44298 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Document 

ADAMS accession No./ 

Federal Register 

citation 

Direct Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 72, ‘‘List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, NUHOMS®

EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1042; [NRC–2016–0254] RIN 3150– 

AJ88,’’ March 24, 2017.

82 FR 14987. 

Correcting Amendment, 10 CFR Part 72, ‘‘List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC, 

NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1042; [NRC–2016–0254] 

RIN 3150–AJ88,’’ July 25, 2017.

82 FR 34387. 

Initial Application from TN Americas LLC for Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, Amendment No. 2, to 

NUHOMS EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, April 18, 2019.

ML19114A227 (package). 

Submittal of Acceptance Review of TN Americas LLC Application for Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, 

Amendment No. 2, to NUHOMS EOS System, Revision 1, Response to Request for Supplemental Information., August 5, 2019.

ML19225C845. 

Acceptance Review of TN Americas LLC Application for Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, Amendment No. 2, 

to NUHOMS EOS System, Revision 2, Supplemental Information, October 2, 2019.

ML19282A518. 

Acceptance Review of TN Americas LLC Application for Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, Amendment No. 2, 

to NUHOMS EOS System, Revision 3—Supplemental Information, October 29, 2019.

ML19311C551. 

TN Americas LLC, Application for Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, Amendment No. 2, to NUHOMS EOS 

System, Revision 5, June 30, 2020.

ML20190A135. 

Application for Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, Amendment No. 2, to NUHOMS EOS System, Revision 6, 

Revised Responses to Request for Additional Information, October 29, 2020.

ML20315A417. 

TN America, LLC—Application for Certificate of Compliance No. 1042 Amendment No. 2 to NUHOMS EOS 

System, Revision 7—Revised Response to Request for Additional Information, January 27, 2021.

ML21027A324. 

User Need Memorandum Package to T. Martinez Navedo from J. McKirgan with Proposed Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, Amendment No. 2; Associated Proposed Technical Specifications; and the Preliminary 

Safety Evaluation Report, June 7, 2021.

ML21125A103 (package). 

The NRC may post materials related 

to this document, including public 

comments, on the Federal Rulemaking 

website at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket ID NRC–2021–0124. 

Dated: August 4, 2021. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Margaret M. Doane, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17228 Filed 8–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0023] 

RIN 1905–AE01 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Microwave 

Ovens 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of proposed 

determination and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended, 

prescribes energy conservation 

standards for various consumer 

products and certain commercial and 

industrial equipment, including 

microwave ovens. EPCA also requires 

the U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

to periodically determine whether morestringent, amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. In this 

notification of proposed determination 

(‘‘NOPD’’), DOE has initially determined 

that energy conservation standards for 

microwave ovens do not need to be 

amended and requests comment on this 

proposed determination and the 

associated analyses and results. 

DATES: 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Monday, September 13, 2021, from 

10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section VII, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants. 

Comments: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before October 12, 2021. 

Interested persons are encouraged to 

submit comments using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, 

interested persons may submit 

comments, identified by docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–STD–0023, by any of 

the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to MWO2017STD0023@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–STD–0023 in the 

subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

VII of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including email, 

postal mail, or hand delivery/courier, 

the Department has found it necessary 

to make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing Covid–19 pandemic. DOE is 

currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the Covid–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, webinar 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at https://www.regulations.gov. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the https://www.regulations.gov 

index. However, not all documents 

listed in the index may be publicly 

available, such as information that is 

exempt from public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD0023. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for further information 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44299 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 

on how to submit comments through 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email: 

Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket contact 

the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Microwave Ovens 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Cost Effectiveness 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Active Mode Standards 

B. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes 

2. Technology Options 

3. Screening Analysis 

a. Screened-Out Technologies 

b. Remaining Technologies 

4. Product Classes 

a. Existing Product Classes 

b. Additional Product Classes 

c. Summary 

C. Engineering Analysis 

D. Energy Use Analysis 

E. National Energy Savings 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

V. Conclusions 

A. Technological Feasibility 

B. Significant Conservation of Energy 

C. Cost-Effectiveness 

D. Summary 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed 

Determination 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),2 established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) These products 

include kitchen ranges and ovens, 

which encompass microwave ovens, the 

subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(10)) 

DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to 

the EPCA requirement that not later 

than 6 years after issuance of any final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE must publish either a 

notification of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

analyzed microwave ovens subject to 

standards specified in 10 CFR 

430.32(j)(3). 

DOE first analyzed the technological 

feasibility of microwave ovens with 

lower energy use. For those microwave 

ovens for which DOE determined higher 

standards to be technologically feasible, 

DOE estimated energy savings that 

would result from potential energy 

conservation standards by using the 

same approach as when it conducts a 

national impacts analysis. 

Based on the results of the analyses, 

summarized in section V of this 

document, DOE has tentatively 

determined that current standards for 

microwave ovens do not need to be 

amended. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed determination, 

as well as some of the historical 

background relevant to the 

establishment of standards for 

microwave ovens. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include kitchen ranges 

and ovens, which include microwave 

ovens, the subject of this document. (42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed 

energy conservation standards for 

kitchen ranges and ovens and directed 

DOE to conduct two cycles of 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend standards for these products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)(A)–(B)) 

The energy conservation program for 

covered products under EPCA consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) the establishment of 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of 

covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

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

U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 

these test procedures to determine 

whether the products comply with 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44300 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3EPCA prescribed that gas kitchen ranges and 

ovens having an electrical supply cord shall not be 

equipped with a constant burning pilot for products manufactured on or after January 1, 1990. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(2)(A)) 

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

procedures for microwave ovens appear 

at title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430.23(i) and 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I 

(‘‘Appendix I’’). 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

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

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

Pursuant to the amendments 

contained in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), 

Public Law 110–140, any final rule for 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards promulgated after July 1, 

2010, is required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when 

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after that date, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into a single 

standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt 

a separate standard for such energy use 

for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test 

procedures for microwave ovens 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use. In this analysis, DOE 

considers such energy use in its 

determination of whether energy 

conservation standards need to be 

amended. 

DOE must periodically review its 

already established energy conservation 

standards for a covered product no later 

than 6 years from the issuance of a final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard for a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back 

provision requires that DOE publish 

either a determination that standards do 

not need to be amended or a NOPR, 

including new proposed standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

EPCA further provides that, not later 

than 3 years after the issuance of a final 

determination not to amend standards, 

DOE must publish either a notification 

of determination that standards for the 

product do not need to be amended, or 

a NOPR including new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the 

analysis on which a determination is 

based publicly available and provide an 

opportunity for written comment. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) 

A determination that amended 

standards are not needed must be based 

on consideration of whether amended 

standards will result in significant 

conservation of energy, are 

technologically feasible, and are costeffective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard prescribed by the Secretary for 

any type (or class) of covered product 

shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

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

6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors DOE 

considers in evaluating whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified includes whether the proposed 

standard at that level is cost-effective, as 

defined under 42 U.S.C. 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of 

cost-effectiveness requires DOE to 

consider savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing 

this NOPD in satisfaction of the 6-year 

review requirement in EPCA. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on June 17, 

2013 (‘‘June 2013 Final Rule’’), DOE 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

ovens manufactured on or after June 17, 

2016. 78 FR 36316. These energy 

conservation standards address standby 

mode and off mode energy use and 

prescribe the maximum allowable 

average standby power in watts (‘‘W’’) 

as set forth in 10 CFR 430.32(j)(3) and 

repeated in Table II–1 of this document. 

TABLE II–1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS

Product class 

Maximum 

allowable 

average 

standby 

power 

(w) 

Microwave-Only Ovens and 

Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens ............................ 1.0 

Built-In and Over-the-Range 

Convection Microwave Ovens 2.2 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Microwave Ovens 

EPCA prescribed an energy 

conservation standard for kitchen ranges 

and ovens,3 and directed DOE to 

conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 

determine whether to amend standards 

for these products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(2)(A)–(B)) DOE completed the 

first of these rulemaking cycles by 

publishing a final rule on September 8, 

1998, that codified the prescriptive 

design standard for gas cooking 

products established in EPCA, but 

found that no standards were justified 

for electric cooking products, including 

microwave ovens, at that time. 63 FR 

48038, 48053–48054. DOE completed 

the second rulemaking cycle and 

published a final rule on April 8, 2009, 

in which it determined, among other 

things, that standards for microwave 

oven active mode energy use were not 

economically justified. 74 FR 16040 

(‘‘April 2009 Final Rule’’). 

Most recently, DOE published the 

June 2013 Final Rule, adopting energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

ovens. 78 FR 36316. In the June 2013 

Final Rule, DOE maintained its prior 

determination that active mode 

standards are not warranted for 

microwave ovens and prescribed energy 

conservation standards that address the 

standby and off mode energy use of 

microwave ovens. 78 FR 36316, 36317. 

In support of the present review of the 

microwave oven energy conservation 

standards, DOE published a request for 

information (‘‘RFI’’) on August 13, 2019 

(‘‘August 2019 RFI’’), which identified 

various issues on which DOE sought 

comment to inform its determination of 

whether the standards need to be 

amended. 84 FR 39980. 

DOE received six comments in 

response to the August 2019 RFI from 

the interested parties listed in Table 

II–2. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44301 

4The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket. (Docket No. 

EERE–2017–BT–STD–0023, which is maintained at 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017- 

BT-STD-0023). The references are arranged as 

follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

TABLE II–2—AUGUST 2019 RFI WRITTEN COMMENTS

Organization(s) Reference in this NOPD Organization type 

Whirlpool Corporation ................................................................. Whirlpool ................................. Manufacturer. 

GE Appliances ............................................................................ GE Appliances ........................ Manufacturer. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the California Energy Commission.ASAP and CEC ....................... Energy Efficiency Advocate and State Energy 

Agency. 

Edison Electric Institute .............................................................. EEI ........................................... Investor Owned Utility Association. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers .......................... AHAM ...................................... Industry Association. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (‘‘PG&E’’), San Diego Gas 

and Electric (‘‘SDG&E’’), and Southern California Edison 

(‘‘SCE’’).

CA IOUs .................................. Investor Owned Utility Association. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the comments 

in the public record.4

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposed 

determination after considering 

comments and information from 

interested parties that represent a 

variety of interests. This NOPD 

addresses issues raised by these 

commenters. 

A. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justify differing standards. 

In making a determination whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility of the feature 

to the consumer and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) The microwave oven classes for 

this proposed determination are 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.B.4 of this document. This proposed 

determination covers microwave ovens 

defined as household cooking 

appliances consisting of a compartment 

designed to cook or heat food by means 

of microwave energy, including 

microwave ovens with or without 

thermal elements designed for surface 

browning of food and convection 

microwave ovens. This includes any 

microwave oven components of a 

combined cooking product. 10 CFR 

430.2. The scope of coverage is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.B.1 of this document. 

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the energy use of their product. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)) DOE’s current energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

ovens are expressed in terms of average 

watts of standby mode power 

consumption. See 10 CFR 430.23(j)(3). 

DOE originally established test 

procedures for microwave ovens in an 

October 3, 1997 final rule that addressed 

active mode energy use only. 62 FR 

51976. Those procedures were based on 

the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’) Standard 705— 

Second Edition 1998 and Amendment 

2–1993, ‘‘Methods for Measuring the 

Performance of Microwave Ovens for 

Households and Similar Purposes’’ 

(‘‘IEC Standard 705’’). On July 22, 2010, 

DOE published in the Federal Register 

a final rule for the microwave oven test 

procedures (‘‘July 2010 Repeal Final 

Rule’’), in which it repealed the 

regulatory test procedures for measuring 

the cooking efficiency of microwave 

ovens. 75 FR 42579. In the July 2010 

Repeal Final Rule, DOE determined that 

the existing microwave oven test 

procedure did not produce 

representative and repeatable test 

results. 75 FR 42579, 42580. DOE stated 

at that time that it was unaware of any 

test procedures that had been developed 

that address these concerns. 75 FR 

42579, 42581. 

On March 9, 2011, DOE published an 

interim final rule establishing test 

procedures for microwave ovens 

regarding the measurement of the 

average standby mode and average off 

mode power consumption that 

incorporated by reference specific 

clauses from the IEC Standard 62301, 

‘‘Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power,’’ First 

Edition 2005–06 (‘‘IEC Standard 62301 

(First Edition)’’). 76 FR 12825. On 

January 18, 2013, DOE published a final 

rule amending the microwave oven test 

procedure to incorporate by reference 

certain provisions of the revised IEC 

Standard 62301 Edition 2.0 2011–01, 

along with clarifying language for the 

measurement of standby mode and off 

mode energy use. 78 FR 4015. 

On December 16, 2016, DOE 

published a final rule (‘‘December 2016 

TP Final Rule’’) amending the cooking 

products test procedure to, in part, 

incorporate methods for calculating the 

annual standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption of the microwave 

oven component of a combined cooking 

product by allocating a portion of the 

combined low-power mode energy 

consumption measured for the 

combined cooking product to the 

microwave oven component using the 

estimated annual cooking hours for the 

given components comprising the 

combined cooking product. 81 FR 

91418, 91438–91439. That final rule, 

which resulted in the most recent 

version of the microwave oven test 

procedure, was codified in the CFR at 

Appendix I. 

On January 18, 2018, DOE published 

an RFI (‘‘January 2018 RFI’’) initiating a 

data collection process to assist in its 

evaluation of the test procedure for 

microwave ovens. 83 FR 2366. On 

November 14, 2019, DOE published a 

NOPR (‘‘November 2019 TP NOPR’’) 

proposing amendments to the existing 

test procedure with requirements for 

both the clock display and network 

functionality when testing standby 

mode and off mode power consumption 

and certain technical corrections. 84 FR 

61836. DOE subsequently published an 

SNOPR on August 3, 2021 (‘‘August 

2021 TP SNOPR’’) providing additional 

clarification on the requirements for 

testing microwave ovens with network 

functionality. 86 FR 41759. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44302 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

5U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2013–06–17 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Standby Mode and Off Mode for 

Microwave Ovens; Final Rule. https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BTSTD-0048-0027. 

6See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 

2021) (‘‘Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 

Abroad’’). 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In evaluating potential amendments 

to energy conservation standards, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current 

technology options and prototype 

designs that could improve the 

efficiency of the products or equipment 

that are the subject of the determination. 

As the first step in such an analysis, 

DOE develops a list of technology 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 

6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 

6(c)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5). Section 

IV.B.3 of this document discusses the 

results of the screening analysis for 

microwave ovens, particularly the 

designs DOE considered, those it 

screened out, and those that are the 

basis for the standards considered in 

this proposed determination. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

As when DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, in this analysis it must 

determine the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency or maximum 

reduction in energy use that is 

technologically feasible for such a 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) 

Accordingly, in the engineering 

analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

microwave ovens, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE determined for this 

analysis are described in section IV.C of 

this proposed determination. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each efficiency level (‘‘EL’’) 

evaluated using the tools developed for 

the June 2013 Final Rule,5 DOE 

projected energy savings from 

application of the EL to the microwave 

ovens purchased in the 30-year period 

that begins in the assumed year of 

compliance with the potential standards 

(2024–2053). The savings are measured 

over the entire lifetime of the 

microwave ovens purchased in the 30- 

year period. DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each EL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of 

energy consumption that reflects how 

the market for a product would likely 

evolve in the absence of amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

used the methodology from its national 

impact analysis to estimate national 

energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from potential 

amended standards for microwave 

ovens. The methodology calculates 

energy savings in terms of site energy, 

which is the energy directly consumed 

by products at the locations where they 

are used. 

2. Significance of Savings 

In determining whether amended 

standards are needed, DOE must 

consider whether such standards will 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term 

‘‘significant’’ is not defined in the 

EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the 

District of Columbia Circuit in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985), opined that Congress 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in 

the context of EPCA to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ 

Historically, DOE did not provide 

specific guidance or a numerical 

threshold for determining what 

constitutes significant conservation of 

energy. Instead, DOE determined on a 

case-by-case basis whether a particular 

rulemaking would result in significant 

conservation of energy. In a final rule 

published February 14, 2020, DOE 

adopted a numerical threshold for 

significant conservation of energy. 85 

FR 8626, 8670. Specifically, the 

threshold requires that an energy 

conservation standard result in a 0.30 

quadrillion British thermal units 

(‘‘quads’’) reduction in site energy use 

over a 30-year analysis period or a 10- 

percent reduction in site energy use 

over that same period. Id. Although a 

numeric threshold may serve as an 

informative guide, the significance of 

energy savings offered by a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

cannot be determined without 

knowledge of the specific circumstances 

surrounding a given rulemaking. For 

example, the United States has now 

rejoined the Paris Agreement and will 

exert leadership in confronting the 

climate crisis.6 Additionally, some 

covered products and equipment have 

most of their energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these products on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. Further 

establishing a set, numerical site energy 

threshold for all covered products and 

equipment does not allow DOE to 

account for differences in primary 

energy and full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

effects for different covered products 

and equipment when determining 

whether energy savings are significant. 

Primary energy and FFC effects include 

the energy consumed in electricity 

production (depending on load shape), 

in distribution and transmission, and in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and thus present a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards. 

Accordingly, in a two part NOPR 

process, the first of which published on 

April 12, 2021 and part two on July 7, 

2021, DOE reconsidered the numerical 

threshold process for determining 

significance of energy savings and 

whether to revert to its prior practice of 

making such determinations on a caseby-case basis. 86 FR 18901, 35668. 

Currently, under section 6(b) of 

appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart 

C (‘‘Process Rule’’), if DOE determines 

that a more stringent energy 

conservation standard would not result 

in an additional 0.3 quads of site energy 

savings or an additional 10-percent 

reduction in site energy use over a 30- 

year period, DOE would propose to 

make a no-new standards 

determination. 

E. Cost Effectiveness 

Under EPCA’s six-year-lookback 

review provision for existing energy 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44303 

conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of 

potential amended standards is a 

relevant consideration both where DOE 

proposes to adopt such standards, as 

well as where it does not. In considering 

cost-effectiveness when making a 

determination of whether existing 

energy conservation standards do not 

need to be amended, DOE considers the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product compared to any increase in the 

price of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of, the covered 

product that are likely to result from a 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A)(referencing 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2))) Additionally, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

prescribed by the Secretary for any type 

(or class) of covered product shall be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency which 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2(A) Cost-effectiveness is one of 

the factors that DOE must ultimately 

consider under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) 

to support a finding of economic 

justification, if it is determined that 

amended standards are appropriate 

under the applicable statutory criteria. 

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

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE performed for this proposed 

determination regarding microwave 

ovens. Separate subsections address 

components of DOE’s analyses as 

performed for the June 2013 Final Rule. 

DOE used a national impact analysis 

methodology and calculated the NES 

expected to result from potential energy 

conservation standards. 

A. Active Mode Standards 

As part of the January 2018 RFI, DOE 

requested information on the feasibility 

of establishing an active mode test 

procedure for microwave ovens, 

including convection microwave ovens. 

83 FR 2566, 2570. Similarly, in the 

August 2019 RFI, DOE requested 

comment and information on whether 

standards for microwave ovens in active 

mode were justified and on the 

feasibility of incorporating active mode, 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

into a single standard if DOE were to 

develop an active mode test procedure. 

84 FR 39980, 39983. 

In response to the August 2019 RFI, 

DOE received several comments related 

to active mode energy conservation 

standards. GE Appliances stated that 

there is no justification for active mode 

energy conservation standards due to 

the insufficient energy savings and lack 

of economic benefit. (GE Appliances, 

No. 5 at p. 2) GE Appliances and AHAM 

also stated that no other country 

currently requires active mode testing 

for microwave oven energy conservation 

standards, with AHAM adding that a 

requirement for active mode 

measurement would put the United 

States at odds with other countries, be 

unduly burdensome, and would require 

5–6 times the current test time. (GE 

Appliances, No. 5 at p. 2 and AHAM, 

No. 6 at p. 2) AHAM stated that if DOE 

were to amend the test procedure to 

address active mode energy use, DOE 

would need to seek information again 

on energy conservation standards for 

microwave ovens as the test procedure 

affects the standards analysis. (AHAM 

No. 5, at p. 2) 

AHAM further commented that it 

does not believe that standards would 

be justified for active mode because, to 

AHAM’s knowledge, there is no 

technology currently available to reduce 

energy use in the active mode for either 

microwave-only ovens or convection 

microwave ovens. AHAM stated that 

there is no evidence to indicate that 

DOE’s prior analysis and determination 

in the April 2009 Final Rule that active 

mode standards for microwave ovens 

would not be economically justified 

would be different today. The CA IOUs 

provided comments in support of 

incorporating active mode energy usage 

into microwave oven efficiency 

standards, stating that active mode 

accounts for 80 percent of annualized 

unit energy consumption for microwave 

ovens. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3) ASAP 

and CEC encouraged DOE to adopt an 

active mode test procedure for 

microwave ovens, stating that active 

mode energy consumption is almost 90 

percent of the total annual energy 

consumption for microwave ovens, and 

that there is significant variation in 

active mode energy use among models. 

ASAP and CEC added that it likely is 

not technically feasibility to incorporate 

active mode, standby mode, and off 

mode into a single energy use metric. 

(ASAP and CEC, No. 8 at p. 1) 

As stated, the DOE test procedure 

does not measure active mode energy 

use of microwave ovens. DOE 

considered in the most recent 

microwave oven test procedure 

rulemaking whether to adopt provisions 

for measuring the energy use of 

microwave ovens in active mode. In the 

November 2019 TP NOPR, DOE made 

an initial determination that an active 

mode measurement for microwave 

ovens would be unduly burdensome at 

this time due to the expected increase 

in testing cost resulting from increased 

testing time and the potential need for 

new laboratory equipment and facility 

upgrades that would not be justified. 84 

FR 61838. Therefore, DOE did not 

propose an active mode test procedure 

in the November 2019 TP NOPR. 

Accordingly, DOE did not consider 

energy conservation standards for active 

mode energy use of microwave ovens in 

this NOPD. 

Additionally, consistent with 

AHAM’s comment, DOE is unaware of 

changes to the market or available 

technology that would suggest DOE’s 

previous determination in the April 

2009 Final Rule that an energy 

conservation standard for microwave 

oven active mode would not be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified would be 

different at the present time. See 74 FR 

16040, 16087. 

B. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this proposed 

determination include (1) a 

determination of the scope and product 

classes, (2) manufacturers and industry 

structure, (3) existing efficiency 

programs, (4) shipments information, (5) 

market and industry trends, and (6) 

technologies or design options that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

microwave ovens. The key findings of 

DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

1. Scope of Coverage and Product 

Classes 

In this analysis, DOE relied on the 

definition of microwave ovens in 10 

CFR 430.2, which defines ‘‘microwave 

oven’’ as household cooking appliances 

consisting of a compartment designed to 

cook or heat food by means of 

microwave energy, including 

microwave ovens with or without 

thermal elements designed for surface 

browning of food and convection 

microwave ovens. This includes any 

microwave oven components of a 

combined cooking product. Any 

product meeting the definition of 

microwave oven is included in DOE’s 

scope of coverage. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44304 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

considered the two product classes of 

microwave ovens prescribed in the 

current energy conservation standards: 

(1) Microwave-Only Ovens and 

Countertop Convection Microwave 

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

Section IV.B.4 of this document 

describes the two product classes in 

additional detail. 

As previously stated in section III.B of 

this document, for these two classes of 

microwave ovens, DOE’s current test 

procedure measures the energy 

consumption in standby mode and off 

mode only. Consequently, DOE’s 

current energy conservation standards 

for microwave ovens are also expressed 

in terms of standby mode and off mode 

power. There are currently no active 

mode energy conservation standards nor 

a prescribed test procedure for 

measuring the active mode energy use 

or efficiency (e.g., cooking efficiency) of 

microwave ovens. 

GE Appliances stated that using the 

microwave oven standards to regulate 

combined cooking products would 

improperly regulate the non-microwave 

portion of the combined product. (GE 

Appliances, No. 5 at p. 2) AHAM stated 

that there is no technological method to 

accurately measure the standby mode 

and off mode power consumption of the 

microwave oven portion of a combined 

cooking product, as a combined cooking 

product typically has one power source. 

(AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) 

In a final rule published on August 

18, 2020 (‘‘August 2020 TP Final Rule), 

DOE withdrew the test procedure for 

conventional cooking tops, determining 

that it was not representative of energy 

use or efficiency during an average use 

cycle and was overly burdensome to 

conduct. 85 FR 50757. As part of the 

August 2020 TP Final Rule, DOE 

removed provisions for measuring the 

energy use of combined cooking 

products, which are household cooking 

appliances that combine a cooking 

product with other appliance 

functionality (e.g., microwave/ 

conventional cooking tops, microwave/ 

conventional ovens, and microwave/ 

conventional ranges.) Id. The current 

test procedure for measuring standby 

mode and off mode power consumption 

for microwave ovens excludes the 

microwave oven component of a 

combined cooking product. Appendix I, 

Section 3.2.1. 

DOE also received several comments 

related to microwave ovens equipped 

with connected functionality in 

response to the August 2019 RFI. EEI 

stated that DOE should update the 

current microwave oven standby mode 

requirements to account for new 

technologies, including the integration 

of ‘‘smart’’ devices with demand 

response functionality. (EEI, No. 4 at p. 

2) EEI stated that, to the extent that 

energy use of a ‘‘connected’’ function is 

measured, the current energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

ovens may impede the inclusion of such 

functions. Id. EEI suggested DOE should 

revise the microwave oven standby 

power requirements to contain three 

categories of microwave oven operation: 

standby and non-connected, standby 

and connected, and standby and 

disconnected. (EEI, No. 3 at p. 2) AHAM 

urged DOE not to revise the microwave 

oven test procedure or standards to 

account for the energy consumed while 

performing connected functions to 

avoid stifling innovation and potential 

energy saving benefits. (AHAM, No. 6 at 

p. 7) Based on a review of manufacturer 

websites and user manuals of various 

appliances, as well as testing conducted 

at DOE and third-party laboratories, 

connected features continue to be 

implemented in a variety of ways across 

different brands. Further, the design and 

operation of these features is 

continuously evolving as the market 

continues to grow for these products. 

Because there are a lack of available 

data to establish a representative test 

configuration for assessing the energy 

consumption of network functionality 

for microwave ovens, DOE, in the 

August 2021 TP SNOPR, proposed 

explicit language to generally require 

network functions to be disabled during 

testing. 86 FR 41759. As such, DOE is 

not addressing energy consumption 

specific to connected functions in this 

proposed determination. 

2. Technology Options 

To develop a list of technology 

options, DOE uses information about 

existing and past technology options 

and prototype designs to help identify 

technologies that manufacturers could 

use to meet and/or exceed a given set of 

energy conservation standards under 

consideration. 

In the August 2019 RFI, DOE 

identified several technology options 

that would be expected to reduce the 

energy consumption of microwave 

ovens in standby mode and off mode, as 

measured by the DOE test procedure. 84 

FR 39980, 39984–39985. 

TABLE IV–1—MICROWAVE OVEN TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Mode Technology option 

Standby ........................................... Lower-power display technologies. 

Standby ........................................... Cooking sensors with no standby power requirement. 

Standby ........................................... Improved power supply and control board options. 

Standby ........................................... Automatic power-down of most power-consuming components, including the clock display. 

3. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following five screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in working 

prototypes will not be considered 

further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the projected compliance 

date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If it is determined 

that a technology would have significant 

adverse impact on the utility of the 

product to significant subgroups of 

consumers or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If it is determined that a 

technology would have significant 

adverse impacts on health or safety, it 

will not be considered further. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44305 

7 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is 

available for review at https://

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ 

products.html (accessed on October 17, 2019). 

(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary 

Technologies. If a design option utilizes 

proprietary technology that represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, that technology will not 

be considered further. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b). In summary, 

if DOE determines that a technology, or 

a combination of technologies, fails to 

meet one or more of the listed five 

criteria, it will be excluded from further 

consideration in the engineering 

analysis. 

Regarding impacts of technology 

options on costs, DOE does not consider 

cost as a factor for screening out 

technology options. DOE considers the 

economic impacts and costs on 

individual customers, manufacturers, 

and the nation in later analyses. 

DOE received several comments on 

technology options in response to the 

August 2019 RFI. Whirlpool stated that 

all feasible technology options are 

currently used in microwave ovens to 

meet DOE’s current energy conservation 

standards. (Whirlpool, No. 3 at p. 1) GE 

Appliances stated that all available and 

economically feasible technologies are 

being used in microwave ovens. (GE 

Appliances, No. 5 at p. 2) AHAM 

commented that all technology options 

are being employed to meet current 

energy conservation standards, and that 

it is not aware of any new technologies 

that increase the efficiency of 

microwave ovens without decreasing 

consumer utility. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) 

AHAM also stated that most microwave 

ovens on the market are minimally 

compliant with the current standards, 

and that these units are already using 

the available technology options. 

(AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) Whirlpool stated 

that additional reduction in standby 

mode power consumption would 

jeopardize key functionalities 

demanded by consumers, would be 

technologically impractical, and would 

be cost prohibitive. (Whirlpool, No. 3 at 

p. 1) CA IOUs urged DOE to investigate 

more stringent microwave oven standby 

mode standards, stating that there is 

evidence that technological limitations 

have changed since the last rulemaking. 

The CA IOUs commented that 33 

percent of microwave-only ovens and 

countertop convection microwave ovens 

and 11 percent of built-in and over-therange convection microwave ovens are 

performing better than the current 

standards. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 1) 

ASAP and CEC commented that there 

are a range of potential intermediate 

efficiency levels between the current 

standards and the max-tech levels from 

the previous final rule, citing data from 

DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Database,7 which shows that for 

microwave-only and countertop 

convection microwave ovens, the 

models with the lowest standby power 

consumption consume just 0.10–0.19 W 

and for built-in and over-the-range 

convection microwave ovens, the 

models with the lowest standby power 

consumption consume 0.50–0.59 W. 

DOE notes that nearly 30 percent of 

microwave-only ovens and countertop 

convection microwave ovens and 20 

percent of built-in and over-the-range 

convection microwave ovens certified in 

the Compliance Certification Database 

exceed the minimum requirements for 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

(i.e., have standby power consumption 

that is lower than the applicable 

standard). The Compliance Certification 

Database data indicates that technology 

options to achieve efficiencies higher 

than the current DOE standard readily 

exists without jeopardizing key 

functionalities. Consistent with the 

screening criteria previously discussed, 

DOE’s engineering analysis considered 

technologies that are technologically 

feasible and that do not have significant 

adverse impacts on the utility of the 

microwave ovens to significant 

subgroups of consumers or that would 

result in the unavailability of any 

microwave oven with performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as 

products generally available in the 

United States. 

a. Screened-Out Technologies 

As discussed, DOE takes into account 

whether a technology option will 

adversely impact consumer utility and 

product availability. In response to the 

August 2019 RFI, GE Appliances stated 

that clock displays are a critical 

function of microwave ovens. (GE 

Appliances, No. 5 at p. 2) Similarly, 

AHAM stated that an automatic powerdown feature that shuts off the clock 

display decreases consumer utility, and 

that maintaining the clock display is 

critical. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6) 

DOE has previously stated it is 

uncertain how greatly consumers value 

the function of a continuous display 

clock, but that loss of such function may 

result in significant loss of consumer 

utility. 78 FR 36316, 36362. Consistent 

with this prior concern and with 

comments provided by AHAM, DOE has 

screened out ‘‘automatic power-down’’ 

as a technology option due to its impact 

on consumer utility. 

b. Remaining Technologies 

After reviewing each technology, DOE 

did not screen out the following 

technology options and considers them 

as design options in the engineering 

analysis: 

(1) Lower-power display technologies 

(2) Cooking sensors with no standby 

power requirement 

(3) Improved power supply and control 

board options 

AHAM stated that cooking and 

humidity sensors identified by DOE take 

longer to re-energize, pre-condition, and 

calibrate, and are not applicable for the 

on-demand operational requirements of 

microwave ovens. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 

5) 

In the June 2013 Final Rule, DOE 

concluded that cooking sensors are a 

viable design option for reducing 

microwave oven standby power 

consumption. 78 FR 36316, 36331. 

Interviews with microwave oven 

manufacturers and cooking sensor 

manufacturers and DOE’s own research 

at the time confirmed that cooking 

sensors that are able to energize in a 

period of time that is small (5–10 

seconds) compared to the duration of 

the cooking cycle had already been 

successfully deployed in commercially 

available products with no reliability 

concerns, and little to no cost premiums 

and impact on consumer utility. Id. 

AHAM provided no more than a 

generalized statement as to the 

operation of such sensors and DOE has 

no indication that its prior 

consideration and determination of such 

sensors are no longer valid. As such, 

DOE included such cooking sensors in 

its analysis. 

DOE also tentatively finds that all of 

the remaining technology options meet 

the other screening criteria (i.e., 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service; do not result in adverse impacts 

on consumer utility, product 

availability, health, or safety; and are 

not a proprietary technology providing 

a unique pathway). 

4. Product Classes 

In general, when evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides the covered 

product into classes by (1) the type of 

energy used; (2) the capacity of the 

product; or (3) any other performancerelated feature that affects energy 

efficiency and justifies different 

standard levels, considering factors such 

as consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44306 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

a. Existing Product Classes 

For microwave ovens, the current 

energy conservation standards specified 

in 10 CFR 430.32(j)(3) are based on two 

product classes determined according to 

the following performance-related 

features that provide utility to the 

consumer, in terms of locations where 

the product may be installed and 

availability of additional cooking 

functions: Intended installation (i.e., 

countertop, built-in, or over-the-range) 

and presence of convection heating 

components. The two existing product 

classes are listed below. 

(1) Microwave-Only Ovens and 

Countertop Convection Microwave 

Ovens 

(2) Built-In and Over-the-Range 

Convection Microwave Ovens 

b. Additional Product Classes 

AHAM stated that there is no need to 

merge existing product classes or create 

additional product classes for 

microwave ovens currently. (AHAM, 

No. 6 at p. 3) DOE did not identify any 

additional product classes for 

microwave ovens based on (1) the type 

of energy used, (2) the capacity of the 

product, or (3) any other performancerelated feature that affects energy 

efficiency and justifies different 

standard levels. Further, DOE did not 

identify any rationale to merge the 

existing product classes. Accordingly, 

DOE’s analysis is based on the two 

existing product classes. 

c. Summary 

In summary, DOE assesses the 

product classes shown in the following 

list in its analysis. 

(1) Microwave-Only Ovens and 

Countertop Convection Microwave 

Ovens 

(2) Built-In and Over-the-Range 

Convection Microwave Ovens 

C. Engineering Analysis 

In the engineering analysis, DOE 

establishes the relationship between the 

manufacturer production cost (‘‘MPC’’) 

and improved microwave oven 

efficiency. There are two dimensions to 

consider in the engineering analysis; the 

selection of efficiency levels to analyze 

(i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 

determination of product cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of microwave ovens that 

use less power, DOE considers 

technologies and design option 

combinations not eliminated by the 

screening analysis. For each product 

class, DOE estimates the baseline 

manufacturer cost, as well as the 

incremental cost for the product at 

efficiency levels above the baseline. The 

output of the engineering analysis is a 

set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are 

used in downstream analyses. 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the Engineering Analysis: (1) 

Relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to interpolate and define ‘‘gapfill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between 

other identified efficiency levels) and/or 

to extrapolate to the max-tech level (the 

level that DOE determines is the 

maximum achievable efficiency level, 

particularly in cases where the max-tech 

level exceeds the maximum efficiency 

level currently available on the market). 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

applied a combination of the efficiencylevel approach and the design level 

approach. For microwave-only ovens 

and countertop convection microwave 

ovens (‘‘Product Class 1’’), the standby 

power consumption at each efficiency 

level were initially derived from review 

of the DOE Compliance Certification 

Database and comparison to the levels 

from the June 2013 Final Rule. 78 FR 

36316, 36317. The baseline standby 

power level, EL 0, is equal to the current 

standard of 1.0 W. To develop EL 1, 

which is 0.84 W, DOE purchased and 

evaluated countertop microwave-only 

ovens with a more efficient power 

supply. DOE analyzed two 

representative units: One that just meets 

the current standard of 1.0 W and 

another that has a lower standby power 

consumption. The two units otherwise 

share similar design characteristics such 

as cooking mode power, cavity size and 

installation configuration (i.e. both were 

countertop microwave-only ovens). In 

testing, DOE measured each of the 

internal power supply units’ no-load 

power consumption, which is the power 

consumption with all other components 

disconnected. The first representative 

unit that just meets DOE’s current 

standards had a no-load power 

consumption of 0.3 W, while the second 

unit had a 0.14 W no-load power 

consumption. DOE estimated that the 

difference between these two units (i.e., 

0.16 W) is the direct consequence of 

implementing an improved power 

supply. DOE, therefore, subtracted this 

value from the current 1.0 W standard 

to produce an EL 1 at 0.84 W that 

represents a microwave oven with an 

upgraded internal power supply. For 

Product Class 1, DOE determined that 

this EL 1 is also the max-tech level. DOE 

had previously identified a max-tech 

efficiency level based on automatic 

power-down as the technology option in 

the June 2013 Final Rule, with a 

corresponding standby power 

consumption of 0.02 W. 78 FR 36316, 

36325. In the analysis for this NOPD, 

however, this technology option was 

screened out for the reasons discussed 

in section IV.B.3.a of this document. 

For the built-in and over-the-range 

convection microwave ovens product 

class (‘‘Product Class 2’’), the baseline 

standby power consumption used for 

the analysis at EL 0 is the current DOE 

standard of 2.2 W. This maximum 

allowable average standby power 

consumption is higher than that allowed 

for microwave-only ovens and 

countertop convection microwave ovens 

because, in the June 2013 Final Rule, 

DOE had concluded that built-in and 

over-the-range convection microwave 

ovens require a larger power supply to 

support additional features such as an 

exhaust fan, additional relays, and 

additional lights, and that the larger 

power supply contributes to a higher 

standby power consumption. 78 FR 

36316, 36328. Nonetheless, because 

consumer utility of the microwave oven 

in standby mode is similar for both 

product classes, DOE expects that the 

available design options for reducing 

standby power consumption would be 

similar. From market data, DOE 

observed a large percentage of built-in 

and over-the-range convection 

microwave oven models at or below the 

1.0 W level. Given the prevalence of 

such products, DOE expects that all 

products in Product Class 2 could meet 

the 1.0 W level by using the same 

improved power supply design as in EL 

1 for Product Class 1. Even though EL 

1 for Product Class 1 is at 0.84 W, DOE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44307 

expects the larger power supply needed 

for Product Class 2 microwave ovens 

would only allow these products to 

achieve 1.0 W using the same power 

supply design. Furthermore, similar to 

Product Class 1, the previous max-tech 

level that had been identified in the 

June 2013 Final Rule for built-in and 

over-the-range convection microwave 

ovens based on an automatic powerdown feature was removed due to 

concerns over consumer utility. DOE, 

therefore, analyzed 1.0 W as the maxtech level for this product class (in this 

case, EL 2, because as discussed, DOE 

also evaluated a gap-fill level for 

Product Class 2 that it designated as EL 

1). 

For the gap-fill EL 1 in Product Class 

2, DOE analyzed a standby power level 

at 1.16 W, which represents a built-in 

and over-the-range convection 

microwave oven with less efficient 

power supplies, albeit of the same type 

as analyzed at max-tech. DOE estimated 

the standby power consumption for this 

EL 1 by adding the difference in wattage 

between an efficient and inefficient 

power supply’s no-load consumption 

previously determined for Product Class 

1 (i.e., 0.16 W) to the 1.0 W standby 

power consumption of the Product Class 

2 max-tech level. DOE used this 

approach because the improvements 

needed to make the power supply more 

efficient would be nearly identical for 

both product classes. Since both 

Product Class 2, EL 2 and Product Class 

1, EL 1 utilizes the same power supply 

efficiency improvements, removing the 

improvements results in the baseline 

power supply design of Product Class 1. 

DOE therefore determined that for 

Product Class 2, EL 1 standby levels can 

be readily achieved using the Product 

Class 1 baseline power supply. 

For both product classes, DOE tested 

and tore down additional microwave 

ovens with standby power 

consumptions that are lower than the 

max-tech values established in this 

rulemaking. DOE was, however, unable 

to isolate further technology options 

that resulted in the improved standby 

power consumption of these models 

other than automatic power-down. 

In summary, DOE analyzed the 

following efficiency levels for this 

NOPD: 

TABLE IV–2—ANALYZED EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR MICROWAVE-ONLY OVENS AND COUNTERTOP CONVECTION MICROWAVE

OVENS

Efficiency level Standby power level source Standby power 

(W) 

Baseline .................................................... Baseline (current standard) .......................................................................................... 1.00 

1 ................................................................ Improved Power Supply (Max-Tech) ........................................................................... 0.84 

TABLE IV–3—ANALYZED EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR BUILT-IN AND OVER-THE-RANGE CONVECTION MICROWAVE OVENS

Efficiency level Standby power level source Standby power 

(W) 

Baseline .................................................... Baseline (current standard) .......................................................................................... 2.20 

1 ................................................................ Standard Power Supply ............................................................................................... 1.16 

2 ................................................................ Improved Power Supply (Max-Tech) ........................................................................... 1.00 

The cost analysis portion of the 

Engineering Analysis is conducted 

using one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, and availability 

and timeliness of purchasing the 

product on the market. The cost 

approaches are summarized as: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials (‘‘BOM’’) for 

the product. 

• Catalogue teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the BOM for the product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalogue teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as light-emitting diode (‘‘LED’’) 

bulbs, which are infeasible to 

disassemble and for which parts 

diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g. large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the present case, after establishing 

the efficiency levels, DOE estimated the 

MPC of attaining each efficiency level 

based on the technology options 

identified for that level (i.e., physical 

tear downs). The MPC takes into 

account the costs for materials, labor, 

depreciation, and overhead. These 

values were developed based on 

product teardowns that generated BOMs 

for components and manufacturing 

processes which contribute directly to 

standby power consumptions. DOE uses 

these BOMs, along with information on 

material and component prices, costs for 

labor, depreciation, and overhead to 

derive the MPC. For this analysis, the 

primary component of interest was the 

control board and its associated power 

supply unit. 

For microwave-only ovens and 

countertop convection microwave 

ovens, DOE calculated the difference in 

manufacturing cost between a standard 

and improved power supply from BOM 

analysis and found the cost difference to 

be $0.16. 

For Product Class 2, DOE modeled EL 

1 using the same power supply design 

and cost as in the baseline products for 

Product Class 1. The overall teardown 

costs of these power supplies were on 

the order of $0.70, and DOE estimated 

that these power supplies could be used 

with near-zero differential cost in 

Product Class 2, noting that the slightly 

larger power supply requirement of 

Product Class 2 would not result in a 

measurable cost increase. DOE therefore 

applied the same incremental 

manufacturing cost to Product Class 2, 

EL 1 as Product Class 1, EL 0 (i.e. $0). 

Similarly, DOE modeled EL 2 for 

Product Class 2 as utilizing the same 

efficiency improvements made to the 

baseline power supply of Product Class 

1 and therefore applied the same 

incremental cost of $0.16. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44308 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

8U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2013–06–17 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Standby Mode and Off Mode for 

Microwave Ovens; Final Rule. https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BTSTD-0048-0027. 

9U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2013–06–17 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Standby Mode and Off Mode for 

Microwave Ovens; Final Rule. https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BTSTD-0048-0027. 

10CALMAC Study ID: SCE0360.01. 2014. 

Literature Review of Miscellaneous Energy Loads 

(MELs) in Residential Buildings. https://

www.calmac.org/publications/MEL_Literature_

Review_6_10_14.pdf. 

TABLE IV–4—ANALYZED EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND INCREMENTAL COSTS FOR MICROWAVE-ONLY OVENS AND COUNTERTOP

CONVECTION MICROWAVE OVENS

Efficiency level Standby power level source Standby power 

(W) 

Incremental 

MPC 

(2019$) 

Baseline ........................................... Baseline (current standard) ....................................................................... 1.00 ........................

1 ....................................................... Improved Power Supply (Max-Tech) ........................................................ 0.84 $ 0.16 

TABLE IV–5—ANALYZED EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND INCREMENTAL COSTS FOR BUILT-IN AND OVER-THE-RANGE

CONVECTION MICROWAVE OVENS

Efficiency level Standby power level source Standby power 

(W) 

Incremental 

MPC 

($2019) 

Baseline ........................................... Baseline (current standard) ....................................................................... 2.20 ........................

1 ....................................................... Standard Power Supply ............................................................................ 1.16 $ 0 

2 ....................................................... Improved Power Supply (Max-Tech) ........................................................ 1.00 0.16 

D. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of microwave 

ovens at different efficiencies in 

representative U.S. single-family homes, 

multi-family residences, and 

manufactured homes, and to assess the 

energy savings potential of increased 

microwave oven efficiency. The energy 

use analysis estimates the range of 

energy use of microwave ovens in the 

field (i.e., as they are actually used by 

consumers). The energy use analysis 

provides the basis for other analyses 

DOE performed, particularly 

assessments of the energy savings and 

the savings in consumer operating costs 

that could result from adoption of 

amended or new standards. 

For this NOPD, DOE used the same 

methodology as that described in 

chapter 7 of the June 2013 Final Rule 

technical support document (‘‘TSD’’).8

DOE primarily used data from the 

Energy Information Administration 

(‘‘EIA’’)’s Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS’’). RECS is 

a national sample survey of housing 

units that collects statistical information 

on the consumption of and expenditures 

for energy in housing units, along with 

data on energy-related characteristics of 

the housing units and occupants. RECS 

was constructed by EIA to be a national 

representation of the household 

population in the United States. For the 

June 2013 Final Rule, DOE used 

RECS2009.9 For this NOPD, DOE 

updated the household sample to 

RECS2015. RECS2015 includes data 

specific to microwave oven use 

frequency, whereas RECS2009 

frequency usage was estimated from 

overall numbers of cooked meals. 

For each household, RECS2015 

provides information on the frequency 

of microwave oven usage per week. DOE 

calculated the RECS usage factor for 

each household in the sample by 

multiplying the frequency of use by 52 

weeks per year and dividing by the 

weighted-average usage based on the 

entire RECS sample. The weightedaverage usage was calculated by 

summing the average microwave use 

frequency per week as reported in RECS 

and multiplying by 52 weeks per year 

and by the housing record weight before 

dividing by the sum of housing record 

weights for the housing sample. 

DOE determined the annual energy 

consumption of the standby mode and 

off mode of microwave ovens by 

estimating the number of hours of 

operation throughout the year and 

assuming that the unit would be in 

standby mode and off mode the rest of 

the time. For the June 2013 Final Rule, 

DOE determined the average hours of 

operation for microwaves to be 44.9 

hours per year. DOE subtracted the 

number of calculated operating hours 

from the total number of hours in a year 

and multiplied that difference by the 

standby mode power usage at each 

efficiency level to determine annual 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption. 

CA IOUs stated that microwave ovens 

spend approximately 53 hours annually 

in active mode. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 

3) DOE reviewed CA IOU’s 2014 

study 10 and found the sample size to be 

relatively small at 122 households and 

geographically limited, as compared to 

RECS. DOE acknowledges the benefit of 

using field-metered studies for energy 

use; however, DOE concluded that a 

larger study with greater geographic area 

would be helpful before amending the 

active hours used. 

Chapter 7 of the June 2013 Final Rule 

TSD provides details on DOE’s energy 

use analysis for microwave ovens. 

E. National Energy Savings 

For the present analysis, DOE 

projected the energy savings, over the 

lifetime of microwave ovens sold from 

2024 through 2053. DOE evaluates the 

effects of new or amended standards by 

comparing a case without such 

standards with standards-case 

projections. The no-new-standards case 

characterizes energy use for each 

microwave oven class in the absence of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. For this projection, DOE 

considers historical trends in efficiency 

and various forces that are likely to 

affect the mix of efficiencies over time. 

DOE compares the no-new-standards 

case with projections characterizing the 

market for each microwave oven class if 

DOE adopted new or amended 

standards at specific energy efficiency 

levels (i.e., the standards cases) for that 

class. For the standards cases, DOE 

considers how a given standard would 

likely affect the market shares of 

microwave oven with efficiencies 

greater than the standard. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44309 

11U.S. Energy Information Administration, 

Annual Energy Outlook 2019. https://www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/archive/aeo19/. 

For the June 2013 Final Rule, DOE 

used a methodology consistent with the 

national impact analysis to calculate the 

energy savings from each EL. 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the national 

energy savings analysis is the trend in 

energy efficiency projected for the nonew-standards case and each of the 

standards cases. To accurately estimate 

the share of consumers that would be 

affected by a potential energy 

conservation standard at a particular 

efficiency level, DOE’s analysis 

considered the projected distribution 

(market shares) of product efficiencies 

under the no-new-standards case (i.e., 

the case without amended or new 

energy conservation standards). 

To estimate the energy efficiency 

distribution for microwave oven 

standby power, DOE used the same 

methodology as presented in the June 

2013 Final Rule TSD and updated the 

model counts from the Compliance 

Certification Management System. The 

estimated market shares for the no-newstandards case for microwave ovens are 

shown in Table IV–6. See chapter 8 of 

the June 2013 Final Rule TSD for further 

information on the derivation of the 

efficiency distributions. 

TABLE IV–6—EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS: NO-NEW-STANDARDS-CASE MARKET SHARES IN 2019 

Microwave-only and countertop convection microwave ovens Built-in and over-the-range convection microwave ovens 

Standard level Standby power 

(W) 

Market share 

(%) Standard 

level 

Standby power 

(W) 

Market share 

(%) 

Baseline ................................................................................. 1.00 78.38 Baseline ....... 2.20 81.25 

1 ............................................................................................. 0.84 21.62 1 ................... 1.16 0.00 

2 ................... 1.00 18.75 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

year that standards are assumed to 

become effective. In this scenario, the 

market shares of products in the nonew-standards case that do not meet the 

standard under consideration would 

‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new standard 

level, and the market share of products 

above the standard would remain 

unchanged. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The NES analysis involves a 

comparison of national energy 

consumption of the considered products 

between each potential standards case 

and the case with no new or amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

calculated the national energy 

consumption by multiplying the 

number of units (stock) of each product 

(by vintage or age) by the unit energy 

consumption (also by vintage). DOE 

calculated annual NES based on the 

difference in national energy 

consumption for the no-new-standards 

case and for each higher efficiency 

standard case. DOE estimated energy 

consumption and savings based on site 

energy and converted the electricity 

consumption and savings to primary 

energy (i.e., the energy consumed by 

power plants to generate site electricity) 

using annual conversion factors derived 

from the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration’s Annual Energy 

Outlook 2019. 11 Cumulative energy 

savings are the sum of the NES for each 

year over the timeframe of the analysis. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

In evaluating cost-effectiveness, DOE 

typically conducts life-cycle cost 

(‘‘LCC’’) and payback period (‘‘PBP’’) 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for microwave ovens. The effect of new 

or amended energy conservation 

standards on individual consumers 

usually involves a reduction in 

operating cost and an increase in 

purchase cost. DOE uses the following 

two metrics to measure consumer 

impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an appliance or product over 

the life of that product, consisting of 

total installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the product. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

the LCC in the no-new-standards case, 

which reflects the estimated efficiency 

distribution of microwave ovens in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In contrast, the 

PBP for a given efficiency level is 

measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

One input to the LCC analysis is the 

repair and maintenance cost. AHAM 

stated that LED and liquid crystal 

display (‘‘LCD’’) technologies are more 

expensive and could result in higher 

repair and maintenance costs for the 

consumer. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6) AHAM 

also stated that LED and LCD displays 

have lower reliability compared to 

vacuum fluorescent displays (‘‘VFDs’’), 

especially in high temperature over-therange conditions. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) 

GE Appliances stated that there are no 

existing over-the-range microwave 

ovens using LCD technology due to 

extreme temperature conditions. They 

also indicated that previous GE 

Appliances over-the-range microwave 

ovens with an LCD screen are no longer 

being produced due to quality issues 

related to LCD screen heat exposure. 

(GE Appliances, No. 5 at p. 2) 

As discussed in section V of this 

document, DOE has initially determined 

that the amended energy conservation 

standards for microwave ovens would 

not result in significant energy savings 

as required by EPCA. As such, DOE did 

not conduct the LCC and PBP analyses. 

Therefore, DOE considers the comments 

from AHAM and GE Appliances 

regarding the repair costs related to LED 

and LCD technologies moot. 

V. Conclusions 

As required by EPCA, this NOPD 

analyzes whether the Secretary should 

issue a notification of determination not 

to amend standards for microwave 

ovens based on DOE’s consideration of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44310 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

whether amended standards would be 

technologically feasible, result in 

significant conservation of energy, and 

be cost-effective. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) 

Any new or amended standards issued 

by the Secretary would be required to 

comply with the economic justification 

and other requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). 

A. Technological Feasibility 

EPCA mandates that DOE consider 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards for microwave ovens would 

be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has tentatively 

determined that there are technology 

options that would improve the 

efficiency of microwave ovens. These 

technology options are being used in 

commercially available microwave 

ovens and therefore are technologically 

feasible. (See section IV.B.2 of this 

document for further information.) 

Hence, DOE has tentatively determined 

that amended energy conservation 

standards for microwave ovens are 

technologically feasible. 

B. Significant Conservation of Energy 

EPCA also mandates that DOE 

consider whether amended energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

oven standby power would result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(A)) 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential amended 

standards for microwave ovens, DOE 

compared their energy consumption 

under the no-new-standards case to 

their anticipated energy consumption 

under each potential standard level. The 

savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of products purchased in the 

30-year period that begins in the year of 

anticipated compliance with amended 

standards (2024–2053). 

DOE analyzed the energy savings of 

two potential standards levels (‘‘PSLs’’) 

for microwave ovens (see Table V–1). 

The PSLs were derived from the energy 

efficiency levels for microwave ovens 

that DOE developed in engineering 

analysis. For this NOPD, PSL 1 

represents the max-tech level for 

microwave-only ovens and countertop 

convection microwave ovens and an 

efficiency level above the baseline 

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

2 represents the max-tech level for 

standby power for both product classes. 

TABLE V–1—POTENTIAL STANDARD

LEVELS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN

STANDBY POWER

PSL 

Standby power (W) 

Product class 1: 

microwave-only 

and countertop 

convection 

microwave ovens 

Product class 2: 

built-in and overthe-range 

convection 

microwave ovens 

1 ........ 0.84 1.16 

2 ........ 0.84 1.00 

Table V–2 presents DOE’s projections 

of the NES for each potential standard 

level considered for microwave ovens. 

TABLE V–2—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL

ENERGY SAVINGS FOR MICROWAVE

OVENS

Potential standard 

level 

1 2 

Quads 

Site energy savings .. 0.01 0.01 

Primary energy ......... 0.03 0.03 

FFC energy ............... 0.03 0.03 

TABLE V–3—PERCENTAGE REDUCTION

IN ENERGY USE

Percent of energy 

reduction 

Potential standards 

level 

1 

(%) 

2 

(%) 

Site energy savings .. 7.9 8.0 

DOE estimates that amended 

standards for microwave oven standby 

power would result in energy savings of 

0.01 quads at PSL 2, the max-tech level, 

which is under the 0.3-quads threshold 

currently provided in Section 6(b)(3) of 

the Process Rule. Additionally, DOE 

estimates that the percentage reduction 

in standby power energy use at PSL 2, 

the max-tech level, is 8 percent over the 

30-year analysis period, which is under 

the 10-percent threshold currently 

provided in Section 6(b)(4) of the 

Process Rule. (See results in Table V–3). 

Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that amended energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

oven standby power would not result in 

significant conservation of energy. 

C. Cost-Effectiveness 

DOE did not conduct an evaluation of 

the cost-effectiveness of amended 

standards for microwave ovens. As 

stated, DOE has tentatively determined 

that amended standards would not 

result in significant energy savings as 

required by EPCA. Absent the necessary 

energy savings, DOE is prohibited from 

establishing amended standards 

regardless of the cost-effectiveness of 

such standards. As such, DOE did not 

consider further the cost-effectiveness of 

amended standards. 

D. Summary 

Based on DOE’s tentative 

determination that amended energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

oven standby power would not result in 

significant conservation of energy, DOE 

has tentatively determined that energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

oven standby power do not need to be 

amended. DOE will consider all 

comments received on this proposed 

determination in issuing any final 

determination. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

This proposed determination has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

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

a result, the Office of Management and 

Budget (‘‘OMB’’) did not review this 

proposed determination. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (https://energy.gov/ 

gc/office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed this proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. Because DOE is 

proposing not to amend standards for 

microwave ovens, if adopted, the 

determination would not amend any 

energy conservation standards. On the 

basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44311 

the proposed determination, if adopted, 

would have no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared an IRFA for this proposed 

determination. DOE will transmit this 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of microwave ovens 

must certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. To certify 

compliance, manufacturers must first 

obtain test data for their products 

according to the DOE test procedures, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including microwave ovens. (See 

generally 10 CFR part 429.) The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed action 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for actions which 

are interpretations or rulings with 

respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, appendix A4. DOE 

anticipates that this action qualifies for 

categorical exclusion A4 because it is an 

interpretation or ruling regarding an 

existing regulation and otherwise meets 

the requirements for application of a 

categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 

1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA 

review before issuing the final action. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed determination 

and has tentatively determined that it 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of this proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no 

further action is required by E.O. 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this proposed 

determination meets the relevant 

standards of E.O. 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

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

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at https://energy.gov/sites/ 

prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_

97.pdf. 

This proposed determination does not 

contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector. As a result, the analytical 

requirements of UMRA do not apply. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44312 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

12 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Peer Review Report.’’ 2007. Available at https://

energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed determination would not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

determination would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 

2019/12/f70/DOE%20

Final%20Updated%20

IQA%20Guidelines%20

Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this NOPD under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

Executive Order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Because this proposed determination 

does not propose to amend energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

ovens, it is not a significant regulatory 

action, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator at OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a Peer Review report pertaining to the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking analyses.12 Generation of 

this report involved a rigorous, formal, 

and documented evaluation using 

objective criteria and qualified and 

independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/ 

business merit, the actual or anticipated 

results, and the productivity and 

management effectiveness of programs 

and/or projects. DOE has determined 

that the peer-reviewed analytical 

process continues to reflect current 

practice, and the Department followed 

that process for considering amended 

energy conservation standards in the 

case of the present action. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar are 

listed in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this document. If no 

participants register for the webinar 

then it will be cancelled. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

website: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/

standards.aspx?productid=33. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this document, or 

who is representative of a group or class 

of persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar. Requests may be sent by email 

to the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Office, 

Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585– 

0121, or 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and provide 

a telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons selected to make an 

oral presentation to submit an advance 

copy of their statements at least two 

weeks before the webinar. At its 

discretion, DOE may permit persons 

who cannot supply an advance copy of 

their statement to participate, if those 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44313 

persons have made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Office. As necessary, 

requests to give an oral presentation 

should ask for such alternative 

arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/public meeting 

and may also use a professional 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but 

DOE will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the webinar/public 

meeting. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public 

meeting and until the end of the 

comment period, interested parties may 

submit further comments on the 

proceedings and any aspect of the 

rulemaking. 

The webinar/public meeting will be 

conducted in an informal, conference 

style. DOE will present summaries of 

comments received before the webinar/ 

public meeting, allow time for prepared 

general statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar/public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar/public meeting. 

A transcript of the webinar/public 

meeting will be included in the docket, 

which can be viewed as described in the 

Docket section at the beginning of this 

document. In addition, any person may 

buy a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

determination no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this proposed 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this document. 

Submitting comments via https:// 

www.regulations.gov. The https:// 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to https:// 

www.regulations.gov information for 

which disclosure is restricted by statute, 

such as trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business 

Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments 

submitted through https:// 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through https://www.regulations.gov 

before posting. Normally, comments 

will be posted within a few days of 

being submitted. However, if large 

volumes of comments are being 

processed simultaneously, your 

comment may not be viewable for up to 

several weeks. Please keep the comment 

tracking number that https:// 

www.regulations.gov provides after you 

have successfully uploaded your 

comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to https:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. With this 

instruction followed, the cover letter 

will not be publicly viewable as long as 

it does not include any comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email, postal mail, or hand 

delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44314 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

DOE welcomes comments and views 

on any aspect of this proposal from all 

interested parties. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of 

proposed determination. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on August 6, 2021, 

by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on August 6, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17123 Filed 8–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–0658; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2020–01582–T] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc., Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD– 

100–1A10 airplanes. This proposed AD 

was prompted by a discovery that a 

lockwire may not have been installed on 

the side stay actuator pin nut of the 

main landing gear (MLG). This proposed 

AD would require inspecting the lefthand and right-hand MLG side stay 

actuator assembly pin nut for the 

presence of a lockwire, and installing a 

lockwire if necessary. The FAA is 

proposing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by September 27, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 

200 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 2A3, Canada; North 

America toll-free telephone 1–866–538– 

1247 or direct-dial telephone 1–514– 

855–2999; email ac.yul@

aero.bombardier.com; internet https://

www.bombardier.com. You may view 

this service information at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2021–0658; or in person at Docket 

Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

NPRM, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

Docket Operations is listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Dowling, Aerospace Engineer, 

Mechanical Systems and Administrative 

Services Section, FAA, New York ACO 

Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 

410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 

516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531; email 

9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2021–0658; Project Identifier 

MCAI–2020–01582–T’’ at the beginning 

of your comments. The most helpful 

comments reference a specific portion of 

the proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. The FAA will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend the proposal 

because of those comments. 

Except for Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) as described in the 

following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received, without change, to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. The 

agency will also post a report 

summarizing each substantive verbal 

contact received about this NPRM. 

Confidential Business Information 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission containing CBI 

as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the FOIA, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of this 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to Elizabeth Dowling, 

Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical 

Systems and Administrative Services 

Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, 

Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516– 

228–7300; fax 516–794–5531; email 

9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov. Any 

commentary that the FAA receives 

which is not specifically designated as 

CBI will be placed in the public docket 

for this rulemaking. 

Background 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF– 

2020–52, dated November 30, 2020 (also 

referred to after this as the Mandatory 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1