Quiero saber acerca de...

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 6c3 and 7b. 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 DOEs 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 DOEs Compliance Certification
VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:35 Aug 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

Database,7 which shows that for microwave-only and countertop convection microwave ovens, the models with the lowest standby power consumption consume just 0.100.19 W
and for built-in and over-the-range convection microwave ovens, the models with the lowest standby power consumption consume 0.500.59 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, DOEs 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 7 DOEs Compliance Certification Database is available for review at https
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/
products.html accessed on October 17, 2019.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

44305

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 DOEs own research at the time confirmed that cooking sensors that are able to energize in a period of time that is small 510
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.
6295q
E:FRFM12AUP1.SGM

12AUP1