE investigated available 

product information to update the 

estimated number of product platforms 

that would need to be altered at each 

TSL to determine conversion costs for 

the entire industry. DOE also used 

information provided in 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. 

To allocate total product and capital 

conversion costs across Product Class 1 

and Product Class 2 for the final rule 

MIA, DOE used the same ratio between 

these two product classes as used in the 

final rule NIA. DOE used the same perplatform costs at each standby power 

level for both product classes as 

developed in the February 2012 SNOPR, 

but converted these product and capital 

conversion costs to 2011$ using the PPI. 

DOE received comments pertaining to 

the manufacturer impact analysis in the 

February 2012 SNOPR from a private 

citizen, who commented that the loss in 

INPV would disproportionally and 

negatively impact small business 

microwave oven manufacturers around 

the world (Private Citizen, No.10 at pp. 

2, 10). DOE did not identify any 

manufacturers classified as a small 

business selling microwave ovens in the 

United States. Additionally, the INPV 

figure in the February 2012 SNOPR is 

industry-wide, and does not represent 

the impact on any one manufacturer. 

The private citizen also commented 

that small and medium-size businesses 

would have a difficult time complying 

with a standard with a compliance date 

in 2014 or 2015, and that some could go 

out of business (Private Citizen, No. 10 

at p. 7). In addition to the fact that DOE 

identified no small microwave oven 

manufacturers, DOE points out that the 

compliance date is 3 years from the 

publication of today’s final rule, which 

is consistent with other new standards. 

DOE also notes that no manufacturers 

objected to the compliance date as part 

of this rulemaking. 

I. 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 any changes in the number 

of employees of 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 net jobs created or 

eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, caused by: (1) Reduced 

spending by end users on energy; (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36348 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

24 Data on industry employment, hours, labor 

compensation, value of production, and the implicit 

price deflator for output for these industries are 

available upon request by calling the Division of 

Industry Productivity Studies (202–691–5618) or by 

sending a request by email to dipsweb@bls.gov. 

Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

prin1.nr0.htm. (Last accessed December 2012.) 

25See 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. 

26 J. M. Roop, M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, 

ImSET 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, 

PNNL–18412, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, 2009. Available at: www.pnl.gov/main/ 

publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL– 

18412.pdf. (Last accessed December 2012.) 

27On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed 

the new rules while a panel of judges reviews them, 

and told EPA to continue enforcing CAIR. See EME 

Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, Order, No. 11– 

1302, Slip Op. at *2 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011). On 

August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated CSAPR 

and related Federal Implementation Plans that 

would have superseded the State Implementation 

Plans that EPA typically approves for compliance 

with Clean Air Act stationary source regulations. 

See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, No. 

11–1302, 2012 WL 3570721 at *24 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 

21, 2012). The court required EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. See id. The AEO 2012, 

however, had been finalized prior to both these 

decisions. DOE understands, however, that CAIR 

and CSAPR are similar with respect to their effect 

on emissions impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. 

by the utility industry; (3) increased 

spending on new products to which the 

new standards apply; and (4) the effects 

of those three factors throughout the 

economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS).24 The 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 this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.25 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than 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 

efficiency 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 service sectors). Thus, based on the 

BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment will increase due 

to shifts in economic activity resulting 

from amended standards for microwave 

ovens. 

For the standard levels considered in 

today’s direct final rule, DOE estimated 

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).26

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (I–O) model, which was 

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 that 

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. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may overestimate 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 

microwave oven manufacturing sector 

estimated using the GRIM in the MIA. 

The methodologies used and the sectors 

analyzed in the ImSET and GRIM 

models are different. 

For further details, see chapter 13 of 

the final rule TSD. 

J. 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 final rule, 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 

final rule TSD presents results of the 

utility impact analysis. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of CO2, SO2, NOX, and Hg 

from amended energy conservation 

standards for microwave ovens. DOE 

conducted the emissions analysis using 

emissions factors that were derived from 

data in EIA’s AEO 2012, supplemented 

by data from other sources. DOE 

developed separate emissions factors for 

power sector emissions and upstream 

emissions. The method that DOE used 

to derive emissions factors is described 

in chapter 15 of the final rule TSD. 

EIA prepares the Annual Energy 

Outlook using the National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS). Each annual 

version of NEMS incorporates the 

projected impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO 2012 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, for 

which implementing regulations were 

available as of December 31, 2011. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions cap 

and trading programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 

eastern States and D.C. were also 

limited under the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR), which created an 

allowance-based trading program that 

operates along with the Title IV 

program. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

CAIR was remanded to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit, but it 

remained in effect. See North Carolina 

v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). On July 6, 2011 EPA 

issued a replacement for CAIR, the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 

76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). The AEO 

2012 emissions factors used for today’s 

rule assume the implementation of 

CSAPR.27

The attainment of emissions caps 

typically is flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36349 

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 

efficiency standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. In past 

rulemakings, DOE recognized that there 

was uncertainty about the effects of 

efficiency standards on SO2 emissions 

covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, but it concluded that no 

reductions in power sector emissions 

would occur for SO2 as a result of 

standards. 

Beginning in 2015, however, SO2

emissions will fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) for power plants, which were 

announced by EPA on December 21, 

2011. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the 

final MATS rule, EPA established a 

standard for hydrogen chloride as a 

surrogate for acid gas hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP), and also established a 

standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) 

as an alternative equivalent surrogate 

standard for acid gas HAP. The same 

controls are used to reduce HAP and 

non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions 

will be reduced as a result of the control 

technologies installed on coal-fired 

power plants to comply with the MATS 

requirements for acid gas. AEO 2012 

assumes that, in order to continue 

operating, coal plants must have either 

flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent 

injection systems installed by 2015. 

Both technologies, which are used to 

reduce acid gas emissions, also reduce 

SO2 emissions. Under the MATS, NEMS 

shows a reduction in SO2 emissions 

when electricity demand decreases (e.g., 

as a result of energy efficiency 

standards). Emissions will be far below 

the cap that would be established by 

CSAPR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand would be 

needed or used to permit offsetting 

increases in SO2 emissions by any 

regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes 

that efficiency standards will reduce 

SO2 emissions in 2015 and beyond. 

Under CSAPR, there is a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia. Energy 

conservation standards are expected to 

have little effect on NOX emissions in 

those States covered by CSAPR because 

excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in NOX emissions. 

However, standards would be expected 

to reduce NOX emissions in the States 

not affected by the caps, so DOE 

estimated NOX emissions reductions 

from the standards considered in 

today’s rule for these States. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would likely reduce Hg emissions. For 

this rulemaking, DOE estimated 

mercury emissions reductions using the 

NEMS–BT based on AEO 2012, which 

incorporates the MATS. 

Chapter 15 of the final rule TSD 

provides further information on the 

emissions analysis. 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

final rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits 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 customer 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 final rule, DOE is relying 

on sets of values for the social cost of 

carbon (SCC) that were 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 in 

appendix 16–A and appendix 16–B of 

the final rule TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

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. 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. 

Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 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 costbenefit 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 

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 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. 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36350 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

28See 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). 

(Last accessed December 2012.) 

29See 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). (Last accessed 

December 2012). 

30Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government, 2010. URL 

the benefits can then be calculated by 

multiplying the 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 rulemaking, however. 

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. 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 

Economic analyses for Federal 

regulations have used a wide range of 

values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. In the final model year 2011 

CAFE rule, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) used both a 

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

ton of CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of 

$33 per metric ton of CO2 for 2007 

emission reductions (in 2007$), 

increasing both values at 2.4 percent per 

year. DOT also included a sensitivity 

analysis at $80 per metric ton of CO2.28

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT 

assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 

metric ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 

emission reductions (with a range of $0– 

$14 for sensitivity analysis), also 

increasing at 2.4 percent per year.29 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 metric 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 metric 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 metric ton of 

CO2. These interim values represented 

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. 

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. 

Specifically, the group considered 

public comments and further explored 

the technical literature in relevant 

fields. The interagency group relied on 

three integrated assessment models 

commonly used to estimate the SCC: the 

FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These 

models are frequently cited in the peerreviewed 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 climate 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. The 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 calculate domestic effects, 

although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV–13 

presents the values in the 2010 

interagency group report,30 which is 

reproduced in appendix 16–A of the 

final rule TSD. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36351 

31Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. April 

2013. See appendix 16–B of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE IV–13—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

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 

The SCC values used for today’s 

notice were generated using the most 

recent versions of the three integrated 

assessment models that have been 

published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.31 Table IV–14 shows the 

updated sets of SCC estimates in five 

year increments from 2010 to 2050. The 

full set of annual SCC estimates between 

2010 and 2050 is reported in appendix 

16–B of the final rule TSD. The central 

value that emerges is the average SCC 

across models at the 3 percent discount 

rate. However, for purposes of capturing 

the uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, the interagency group 

emphasizes the importance of including 

all four sets of SCC values. 

TABLE IV–14—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 11 33 52 90 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 12 38 58 109 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 12 43 65 129 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 14 48 70 144 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 16 52 76 159 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 19 57 81 176 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 21 62 87 192 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 24 66 92 206 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 27 71 98 221 

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 Federal agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

The interagency group intends 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 summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

values from the 2013 interagency report, 

adjusted to 2011$ using the Gross 

Domestic Product price deflator. For 

each of the four cases specified, the 

values used for emissions in 2016 were 

$12.6, $41.1, $63.2, and $119 per metric 

ton avoided (values expressed in 

2011$). DOE derived values after 2050 

using the growth rate for the 2040–2050 

period in the interagency update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 

four cases. 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. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX

emissions from the potential standards 

it considered. As noted above, DOE has 

taken into account how amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

NOX emissions in those 22 States not 

affected by emissions caps. DOE 

estimated the monetized value of NOX

emissions reductions resulting from 

each of the TSLs considered for today’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36352 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

32For 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. 

final rule based on estimates found in 

the relevant scientific literature. 

Available estimates suggest a very wide 

range of monetary values per ton of NOX

from stationary sources, ranging from 

$455 to $4,679 per ton in 2011$).32 In 

accordance with OMB guidance, DOE 

calculated the monetary benefits using 

each of the economic values for NOX

and real discount rates of 3 percent and 

7 percent. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. It has not 

included monetization in the current 

analysis. 

M. Discussion of Other Comments 

1. Significance of Energy Savings for the 

Built-In and Over-the-Range Product 

Class 

In the February 2012 SNOPR, the total 

cumulative energy savings for the 

proposed standby power standard for 

the built-in and over-the-range 

convection microwave oven product 

class estimated for products shipped in 

2016–2045 were 0.01 quad. AHAM, 

Whirlpool, and GE questioned whether 

that amount could be considered large 

enough to justify standards for that 

product class. They requested that DOE 

issue a ‘‘no standard’’ standard for the 

product class. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 1; 

Whirlpool, No.15 at p. 2; GE, No. 19 at 

p. 1) 

In the past, DOE has issued standards 

for a product class for which the total 

savings were 0.01 quad or less. For the 

2010 standards on direct heating 

equipment (DHE), for example, the 

combined total energy savings from the 

standards were 0.23 quad, but the 

savings for several DHE product classes 

were each 0.01 quad or less. 75 FR 

20185 (Apr. 16, 2010). Using the 

interpretation of ‘‘non-trivial’’ energy 

savings that DOE has applied in 

previous rulemakings (see section 0 of 

this rulemaking), DOE concludes that 

the energy savings estimated for the 

standard for the built-in and over-therange convection microwave oven 

product class are non-trivial and thus 

significant within the meaning of 42 

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

2. Standard Levels 

The Joint Commenters stated that they 

support the standards at TSL 3. 

According to these commenters, such 

energy conservation standards will help 

harmonize the United States with 

standby mode and off mode power 

standards developed by the European 

Union in 2009. (Joint Comment, No. 17 

at p. 1) 

Whirlpool stated that the payback 

period shown for built-in and over-therange convection microwave ovens at 

the proposed standard level (TSL 3) is 

6.3 years, which exceeds the timeframe 

consumers will accept to recoup the 

cost of a more efficient product. It stated 

that this excessive payback period calls 

into question whether TSL 3 is the 

proper level for built-in and over-therange convection microwave ovens. 

(Whirlpool, No. 15 at p. 2) 

DOE is not aware of evidence for a 

specific payback period that consumers 

require to recoup the incremental cost of 

a more efficient product. As shown in 

Table 0–2 and Table 0–3 in section 0 of 

this rulemaking, the median payback 

period calculated for the final rule for 

built-in and over-the-range convection 

microwave ovens at TSL 3 is 3.5 years. 

The payback period is lower than 

estimated for the February 2012 SNOPR 

due to the aforementioned change in the 

estimated manufacturing cost of meeting 

higher efficiency levels. DOE believes 

that the majority of consumers would 

find such a payback acceptable. 

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 final 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.D.2 of this 

rulemaking, 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. 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: Microwaveonly and 

countertop 

convection 

microwave 

oven 

Product class 

2: Built-in and 

over-the-range 

convection 

microwave 

oven 

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 V of this 

rulemaking 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 

base-case efficiency distribution, 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 convection 

microwave ovens, 100 percent of 

consumers of such products in 2016 are 

assumed to be using a convection 

microwave oven in the base case. Any 

decrease in standby power would affect 

100 percent of the market. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36353 

TABLE V–2—MICROWAVE-ONLY OVENS AND COUNTERTOP CONVECTION 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 

standby 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings $ 

% Households with 

Net cost No impact Net benefit 

Baseline ... 4.00 234 35 269 NA 0 100 0 NA 

1 ............... 2.00 234 18 252 8 0 54 46 0.2 

2 ............... 1.50 234 13 247 11 0 19 81 0.3 

3 ............... 1.00 239 9 248 11 12 0 88 3.5 

4 ............... 0.02 243 0 244 15 5 0 95 3.5 

TABLE V–3—BUILT-IN AND OVER-THE-RANGE CONVECTION 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 

standby 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

% Households with 

Net cost No impact Net benefit 

Baseline ... 4.50 506 40 545 NA 0 100 0 NA 

1 ............... 3.70 506 33 538 7 0 0 100 0.1 

2 ............... 2.70 506 24 529 16 0 0 100 0.1 

3 ............... 2.20 513 19 533 12 0 0 100 3.3 

4 ............... 0.04 515 0 515 30 0 0 100 2.0 

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 CONVECTION 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 $8 $8 $8 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 1.50 11 11 11 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 1.00 11 11 11 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 0.02 14 14 15 

TABLE V–5—BUILT-IN AND OVER-THE-RANGE CONVECTION 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 ....................................................................................................................... $6 $7 $7 $7 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 14 16 16 16 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 10 12 12 12 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 25 30 30 30 

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 a 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 rebuttablepresumption 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36354 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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) 

Microwaveonly ovens 

and countertop 

convection 

microwave 

ovens 

Built-in and 

over-the-range 

convection 

microwave 

ovens 

1 ................ 0.2 0.1 

2 ................ 0.2 0.1 

3 ................ 3.5 3.3 

4 ................ 3.5 2.0 

All the TSLs in the above tables have 

rebuttable-presumption payback periods 

of less than 4 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 of this 

rulemaking provides a complete 

discussion of how DOE considered the 

range of impacts to select the standards 

in today’s rule. 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

For today’s final rule, DOE used INPV 

to compare the financial impacts of 

potential energy conservation standards 

on microwave oven manufacturers at 

different TSLs. 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 cash-flow 

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. See 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD 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 by 

accepting lower gross margins as a 

percentage of revenue, but maintaining 

these margins in absolute dollars. 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

Units 

INPV Change in 

INPV 

Change in 

INPV 

Product Conversion Costs Capital Conversion Costs Total Investment Required 

Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ % Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ 

Base Case ............................................... 1,356.8 

TSL 1 ....................................................... 1,341.9 (14.9) (1.1) 16.7 3.9 20.6 

TSL 2 ....................................................... 1,332.5 (24.3) (1.8) 30.0 4.3 34.3 

TSL 3 ....................................................... 1,317.3 (39.5) (2.9) 38.0 4.7 42.7 

TSL 4 ....................................................... 1,281.4 (75.4) (5.6) 73.4 7.8 81.3 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

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

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

Units 

INPV Change in 

INPV 

Change in 

INPV 

Product Conversion Costs Capital Conversion Costs Total Investment Required 

Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ % Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ 

Base Case ............................................... 1,356.8 

TSL 1 ....................................................... 1,339.7 (17.1) (1.3) 16.7 3.9 20.6 

TSL 2 ....................................................... 1,328.6 (28.2) (2.1) 30.0 4.3 34.3 

TSL 3 ....................................................... 1,261.6 (95.2) (7.0) 38.0 4.7 42.7 

TSL 4 ....................................................... 1,174.0 (182.8) (13.5) 73.4 7.8 81.3 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36355 

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

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

Units 

INPV Change in 

INPV 

Change in 

INPV 

Product Conversion Costs Capital Conversion Costs Total Investment Required 

Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ % Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ 

Base Case ............................................... 29.7 

TSL 1 ....................................................... 29.5 (0.1) (0.5) 0.2 0.0 0.2 

TSL 2 ....................................................... 29.4 (0.2) (0.8) 0.3 0.0 0.3 

TSL 3 ....................................................... 29.2 (0.5) (1.5) 0.4 0.0 0.4 

TSL 4 ....................................................... 28.9 (0.8) (2.5) 0.7 0.1 0.8 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

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

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

Units 

INPV Change in 

INPV 

Change in 

INPV 

Product Conversion Costs Capital Conversion Costs Total Investment Required 

Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ % Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ 

Base Case ............................................... 29.7 

TSL 1 ....................................................... 29.5 (0.2) (0.5) 0.2 0.0 0.2 

TSL 2 ....................................................... 29.4 (0.3) (0.9) 0.3 0.0 0.3 

TSL 3 ....................................................... 28.3 (1.4) (4.6) 0.4 0.0 0.4 

TSL 4 ....................................................... 27.8 (1.8) (6.1) 0.7 0.1 0.8 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V–11—COMBINED PRODUCT CLASSES MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

Units 

INPV Change in 

INPV 

Change in 

INPV 

Product Conversion Costs Capital Conversion Costs Total Investment Required 

Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ % Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ 

Base Case ............................................... 1,386.5 

TSL 1 ....................................................... 1,371.4 (15.1) (1.1) 16.9 4.0 20.8 

TSL 2 ....................................................... 1,361.9 (24.6) (1.8) 30.3 4.3 34.7 

TSL 3 ....................................................... 1,346.5 (40.0) (2.9) 38.3 4.7 43.1 

TSL 4 ....................................................... 1,310.3 (76.1) (5.5) 74.2 7.9 82.1 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V–12—COMBINED PRODUCT CLASSES MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN IN ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

Units 

INPV Change in 

INPV 

Change in 

INPV 

Product Conversion Costs Capital Conversion Costs Total Investment Required 

Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ $% Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ Millions 2011$ 

Base Case ............................................... 1,386.5 

TSL 1 ....................................................... 1,369.2 (17.3) (1.2) 16.9 4.0 20.8 

TSL 2 ....................................................... 1,358.0 (28.5) (2.1) 30.3 4.3 34.7 

TSL 3 ....................................................... 1,289.9 (96.6) (7.0) 38.3 4.7 43.1 

TSL 4 ....................................................... 1,201.9 (184.6) (13.3) 74.2 7.9 82.1 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

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 ¥$15.1 

million to ¥$17.3 million, or a change 

in INPV of ¥1.1 percent to ¥1.2 

percent. At this level, the industry cash 

flow decreases by approximately 6.0 

percent, to $99.7 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $106.1 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 ¥$24.6 million to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36356 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

33Chapter 10 of the TSD 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. 

¥$28.5 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥1.8 percent to ¥2.1 percent. At this 

level, the industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 9.7 percent, to $95.8 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $106.1 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 ¥$40.0 million to 

¥$96.6 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥2.9 percent to ¥7.0 percent. At this 

level, the industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 12.0 percent, to $93.4 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $106.1 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 ¥$76.1 million to 

¥$184.6 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥5.5 percent to ¥13.3 percent. At 

this level, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 22.7 

percent, to $82.0 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $106.1 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 

altered more significantly. 

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, product 

development, and testing 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 flow 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 in 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 February 2012 

SNOPR. DOE concluded that since more 

than 98 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. 

77 8526, FR 8561 (Feb.14, 2012). DOE 

maintains this conclusion for today’s 

final rule. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

As stated in the October 2008 NOPR, 

minor tooling changes would be 

necessary at all TSLs for standby mode 

and off mode energy conservation 

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 determined that 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). DOE reached the 

same conclusion in today’s final rule. 

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 compliance date of the new 

standards. DOE discusses these and 

other requirements, and includes the 

full details of the cumulative regulatory 

burden, in chapter 12 of the final rule 

TSD. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings for microwave ovens purchased 

in the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance with amended 

standards (2016–2045). The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year 

period. DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. Table V–13 presents the 

estimated energy savings for each TSL. 

The savings were calculated using the 

approach described in section IV.E of 

this rulemaking.33

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

FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2045 

TSL 

Microwaveonly ovens 

and countertop 

convection 

ovens (quads) 

Built-in and 

over-the-range 

convection 

microwave 

ovens (quads) 

Total * (quads) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.24 0.00 0.24 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.35 0.00 0.35 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.47 0.01 0.48 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.72 0.01 0.73 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36357 

34EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at 

least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain 

products, a 3-year period after any new standard is 

promulgated before compliance is required, except 

that in no case may any new standards be required 

within 6 years of the compliance date of the 

previous standards. While adding a 6-year review 

to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, 

DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any 

time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year 

compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. 

A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate 

given the variability that occurs in the timing of 

standards reviews and the fact that for some 

consumer products, the compliance period is 5 

years rather than 3 years. 

35OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

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

circulars_a004_a-4. (Last accessed December 2012.) 

Circular A–4 requires agencies to 

present analytical results, including 

separate schedules of the monetized 

benefits and costs that show the type 

and timing of benefits and costs. 

Circular A–4 also directs agencies to 

consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and 

costs. DOE believes its standard 30-year 

analysis is fully compliant with the 

procedures outlined in Circular A–4. 

For this rulemaking, DOE undertook an 

additional sensitivity analysis of its 

standard 30-year analysis, using a 9-year 

analytical period. The choice of a 9-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.34 We would note that 

the review timeframe established in 

EPCA generally does not overlap with 

the product lifetime, product 

manufacturing cycles or other factors 

specific to microwave ovens. Thus, this 

information is presented for 

informational purposes only and is not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

results based on a 9-year analytical 

period are presented in Table V–14. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2016–2024. The 

sensitivity analysis results based on a 9- 

year analytical period are presented in 

Table V–14. 

TABLE V–14—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE POWER

FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2024 

TSL 

Microwaveonly ovens 

and countertop 

convection 

microwave 

ovens (quads) 

Built-in and 

over-the-range 

convection 

microwave 

ovens (quads) 

Total * (quads) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.07 0.00 0.07 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.10 0.00 0.10 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.14 0.00 0.14 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.21 0.00 0.22 

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,35 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–15 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 cover the lifetime of products 

purchased in 2016–2045. See chapter 10 

of the final rule TSD for more detailed 

NPV results. 

TABLE V–15—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND

OFF MODE FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2045 

TSL 

Net Present Value (Billions 2011$) 

Microwave-Only Ovens and 

Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens 

Built-In and Over-the-Range 

Convection Microwave Ovens Total * 

7% Discount 

Rate 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

3% Discount 

Rate 

1 ............................................................... 1.13 2.32 0.01 0.02 1.14 2.34 

2 ............................................................... 1.61 3.31 0.02 0.05 1.63 3.36 

3 ............................................................... 1.51 3.34 0.02 0.04 1.53 3.38 

4 ............................................................... 2.00 4.56 0.04 0.09 2.04 4.65 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36358 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

The NPV results presented in Table 

V–15 are based on the default product 

price trend. As discussed in section 

IV.E.3 of this rulemaking, DOE 

developed several sensitivity cases with 

alternative forecasts of future prices of 

microwave ovens. The impact of these 

alternative forecasts on the NPV results 

is presented in appendix 10–C of the 

final rule TSD. 

The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are 

presented in Table V–16. The impacts 

are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2016–2024. As 

mentioned previously, this information 

is presented for informational purposes 

only and is not indicative of any change 

in DOE’s analytical methodology or 

decision criteria. 

TABLE V–16—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND

OFF MODE FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2024 

TSL 

Net Present Value (Billions 2011$) 

Microwave-Only Ovens and 

Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens 

Built-In and Over-the-Range 

Convection Microwave Ovens Total * 

7% Discount 

Rate 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

3% Discount 

Rate 

1 ............................................................... 0.55 0.84 0.00 0.01 0.56 0.85 

2 ............................................................... 0.79 1.20 0.01 0.02 0.80 1.22 

3 ............................................................... 0.73 1.19 0.01 0.01 0.74 1.20 

4 ............................................................... 0.96 1.61 0.02 0.03 0.98 1.64 

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

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 0 of this rulemaking, to estimate 

those effects, DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy. Chapter 13 

of the final rule TSD presents the 

estimated net indirect employment 

impacts in the near term for the TSLs for 

both product classes of microwave 

ovens that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. The results suggest that 

today’s standards are likely to have a 

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. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Product 

For the reasons stated in section 

III.D.1 of this rulemaking, DOE believes 

that for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV), the standby power 

level considered in this rulemaking does 

not reduce the utility or performance of 

the microwave oven products under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE has considered any lessening of 

competition that is likely to result from 

today’s standards. The Attorney General 

determines the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard, and transmits 

such determination to the Secretary of 

Energy, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of such impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To 

assist the Attorney General in making 

such a determination, DOE provided the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies 

of the proposed rule and the TSD for 

review. In a letter to DOE dated May 9, 

2012, DOJ provided the following 

opinion: ‘‘[T]he proposed energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

oven standby power are unlikely to have 

a significant adverse impact on 

competition.’’ DOE considered DOJ’s 

comments 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, 

chapter 14 in the final rule TSD presents 

the estimated reduction in national 

generating capacity for the TSLs that 

DOE considered in this rulemaking. 

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–17 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

CO2 and NOX emissions reductions that 

would result from the TSLs considered 

in this rulemaking. DOE reports 

estimated annual changes in emissions 

attributable to each TSL in chapter 15 of 

the final rule TSD. 

TABLE V–17—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2045 

TSL CO2

(Mt) 

SO2

(1,000 tons) 

NOX

(1,000 tons) 

Hg 

(tons) 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 19.13 13.63 16.40 0.048 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 27.63 19.70 23.69 0.069 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 38.11 27.14 32.67 0.095 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36359 

TABLE V–17—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2016–2045—Continued 

TSL CO2

(Mt) 

SO2

(1,000 tons) 

NOX

(1,000 tons) 

Hg 

(tons) 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 58.55 41.72 50.20 0.146 

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

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 2016– 

2045. 

As discussed in section IV.L.1 of this 

rulemaking, DOE used four sets of 

values for the SCC developed by an 

interagency process. 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–18 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 final rule TSD. 

TABLE V–18—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY

MODE AND OFF MODE TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR PRODUCTS SOLD IN 2016–2045 

TSL 

SCC Case 

5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount 

rate, average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount 

rate, 95th percentile * 

(Million 2011$) 

1 ....................................................................................................................... $128 $592 $942 $1,815 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 185 855 1,360 2,621 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 255 1,179 1,876 3,615 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 392 1,812 2,882 5,554 

* 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. The values in 2016 (in 2011$) are $12.6/ton, $41.1/ton, $63.2/ton, and $119/ton. The values increase over time. 

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 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. However, consistent with 

DOE’s legal obligations, and taking into 

account the uncertainty involved with 

this particular issue, DOE has included 

in this rule the most recent values 

resulting from the 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.L.2 of this 

rulemaking. Table V–19 presents the 

cumulative present values for each TSL 

calculated using 7-percent and 3- 

percent discount rates. 

TABLE V–19—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY

MODE AND OFF MODE TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR PRODUCTS SOLD IN 2016–2045 

TSL 3% discount rate 

(Million 2011$) 

7% discount rate 

(Million 2011$) 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... $22.3 $11.0 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 32.3 15.8 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 44.5 21.8 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 68.4 33.6 

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–20 and Table V–21 

present 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.L of this rulemaking. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36360 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V–20—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 

$12.6/t CO2 * and 

Low Value for 

NOX **

(Billion 2011$) 

SCC Value of 

$41.1/t 

CO2 thnsp;* and 

Medium Value for 

NOX thnsp;**

(Billion 2011$) 

SCC Value of 

$63.2/t CO2

* and 

Medium Value for 

NOX**

(Billion 2011$) 

SCC Value of 

$119/t CO2

* and 

High Value for 

NOX**

(Billion 2011$) 

1 ............................................................................................... 1.26 1.73 2.08 2.96 

2 ............................................................................................... 1.80 2.48 2.99 4.26 

3 ............................................................................................... 1.77 2.71 3.41 5.17 

4 ............................................................................................... 2.40 3.85 4.92 7.62 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2016, in 2011$. The present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. 

** Low Value corresponds to $455 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,567 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,679 per ton of NOX emissions. 

TABLE V–21—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 3% Discount Rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$12.6/t CO2

* and 

Low Value for 

NOX**

(Billion 2011$) 

SCC Value of 

$41.1/t CO2

* and 

Medium Value for 

NOX**

(Billion 2011$) 

SCC Value of 

$63.2/t CO2

* and 

Medium Value for 

NOX**

(Billion 2011$) 

SCC Value of 

$119/t CO2

* and 

High Value for 

NOX**

(Billion 2011$) 

1 ............................................................................................... 2.45 2.93 3.28 4.17 

2 ............................................................................................... 3.50 4.20 4.70 5.99 

3 ............................................................................................... 3.60 4.56 5.26 7.03 

4 ............................................................................................... 4.97 6.44 7.51 10.24 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2016, in 2011$. The present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. 

** Low Value corresponds to $455 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,567 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,679 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 2016–2045. 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 standards in this final rule. 

C. Conclusion 

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 by, to the greatest extent 

practicable, considering 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)) 

The Department 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–22 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.b of this rulemaking presents the 

estimated impacts of each TSL for these 

subgroups. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36361 

36Refer to: http://www.kemco.or.kr/new_eng/ 

pg02/pg02100300.asp. (Last accessed December 

2012.) 

37Refer to: http://www.energyrating.gov.au/ 

products-themes/standby-power/about/. (Last 

accessed December 2012.) 

38Refer to: http://www.eccj.or.jp/top_runner/pdf/ 

tr_microwaveoven.pdf. (Last accessed December 

2012.) 

39 IEA Energy Information Centre. Standby Power 

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

http://greenshorenstein.info/pdf/ 

Standby%20Power%20Fact%20Sheet%20- 

%20IEA%20-%20April%202007.pdf. (Last accessed 

December 2012.) 

TABLE V–22—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) .................................................................... 0.24 0.35 0.48 0.73 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (Billion 2011$): ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

3% discount rate ....................................................................................... 2.34 3.36 3.38 4.65 

7% discount rate ....................................................................................... 1.14 1.63 1.53 2.04 

Manufacturer Impacts: 

Industry NPV (Million 2011$) .................................................................... (15.1) to (17.3) (24.6) to (28.5) (40.0) to (96.6) (76.1) to 

(184.6) 

Industry NPV (% change) ......................................................................... (1.1) to (1.2) (1.8) to (2.1) (2.9) to (7.0) (5.5) to (13.3) 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction: 

CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................................................... 19.13 27.63 38.11 58.55 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 13.63 19.70 27.14 41.72 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................... 16.40 23.69 32.67 50.20 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................... 0.048 0.069 0.095 0.146 

Value of Emissions Reductions CO2 (Million 2011$) * .................................... 128 to 1815 185 to 2621 255 to 3615 392 to 5554 

NOX—3% discount rate (Million 2011$) .......................................................... 22.3 32.3 44.5 68.4 

NOX—7% discount rate (Million 2011$) .......................................................... 11.0 15.8 21.8 33.6 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2011$): ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Product Class 1 ........................................................................................ 8 11 11 15 

Product Class 2 ........................................................................................ 7 16 12 30 

Consumer Median PBP (years): 

Product Class 1 ........................................................................................ 0.2 0.3 3.5 3.5 

Product Class 2 ........................................................................................ 0.1 0.1 3.3 2.0 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts: 

Product Class 1: 

Net Cost .................................................................................................... 0 0 12 5 

No Impact ................................................................................................. 54 19 0 0 

Net Benefit ................................................................................................ 46 81 88 95 

Product Class 2: 

Net Cost .................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

No Impact ................................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Net Benefit ................................................................................................ 100 100 100 100 

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. 

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,36 Australia’s 

standby program,37 and Japan’s Top 

Runner Program.38 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.39 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 2013. 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 

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; (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 purchasing decisions are 

included in two ways. First, 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. 

Second, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36362 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

40P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic 

Studies (2005) 72, 853–883. 

41Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

2010. Available online at: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/ 

consumer_ee_theory.pdf. (Last accessed December 

2012.) 

detailed estimates of shipments and 

changes in the volume of product 

purchases in chapter 9 of the final rule 

TSD. DOE’s current analysis does not 

explicitly control for heterogeneity in 

consumer preferences, preferences 

across subcategories of products or 

specific features, or consumer price 

sensitivity variation according to 

household income.40

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 is 

committed to developing a framework 

that can support empirical quantitative 

tools for improved assessment of the 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

standards. DOE has posted a paper that 

discusses the issue of consumer welfare 

impacts of appliance energy efficiency 

standards, and potential enhancements 

to the methodology by which these 

impacts are defined and estimated in 

the regulatory process.41

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Microwave Oven 

Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy 

Use 

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

mode and off mode energy use. TSL 4 

likely would save 0.73 quads of energy 

through 2045, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 4, the estimated 

NPV of consumer benefit is $2.04 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $4.65 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 58.55 Mt of CO2, 41.72 

thousand tons of SO2, 50.20 thousand 

tons of NOX, and 0.146 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions at TSL 4 ranges 

from $392 million to $5,554 million. 

DOE projects that at TSL 4 for 

microwave-only ovens and countertop 

convection microwave ovens (Product 

Class 1), the average microwave oven 

consumer would experience a savings in 

LCC of $15. DOE also estimates 95 

percent of consumers who purchase 

these microwave ovens would realize 

some LCC savings. The median payback 

period at TSL 4 is projected to be 3.5 

years, substantially shorter than the 

lifetime of the product. DOE projects 

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

(Product Class 2), the average 

microwave oven consumer would 

experience a savings in LCC of $30, and 

all consumers who purchase these 

microwave ovens would realize some 

LCC savings. The median payback 

period at TSL 4 is projected to be 2.0 

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 $76.1 million to 

$184.6 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 13.3 percent in INPV to microwave 

oven manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 4, DOE 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 product 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 

DOE then considered TSL 3. Primary 

energy savings are estimated to be 0.48 

quads of energy through 2045, which 

DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, 

the estimated NPV of consumer benefit 

is $1.53 billion, using a discount rate of 

7 percent, and $3.38 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 38.11 Mt of CO2, 27.14 

thousand tons of SO2, 32.67 thousand 

tons of NOX, and 0.095 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions at TSL 3 ranges 

from $255 million to $3,615 million. 

For microwave-only ovens and 

countertop convection microwave 

ovens, DOE projects that at TSL 3 the 

average consumer would experience a 

savings in LCC of $11, and 88 percent 

of consumers who purchase these 

microwave ovens would realize some 

LCC savings. At TSL 3 the median 

payback period is projected to be 3.5 

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 over-the-range 

convection microwave ovens, DOE 

projects that at TSL 3 the average 

consumer would experience a savings in 

LCC of $12, and all consumers who 

purchase these microwave ovens would 

realize some LCC savings. At TSL 3, the 

median payback period is projected to 

be 3.3 years, significantly 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 $40.0 million to $96.6 

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 7.0 

percent in INPV to microwave oven 

manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens 

of TSL 3, the Secretary concludes that 

TSL 3 will offer the maximum 

improvement in efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in the significant conservation of 

energy. Therefore, DOE adopts the 

energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode at TSL 3. The amended energy 

conservation standards, which are 

maximum allowable standby power 

consumption, are shown in Table V–23. 

TABLE V–23—AMENDED ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY AND

OFF MODE

Product classes Effective 

June 17, 2016 

Microwave-Only 

Ovens and 

Countertop Convection Microwave 

Ovens.

Maximum Standby 

Power = 1.0 watt. 

Built-In and Over-theRange Convection 

Microwave Ovens.

Maximum Standby 

Power = 2.2 watts. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36363 

42 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–24. 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. 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the 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 2011$, 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.42 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 2011$ 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 

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 2016–2045. 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 $41.1/ton in 

2011, the cost of the standards proposed 

in today’s rule is $58.4 million per year 

in increased product costs, while the 

annualized benefits are $174 million in 

reduced product operating costs, $58.4 

million in CO2 reductions, and $1.64 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$175 million per year. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate for all benefits and costs 

and the SCC series corresponding to a 

value of $41.1/ton in 2011, the cost of 

the standards proposed in today’s rule 

is $66.4 million per year in increased 

product costs, while the annualized 

benefits are $234 million in reduced 

operating costs, $58.4 million in CO2

reductions, and $2.20 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $228 million per 

year. The monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions using the previous 

(2010) SCC estimates, and the net 

benefits using those estimates, is 

presented for information purposes in 

Table V.24. 

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

2016–2045 

Discount rate 

Primary 

estimate * 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate 

High net 

benefits 

estimate 

(Million 

2011$/year) (Million 

2011$/year) 

(Million 

2011$/year) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................... 7% 174 162 191 

3% 234 215 261 

Using 2013 Social Cost of Carbon Values 

CO2 Reduction ($12.6/t case) ** ...................................................................... 5% 15.8 14.7 17.4 

CO2 Reduction ($41.1/t case) ** ...................................................................... 3% 58.4 54.1 64.5 

CO2 Reduction ($63.2/t case) ** ...................................................................... 2.5% 87.4 80.9 96.7 

CO2 Reduction ($119/t case) ** ....................................................................... 3% 179 166 198 

Total Benefits† ................................................................................................. 7% plus 

CO2 range 

191 to 354 178 to 329 210 to 391 

7% 234 218 258 

3% 294 271 328 

3% plus 

CO2 range 

252 to 415 232 to 383 281 to 462 

Using 2010 Social Cost of Carbon Values 

CO2 Reduction ($6.2/t case) *** ....................................................................... 5% 9.29 8.62 17.4 

CO2 Reduction ($25.6/t case) *** ..................................................................... 3% 36.7 34.0 40.6 

CO2 Reduction ($41.1/t case) *** ..................................................................... 2.5% 57.9 53.6 64.1 

CO2 Reduction ($78.4/t case) *** ..................................................................... 3% 111.8 103.5 123.6 

NOX Reduction at $2,567/ton ** ...................................................................... 7% 1.64 1.54 1.79 

3% 2.20 2.05 2.42 

Total Benefits† ................................................................................................. 7% plus 

CO2 range 

185 to 287 172 to 267 203 to 317 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36364 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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

2016–2045—Continued 

Discount rate 

Primary 

estimate * 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate 

High net 

benefits 

estimate 

(Million 

2011$/year) (Million 

2011$/year) 

(Million 

2011$/year) 

7% 212 198 234 

3% 273 251 304 

3% plus 

CO2 range 

245 to 348 226 to 321 274 to 388 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ............................................................................. 7% 58.4 59.6 57.5 

3% 66.4 67.8 64.3 

Net Benefits (using 2013 SCC values) 

Total† ............................................................................................................... 7% plus 

CO2 range 

133 to 296 119 to 270 153 to 334 

7% 175 158 200 

3% 228 203 264 

3% plus 

CO2 range 

185 to 349 164 to 315 217 to 398 

Net Benefits (using 2010 SCC values) 

Total†† ............................................................................................................. 7% plus 

CO2 range 

126 to 229 113 to 208 146 to 259 

7% 154 138 176 

3% 206 183 240 

3% plus 

CO2 range 

179 to 281 158 to 253 210 to 323 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with microwave ovens shipped in 2016–2045. These results include benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2016 from the microwave ovens purchased from 2016–2045. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which 

may be incurred prior to 2016 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment 

costs. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO 2012 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate for product 

prices in the Primary Estimate, constant product price in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for product prices in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section 0 of this rulemaking. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2011$, in 2016 under several scenarios. The values of $12.6, $41.1, and

$63.2 per metric ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $119/t 

represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series increase over time. The value 

for NOX (in 2011$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

*** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2011$, in 2016 under several scenarios. The values of $6.2, $25.6, and 

$41.1 per metric ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $78.4/t 

represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series increase over time. The value 

for NOX (in 2011$) 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 series corresponding to SCC value of $41.1/t in 2016. In the 

rows labeled ‘‘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. 

†† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to SCC value of $25.6/t in 2016. In the 

rows labeled ‘‘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 the February 2012 SNOPR, DOE 

also proposed the following technical 

corrections to the language contained in 

10 CFR 430.32. DOE noted that 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 

proposed in the February 2012 SNOPR 

to revise the title of 10 CFR 430.32 to 

read ‘‘Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates.’’ 

DOE also noted 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 proposed 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. 77 FR 

8526, 8569 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

AHAM and GE supported the 

proposed amendment to the title of 10 

CFR 430.32 to clarify that these are 

compliance dates rather than effective 

dates, and the proposed revision to 10 

CFR 430.32(j)(1)–(2) to state that 

products manufactured on or after the 

compliance date must meet the required 

energy conservation standards. AHAM 

and GE further requested that DOE 

clarify that products manufactured 

before the compliance date may 

continue to be sold after the compliance 

date. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; GE, No. 19 

at p. 1) DOE also received a comment 

from a private citizen requesting that 

DOE clarify the compliance date for new 

microwave oven standby power 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36365 

standards. (Private Citizen, No. 10 at 

p. 7) 

For clarity, DOE revises in today’s 

final rule the title of 10 CFR 430.32 and 

amends 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)–(2) as 

proposed in the February 2012 SNOPR. 

In the new energy conservation 

standards that will be codified at 10 

CFR 430.32(j)(3), DOE specifies the 

maximum standby power consumption 

for microwave ovens manufactured on 

or after June 17, 2016. These new 

standards do not apply to any 

microwave oven manufactured before 

that compliance date. 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

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 

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 the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

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 technical 

support document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011)). EO 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 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 determines 

that today’s final 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. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 

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, 30848 (May 15, 

2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 

53544 (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/sites/default/files/ 

files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

Microwave oven manufacturing is 

classified under NAICS 335221, 

‘‘Household Cooking Appliance 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 750 employees or less for 

an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

DOE surveyed the AHAM member 

directory to identify manufacturers of 

microwave ovens. In addition, DOE 

asked interested parties and AHAM 

representatives within the microwave 

oven industry if they were aware of any 

small business manufacturers. DOE 

consulted publicly available data, 

purchased company reports from 

sources such as Dun & Bradstreet, and 

contacted manufacturers, where needed, 

to determine if they meet the SBA’s 

definition of a small business 

manufacturing facility and have their 

manufacturing facilities located within 

the United States. Based on this 

analysis, DOE determined that 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, but none of 

these are small businesses. DOE 

estimates that there is one small 

business which manufactures a product 

which combines a microwave oven with 

other appliance functionality. However, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36366 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

because DOE is not amending energy 

conservation standards at this time for 

the microwave oven portion of such 

combined products, DOE certifies that 

today’s final rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE will transmit the 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of microwave ovens 

must certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test 

their products according to the DOE test 

procedure for microwave ovens, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including microwave ovens. (76 FR 

12422 (Mar. 7, 2011). The collection-ofinformation 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 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, DOE has determined that the 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 Part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 

1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)–(5). 

The rule fits within the 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 rule. DOE’s CX determination for 

this 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 final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297) 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 final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

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

amended 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 ‘‘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. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE has concluded that this final rule 

would likely require expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. 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 standards, and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by consumers 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 36367 

to purchase higher-efficiency 

microwave ovens, starting at the 

compliance date for the applicable 

standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the final 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 

the notice of final rulemaking and the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of 

the TSD for this final 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), today’s final rule would 

establish energy conservation standards 

for microwave ovens that are designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that DOE has 

determined to be both technologically 

feasible and economically justified. A 

full discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of 

the TSD for today’s final 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 

(Mar. 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 Federal 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 final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

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 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 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 amended 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 final 

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 Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions. 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress 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: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

36368 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 

2013. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary of Energy, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 

430, of Chapter II 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 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

■ 4. In § 430.23 add 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 

3.2.3 of appendix I to this subpart. The 

standby power shall be rounded off to 

the nearest 0.1 watt. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 430.32 revise the section 

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 convection microwave ovens 

manufactured on or after June 17, 2016 

shall have an average standby power not 

more than 1.0 watt. Built-in and overthe-range convection microwave ovens 

manufactured on or after June 17, 2016 

shall have an average standby power not 

more than 2.2 watts. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–13535 Filed 6–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2