Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 supplys 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
44307

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 IV2ANALYZED EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR MICROWAVE-ONLY OVENS AND COUNTERTOP CONVECTION MICROWAVE
OVENS
Standby power W

Efficiency level
Standby power level source
Baseline
1

Baseline current standard
Improved Power Supply Max-Tech

1.00
0.84

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

TABLE IV3ANALYZED EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR BUILT-IN AND OVER-THE-RANGE CONVECTION MICROWAVE OVENS
Standby power W

Efficiency level
Standby power level source
Baseline
1
2

Baseline current standard
Standard Power Supply
Improved Power Supply Max-Tech

The cost analysis portion of the Engineering Analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, and availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials BOM for the product.
Catalogue teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example to develop the BOM for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalogue teardown is feasible for example, for tightly integrated products such as light-emitting diode LED
bulbs, which are infeasible to
VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:35 Aug 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

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.

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

2.20
1.16
1.00

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.

E:FRFM12AUP1.SGM

12AUP1