80982 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005] 

RIN 1904–AD15 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Conventional Cooking Products 

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 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including consumer conventional 

cooking products. EPCA also requires 

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

to periodically determine whether morestringent 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 amended energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products would not be 

economically justified and would not 

result in a significant conservation of 

energy. DOE requests comment on this 

proposed determination and the 

associated analyses and results. 

DATES: 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Thursday, January 28, 2021, from 11:00 

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘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 March 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005, by 

any of the following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005 in the 

subject line of the message. 

(3) Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimilies (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section VII of this document. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if one is 

held), comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

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

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://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 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0005. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for information on how 

to submit comments through http://

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. Telephone: (202) 287– 

1943. 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 Rulemaking for 

Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Products 

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. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

F. Other Issues 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Product Classes 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

b. Conventional Ovens 

2. Technology Options 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

b. Conventional Ovens 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

b. Conventional Ovens 

2. Remaining Technologies 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Product Testing and Reverse Engineering 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

b. Conventional Ovens 

2. Efficiency Levels 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

b. Incremental Efficiency Levels 

c. Relationship Between IAEC and Oven 

Cavity Volume 

3. Incremental Manufacturing Production 

Cost Estimates 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

b. Conventional Ovens 

4. Consumer Utility 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

b. Conventional Ovens 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80983 

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 America’s Water 

Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270 

(Oct. 23, 2018). 

3Conventional cooking top means a class of 

kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household 

cooking appliance consisting of a horizontal surface 

containing one or more surface units which include 

either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. This 

includes any conventional cooking top component 

of a combined cooking product. (10 CFR 430.2) 

4Conventional oven means a class of kitchen 

ranges and ovens which is a household cooking 

appliance consisting of one or more compartments 

intended for the cooking or heating of food by 

means of either a gas flame or electric resistance 

heating. It does not include portable or countertop 

ovens which use electric resistance heating for the 

cooking or heating of food and are designed for an 

electrical supply of approximately 120 volts. This 

includes any conventional oven(s) component of a 

combined cooking product. (10 CFR 430.2) 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

6. Product Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

G. Shipments Analysis 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

b. Shipments Projections 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

d. Markup Scenarios 

3. Discussion of Comments 

a. Discount Rate 

b. Changes in Test Procedure and 

Manufacturer Interviews 

c. Other Comments 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

a. Premium Products Tend To Be Less 

Efficient 

b. Induction Cooking Products 

c. Product Utility 

d. Testing and Certification Burdens 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

C. Proposed Determination 

1. Technological Feasibility 

2. Significant Conservation of Energy 

3. Economic Justification 

4. Summary of Annualized Benefits and 

Costs of the Proposed Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 

and 13777 

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

I. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

K. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

M. Information Quality 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. 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 EPCA,2 established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) 

These products include consumer 

conventional cooking products, and 

specifically conventional cooking tops 3

and conventional ovens,4 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)) 

Pursuant to the 6-year look-back 

provision, DOE proposed energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

cooking tops. 80 FR 33030 (June 10, 

2015); 81 FR 60784 (Sep. 2, 2016). Based 

on additional analysis and review of 

comments received, DOE is publishing 

this proposed determination that 

establishing new and amended 

standards for conventional cooking 

products, including conventional 

cooking tops, is not needed because 

standards would not be economically 

justified and would not result in a 

significant conservation of energy. 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

analyzed consumer conventional 

cooking products, including those 

subject to standards specified in 10 CFR 

430.32(j)(1)–(2). 

DOE first analyzed the technological 

feasibility of more energy efficient 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. For those consumer 

conventional cooking products for 

which DOE determined higher 

standards to be technologically feasible, 

DOE estimated energy savings that 

would result from potential energy 

conservation standards by conducting a 

national impacts analysis (‘‘NIA’’). DOE 

then evaluated whether higher 

standards would be economically 

justified pursuant to the seven factors 

specified in EPCA. 

Based on the results of the analyses, 

summarized in section V of this 

document, DOE has tentatively 

determined that current standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products 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 consumer 

conventional cooking products. 

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 consumer 

conventional cooking products, and 

specifically consumer conventional 

cooking tops and conventional ovens, 

the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed energy 

conservation standards for these 

products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and 

directs DOE to conduct future 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(2)) 

The energy conservation program 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
80984 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

5See 85 FR 50757 (August 18, 2020). 

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. 

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

procedures for consumer conventional 

cooking products were established in 

title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430, subpart B, 

appendix I (‘‘appendix I’’). However, as 

discussed further in section III.B of this 

document, the test procedures for the 

conventional cooking products that are 

the subject of this proposed 

determination have been withdrawn. 

Federal energy conservation standards 

for covered products 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 in 42 U.S.C. 

6297(d). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including consumer conventional 

cooking products. In prescribing new or 

amended standards for covered 

products DOE must consider, among 

other things, the opportunity for energy 

savings, as well as the potential costs to 

consumers, and impacts on consumer 

choice. Any new or amended standard 

for a covered product must be designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

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

DOE may not prescribe a standard if 

DOE determines by rule that the 

standard is not technologically feasible 

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

6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens. (42 

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

this determination after receiving 

comments on the proposed standard, 

and by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following seven 

statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the standard 

on manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered products in the type (or class) 

compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the 

covered products that are likely to result 

from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or 

as applicable, water) savings likely to result 

directly from imposition of the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products likely to 

result from imposition of the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from 

the imposition of the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and water 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy 

(‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. 

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

EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

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

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

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

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard if interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the standard is likely 

to result in the unavailability in the 

United States in any covered product 

type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

EPCA specifies requirements when 

promulgating an energy conservation 

standard for type or class of covered 

product that has two or more 

subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to such type or class 

of products for any group of covered 

products that have the same function or 

intended use if DOE determines that 

products within such group (A) 

consume a different kind of energy from 

that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class), or 

(B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

such a feature and other factors DOE 

deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 

prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

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

Finally, 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)) Although DOE 

currently does not have test procedures 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products,5 previous versions of 

appendix I addressed standby mode and 

off mode energy use. In the absence of 

a test procedure, in this analysis DOE 

considers energy use as measured under 

the previous test procedure appendix I 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80985 

6As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE 

decided not to adopt energy conservation standards 

pertaining to the cooking efficiency of microwave 

ovens. DOE also published a final rule on June 17, 

2013 adopting energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off mode. 78 FR 

36316. DOE is not considering energy conservation 

standards for microwave ovens as part of this 

rulemaking. 

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 cost 

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

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

discussed above, 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 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 requirements under 

EPCA. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on April 8, 

2009 (‘‘April 2009 Final Rule’’), DOE 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products to 

prohibit constant burning pilots for all 

gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking 

products both with or without an 

electrical supply cord) manufactured on 

or after April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. 

DOE’s regulations, codified at 10 CFR 

430.2, define conventional cooking tops 

and conventional ovens as categories of 

cooking products. As noted in the April 

2009 Final Rule, DOE specified 

conventional cooking tops and 

conventional ovens as separate 

categories of cooking products, and 

noted that any cooking top or oven 

standard would apply to the individual 

components of a conventional range. 74 

FR 16040, 16053. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Products 

The National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (‘‘NAECA’’), 

Public Law 100–12, amended EPCA to 

establish prescriptive standards for gas 

cooking products, requiring gas ranges 

and ovens with an electrical supply 

cord that are manufactured on or after 

January 1, 1990, not to be equipped with 

a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(1)) NAECA also directed DOE to 

conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 

determine if more stringent or 

additional standards were justified for 

kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(2)) 

DOE undertook the first cycle of these 

rulemakings and published a final rule 

on September 8, 1998, which found that 

no standards were justified for 

conventional electric cooking products 

at that time. 63 FR 48038. In addition, 

partially due to the difficulty of 

conclusively demonstrating at that time 

that elimination of standing pilots for 

conventional gas cooking products 

without an electrical supply cord was 

economically justified, DOE did not 

include amended standards for 

conventional gas cooking products in 

the final rule. 63 FR 48038, 48039– 

48040. For the second cycle of 

rulemakings, DOE published the April 

2009 Final Rule amending the energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products to 

prohibit constant burning pilots for all 

gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking 

products both with or without an 

electrical supply cord) manufactured on 

or after April 9, 2012. DOE decided to 

not adopt energy conservation standards 

pertaining to the cooking efficiency of 

conventional electric cooking products 

because it determined that such 

standards would not be technologically 

feasible and economically justified at 

that time. 74 FR 16040, 16085.6

As noted, EPCA requires that, not 

later than 6 years after the issuance of 

a final rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE publish a NOPR 

proposing new standards or a 

notification of determination that the 

existing standards do not need to be 

amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) On 

February 12, 2014, DOE published a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) notice 

(the ‘‘February 2014 RFI’’) to initiate the 

mandatory review process imposed by 

EPCA. 79 FR 8337. As part of the RFI, 

DOE sought input from the public to 

assist with its determination on whether 

new or amended standards pertaining to 

consumer conventional cooking 

products are warranted. 79 FR 8337, 

8339. In making this determination, 

DOE must evaluate whether new or 

amended standards would (1) yield a 

significant savings in energy use and (2) 

be both technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

On June 10, 2015, DOE published a 

NOPR (the ‘‘June 2015 NOPR’’) 

proposing new and amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional ovens. 80 FR 33030. The 

June 2015 NOPR also announced that a 

public meeting would be held on July 

14, 2015 at DOE headquarters in 

Washington, DC At this meeting, DOE 

presented the methodologies and results 

of the analyses set forth in the NOPR, 

and interested parties that participated 

in the public meeting discussed a 

variety of topics. As part of the June 

2015 NOPR, DOE also noted that it was 

deferring its decision regarding whether 

to adopt amended energy conservation 

standards for conventional cooking tops, 

pending further study. 80 FR 33030, 

33038–33040. 

Prior to the June 2015 NOPR, DOE 

issued two notices requesting comment 

on the test procedures for cooking 

products. In both the test procedure 

NOPR published on January 30, 2013 

(78 FR 6232, the ‘‘January 2013 TP 

NOPR’’) and the supplemental test 

procedure NOPR published on 

December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71894, the 

‘‘December 2014 TP SNOPR’’), DOE 

proposed amendments to the cooking 

products test procedure in appendix I 

that would allow for the testing of active 

mode energy consumption of induction 

cooking tops. After reviewing public 

comments on the December 2014 TP 

SNOPR, conducting further discussions 

with manufacturers, and performing 

additional analyses, DOE decided that 

further study was required before an 

updated cooking top test procedure 

could be established that produces test 

results which measure energy use 

during a representative average use 

cycle for all types of cooking tops, is 

repeatable and reproducible, and is not 

unduly burdensome to conduct. 80 FR 

37954 (July 2, 2015) (‘‘July 2015 TP 

Final Rule’’). Test procedures for 

cooking tops were again proposed, as 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
80986 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

discussed in section III.B of this 

document, in an SNOPR on August 22, 

2016. (81 FR 57374, the ‘‘August 2016 

TP SNOPR’’). Subsequently a final rule 

was published on December 16, 2016 

(the ‘‘December 2016 TP Final Rule’’) 

adopting amended test procedures for 

conventional cooking tops that include, 

among other things, test methods for 

induction cooking tops and gas cooking 

tops with high burner input rates. 81 FR 

91418. This rule was subsequently 

withdrawn on August 18, 2020 as a 

result of a petition from the Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(‘‘AHAM’’). As discussed in more detail 

in section III.B of this document, DOE 

withdrew the December 2016 TP Final 

Rule because it could not be certain that 

the results of the conventional cooking 

tops test procedure were accurate. 

On September 2, 2016, prior to the 

now withdrawn test procedure 

amendments being adopted in the 

December 2016 TP Final Rule, DOE 

published in the Federal Register an 

SNOPR (the ‘‘September 2016 SNOPR’’) 

proposing new and amended energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

cooking tops based on the amendments 

to the test procedure as proposed in the 

August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784. 

In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

also revised its proposal from the June 

2015 NOPR for conventional ovens from 

a performance-based standard to a 

prescriptive standard given that DOE 

had proposed to repeal the test 

procedure for conventional ovens in the 

August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 

60793–60794. (The repeal of the test 

procedure for conventional ovens is 

discussed in greater detail in section 

III.B of this document.) In response to 

the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

received a number of comments from 

interested parties and considered these 

comments in preparing this NOPD. The 

commenters are summarized in Table 

II–1. Relevant comments, and DOE’s 

responses, are provided in the 

appropriate sections of this document. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80987 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.000</GPH>
80988 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

7The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to consider energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional cooking 

products. (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005, 

which is maintained at www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005). The 

references are arranged as follows: (Commenter 

name, comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

8The term surface unit refers to burners for gas 

cooking tops and electric resistance heating 

elements or inductive heating elements for electric 

cooking tops. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.7

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposed 

determination after considering oral and 

written comments, data, 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)) 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

document, 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10) of 

EPCA covers kitchen ranges and ovens, 

or ‘‘cooking products.’’ DOE’s 

regulations define ‘‘cooking products’’ 

as consumer products that are used as 

the major household cooking 

appliances. They are designed to cook 

or heat different types of food by one or 

more of the following sources of heat: 

Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. 

Each product may consist of a 

horizontal cooking top containing one 

or more surface units 8 and/or one or 

more heating compartments. 10 CFR 

430.2. 

DOE defines a combined cooking 

product as a household cooking 

appliance that combines a conventional 

cooking top and/or conventional oven 

with other appliance functionality, 

which may or may not include another 

cooking product. (10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix I) In this analysis, 

DOE is not treating combined cooking 

products as a distinct product category 

and is not basing its product classes on 

such a category. Instead, DOE is 

evaluating energy conservation 

standards for conventional cooking tops 

and conventional ovens separately. 

Because combined cooking products 

consist, in part, of a cooking top and/or 

oven, the cooking top and oven 

standards would continue to apply to 

the individual components of the 

combined cooking product. 

As part of the 2009 standards 

rulemaking for consumer conventional 

cooking products, DOE did not consider 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer conventional gas cooking 

products with higher burner input rates, 

including products marketed as 

‘‘commercial-style’’ or ‘‘professionalstyle,’’ due to a lack of available data for 

determining efficiency characteristics of 

those products. DOE considered such 

products to be gas cooking tops with 

burner input rates greater than 14,000 

British thermal units per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’) 

and gas ovens with burner input rates 

greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 74 FR 16040, 

16054 (Apr. 8, 2009); 72 FR 64432, 

64444–64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE also 

stated that the DOE cooking products 

test procedures at that time may not 

adequately measure performance of gas 

cooking tops and ovens with higher 

burner input rates. 72 FR 64432, 64444– 

64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). 

As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE 

stated that it tentatively planned to 

consider energy conservation standards 

for all consumer conventional cooking 

products, including commercial-style 

gas cooking products with higher burner 

input rates. In addition, DOE stated that 

it may consider developing test 

procedures for these products and 

determine whether separate product 

classes are warranted. 79 FR 8337, 8340 

(Feb. 12, 2014). 

As discussed in section III.B of this 

document, DOE amended the 

conventional cooking top test procedure 

in appendix I to, in part, measure the 

energy use of commercial-style gas 

cooking tops with high burner input 

rates. See 81 FR 91418 (Dec. 16, 2016). 

However, on August 18, 2020, as a 

result of a petition from AHAM and data 

received in response to that petition, 

DOE withdrew the conventional 

cooking top test procedure in appendix 

I after 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 (‘‘August 2020 TP Final 

Rule’’). DOE also repealed the 

conventional oven test procedure in the 

December 2016 TP Final Rule. See 81 

FR 91418 (Dec. 16, 2016). In the absence 

of Federal test procedures to measure 

the energy use or energy efficiency of 

conventional cooking tops and 

conventional ovens, DOE is evaluating 

prescriptive design requirements for the 

control system of conventional electric 

smooth element cooking tops and 

conventional ovens, including 

commercial-style ovens with higher 

burner input rates. DOE would maintain 

the existing prescriptive design 

requirements for all conventional gas 

cooking products, noting that the 

current definitions for ‘‘conventional 

cooking top’’ and ‘‘conventional oven’’ 

in 10 CFR 430.2 already cover 

commercial-style gas cooking products 

with higher burner input rates, as these 

products are household cooking 

appliances with surface units or 

compartments intended for the cooking 

or heating of food by means of a gas 

flame. As discussed in section IV.A.1 of 

this document, DOE is not proposing a 

separate product class for gas cooking 

tops and ovens with higher burner input 

rates that are marketed as ‘‘commercialstyle’’ and, as a result, DOE is not 

proposing separate definitions for these 

products. 

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 efficiency of their product. 

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

6293(c)) DOE will finalize a test 

procedure establishing methodologies 

used to evaluate proposed energy 

conservation standards at least 180 days 

prior to publication of a NOPR 

proposing new or amended energy 

conservation standards. Section 8(d) of 

appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C (‘‘Process Rule’’). 

DOE established test procedures in a 

final rule published in the Federal 

Register on May 10, 1978. 43 FR 20108, 

20120–20128. DOE revised its test 

procedures for cooking products to more 

accurately measure their efficiency and 

energy use, and published the revisions 

as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 

(Oct. 3, 1997). These test procedure 

amendments included: (1) A reduction 

in the annual useful cooking energy; (2) 

a reduction in the number of self-clean 

oven cycles per year; and (3) 

incorporation of portions of 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’) Standard 705– 

1988, ‘‘Methods for measuring the 

performance of microwave ovens for 

household and similar purposes,’’ and 

Amendment 2–1993 for the testing of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80989 

9For more information on the EnergyGuide 

labeling program, see: www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ 

cfr/waisidx_00/16cfr305_00.html. 10Hob is the British English term for cooking top. 

11The test methods in EN 60350–2:2013 are based 

on the same test methods in the draft version of IEC 

60350–2 available at the time of the December 2016 

TP Final Rule. As noted in that final rule, based on 

the few comments received during the development 

of the draft, DOE expected that the IEC procedure, 

once finalized, would retain the same basic test 

method as contained in EN 60350–2:2013. 81 FR 

91418, 91421 (Dec. 16, 2016). 

microwave ovens. Id. The test 

procedures for consumer conventional 

cooking products established provisions 

for determining estimated annual 

operating cost, cooking efficiency 

(defined as the ratio of cooking energy 

output to cooking energy input), and 

energy factor (defined as the ratio of 

annual useful cooking energy output to 

total annual energy input). 10 CFR 

430.23(i); appendix I. These provisions 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products were not used for compliance 

with any energy conservation standards 

because the standards to date have been 

design requirements; in addition, there 

is no EnergyGuide 9 labeling program for 

cooking products. 

DOE subsequently conducted a 

rulemaking to address standby and off 

mode energy consumption, as well as 

certain active mode (i.e., fan-only mode) 

testing provisions, for consumer 

conventional cooking products. DOE 

published a final rule on October 31, 

2012 (77 FR 65942, the ‘‘October 2012 

TP Final Rule’’), adopting standby and 

off mode provisions that satisfied the 

EPCA requirement that DOE include 

measures of standby mode and off mode 

power in its test procedures for 

residential products, if technically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

The January 2013 TP NOPR proposed 

amendments to appendix I that would 

allow for testing the active mode energy 

consumption of induction cooking 

products; i.e., conventional cooking tops 

equipped with induction heating 

technology for one or more surface units 

on the cooking top. DOE proposed to 

incorporate induction cooking tops by 

amending the definition of 

‘‘conventional cooking top’’ to include 

induction heating technology. 

Furthermore, DOE proposed to require 

for all cooking tops the use of test 

equipment compatible with induction 

technology. Specifically, DOE proposed 

to replace the solid aluminum test 

blocks specified at that time in the test 

procedure for cooking tops with hybrid 

test blocks comprising two separate 

pieces: an aluminum body and a 

stainless-steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234 

(Jan. 30, 2013). 

In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, 

DOE modified its proposal from the 

January 2013 TP NOPR in response to 

comments from interested parties to 

specify different test equipment that 

would allow for measuring the energy 

efficiency of induction cooking tops, 

and would include an additional test 

block size for electric surface units with 

large diameters (both induction and 

electric resistance). 79 FR 71894. In 

addition, DOE proposed methods to test 

non-circular electric surface units, 

electric surface units with flexible 

concentric cooking zones, and fullsurface induction cooking tops. Id. In 

the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE 

also proposed amendments to add a 

larger test block size to test gas cooking 

top burners with higher input rates. Id. 

In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, 

DOE also proposed methods for 

measuring conventional oven volume, 

clarification that the existing oven test 

block must be used to test all ovens 

regardless of input rate, and a method 

to measure the energy consumption and 

efficiency of conventional ovens 

equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 

71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). DOE published the 

July 2015 TP Final Rule adopting the 

test procedure amendments discussed 

above for conventional ovens only. 80 

FR 37954. 

As discussed in the June 2015 NOPR 

for conventional ovens, DOE received a 

significant number of comments raising 

issues with the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the proposed hybrid 

test block test method for cooking tops 

in response to the December 2014 TP 

SNOPR and in separate interviews 

conducted with consumer conventional 

cooking product manufacturers in 

February and March of 2015. 80 FR 

33030, 33039–33040 (June 10, 2015). A 

number of manufacturers that produce 

and sell products in Europe supported 

the use of a water-heating test method 

and harmonization with IEC Standard 

60350–2 Edition 2, ‘‘Household electric 

appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Method for 

measuring performance’’ 10 (‘‘IEC 

Standard 60350–2’’) for measuring the 

energy consumption of electric cooking 

tops. These manufacturers stated that 

the test methods in IEC Standard 

60350–2 are compatible with all electric 

cooking top types, specify additional 

cookware diameters to account for the 

variety of surface unit sizes on the 

market, and use test loads that represent 

real-world cooking top loads. Efficiency 

advocates also recommended that DOE 

require water-heating test methods to 

produce a measure of cooking efficiency 

for conventional cooking tops that is 

more representative of actual cooking 

performance than the hybrid test block 

method. 80 FR 33030, 33039–33040 

(June 10, 2015). For these reasons, DOE 

decided to defer its decision regarding 

adoption of energy conservation 

standards for conventional cooking tops 

until a representative, repeatable and 

reproducible test method for cooking 

tops was finalized. 80 FR 33030, 33040 

(June 10, 2015). 

DOE published the August 2016 TP 

SNOPR that proposed amendments to 

the test procedures for conventional 

cooking tops. Given the feedback from 

interested parties discussed above and 

based on the additional testing and 

analysis conducted for the test 

procedure rulemaking, in the August 

2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its 

proposal for testing conventional 

cooking tops with a hybrid test block. 

Instead, DOE proposed to amend its test 

procedure to incorporate by reference 

the relevant sections of European 

Standard EN 60350–2:2013 ‘‘Household 

electric cooking appliances Part 2: 

Hobs—Methods for measuring 

performance’’ 11 (‘‘EN 60350–2:2013’’), 

which provide a water-heating test 

method to measure the energy 

consumption of electric cooking tops. 

The test method specifies the quantity 

of water to be heated in a standardized 

test vessel whose size is selected based 

on the diameter of the surface unit 

under test. The test vessels specified in 

EN 60350–2:2013 are compatible with 

all cooking top technologies and surface 

unit diameters available on the U.S. 

market. 81 FR 57374, 57381–57384. 

DOE also proposed to extend the test 

methods provided in EN 60530–2:2013 

to measure the energy consumption of 

gas cooking tops by correlating test 

equipment diameter to burner input 

rate, including input rates that exceed 

14,000 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374, 57385– 

57386. In addition, DOE also proposed 

in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to 

include methods for both electric and 

gas cooking tops to calculate the annual 

energy consumption (‘‘AEC’’) and 

integrated annual energy consumption 

(‘‘IAEC’’) to account for the proposed 

water-heating test method. 81 FR 57374, 

57387–57388. 

In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE 

proposed to repeal the conventional 

oven test procedure. DOE determined 

that the conventional oven test 

procedure may not accurately represent 

consumer use as it favors conventional 

ovens with low thermal mass and does 

not capture cooking performance-related 

benefits due to increased thermal mass 

of the oven cavity. 81 FR 57374, 57378– 

57379. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
80990 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

12AHAM’s comment on the August 2016 TP 

SNOPR is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013-0030. 

13EN 60350–2:2013 requires testing of the largest 

measured diameter of multi-ring surface units only, 

unless an additional test vessel category is needed 

to meet the test vessel selection requirements in EN 

60350–2:2013. In that case, one of the smallerdiameter settings of the multi-ring surface unit may 

be tested if it fulfills the test vessel category 

requirement. 

For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

evaluated its proposed energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

cooking tops based on the proposed 

cooking top test procedure discussed 

above. 81 FR 60784, 60797 (Sept. 2, 

2016). For conventional ovens, due to 

the uncertainties in analyzing a 

performance-based standard using oven 

testing provisions that DOE proposed to 

remove from the test procedure, as 

discussed above, DOE proposed in the 

September 2016 SNOPR prescriptive 

design requirements for the control 

system of conventional ovens. 81 FR 

60784, 60794. 

AHAM, AGA and APGA opposed 

consideration of proposed standards in 

the absence of a final test procedure, 

stating that the technological feasibility 

and economic justification of proposed 

standards can only be evaluated with a 

finalized test procedure. (AHAM, No. 53 

at pp. 1–2; AHAM, No. 64 at p. 3; AGA 

and APGA, No. 68 at p. 2) AHAM, AGA 

and APGA asserted that 42 U.S.C. 

6295(r) requires that test procedures are 

finalized in a sufficient period of time 

before energy conservation standards 

are proposed. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 

1–2; AHAM, No. 64 at p. 3; AGA and 

APGA, No. 68 at p. 2) AHAM, AGA and 

APGA also argued that DOE has not 

followed section 7 of the then-current 

Process Improvement Rule, which 

stated that needed modifications to test 

procedures will be identified in 

consultation with experts and interested 

parties early in the screening stage of 

the standards development process and 

any necessary modifications will be 

proposed before issuance of an 

advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘ANOPR’’) in the standards 

process. In addition, these commenters 

stated that the then-current Process 

Improvement Rule specified that final 

modified test procedures will be issued 

prior to the NOPR on proposed 

standards. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 2–3; 

AGA and APGA, No. 68 at p. 2) 

AHAM, AGA and APGA asserted that, 

even with the 30-day extension, the 

comment period for the September 2016 

SNOPR was inadequate for industry to 

analyze and provide meaningful 

comment on the impacts of the 

proposed standards given the 

uncertainty in the test procedure. 

AHAM added that it was particularly 

difficult to comment on the proposed 

standards because manufacturers do not 

regularly conduct energy tests because 

there is not a standard that requires 

them to do so. (AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 

3–4; AHAM, No. 64 at p. 3; AGA and 

APGA, No. 68 at pp. 1–2) 

AHAM reiterated the list of issues 

with the test procedure presented in its 

comments on the August 2016 TP 

SNOPR12 concerning the repeatability 

and reproducibility of tests results. 

AHAM urged DOE to issue a notice of 

data availability and/or supplemental 

proposed test procedure with a 30- to 

60-day comment period to address 

AHAM’s comments on the test 

procedure. AHAM added that DOE 

should finalize the test procedure before 

proposing standards, and provide 180 

days after finalizing the test procedure 

before closing the comment period on a 

proposed standard to provide sufficient 

time for manufacturers to test enough 

models to evaluate the potential impact 

of proposed standards. AHAM stated 

that if DOE does not, however, issue an 

additional SNOPR on the proposed 

standard, DOE should at minimum 

explain how any additional changes to 

the test procedure impact the proposed 

standards and provide interested parties 

with an additional 60 days to comment 

on the proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 

53 at pp. 5–6; AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 1, 

3–4) AHAM also commented that if 

DOE proceeds with standards for 

cooking tops using the test procedure 

proposed in the August 2016 TP 

SNOPR, DOE should adjust the 

tolerance for enforcement from 5 

percent to 20 percent, consistent with 

the variation in test results observed in 

AHAM’s round robin test program. 

(AHAM, No 64 at p. 21) 

Sub-Zero similarly commented that 

the proposed test procedure produces 

significant variation in test results and, 

thus, it is not feasible to adopt standards 

for conventional cooking tops. Sub-Zero 

commented that DOE should work with 

industry to develop a test procedure that 

produces repeatable and reproducible 

results. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 1) AGA 

and APGA also commented that adding 

what it stated is a complicated and 

unproven test procedure for gas cooking 

tops does not appear to be warranted for 

the testing and verification burden that 

would be placed on the industry, as 

well as the consumers that will pay for 

the added cost of testing and 

compliance. (AGA and APGA, No. 68 at 

p. 3) 

On December 16, 2016, DOE 

published a final rule repealing the test 

procedures for conventional ovens for 

the reasons discussed above, and 

adopting the test procedure 

amendments for conventional cooking 

tops proposed in the August 2016 TP 

SNOPR, with the following 

modifications: 

• Aligning the test methods for 

electric surface units with flexible 

concentric cooking zones (also referred 

to as multi-ring surface units) with the 

provisions in EN 60350–2:2013; 13

• Clarifying the simmering 

temperature requirements, temperature 

sensor requirements, and surface unit 

diameter measurement; and 

• Maintaining the existing 

installation requirements in appendix I. 

81 FR 91418. 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(‘‘APA’’), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides 

among other things, that ‘‘[e]ach agency 

shall give an interested person the right 

to petition for the issuance, amendment, 

or repeal of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) 

DOE received a petition from AHAM 

requesting that DOE reconsider its 

December 2016 TP Final Rule. In its 

petition, AHAM requested that DOE 

undertake a rulemaking to withdraw the 

test procedure for conventional cooking 

tops, while maintaining the repeal of the 

oven test procedure that was part of the 

Final Rule. In the interim, AHAM 

sought an immediate stay of the 

effectiveness of the December 2016 TP 

Final Rule, including the requirement 

that manufacturers use the final test 

procedure to make energy-related 

claims. In its petition, AHAM claimed 

that its analyses showed that the test 

procedure is not representative for gas 

cooking tops and, for gas and electric 

cooking tops, has such a high level of 

variation it will not produce accurate 

results for certification and enforcement 

purposes and will not assist consumers 

in making purchasing decisions based 

on energy efficiency. DOE published 

AHAM’s petition on April 25, 2018, and 

requested comments and information on 

whether DOE should undertake a 

rulemaking to consider the proposal 

contained in the petition. 80 FR 17944. 

On August 9, 2019, DOE published a 

NOPR (‘‘the August 2019 TP NOPR’’) 

proposing to withdraw the test 

procedure for conventional cooking tops 

after evaluating new information and 

data produced by AHAM and other 

interested parties that suggested that the 

test procedure yields inconsistent 

results that are indicative of the test not 

being representative of energy use or 

efficiency during an average use cycle. 

As such, DOE determined that it would 

be unduly burdensome to subject those 

manufacturers seeking to make 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80991 

14The TSD is available in the docket for this 

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

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005. 

15Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency 

levels for each product class. The TSLs considered 

for this NOPD are described in section V.A of this 

document. DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis 

that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9- 

year period. 

16The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 

amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 

representations as to the efficiency of 

their products to the requirement to 

conduct such tests while DOE 

investigated the issues presented. 84 FR 

39211. 

On August 18, 2020, DOE published 

the August 2020 TP Final Rule 

withdrawing the test procedure for 

conventional cooking tops. 85 FR 50757. 

Testing conducted by DOE and outside 

parties using the test procedure yielded 

inconsistent results. 85 FR 50757, 

50763. DOE had not identified the cause 

of the inconsistencies, and noted that its 

data to date is limited. Id. DOE 

concluded, therefore, that the test 

procedure was not representative of 

energy use or efficiency during an 

average use cycle. Id. DOE also 

determined that it would be unduly 

burdensome to leave the test procedure 

in place and require cooking top tests to 

be conducted using that test method 

without further study to resolve those 

inconsistencies. Id. 

Under EPCA, any new or amended 

energy conservation standard must 

include, where applicable, test 

procedures prescribed in accordance 

with the test procedure provisions of the 

Act. (42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) As discussed 

previously, DOE repealed the 

conventional cooking top and 

conventional oven test procedures and 

is evaluating new prescriptive design 

requirements for the control system of 

conventional ovens and conventional 

electric smooth cooking tops, while 

proposing to maintain the existing 

prescriptive design requirements for 

conventional gas ovens and 

conventional gas cooking tops. As a 

result, the prescriptive design 

requirements would not require 

manufacturers to test using the DOE test 

procedure for conventional cooking tops 

and conventional ovens to certify 

products. 

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. Sections 

6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule. 

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. Sections 

6(c)(3)(ii)–(iv) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of the 

Process Rule. Section IV.B of this 

document discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for consumer 

conventional cooking products, 

particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the standards 

considered in this proposed 

determination. For further details on the 

screening analysis for this proposed 

determination, see chapter 4 of the 

technical support document (‘‘TSD’’) 14

for this NOPD. 

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 

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 

consumer conventional cooking 

products, 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 and in chapter 

5 of the TSD for this NOPD. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’), 

DOE projected energy savings from 

application of the TSL to consumer 

conventional cooking products 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the year of compliance with 

the potential standards (2023–2052).15

The savings are measured over the 

entire lifetime of products purchased in 

the previous 30-year period. DOE 

quantified the energy savings 

attributable to each TSL 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 new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models 

to estimate national energy savings 

(‘‘NES’’) from potential new or amended 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products. The NIA spreadsheet 

model (described in section IV.H of this 

document) calculates energy savings in 

terms of site energy, which is the energy 

directly consumed by products at the 

locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of 

primary energy savings, which is the 

savings in the energy that is used to 

generate and transmit the site 

electricity. For natural gas, the primary 

energy savings are considered to be 

equal to the site energy savings. DOE 

also calculates NES in terms of full-fuelcycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy savings. The FFC 

metric includes the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

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

petroleum fuels), and thus presents a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.16 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 

of this document. 

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)) The 

term ‘‘significant’’ is not defined in 

EPCA. DOE has established a 

significance threshold for energy 

savings. Section 6(b) of the now-current 

Process Rule. In evaluating the 

significance of energy savings, DOE 

conducts a two-step approach that 

considers both an absolute site energy 

savings threshold and a threshold that is 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
80992 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

a percent reduction in the covered 

product energy use. Id. DOE first 

evaluates the projected energy savings 

from a max-tech standard over a 30-year 

period against a 0.3 quadrillion British 

thermal units (‘‘quads’’) of site energy 

threshold. Section 6(b)(2) of the nowcurrent Process Rule. If the 0.3 quadsthreshold is not met, DOE then 

compares the max-tech savings to the 

total energy usage of the covered 

equipment to calculate a percentage 

reduction in energy usage. Section 

6(b)(3) of the Process Rule. If this 

comparison does not yield a reduction 

in site energy use of at least 10 percent 

over a 30-year period, DOE proposes 

that no significant energy savings would 

likely result from setting new or 

amended standards. Section 6(b)(4) of 

the now-current Process Rule. The twostep approach allows DOE to ascertain 

whether a potential standard satisfies 

EPCA’s significant energy savings 

requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) 

to ensure that DOE avoids setting a 

standard that ‘‘will not result in 

significant conservation of energy.’’ 

EPCA defines ‘‘energy efficiency’’ as 

the ratio of the useful output of services 

from a consumer product to the energy 

use of such product, measured 

according to the Federal test procedures. 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(5), emphasis added) 

EPCA defines ‘‘energy use’’ as the 

quantity of energy directly consumed by 

a consumer product at point of use, as 

measured by the Federal test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) Further, 

EPCA uses a household energy 

consumption metric as a threshold for 

setting standards for new covered 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)) Given 

this context, DOE relies on site energy 

as the appropriate metric for evaluating 

the significance of energy savings. 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted above, EPCA provides seven 

factors to be evaluated in determining 

whether a potential energy conservation 

standard is economically justified. (42 

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

following sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this proposed determination. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of 

potential new or amended standards on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts a 

manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’), 

as discussed in section IV.I of this 

document. DOE first uses an annual 

cash-flow approach to determine the 

quantitative impacts. This step includes 

both a short-term assessment—based on 

the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between when a regulation is 

issued and when entities must comply 

with the regulation—and a long-term 

assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include 

(1) the industry net present value 

(‘‘INPV’’), which values the industry on 

the basis of expected future cash flows; 

(2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in 

revenue and income; and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and simple 

payback period (‘‘PBP’’) associated with 

new or amended standards. These 

measures are discussed further in the 

following section. For consumers in the 

aggregate, DOE also calculates the 

national net present value (‘‘NPV’’) of 

the consumer costs and benefits 

expected to result from particular 

standards. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) 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(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts 

this comparison in its LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating cost 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates appropriate 

for consumers. To account for 

uncertainty and variability in specific 

inputs, such as product lifetime and 

discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of 

values, with probabilities attached to 

each value. 

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 

due to a more-stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered products in the first full 

year of compliance with new or 

amended standards. The LCC savings 

for the considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to the case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.F of this document. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

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

As discussed in section IV.H of this 

document, DOE uses the NIA 

spreadsheet models to project national 

energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing product classes, and in 

evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 

available to DOE, the standards 

considered in this document would not 

reduce the utility or performance of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the 

Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80993 

17See 81 FR 71325 (Oct. 17, 2016); see also 84 

FR 17626 (Dec. 27, 2019). 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) In the event 

DOE were to propose amended 

standards, DOE would transmit a copy 

of the proposed rule to the Attorney 

General with a request that the 

Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) provide 

its determination on this issue. DOE 

would then publish and respond to the 

Attorney General’s determination in the 

final rule. Currently, DOE is not 

proposing to amend the energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products so there 

is no proposed rule to submit to the 

Attorney General for review. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

In evaluating the need for national 

energy conservation, DOE expects that 

energy savings from amended standards 

would likely provide improvements to 

the security and reliability of the 

Nation’s energy system. Reductions in 

the demand for electricity also may 

result in reduced costs for maintaining 

the reliability of the Nation’s electricity 

system. Energy savings from amended 

standards also would likely result in 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases primarily associated 

with fossil-fuel based energy 

production. Consistent with its past 

approach,17 because DOE has initially 

concluded amended standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products would not result in significant 

energy savings and would not be 

economically justified, DOE did not 

conduct a utility impact analysis or 

emissions analysis for this document. 

g. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

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

To the extent DOE identifies any 

relevant information regarding 

economic justification that does not fit 

into the other categories described 

previously, DOE could consider such 

information under ‘‘other factors.’’ 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

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

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effect that proposed energy 

conservation standards would have on 

the payback period for consumers. 

These analyses include, but are not 

limited to, the 3-year payback period 

contemplated under the rebuttablepresumption test. In addition, DOE 

routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the Nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

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

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F of this 

document. 

F. Other Issues 

In response to the September 2016 

SNOPR, the SoCal IOUs and the Joint 

Commenters supported performancebased standards for conventional 

cooking tops, stating that the August 

2016 TP SNOPR proposed test methods 

to fully capture energy consumption for 

these products. (SoCal IOUs, No. 67 at 

p. 2; Joint Commenters, No. 70 at p. 1) 

Due to the repeal of the testing 

requirements for conventional cooking 

tops in the August 2020 TP Final Rule, 

DOE did not evaluate performancebased standards in this document. 

The Joint Commenters opposed 

prescriptive standards for the power 

supply of conventional cooking tops. 

The Joint Commenters stated that while 

switch-mode power supplies (‘‘SMPS’’) 

are generally more efficient than linear 

power supplies, the standby power 

consumption of cooking tops with 

SMPS is not necessarily lower than that 

of cooking tops with linear power 

supplies based on DOE’s test sample. 

The Joint Commenters also commented 

that a prescriptive standard that only 

required cooking tops to be equipped 

with a SMPS would eliminate 

significant energy savings from the 

proposed performance-based standard 

level that included energy savings from 

the automatic power-down design 

option for electric smooth cooking tops. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 70 at p. 2) 

GE commented that for the proposed 

standard for electric smooth cooking 

tops, which corresponds to the 

automatic power-down technology 

option, the estimated standby power of 

0.25 Watts (‘‘W’’) is unrepresentative of 

products available on the market and 

that none of its models would meet this 

level. AHAM and GE commented that 

DOE based the reduction in standby 

power consumption on a stand-alone 

cooking top, not a combined cooking 

product such as a range. AHAM and GE 

added that, according to the test 

procedure proposed in the August 2016 

TP SNOPR, combined cooking products 

must include standby energy from the 

other components. According to AHAM 

and GE, the energy savings estimated by 

DOE are not achievable when 

accounting for the standby power 

consumption of a combined cooking 

product and would result in a loss of 

consumer utility because manufacturers 

would have to remove the clock 

function to meet the low standby power 

consumption levels. (AHAM, No. 64 at 

p. 10; GE, No. 72 at p. 2) 

As discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD 

for this NOPD, DOE observed in its 

testing that the standby power for 

electric smooth cooking tops without an 

automatic power-down feature was 

similar among the units in its test 

sample, which included both standalone cooking tops and cooking tops in 

combined cooking products. 

Furthermore, DOE observed an electric 

smooth cooking top that implements an 

automatic power-down feature. The 

automatic power-down design option 

achieves very low standby power levels 

(approximately 0.25 W) by turning off 

most of the power-consuming 

components on the control board once 

a period of user inactivity has elapsed. 

DOE determined through product 

teardowns that the power supply 

requirements for all of the electric 

smooth cooking tops in its test sample 

are similar, including those in the unit 

that implements the automatic powerdown feature. As a result, DOE 

identified no technical barrier to 

implementing this design option to 

power down most of the powerconsuming components on the control 

board in any of its sample units and, 

therefore, concludes that similar levels 

of energy savings due to standby power 

improvements can be achieved for all 

electric smooth cooking tops. However, 

DOE also recognizes that a standby 

power level associated with the 

automatic power-down technology 

option may not be achievable while 

powering the continuous clock display 

typically used in combined cooking 

products, such as ranges. Therefore, as 

discussed in section V.A of this 

document, DOE evaluated prescriptive 

design standards in this NOPD for 

electric smooth cooking tops that would 

allow for a continuous clock display, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
80994 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

and accordingly, would not require the 

elimination of clocks from products. 

AGA and APGA commented that the 

proposed standards in the September 

2016 SNOPR for conventional gas 

cooking tops and ovens would produce 

little real energy savings. In particular, 

AGA and APGA opposed DOE’s 

proposal for gas cooking tops to 

eliminate the current prescriptive 

standard prohibiting constant burning 

pilot lights and replace it with a 

performance standard because the test 

procedure had not yet been finalized or 

vetted by industry. AGA and APGA 

asserted that the limited testing 

conducted by DOE was not adequate 

given the concerns about the test 

procedure. (AGA and APGA, No. 68 at 

pp. 3, 4) 

The SoCal IOUs supported DOE’s 

analysis and proposed standards, with 

the exception of those for gas cooking 

tops. The SoCal IOUs stated that under 

TSL 2, 26.1 percent of gas cooking top 

consumers would be adversely 

impacted and have an average payback 

period of 19.7 years. The SoCal IOUs 

recommended adopting TSL 2, with the 

exception of specifying standards at the 

baseline efficiency level for gas cooking 

tops. According to the SoCal IOUs, this 

approach would result in a fractional 

reduction in national energy savings of 

0.06 quads. (SoCal IOUs, No. 67 at p. 3) 

As discussed in section III.B of this 

document, DOE withdrew the testing 

provisions for conventional cooking 

tops in the August 2020 TP Final Rule 

and, therefore, is not evaluating 

performance standards for conventional 

cooking tops, including gas cooking 

tops, in this NOPD. 

Spire commented that the higher 

efficiency of induction cooking tops, 

being technologically feasible and 

economically justified, obligates DOE to 

mandate their use for electric cooking 

products. (Spire, No. 61 at p. 4) As 

discussed in section V.C.3 of this 

document, DOE has initially determined 

that the electric smooth cooking top 

efficiency level associated with 

induction heating is not economically 

justified. 

AHAM stated that, based on its 

comments regarding improved contact 

conductance (discussed in section 

IV.A.2.a of this document), the 

additional testing conducted by AHAM 

members (discussed in section IV.C.1.a 

of this document), and the estimated 19 

percent of consumers that would 

experience a net cost at DOE’s proposed 

standard level, DOE’s proposed 

standard for electric coil cooking tops 

would not achieve actual energy savings 

in the field and could eliminate these 

products from the market. AHAM 

opposed standards for electric coil 

cooking tops and recommended that 

DOE maintain the ‘‘no standard’’ 

standard for this product class. (AHAM, 

No. 64 at p. 20) As discussed in section 

IV.A.2.a of this document, DOE is no 

longer considering improved contact 

conductance as a technology option. In 

addition, as discussed in section IV.C.2 

of this document, DOE updated its 

efficiency levels to account for the 

additional data submitted by AHAM. 

Based on these revisions to the analysis 

for this NOPD, DOE is not evaluating 

standards for electric coil cooking tops, 

as discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this 

document. 

The CA IOUs submitted a test report 

from their testing of gas and electric 

ovens. The CA IOUs noted that their test 

sample included a range of 

manufacturers, cavity sizes, and cooking 

modes. The CA IOUs conducted testing 

to evaluate pre-heating, steady-state 

(temperature) operation, broiling, and 

self-cleaning. In addition, the CA IOUs 

conducted testing according to the 

previous version of the test procedure. 

The CA IOUs asserted, based on their 

test results, that energy consumption 

was correlated to a number of factors, 

including: Cavity size, insulation, oven 

input rate, and whether the product was 

commercial-style. The CA IOUs noted 

that convection mode did not have a 

clear correlation to cooking efficiency, 

but most ovens had a higher efficiency 

in convection mode. The CA IOUs also 

noted that their test results did not show 

a correlation between energy 

consumption and retail price. (CA IOUs, 

No. 59) DOE appreciates the test data 

submitted by the CA IOUs. As discussed 

in section IV.C.2.c of this document, 

DOE similarly determined that 

conventional oven energy consumption 

was related to the oven cavity volume 

and developed relationships between 

IAEC and oven cavity volume. As 

discussed in section III.B of this 

document, DOE repealed the test 

procedures for conventional ovens. 

DOE, therefore, evaluated potential 

standards based on prescriptive design 

options for conventional ovens for this 

NOPD, as discussed in section IV.C.2 of 

this document. 

Spire stated that a number of DOE’s 

assumptions disadvantage cooking 

products that use natural gas. (Spire, 

No. 61 at p. 7) Spire identified DOE’s 

assumptions with regard to the discount 

rate, marginal energy costs, appliance 

lifetimes, installation costs, and 

incremental maintenance costs, as 

resulting in the bias. DOE notes 

generally that it based its analysis on all 

available data for both gas and electric 

conventional cooking products, much of 

which was submitted by appliance 

manufacturers. DOE conducts its 

analysis to accurately represent, to the 

extent possible, the manufacture and 

consumer usage in the United States of 

both gas and electric conventional 

cooking products. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this proposed 

determination with regard to consumer 

conventional cooking products. 

Separate subsections address each 

component of DOE’s analyses. 

DOE used several analytical tools to 

estimate the impact of potential energy 

conservation standards. The first tool is 

a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC 

savings and PBP of potential energy 

conservation standards. The NIA uses a 

second spreadsheet tool that provides 

shipments projections and calculates 

NES and NPV of total consumer costs 

and savings expected to result from 

potential energy conservation standards. 

DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(‘‘GRIM’’), to assess manufacturer 

impacts of potential standards. These 

three spreadsheet tools are available on 

the DOE website for this rulemaking: 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0005. 

A. 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 of the 

rulemaking 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 consumer 

conventional cooking products. The key 

findings of DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

See chapter 3 of the TSD for this NOPD 

for further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80995 

18The TSD from the previous residential cooking 

products standards rulemaking is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0127-0097. 

19Because the mass of the test load depends on 

the input rate of the burner, the test energy 

consumption must be normalized for comparison. 

The higher the ratio of test energy consumption to 

test load mass, the less efficient the surface unit. 

1. Product Classes 

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 justifies a different 

standard. In making a determination 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

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

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

During the previous energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

cooking products, DOE evaluated 

product classes for conventional 

cooking tops based on energy source 

(i.e., gas or electric). These distinctions 

initially yielded two conventional 

cooking product classes: (1) Gas cooking 

tops and (2) electric cooking tops. For 

electric cooking tops, DOE determined 

that the ease of cleaning smooth 

elements provides enhanced consumer 

utility over coil elements. Because 

smooth elements typically use more 

energy than coil elements, DOE defined 

two separate product classes for electric 

cooking tops. DOE defined the following 

product classes for consumer 

conventional cooking tops in the April 

2009 Final Rule TSD (‘‘2009 TSD’’): 18

• Electric cooking tops—low or high 

wattage open (coil) elements; 

• Electric cooking tops—smooth 

elements; and 

• Gas cooking tops—conventional 

burners. 

Induction Heating 

In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

proposed to maintain the product 

classes for conventional cooking tops 

from the previous standards rulemaking, 

as presented above. DOE also proposed 

to consider induction heating as a 

technology option for electric smooth 

cooking tops rather than as a separate 

product class. DOE noted that induction 

heating provides the same basic 

function of cooking or heating food as 

heating by gas flame or electric 

resistance, and that the installation 

options available to consumers are also 

the same for both cooking products with 

induction and with electric resistance 

heating. In addition, in considering 

whether there are any performancerelated features that justify a higher 

energy use standard to establish a 

separate product class, DOE noted in the 

September 2016 SNOPR that the utility 

of speed of cooking, ease of cleaning, 

and requirements for specific cookware 

for induction cooking tops do not 

appear to be uniquely associated with 

higher energy use compared to other 

smooth cooking tops with electric 

resistance heating elements. 81 FR 

60784, 60800–60801 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

The SoCal IOUs supported DOE’s 

analysis conducted for induction 

cooking tops and DOE’s decision to 

consider induction heating as a 

technology option for electric smooth 

cooking tops rather than a separate 

product class because induction heating 

provides the same utility for electric 

smooth cooking tops as does electric 

resistance heating. (SoCal IOUs, No. 67 

at pp. 3–4) AHAM agreed with DOE’s 

determination that the ease of cleaning 

smooth elements is a consumer utility 

that justifies a separate product class 

from electric coil cooking tops. 

However, AHAM stated that it does not 

currently have enough information to 

support or oppose DOE’s proposal to 

consider induction heating as a 

technology option for electric smooth 

cooking tops rather than as a separate 

product class. AHAM expressed 

concern whether the test procedure 

proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR 

for cooking tops would accurately 

measure the differences in energy use 

between induction and other smooth 

element cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at 

p. 5) 

As discussed in section III.B of this 

document, DOE withdrew the test 

procedure for conventional cooking tops 

in the August 2020 TP Final Rule. 

However, as discussed in section 

IV.C.2.b of this document, DOE 

determined that its testing using the 

water-heating method previously 

adopted in the December 2016 TP Final 

Rule provided measures of energy 

consumption that represent the energy 

use of both smooth–electric resistance 

and smooth–induction cooking tops 

with relative accuracy. For the reasons 

presented in the September 2016 

SNOPR and discussed above, DOE is 

maintaining consideration of induction 

cooking tops as a technology option for 

electric smooth cooking tops and not as 

a separate product class. 

Commercial-Style Cooking Tops 

Based on DOE’s review of 

conventional gas cooking tops available 

on the market, DOE determined for the 

September 2016 SNOPR that products 

marketed as commercial-style cannot be 

distinguished from standard residentialstyle products based on performance 

characteristics or consumer utility. 

While conventional gas cooking tops 

marketed as commercial-style have 

more than one burner rated above 

14,000 Btu/h and cast-iron grates, 

approximately 50 percent of cooking top 

models marketed as residential-style 

also have one or more burners rated 

above 14,000 Btu/h and cast-iron grates. 

As part of the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE considered whether 

separate product classes for commercialstyle gas cooking tops with higher 

burner input rates are warranted by 

comparing the test energy consumption 

of individual surface units in a sample 

of cooking tops tested by DOE. For the 

September 2016 SNOPR analysis, DOE 

conducted testing of gas surface units in 

a sample of twelve gas cooking tops, 

which included six products marketed 

as commercial-style, and determined 

that there was no statistically significant 

correlation between burner input rate 

and the ratio of surface unit energy 

consumption to test load mass 19 for 

cooking tops marketed as either 

residential-style or commercial-style. 

DOE noted that its testing showed that 

this efficiency ratio for gas cooking tops 

is more closely related to burner and 

grate design rather than input rate. 81 

FR 60784, 60801–60802 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

DOE recognized in the September 

2016 SNOPR that the presence of certain 

features, such as heavy cast iron grates 

and multiple high input rate burners, 

may help consumers perceive a 

difference between commercial-style 

and residential-style gas cooking top 

performance. However, DOE stated that 

it was not aware of clearly-defined and 

consistent design differences and 

corresponding utility provided by 

commercial-style gas cooking tops as 

compared to residential-style gas 

cooking tops. 81 FR 60784, 60803 (Sept. 

2, 2016). Although DOE’s testing 

indicated there is a difference in energy 

consumption between residential-style 

and commercial-style gas cooking tops, 

this difference could not be correlated to 

any specific utility provided to 

consumers. Moreover, DOE stated that is 

not aware of an industry test standard 

that evaluates cooking performance and 

that would quantify the utility provided 

by these products. Id. 

For these reasons, DOE did not 

propose in the September 2016 SNOPR 

to establish a separate product class for 

gas cooking tops marketed as 

commercial-style or conventional gas 

cooking tops with higher burner input 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
80996 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

20Sub-Zero stated that ‘‘high performance’’ 

cooking is a better descriptor of this segment than 

‘‘commercial-style’’ or ‘‘professional-style.’’ 

rates. 81 FR 60784, 60803 (Sept. 2, 

2016). 

AHAM stated that, due to the length 

of the comment period and the limited 

resources that could be dedicated to 

testing, it did not have enough 

information to support or oppose DOE’s 

proposal to not define a separate 

product class for commercial-style 

cooking tops. Moreover, AHAM 

commented that because of its concerns 

that the test procedure does not produce 

repeatable and reproducible results and 

concerns with using a test procedure 

designed for electric cooking tops to 

measure gas cooking top energy use, it 

could not determine whether test results 

are accurate or assess whether separate 

product classes are warranted. (AHAM, 

No. 64 at p. 6) 

Sub-Zero and Felix Storch both urged 

DOE to establish separate product 

classes for commercial-style cooking 

tops. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 2; Felix 

Storch, No. 62 at p. 1) Sub-Zero stated 

that high-performance 20 gas cooking 

tops include design features that 

enhance cooking performance (rapid 

boiling, precision simmering, and even 

heat distribution) while adhering to 

safety requirements, but that negatively 

impact efficiency as compared to 

conventional residential-style cooking 

tops. According to Sub-Zero, gas burner 

design attributes such as safety, 

performance, and efficiency are 

systematic, and that a change to one 

attribute significantly affects the others. 

(Sub-Zero, No. 66 at pp. 2, 4–5) The 

design features associated with highperformance gas cooking tops and the 

utility that Sub-Zero and Miele claimed 

these features provide include: 

• High input rate burners with large 

diameters provide faster heat up times 

and allow consumers to use larger 

professional cooking vessels while 

maintaining even heat distribution (SubZero, No. 66 at p. 5); 

• High input rate burners with high 

levels of flame controllability, 

specifically high turndown ratios, allow 

for both simmering of foods such as 

chocolates and sauces and faster heat up 

times (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 5); 

• Greater spacing between the gas 

flame, grate, and cooking vessel is 

required for high input rate burners than 

for low input rate burners to meet 

performance and safety requirements, 

specifically even heat distribution and 

reduction of carbon monoxide (‘‘CO’’). 

Reducing the spacing between the gas 

flame and the cooking vessel can 

increase efficiency, but flame quenching 

due to flame impingement and contact 

with the grate/cooking vessel can lead to 

increased CO emissions and combustion 

by-products. Designing high 

performance products with safe 

combustion gases provides an inherent 

constraint to the efficiency level that 

can be attained (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at pp. 

5–6); 

• Heavy cast iron grates allow for 

better heat distribution to cooking 

vessels while also providing the 

strength required to support large loads 

and increased product longevity. (SubZero, No. 66 at p. 6) Heavier cast iron 

grates also retain more heat once the 

burner is turned down during simmer or 

shut off. (Miele, No. 60 at p. 2; SubZero, No. 66 at pp. 5–6) 

Sub-Zero commented that the features 

listed above deliver superior 

performance by allowing consumers to 

use a wider range of cooking methods 

that differ significantly from how the 

average consumer uses a consumer 

conventional cooking product. (SubZero, No. 66 at p. 2) Sub-Zero also 

commented that high performance 

cooking tops typically employ a range of 

burner inputs to allow consumers the 

ability to cook foods that require searing 

on one burner and foods that require 

melting temperatures on another burner. 

(Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 4) Miele 

provided similar comments as Sub-Zero 

regarding the features that distinguish 

cooking methods used with commercialstyle cooking tops compared to 

residential-style cooking tops, such as 

the added mass and heat retention of the 

grates for improved temperature 

controllability. (Miele, No. 60 at pp. 1– 

2) Both Sub-Zero and Miele stated that 

their consumers often saute ́ at very high 

burner outputs, manipulate the pans to 

mix the ingredients like professional 

chefs, flame the contents, and keep 

most, if not all, the burners in the 

cooking top firing together when 

cooking. (Miele, No. 60 at p. 2; SubZero, No. 66 at p. 2) Miele added that 

commercial-style models may be 

equipped with specialty burners such as 

a grill or griddle, not covered in the 

proposed standards, that are used by 

consumers together with the adjoining 

regular burners. Miele stated that the 

heat generated by specialty burners is 

not captured in the test procedure but 

could potentially provide a significant 

amount of heat energy to the adjoining 

grates prior to the ignition and use of 

the adjoining burners. Furthermore, 

Miele claimed that the vigorous actions 

of professional-style cooking require the 

support structure of the heavy grates 

typical of commercial-style cooking 

tops. (Miele, No. 60 at p. 1) 

Sub-Zero suggested that DOE 

establish a separate product class for 

residential gas cooking tops that have an 

average burner input rate of at least 

14,000 Btu/h and a grate mass of at least 

4 pounds per burner. Sub-Zero claimed 

that its suggested product class 

definition was based on its research of 

product marketing, utility, and 

performance of residential gas cooking 

products. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 3) 

Based on DOE’s testing, including the 

additional testing conducted for this 

NOPD and discussed in section IV.C.1 

of this document, DOE did not identify 

a correlation between measured energy 

consumption of conventional gas 

cooking products and any specific 

utility provided to consumers. While 

DOE recognizes the presence of certain 

commercial-style features described by 

manufacturers may allow consumers to 

cook with a wide variety of cooking 

methods, manufacturers have not 

provided consumer usage data 

demonstrating that consumers of 

commercial-style cooking tops and 

residential-style cooking tops employ 

significantly different cooking methods 

during a typical cooking cycle. 

Moreover, manufacturers have not 

provided evidence that consumers of 

commercial-style cooking tops would 

use more burners on a cooking top 

during a single cooking cycle than 

consumers of residential-style cooking 

tops. DOE notes that there are many 

residential-style cooking tops with one 

to two high input rate burners and 

continuous cast iron grates that provide 

consumers with the ability to sear food 

at high temperatures and simmer at low 

temperatures. 

For these reasons, DOE is not 

evaluating a separate product class for 

gas cooking tops marketed as 

commercial-style or conventional gas 

cooking tops with higher burner input 

rates. However, as discussed in section 

IV.C.3.a of this document, DOE 

conducted its engineering analysis 

consistent with products currently 

available on the market and is not 

evaluating amendments to the current 

prescriptive standards for gas cooking 

tops; this will maintain the features 

available in conventional cooking tops 

marketed as commercial-style (e.g., 

multiple high input rate burners, cast 

iron gates, etc.) that may be used to 

differentiate these products in the 

marketplace. In addition, the standards 

considered in this proposed 

determination are the same as those 

currently in effect and thus would not 

alter the safety of existing commercialstyle gas cooking tops in terms of 

combustion products or emissions. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80997 

21 DOE noted that it is aware of a type of selfcleaning oven that uses a proprietary oven coating 

and water to perform a self-clean cycle with a 

shorter duration and at a significantly lower 

temperature setting. The self-cleaning cycle for 

these ovens, unlike catalytically-lined standard 

ovens that provide continuous cleaning during 

normal baking, still have a separate self-cleaning 

mode that is user-selectable. 

22However, DOE noted that many gas ranges, 

while marketed as commercial- or professional-style 

and having multiple surface units with high input 

rates, did not have a gas oven with a burner input 

rate above 22,500 Btu/h. 

b. Conventional Ovens 

During the first energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for cooking 

products, DOE evaluated product 

classes for conventional ovens based on 

energy source (i.e., gas or electric). 

These distinctions initially yielded two 

conventional oven product classes: (1) 

Gas ovens and (2) electric ovens. DOE 

more recently determined that the type 

of oven-cleaning system is a utility 

feature that affects performance. DOE 

found that standard ovens and ovens 

using a catalytic continuous-cleaning 

process use roughly the same amount of 

energy. On the other hand, self-clean 

ovens use a pyrolytic process that 

provides enhanced consumer utility 

with lower overall energy consumption 

as compared to either standard or 

catalytically lined ovens. Therefore, in 

the April 2009 Final Rule analysis 

described in the 2009 TSD, DOE defined 

the following product classes for 

conventional ovens: 

• Electric ovens—standard oven with 

or without a catalytic line; 

• Electric ovens—self-clean oven; 

• Gas ovens—standard oven with or 

without a catalytic line; and 

• Gas ovens—self-clean oven. 

Self-Cleaning Technology 

Based on DOE’s review of 

conventional gas ovens available on the 

U.S. market, and on manufacturer 

interviews and testing conducted as part 

of the engineering analysis, DOE noted 

in the June 2015 NOPR that the selfcleaning function of a self-clean oven 

may employ methods other than a hightemperature pyrolytic cycle to perform 

the cleaning action.21 80 FR 33030, 

33043 (June 10, 2015). DOE clarified 

that a conventional self-clean electric or 

gas oven is an oven that has a userselectable mode separate from the 

normal baking mode, not intended to 

heat or cook food, which is dedicated to 

cleaning and removing cooking deposits 

from the oven cavity walls. Id. As part 

of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

stated that it is not aware of any 

differences in consumer behavior in 

terms of the frequency of use of the selfclean function that would be predicated 

on the type of self-cleaning technology 

rather than on cleaning habits or 

cooking usage patterns that are not 

dependent on the type of technology. As 

a result, DOE did not consider 

establishing separate product classes 

based on the type of self-cleaning 

technology. 81 FR 60784, 60804 (Sept. 

2, 2016). DOE did not receive any 

comments on the September 2016 

SNOPR regarding product classes for 

different self-cleaning technologies. As a 

result, for the reasons discussed 

previously, DOE is not considering 

separate product classes based on the 

type of self-cleaning technology. 

Commercial-Style Ovens 

With regard to gas oven burner input 

rates, DOE noted in the June 2015 NOPR 

that based on its review of the consumer 

conventional gas ovens available on the 

market, residential-style gas ovens 

typically have an input rate of 16,000 to 

18,000 Btu/h, whereas residential gas 

ovens marketed as commercial-style 

typically have burner input rates 

ranging from 22,500 to 30,000 Btu/h.22

80 FR 33030, 33043 (June 10, 2015). 

Additional review of both the 

residential-style and commercial-style 

gas oven cavities indicated that there is 

significant overlap in oven cavity 

volume between the two oven types. 

Standard residential-style gas oven 

cavity volumes range from 2.5 to 5.6 

cubic feet (‘‘ft3’’) and gas ovens 

marketed as commercial-style have 

cavity volumes ranging from 3.0 to 6.0 

ft3. Sixty percent of the commercialstyle models surveyed had cavity 

volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 ft3, while 

fifty percent of the standard models had 

cavity volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 ft3. 

The primary differentiating factor 

between the two oven types was burner 

input rate, which is greater than 22,500 

Btu/h for commercial-style gas ovens. 

Id. 

DOE conducted testing for the June 

2015 NOPR using the version of the test 

procedure later adopted in the July 2015 

TP Final Rule to determine whether 

commercial-style gas ovens with higher 

burner input rates warrant establishing 

a separate product class. DOE evaluated 

the cooking efficiency of eight 

conventional gas ovens, including five 

ovens with burners rated at 18,000 Btu/ 

h or less and the remaining three with 

burner input rates ranging from 27,000 

Btu/h to 30,000 Btu/h. 80 FR 33030, 

33043 (June 10, 2015). DOE’s testing 

showed that the measured cooking 

efficiencies for ovens with burner input 

rates above 22,500 Btu/h were lower 

than for ovens with ratings below 

22,500 Btu/h, even after normalizing 

cooking efficiency to a fixed cavity 

volume. DOE also noted that the 

conventional gas ovens with higher 

burner input rates in its test sample 

were marketed as commercial-style and 

had greater total thermal mass, 

including heavier racks and thicker 

cavity walls, even after normalizing for 

cavity volume. DOE’s testing of a 30,000 

Btu/h oven suggested that much of the 

energy input to commercial-style ovens 

with higher burner input rates goes to 

heating the added mass of the cavity, 

rather than the test load, resulting in 

relatively lower measured efficiency 

when measured according to the test 

procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP 

Final Rule. 80 FR 33030, 33043–33044. 

DOE also investigated the time it took 

each oven in the test sample to heat the 

test load to a final test temperature of 

234 degrees Fahrenheit (‘‘°F’’) above its 

initial temperature, as specified in the 

DOE test procedure in appendix I at the 

time of the testing. DOE’s testing 

showed that gas ovens with burner 

input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h do 

not heat the test load significantly faster 

than the ovens with lower burner input 

rates, and two out of the three units 

with the higher burner input rates took 

longer than the average time to heat the 

test load. Therefore, DOE concluded in 

the June 2015 NOPR that there is no 

unique utility associated with faster 

cook times that is provided by gas ovens 

with burner input rates greater than 

22,500 Btu/h. 80 FR 33030, 33045. 

Based on DOE’s testing, reverse 

engineering, and additional discussions 

with manufacturers, DOE posited in the 

June 2015 NOPR that the major 

differentiation between conventional 

gas ovens with lower burner input rates 

and those with higher input rates, 

including those marketed as 

commercial-style, was design and 

construction related to aesthetics rather 

than improved cooking performance. 

Further, DOE did not identify any 

unique utility conferred by commercialstyle gas ovens. For the reasons 

discussed above, DOE did not propose 

to establish a separate product class for 

commercial-style gas ovens with higher 

burner input rates. 80 FR 33030, 33045 

(June 10, 2015). 

As part of the September 2016 

SNOPR, to further address whether 

commercial-style ovens provide a 

unique utility that would warrant 

establishing a separate product class, 

DOE conducted additional interviews 

with manufacturers of commercial-style 

cooking products and reviewed 

additional commercial-style test data. 

While these data demonstrated a 

difference in energy consumption 

between residential-style and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
80998 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

23Fan-only mode is an active mode that is not 

user-selectable in which a fan circulates air 

internally or externally to the cooking product for a finite period of time after the end of the heating 

function. 

commercial-style ovens when measured 

according to the test procedure adopted 

in the July 2015 TP Final Rule, this 

difference could not be correlated to any 

specific utility provided to consumers. 

Moreover, DOE stated that it is not 

aware of an industry test standard that 

evaluates cooking performance and that 

would quantify the utility provided by 

these products. DOE also noted that all 

conventional ovens, regardless of 

whether or not the product is marketed 

as commercial-style, must meet the 

same safety standards for the 

construction of the oven. American 

National Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) 

Z21.1 ‘‘Household Cooking Gas 

Appliances’’ (‘‘ANSI Z21.1’’), Section 

1.21.1, requires that the oven structure, 

and specifically the baking racks, have 

sufficient strength to sustain a load of 

up to 25 pounds depending on the 

width of the rack. A similar standard 

(Underwriters Laboratories (‘‘UL’’) 858 

‘‘Household Electric Ranges’’ (‘‘UL 

858’’)) exists for electric ovens. 81 FR 

60784, 60805–60806 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

DOE also observed as part of the 

September 2016 SNOPR that many of 

the design features identified by 

manufacturers as unique to commercialstyle ovens and that may impact the 

energy consumption, such as extension 

racks, convection fans, cooling fans, and 

hidden bake elements, are also found in 

residential-style products. DOE noted 

that the presence of these features, along 

with thicker oven cavity walls and 

higher burner input rates, may help 

consumers perceive a difference 

between commercial-style and 

residential-style ovens. However, DOE 

stated in the September 2016 SNOPR 

that it was not aware of a clearlydefined and consistent design difference 

and corresponding utility provided by 

commercial-style ovens as compared to 

residential-style ovens. For these 

reasons, DOE did not propose in the 

September 2016 SNOPR to establish a 

separate product class for commercialstyle ovens. 81 FR 60784, 60806 (Sept. 

2, 2016). 

Sub-Zero supported a differentiation 

based on utility between highperformance ovens and residential-style 

ovens. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 2) 

However, Sub-Zero asserted there could 

potentially be confusion if DOE defines 

a high-performance product class for 

ovens in a future rulemaking but does 

not do so for gas cooking tops as part of 

the current rulemaking. Sub-Zero stated 

that since both components are 

incorporated in combined cooking 

products such as ranges, different 

product classes for different 

components could lead to significant 

market uncertainty. Sub-Zero stated that 

the only accurate and equitable solution 

is to define separate product classes for 

high-performance ovens and gas 

cooking tops and set appropriate 

standards based on utility and 

performance considerations. (Sub-Zero, 

No. 66 at p. 6) 

Based on DOE’s analysis discussed 

previously, DOE is not evaluating a 

separate product class for commercialstyle ovens. 

Installation Configuration 

As discussed in section III.B of this 

document, in the October 2012 TP Final 

Rule, DOE amended appendix I to 

include methods for measuring fan-only 

mode.23 Based on DOE’s testing of 

freestanding, built-in, and slide-in 

conventional gas and electric ovens, 

DOE observed that all of the built-in and 

slide-in ovens tested consumed energy 

in fan-only mode, whereas freestanding 

ovens did not. The energy consumption 

in fan-only mode for built-in and slidein ovens ranged from approximately 1.3 

to 37.6 watt-hours (‘‘Wh’’) per cycle, 

which corresponds to 0.25 to 7.6 

kilowatt-hours per year (‘‘kWh/yr’’). 

Based on DOE’s reverse engineering 

analyses, DOE noted that built-in and 

slide-in products incorporate an 

additional exhaust fan and vent 

assembly that is not present in 

freestanding products. The additional 

energy required to exhaust air from the 

oven cavity is necessary for slide-in and 

built-in installation configurations to 

meet safety-related temperature 

requirements because the oven is 

enclosed in cabinetry. For these reasons, 

DOE proposed in the June 2015 NOPR 

and September 2016 SNOPR to include 

separate product classes for freestanding 

and built-in/slide-in ovens. 80 FR 

33030, 33045 (June 10, 2015); 81 FR 

60784, 60806 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

DOE did not receive comment on its 

proposal in the September 2016 SNOPR 

to include separate product classes for 

built-in/slide-in ovens. For the reasons 

discussed above, DOE analyzed separate 

product classes for freestanding and 

built-in/slide-in ovens for this NOPD. 

In summary, DOE analyzed the 

product classes listed in Table IV–1 for 

this NOPD. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 80999 

24Catalytic burners were included in the 

September 2016 SNOPR screening analysis, but not 

included in the table of technology options. 

25Previous comments and DOE’s responses on 

the various cooking top technology options listed in 

Table IV–2 are discussed in the September 2016 

SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60807–60808 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

26AHAM test data showed that the average pan 

warpage ranged from –0.02 inches for aluminum 

pans to –0.08 inches for stainless steel pans. 

2. Technology Options 

As part of the market and technology 

assessment, DOE uses information about 

existing and past technology options 

and prototype designs to help identify 

technologies that manufacturers could 

use to improve energy efficiency. 

Initially, these technologies encompass 

all those that DOE believes are 

technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of 

the TSD for this NOPD includes the 

detailed list and descriptions of all 

technology options identified for this 

equipment. 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

proposed to consider the technology 

options for conventional cooking tops 

listed in Table IV–2. 81 FR 60784, 60808 

(Sept. 2, 2016). 

In response to the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE received comments 

regarding the potential energy savings 

and applicability of the improved 

contact conductance and low-standbyloss electronic control technology 

options for conventional cooking tops. 

These specific technology options are 

discussed in the following sections.25

Improved Contact Conductance 

AHAM opposed improved contact 

conductance as a technology option for 

electric coil cooking tops. AHAM 

commented that the test procedure 

specifies narrow tolerances on the 

flatness of the test vessel, which AHAM 

feels are appropriate to reduce 

variability in test results. AHAM stated 

that if a consumer does not use pots 

with comparable flatness, any reduction 

in energy consumption due to greater 

flatness of the heating element that 

would be measured using the test 

procedure will not be realized in the 

field. AHAM supplied data from testing 

of different pan diameters and materials 

showing that all pan materials warp 

after the first use, and the warping 

continues as the cookware is used.26

Based on this testing, AHAM asserted 

that consumers are using warped pans 

and that improving the flatness of the 

heating element will not achieve 

improved contact conductance. AHAM 

stated, therefore, that the energy savings 

associated with the improved contact 

conductance technology option 

measured under the test procedure is 

not representative of what consumer 

will experience in the field and, as a 

result, this should not be considered as 

a technology option. (AHAM, No. 64 at 

pp. 7–10) 

DOE agrees that, based on the test 

data provided by AHAM, improving the 

flatness of the electric coil heating 

element may not result in energy 

savings due to the warping of pots and 

pans used by consumers. As a result, 

DOE did not consider improved contact 

conductance as a technology option for 

electric coil cooking tops for this NOPD. 

Low-Standby-Loss Electronic Controls 

AHAM commented that most baseline 

products on the market are already 

using a low-standby-loss SMPS and, as 

a result, this should not be considered 

a viable technology option to improve 

efficiency for electric smooth cooking 

tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 10) Among 

the six electric smooth cooking tops that 

DOE tore down, DOE observed units 

that incorporated a baseline efficiency 

linear power supply. As a result, DOE 

maintained SMPS as a technology 

option for reducing the standby power 

consumption of electric smooth cooking 

tops for this NOPD. 

Table IV–3 lists the technology 

options for cooking tops that DOE 

considered for this NOPD. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.002</GPH>
81000 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

27Prevoius comments and DOE’s responses on 

the various oven technology options listed in Table 

IV–4 are discussed in the June 2015 NOPR and 

September 2016 SNOPR. 80 FR 33030, 33046– 

33047 (June 10, 2015); 81 FR 60784, 60808–60810 

(Sept. 2, 2016). 

28Continuous ignition systems (e.g., constantburning or ‘‘standing’’ pilot), defined in ANSI 

Z21.1, were eliminated for all gas cooking products 

by the current standards as of April 9, 2012. 

b. Conventional Ovens 

In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

proposed to consider the technology 

options for conventional ovens listed in 

Table IV–4. 81 FR 60784, 60808–60810 

(Sept. 2, 2016). 

In response to the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE received a number of 

comments regarding the potential 

energy savings and applicability of 

intermittent/interrupted ignition or 

intermittent pilot ignition systems, 

forced convection, improved insulation, 

improved door seals, oven separator, 

reduced conduction losses, and reduced 

vent rate, as technology options for 

conventional ovens. These specific 

technology options are discussed in the 

following sections.27

Intermittent/Interrupted Ignition or 

Intermittent Pilot Ignition System 

As part of the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE conducted a review of 

ignition systems available on the market 

as well as various industry definitions 

for automatic gas ignition available in 

household gas appliances. DOE based 

its analysis on existing industry 

terminology such as definitions 

available in ANSI Z21.1 and ANSI 

Z21.20, ‘‘Automatic Electrical Controls 

for Household and Similar Use Part 2: 

Particular Requirements for Automatic 

Burner Ignition Systems and 

Components.’’ When a conventional gas 

oven cooking cycle is initiated, an 

ignition system is energized before gas 

is allowed to flow to the main burner to 

be lit. Ignition types observed on the 

market for conventional gas ovens fall 

under three categories: (1) Intermittent 

ignition, (2) intermittent/interrupted 

ignition, and (3) intermittent pilot 

ignition.28 81 FR 60784, 60809 (Sept. 2, 

2016). 

DOE noted in the September 2016 

SNOPR that its testing showed that 

intermittent pilot ignition systems (i.e., 

electronic spark ignition systems) 

reduce energy consumption as 

compared to intermittent glo-bar 

ignition systems. However, based on 

DOE’s review of different ignition 

systems, DOE additionally determined 

that energy savings can be achieved 

from switching from the baseline 

intermittent glo-bar ignition system to 

either an intermittent/interrupted 

ignition or intermittent pilot ignition. 

As a result, DOE expanded the gas 

ignition system technology option to 

account for both of these options. 81 FR 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.003</GPH> EP14DE20.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81001 

29Spire, formerly the Laclede Group, Inc., April 

14, 2014 comments are available at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BTSTD-0005-0008. 

60784, 60809–60810 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

Because DOE proposed in the 

September 2016 SNOPR to adopt a 

prescriptive standard for the control 

system of conventional gas ovens to 

require the use of an intermittent/ 

interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot 

ignition, DOE also proposed to define 

‘‘intermittent/interrupted ignition’’ and 

‘‘intermittent pilot ignition’’ in 10 CFR 

430.2. 81 FR 60784, 60810. 

In response to the September 2016 

SNOPR, Spire reiterated its April 14, 

2014 comments 29 that its test data 

indicate that glo-bar ignition systems 

consume only 0.16 kWh per cycle. Spire 

claimed that this is equivalent to 160 W, 

which is no more than half of DOE’s 

estimates. (Spire, No. 61 at pp. 5–6) 

DOE responded to these comments in 

the June 2015 NOPR by presenting test 

data on the glo-bar power and energy 

consumption from its test sample. DOE 

noted that while the power 

consumption of the glo-bar ignition 

systems was measured as 330 W to 450 

W, the per-cycle energy consumption 

was similar to that reported by Spire, 

ranging from 0.141 to 0.261 kWh, 

because the glo-bar ignition systems do 

not stay on for the entire cooking cycle 

and instead cycle on and off as the main 

burner cycles on and off. 80 FR 33030, 

33051 (June 10, 2015). DOE analyzed 

standards for conventional ovens using 

the IAEC metric, which includes the 

energy use from the glo-bar ignition 

system. 

AHAM and GE questioned whether 

DOE’s proposal to require gas ovens to 

be equipped with an intermittent/ 

interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot 

ignition would achieve energy savings. 

AHAM and GE noted that a glo-bar 

ignition system, which stays on when 

the main burner is on, contributes heat 

to the cavity and the food load. (AHAM, 

No. 64 at p. 28; GE, No. 72 at p. 3) 

AHAM stated that unlike DOE’s testing 

that compared two different models, one 

with a glo-bar ignition and one with an 

intermittent/interrupted or intermittent 

pilot system, AHAM members 

conducted testing by comparing the 

same model with two different ignition 

systems. AHAM member testing, 

presented in Table IV–5, showed that 

the units equipped with the glo-bar 

ignition system consumed less energy 

than the same models equipped with 

the intermittent pilot (i.e., spark 

ignition) system. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 

28–29) 

In addition, AHAM and GE presented 

data from testing of a single oven that 

was configured to switch between the 

glo-bar ignition system and the 

intermittent pilot ignition system. 

AHAM and GE noted that the testing, 

conducted according to the DOE test 

procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP 

Final Rule, showed that when replacing 

the glo-bar ignition system with spark 

ignition, the electrical energy consumed 

by the glo-bar is replaced by additional 

gas usage when using the intermittent 

pilot ignition system, and the overall 

energy use of both systems is essentially 

the same. Based on this, AHAM and GE 

asserted that replacing the glo-bar 

ignition system with an intermittent/ 

interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot 

ignition does not achieve energy 

savings. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 29–30; 

GE, No. 72 at p. 3) 

Based on review of the additional test 

data provided by AHAM, DOE agrees 

that replacing the intermittent glo-bar 

ignition system with an intermittent/ 

interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot 

ignition may not achieve energy savings 

due to the elimination of heat input that 

the glo-bar contributes to the cavity and 

food load, which must be offset by 

additional gas consumption. As a result, 

DOE is no longer considering 

intermittent/interrupted or intermittent 

pilot ignition systems as a technology 

option. Because DOE is no longer 

considering these ignition systems as 

technology options, DOE is not 

considering prescriptive standards to 

require that conventional gas ovens be 

equipped with a control system that 

uses intermittent/interrupted ignition or 

intermittent pilot ignition in this NOPD. 

Instead, DOE is evaluating 

prescriptive standards requiring that 

conventional ovens not be equipped 

with a control system that uses a linear 

power supply. DOE’s analysis revealed 

that conventional ovens at the baseline 

efficiency level use a conventional 

linear power supply control design. A 

linear power supply typically produces 

unregulated as well as regulated power. 

The main characteristic of an 

unregulated power supply is that its 

output may contain significant voltage 

ripple and that the output voltage will 

usually vary with the current drawn. 

The voltages produced by regulated 

power supplies are typically more 

stable, exhibiting less ripple than the 

output from an unregulated power 

supply and maintaining a relatively 

constant voltage within the specified 

current limits of the device(s) regulating 

the power. The unregulated portion of a 

linear power supply typically consists 

of a transformer that steps alternating 

current (‘‘AC’’) line voltage down, a 

voltage rectifier circuit for AC to direct 

current (‘‘DC’’) conversion, and a 

capacitor to produce unregulated, DC 

output. However, there are other means 

of producing and implementing an 

unregulated power supply such as 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.005</GPH>
81002 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

30Available online at http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0070-0053. 

transformerless capacitive and/or 

resistive rectification circuits. 

Within a linear power supply, the 

unregulated output serves as an input 

into a single or multiple voltageregulating devices. Such regulating 

devices include Zener diodes, linear 

voltage regulators, or similar 

components which produce a lowerpotential, regulated power output from 

a higher-potential DC input. This 

approach results in a rugged power 

supply which is reliable, but typically 

has an efficiency of about 40 percent. As 

discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this 

document, DOE’s analysis showed that 

switching from a conventional linear 

power supply to an SMPS reduces the 

standby mode energy consumption for 

conventional ovens. An SMPS offers 

higher conversion efficiencies of up to 

75 percent in appliance applications for 

power supply sizes similar to those of 

conventional ovens. An SMPS also 

reduces the no-load standby losses. DOE 

seeks comment on both its initial 

decision to no longer consider 

intermittent/interrupted or intermittent 

pilot ignition systems as a technology 

option, and its initial decision to only 

evaluate prescriptive standards 

requiring that conventional ovens not be 

equipped with a control system that 

uses a linear power supply (see section 

VII.B of this document). 

Forced Convection 

AHAM commented that, depending 

on the total energy consumption of the 

unit, the convection motor wattage 

could negate any potential energy 

savings of forced convection. AHAM 

also asserted that convection is not 

appropriate for cooking all food types, 

such as covered food loads. AHAM 

commented that because DOE proposed 

to repeal the oven test procedure in the 

August 2016 TP SNOPR, there was no 

way to determine whether there are 

efficiency gains from this technology 

option. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 11) 

As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD 

for this NOPD, DOE conducted testing 

on ovens equipped with forced 

convection, comparing the measured 

energy consumption of each oven in 

bake mode to the average energy 

consumption of bake mode and 

convection mode, including energy 

consumption due to the fan motor, as 

specified in the test procedure adopted 

in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. Based on 

this testing, DOE determined that forced 

convection provides a 4 to 6-percent 

increase in cooking efficiency. In 

addition, DOE notes that because the 

test procedure specified that the bake 

mode and convection mode energy 

consumption be averaged when 

calculating cooking efficiency, the test 

procedure did not assume that forced 

convection would be used for cooking 

all food loads. For these reasons, DOE 

retained forced convection as a 

technology option for this NOPD. 

However, as discussed in section III.B of 

this document, DOE repealed the test 

procedures for conventional ovens. DOE 

will reevaluate the energy savings 

associated with this technology option if 

it considers performance standards in a 

future rulemaking. 

Improved Insulation 

AHAM commented that DOE’s 

estimate of the efficiency increase 

associated with improved insulation is 

based on data from the 1996 TSD.30

AHAM also noted that added insulation 

would decrease the overall cavity size 

and reduce consumer utility. AHAM 

commented that DOE must conduct 

testing on products currently on the 

market using an active test procedure to 

determine the energy savings associated 

with these technology options. (AHAM, 

No. 64 at p. 13) As discussed in chapter 

3 of the TSD for this NOPD, DOE noted 

that using denser insulation can 

increase cooking efficiency, and that 

self-clean ovens typically have a more 

effective insulation package to meet 

surface temperature safety requirements 

due to the higher temperatures during 

the self-cleaning operation. DOE 

observed from teardowns of products in 

its test sample that standard and selfclean ovens may use different density 

insulations. As a result, DOE believes 

that the efficiency of standard ovens can 

be increased by using improved 

insulation. For these reasons, DOE 

maintained improved insulation as a 

technology option for standard ovens for 

this NOPD, although as discussed in 

section IV.B.1.b of this document, DOE 

screened out added insulation from 

further analysis. DOE recognizes that 

the estimates for the energy savings may 

vary depending on the test procedure. 

DOE will reevaluate the energy savings 

associated with this technology option if 

it considers performance standards in a 

future rulemaking. 

Improved Door Seals 

AHAM commented that further 

improving door seals will lead to a loss 

of performance due to a loss of 

sufficient airflow. According to AHAM, 

door seals are already optimized to 

retain heat while offering enough 

airflow for cooking performance. AHAM 

stated that if the door is sealed further, 

increased airflow would be required by 

means of implementing an additional 

motor that would likely consume more 

energy, and the 1-percent energy gain 

DOE estimated would be eliminated. 

For these reasons, AHAM opposed 

considering improved door seals as a 

technology option. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 

11) 

As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD 

for this NOPD, DOE noted that because 

some venting is required for proper 

cooking performance, a complete seal 

on the oven is undesirable. However, 

the oven door seals can be improved 

further without sealing the oven 

completely. As discussed in chapter 5 of 

the TSD for this NOPD, the estimated 

efficiency improvement for improving 

the door seals was based on replacing 

the baseline silicone rubber door seal 

that DOE observed in its test sample 

with the fiberglass door seals with 

metallic mesh typically found in selfclean ovens and that DOE also observed 

in its test sample. As a result, DOE 

initially concludes that efficiency can be 

increased by improving the door seals 

and retained this technology option for 

this NOPD. 

Oven Separator 

AHAM opposed considering oven 

separators as a technology option. 

AHAM commented that oven separators 

are not a widely available feature and 

that DOE does not have data to show the 

frequency with which consumers 

actually use the oven separator. AHAM 

stated that without knowing whether 

consumers use the oven separator, it is 

not possible to determine the energy 

savings that would be realized in the 

field. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 11) DOE 

notes that the test procedure adopted in 

the July 2015 TP Final Rule specified 

that the total AEC of an oven equipped 

with an oven separator be calculated as 

the average energy. As discussed in the 

September 2016 SNOPR, DOE’s testing 

showed that oven separators can reduce 

energy use by reducing the cavity 

volume that must be heated. 81 FR 

60784, 60818. Because oven separators 

have the potential to reduce energy use 

for conventional electric ovens, DOE 

retained this technology option for this 

NOPD. 

Reduced Conduction Losses 

AHAM commented that DOE’s data 

on reduced conduction losses are based 

on products that are more than 10 years 

old. AHAM noted that testing at the 

time indicated an extremely small 

absolute percentage point increase in 

efficiency of 0.05 percent, and that DOE 

does not have any current data to 

evaluate the efficiency improvement for 

products currently on the market. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81003 

(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 12) Based on 

DOE’s testing and reverse engineering 

for this proposed determination, DOE 

did not observe variation in the 

interface between the door and the oven 

cavity that would demonstrate an 

opportunity for improving efficiency. As 

a result, DOE did not consider reduced 

conduction losses as a technology 

option in this NOPD. 

Reduced Vent Rate 

AHAM opposed considering reduced 

vent rate as a technology option. AHAM 

commented that DOE’s estimates of 

energy savings rely on old testing and 

product designs, and that the negligible 

energy savings are based on a test 

procedure that DOE proposed to repeal 

in the August 2016 TP SNOPR. 

According to AHAM, any future energy 

savings may not be captured if the test 

procedure is changed. AHAM also 

commented that oven vent rates are part 

of a complex air flow design that affects 

preheat times, cooking performance, 

and fire and explosion safety 

performance. AHAM asserted that 

forcing manufacturers to implement this 

technology option would reduce energy 

use by a negligible amount while forcing 

a significant redesign effort. AHAM 

added that this could also lead to the 

elimination of self-clean ovens or cause 

poor cooking performance because it 

would result in low air flow and the 

development of hots spots in the cavity. 

(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 12) 

DOE notes that it proposed to 

consider reduced vent rate as a 

technology option for only electric 

standard ovens, and that no further 

increase in efficiency can be achieved 

for gas and electric self-clean ovens and 

gas standard ovens with this technology 

option. In addition, because DOE did 

not consider reduced vent rate for gas 

ovens, DOE does not believe that fire 

and explosion safety performance from 

gas combustion would be an issue. As 

noted in the September 2016 SNOPR, 

DOE observed from its testing that 

reduced vent rate could be considered 

for improving the cooking efficiency for 

electric standard ovens. 81 FR 60784, 

60810 (Sept. 2, 2016). As a result, DOE 

retained reduced vent rate as a 

technology option for electric standard 

ovens in this NOPD. 

Table IV–6 lists the technology 

options for ovens that DOE considered 

for this NOPD. 

B. 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. 

(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary 

Technologies. If a design option uses 

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, 

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 criteria, it will be excluded 

from further consideration in the 

engineering analysis. The reasons for 

eliminating any technology are 

discussed below. 

The subsequent sections include 

comments from interested parties 

pertinent to the screening criteria, 

DOE’s evaluation of each technology 

option against the screening analysis 

criteria, and whether DOE determined 

that a technology option should be 

excluded (‘‘screened out’’) based on the 

screening criteria. 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

For conventional cooking tops, in the 

September 2016 SNOPR, DOE screened 

out radiant gas burners, catalytic 

burners, reduced excess air at burner, 

and reflective surfaces. 81 FR 60784, 

60810–60811 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE did 

not receive any comments opposing the 

technology options screened out in the 

September 2016 SNOPR. For the same 

reasons discussed in the September 

2016 SNOPR, DOE is continuing to 

screen out radiant gas burners, catalytic 

burners, reduced excess air at burner, 

and reflective surfaces from further 

analysis in this NOPD. 

In addition, AHAM commented that 

halogen heating elements are not being 

used in any commercially available 

products or working prototypes. AHAM 

also noted that DOE’s estimated energy 

savings using the previous version of 

the test procedure are no longer 

relevant. AHAM asserted that halogen 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.006</GPH>
81004 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

heating elements should be screened out 

from the analysis. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 

10) Based on DOE’s review of products 

available on the market and its product 

teardowns, DOE is not aware of any 

cooking tops that incorporate halogen 

heating elements. Because this 

technology is currently not being used 

commercially or in working prototypes, 

DOE does not believe that it would be 

practicable to produce this technology 

in commercial products on the scale 

necessary to serve the market by the 

potential compliance date of the 

proposed standards. As a result, DOE is 

screening out halogen elements from 

further analysis in this NOPD. 

AHAM commented that the optimized 

burner and grate design technology 

option for gas cooking tops should be 

screened out from the analysis. AHAM 

stated that designs of the burner system 

components are interdependent and 

must consider safety as well. According 

to AHAM, gas cooking top burner and 

grate designs are already optimized to 

meet consumer utility and to stay 

within combustion safety requirements. 

AHAM also asserted that the additional 

heat retention of heavier grates 

contributes to the efficiency of longer 

cooking cycles that are not measured 

under the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 

64 at p. 6) 

As discussed in the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE considered different 

efficiency levels associated with the 

optimized burner and grate design 

technology option that it observed in 

products available on the market, 

including a range of commercial-style 

gas cooking tops that maintain the 

utilities discussed previously in section 

IV.A.1.a of this document. 81 FR 60784, 

60187 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE 

characterized the optimized burner and 

grate design incremental efficiency 

levels based on different observed 

features (e.g., high input rate burners, 

grate types and material). DOE further 

notes that all gas cooking tops on the 

market, including those with an 

optimized burner and grate design, have 

been certified to applicable safety 

standards. However, DOE recognizes 

that the estimates for the energy savings 

associated with optimized burner and 

grate design may vary depending on the 

test procedure, and thus screened out 

this technology option from further 

analysis of gas cooking tops. DOE will 

reevaluate the energy savings associated 

with this technology option if it 

considers performance standards in a 

future rulemaking. 

b. Conventional Ovens 

For conventional ovens, in the 

September 2016 SNOPR, DOE screened 

out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, 

halogen lamp oven, no oven door 

window, reflective surfaces, and 

optimized burner and cavity design. 81 

FR 60784, 60811 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

AHAM supported DOE’s proposal to 

screen out optimized burner and cavity 

design as well as no oven door window 

from the analysis. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 

12, 13) Because DOE did not receive any 

comments opposing the technology 

options screened out in the September 

2016 SNOPR, for the same reasons 

discussed in the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE screened out added 

insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen 

lamp oven, no oven door window, 

reflective surfaces, and optimized 

burner and cavity design from further 

analysis in this NOPD. 

2. Remaining Technologies 

Based on the screening analysis, DOE 

considered the design options listed in 

Table IV–7 for conventional cooking 

tops and Table IV–8 for conventional 

ovens. 

DOE determined that these 

technology options are technologically 

feasible because they are being used or 

have previously been used in 

commercially available products or 

working prototypes. DOE also finds that 

all of the remaining technology options 

meet the other screening criteria (i.e., 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service and do not result in adverse 

impacts on consumer utility, product 

availability, health, or safety, nor 

require unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies). For additional details, see 

chapter 4 of the TSD for this NOPD. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of 

conventional cooking products. There 

are two elements 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 higher-efficiency 

products, DOE considers technologies 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.007</GPH> EP14DE20.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81005 

31Available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0058. 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each product class, DOE estimates 

the baseline 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 (i.e., the 

LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

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 to define ‘‘gap 

fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between 

other identified efficiency levels) and/or 

to extrapolate to the ‘‘max-tech’’ level 

(particularly in cases where the ‘‘maxtech’’ level exceeds the maximum 

efficiency level currently available on 

the market). 

In this rulemaking, DOE is adopting a 

design-option approach, supplemented 

by reverse engineering (physical 

teardowns and testing of existing 

products in the market) to identify the 

incremental cost and efficiency 

improvement associated with each 

design option or design option 

combination. In addition, DOE 

considered data from the previous 

rulemaking analysis provided in the 

2009 TSD. DOE also conducted 

interviews with manufacturers of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products to develop a deeper 

understanding of the various 

combinations of design options used to 

increase product efficiency, and their 

associated manufacturing costs. 

DOE conducted testing and reverse 

engineering teardowns on products 

available on the market. Because there 

are no performance-based energy 

conservation standards or energy 

reporting requirements for consumer 

conventional cooking products, DOE 

selected test units based on 

performance-related features and 

technologies advertised in product 

literature. 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

As noted in the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE’s test sample for 

conventional cooking tops included four 

gas cooking tops, eight gas ranges, six 

electric cooking tops, and two electric 

ranges for a total of 20 conventional 

cooking tops covering all of the 

considered product classes. 81 FR 

60784, 60811–60812 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

DOE conducted testing on each cooking 

top in its test sample. DOE notes that it 

originally conducted testing using the 

withdrawn hybrid test block method 

proposed in the December 2014 TP 

SNOPR. DOE also tested nine of the 

twenty units in its test sample using the 

water heating test method adopted in 

the December 2016 TP Final Rule, 

which as discussed in section III.B of 

this document has since been 

withdrawn. To maintain its full test 

sample to be representative of products 

on the market, DOE then used the 

relative difference in results between 

the two test methods to scale the 

normalized total cooking top energy 

consumption for the remaining units in 

its test sample. 

DOE conducted physical teardowns 

on each test unit to develop a 

manufacturing cost model and to 

evaluate key design features. DOE 

supplemented its reverse engineering 

analyses by conducting manufacturer 

interviews to obtain feedback on 

efficiency levels, design options, inputs 

for the manufacturing cost model, and 

resulting manufacturing costs. DOE 

used the results from testing, reverse 

engineering, and manufacturer 

interviews to develop the efficiency 

levels and manufacturing costs 

discussed in section IV.C.2 and section 

IV.C.3 of this document. 

In response to the September 2016 

SNOPR, AHAM requested information 

on which of the IAECs for units in 

DOE’s test sample were measured using 

the methods proposed in the August 

2016 TP SNOPR and which IAECs were 

calculated using scaling factors derived 

from the results of testing using the 

hybrid test block method proposed in 

the December 2014 TP SNOPR. AHAM 

also requested that DOE provide the 

scaling factors for each scaled unit in 

the test sample. (AHAM, No. 57 at p. 2) 

On October 24, 2016, DOE added to the 

rulemaking docket the information 

requested by AHAM, which included: 

(1) The IAECs for the units tested 

according to the August 2016 TP 

SNOPR, (2) the IAECs for the units 

tested according to the withdrawn 

hybrid test block method, and (3) the 

scaling factor used to scale results 

obtained with the hybrid test block 

method.31

AHAM did not agree with DOE’s 

method to scale results using the 

difference between products tested with 

both the hybrid block and water-heating 

test procedures. AHAM did not believe 

that DOE had enough data to 

understand how different cooking top 

configurations affect the scaling factor, 

and as such asserted that DOE should 

not develop a scaling factor. (AHAM, 

No. 64 at pp. 14–15) AHAM noted that 

the hybrid test block method specified 

three different test load diameters, while 

the test procedure proposed in the 

August 2016 TP SNOPR specified eight 

different test load diameters. 

Additionally, AHAM claimed that due 

to the variety of cooking top 

configurations and surface unit 

diameters that were available on the 

U.S. market, a single scaling factor for 

any cooking top product class would 

not be meaningful. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 

14) 

AHAM specifically noted that the 

scaling factors used for the smooth– 

electric resistance cooking tops were 

calculated using units that contained 

multi-ring elements. AHAM also stated 

that because ‘‘zone-less’’ smooth– 

induction cooking tops (i.e., those with 

full-surface induction) were tested 

differently than ‘‘zoned’’ smooth– 

induction cooking tops (i.e., those with 

individual surface units)—the test load 

sizes were based on the number of 

controls rather than the diameter of each 

of the surface units—it was 

inappropriate to use a scaling factor 

developed using zoned cooking tops for 

zone-less cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 

at pp. 14–15) Furthermore, for gas 

cooking tops, AHAM stated that because 

DOE’s test sample contained cooking 

tops with unique burner/grate designs 

that had an impact on the efficiency of 

the product, it was inappropriate to 

apply the same scaling factor to all of 

the gas models in the DOE test sample. 

(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 16) 

AHAM noted that DOE tested less 

than half of the cooking tops in its test 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
81006 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

sample according to the test procedure 

proposed in the August 2016 TP 

SNOPR, and as a result, based the 

standards for conventional cooking tops 

proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR 

on test data for only nine products. 

(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 14) Moreover, 

AHAM stated that because the 

rulemaking started 3 years prior to the 

September 2016 SNOPR, DOE relied on 

old samples for its analysis and that it 

was possible that products on the 

market at the time of AHAM’s 

comments differed from the products on 

the market at the time DOE started its 

analysis. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 14) 

AHAM also commented that the number 

of different product types in DOE’s test 

sample was disproportionate to the 

percentage of shipments for each 

product type. AHAM noted that DOE 

tested only two smooth–electric 

resistance cooking tops and three 

electric coil cooking tops even though 

these product types represented a 

significant portion of the market. 

(AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 14, 16) 

AHAM submitted test data for 8 

electric coil cooking tops, 15 electric 

smooth cooking tops (11 electric 

resistance and 4 induction), and 10 gas 

cooking tops. AHAM’s test results are 

presented in Table IV–9 to Table IV–11. 

The coefficient of variation in AHAM’s 

test data ranges from 7.1 to 9.2 percent, 

depending on the product class. 

According to AHAM, this variation 

introduced uncertainty about whether 

or not a data point would meet the 

proposed standard level and made it 

difficult to evaluate the potential impact 

of the proposed standard. (AHAM, No. 

64 at pp. 18, 20) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.009</GPH> EP14DE20.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81007 

32Test vessels are grouped into categories based 

on ranges of test vessel diameters to represent 

different cookware types. 

DOE notes that for each of the electric 

cooking top product classes, it did not 

base the scaling factor on simply the 

overall AEC calculated according to 

each test method, because the difference 

in the overall AECs that were measured 

for each electric cooking top subject to 

the two test methods varied by more 

than 2 percentage points for some 

product classes. Instead, DOE scaled the 

measured results for each individual 

surface unit of each cooking top based 

on the heating technology of the surface 

unit (coil, smooth–electric resistance, 

and smooth–induction) and the surface 

unit diameter, accounting for any 

difference in the diameter of the test 

loads for each respective test method 

used to test the surface unit. The scaling 

factors presented in DOE’s October 24, 

2016 response to AHAM’s data request 

thus are an average obtained from 

individually scaling four or more 

surface units per cooking top, and 

represent the aggregate difference 

between the overall AEC determined 

using each test method. 

This scaling method for electric 

cooking tops allowed DOE to account 

for configuration differences among 

units in its test sample, including the 

presence of multi-ring surface units, and 

the effects of the test cookware selection 

process specified in the December 2016 

TP Final Rule. Regarding the latter, for 

a given surface unit, the test vessel with 

a diameter that most closely matched 

the surface unit diameter was selected 

for the test. The number of test vessels 

and test vessel size categories 32 needed 

to assess the energy consumption of the 

cooking top was based on the number of 

controls that could be independently 

but simultaneously operated on the 

cooking top. If the number of 

independent controls/surface units for 

the cooking top exceeded two, the 

cooking top was required to be tested 

with test vessels from at least two 

cookware categories. As a result, the test 

vessel selected for testing an individual 

surface unit was based on the diameter 

of that surface unit as well as the 

configuration of diameters of all the 

surface units on the cooking top to 

ensure that the test vessel size category 

requirements were also met. Scaling test 

results for each individual surface unit 

ensured that DOE factored in this test 

procedure requirement. 

In contrast, for the gas cooking top 

test data that were scaled from the 

results using the hybrid test block 

method, DOE used the average 

difference in overall AEC between the 

two test methods to scale the test results 

because the test load selection process 

for gas cooking tops depended only on 

the input rate of each individual burner 

and did not depend on the configuration 

of all the burners on the cooking top. 

Thus, scaling by the percent difference 

in overall AEC instead of surface unit 

energy consumption was appropriate for 

gas cooking tops, as evidenced by the 

results for the three gas units in the DOE 

test sample that were tested according 

both test methods. For these three gas 

cooking tops, the percent difference in 

overall AEC varied less than 1 

percentage point. 

For these reasons, in this NOPD DOE 

maintained the same approach to scale 

test results measured with the hybrid 

test block method and updated the 

scaling factors to reflect the test 

procedure adopted in the December 

2016 TP Final Rule. 

DOE’s test sample of 20 consumer 

conventional cooking products that 

were used for the September 2016 

SNOPR analysis, as well as being 

subjected to additional testing for this 

NOPD, comprised units purchased in 

2014 and 2015. To supplement its 

analysis for this NOPD, DOE also 

purchased and tested two additional 

commercial-style gas cooking tops and 

one additional smooth–electric 

resistance cooking top. DOE has 

periodically reviewed the market 

throughout the course of the rulemaking 

and has determined that this test sample 

captures the range of features currently 

available on the market for each product 

class. The key characteristics and test 

results for all cooking top units in DOE’s 

test sample are listed in Table IV–12 

and Table IV–13. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.011</GPH>
81008 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

For completeness, DOE supplemented 

its dataset by incorporating AHAM’s test 

data, and considered this combined 

dataset in evaluating the efficiency 

levels, as discussed in section IV.C.2 of 

this document. The combined dataset 

significantly expands the number of 

models included in the engineering 

analysis and further ensures that the full 

range of energy consumption for 

products on the market is captured. 

b. Conventional Ovens 

As noted in the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE’s test sample for 

conventional ovens included 1 gas wall 

oven, 7 gas ranges, 5 electric wall ovens, 

and 2 electric ranges for a total of 15 

conventional ovens covering all of the 

considered product classes. DOE 

conducted testing according to the test 

procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP 

Final Rule. 81 FR 60784, 60812 (Sept. 2, 

2016). As discussed in section III.B of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.012</GPH> EP14DE20.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81009 

this document, although DOE has since 

repealed the conventional oven test 

procedure in appendix I, DOE based its 

analyses on the data measured using 

that test procedure. Table IV–14 and 

Table IV–15 present the testing results 

maintained from the September 2016 

SNOPR for the conventional gas and 

electric ovens, respectively. As with 

cooking tops, DOE used the results from 

testing, reverse engineering, and 

manufacturer interviews to develop the 

efficiency levels and manufacturing 

costs for conventional ovens discussed 

in section IV.C.2 and section IV.C.3 of 

this document. 

2. Efficiency Levels 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

A baseline unit is a product that just 

meets current Federal energy 

conservation standards. DOE uses the 

baseline unit for comparison in several 

phases of the NOPD analyses, including 

the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, 

PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine 

energy savings that will result from an 

amended energy conservation standard, 

DOE compares energy use at each of the 

higher energy efficiency levels to the 

energy consumption of the baseline 

unit. Similarly, to determine the 

changes in price to the consumer that 

will result from an amended energy 

conservation standard, DOE compares 

the price of a unit at each higher 

efficiency level to the price of a unit at 

the baseline. 

Conventional Cooking Tops 

As part of the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE developed baseline 

efficiency levels by considering both 

data from the previous standards 

rulemaking and the energy use for the 

test units based on the water heating test 

procedure that was later adopted in the 

December 2016 TP Final Rule. 81 FR 

60784, 60813–60814 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

DOE conducted testing for units in its 

test sample to measure IAEC, which 

included energy use in active mode and 

standby mode. DOE also requested 

energy use data as part of the 

manufacturer interviews. However, 

because manufacturers were not 

required at the time of the September 

2016 SNOPR to conduct testing 

according to the DOE test procedure, 

very little energy use information was 

available. DOE noted in the September 

2016 SNOPR that the highest measured 

IAEC in DOE’s test sample was higher 

than the baseline IAEC observed during 

the 2009 rulemaking for each cooking 

top product class, suggesting that the 

baseline energy consumption of cooking 

tops has increased since 2009. Thus, to 

establish the new baseline IAEC for 

cooking tops, DOE set the baseline IAEC 

equal to the maximum IAEC measured 

in the test sample for each product 

class. 81 FR 60784, 60814. 

As part of the September 2016 

SNOPR, because DOE observed that 

baseline electric coil cooking tops and 

gas cooking tops have only 

electromechanical controls, DOE 

calculated the baseline IAEC for these 

product classes based on zero standby 

mode and off mode energy 

consumption. In contrast, baseline 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.014</GPH> EP14DE20.015</GPH>
81010 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

33AHAM’s petition requesting the withdrawal of 

the test procedure for conventional cooking tops is 

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

document?D=EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004-0002. 

electric cooking tops with smooth 

elements have electronic controls which 

consume energy in standby and off 

mode. For the September 2016 SNOPR, 

DOE determined the baseline IAEC for 

electric smooth cooking tops by setting 

the baseline standby energy 

consumption equal to that of the 

cooking top with the highest standby 

energy consumption in its test sample to 

maintain the full functionality of 

controls for consumer utility. 81 FR 

60784, 60814 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

The baseline efficiency levels for 

conventional cooking tops proposed in 

the September 2016 SNOPR are 

presented in Table IV–16. Id. 

AHAM commented that all electric 

coil cooking tops will require a 

significant redesign to comply with a 

change to the voluntary safety standard, 

UL 858, which took effect on June 15, 

2018. The updated UL 858 requires 

manufacturers to monitor and limit pan 

bottom temperature for coil elements to 

reduce the incidence of unattended 

cooking fires. AHAM stated that, at the 

time of the comment, manufacturers 

were developing products to comply 

with the UL 858 requirements and did 

not yet know how the changes would 

impact energy consumption. AHAM 

asserted that DOE’s data and efficiency 

level analysis may not be representative 

because they do not reflect products that 

will enter the market before the 

compliance date of DOE’s proposed 

standards. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 19–20) 

DOE notes that AHAM did not 

provide data showing how the redesigns 

necessary to comply with changes to UL 

858 impact the measured energy use for 

electric coil cooking tops. AHAM did, 

however, provide data in its petition 

requesting the withdrawal of the test 

procedure for conventional cooking 

tops, showing that the time to boil did 

not significantly increase using 

temperature limiting controls on electric 

coil cooking tops that meet UL 858’s 

recently updated requirements.33 As a 

result, DOE did not revise its efficiency 

level analysis for this NOPD based on 

the requirements in UL 858. 

With respect to the standby energy 

consumption for baseline electric coil 

and gas cooking tops, GE commented 

that the test procedure proposed in the 

August 2016 TP SNOPR, which 

proposed to apportion standby power to 

the cooking top on a combined cooking 

product, negatively impacts the cooking 

top IAEC. GE noted that on a majority 

of combined cooking products, while 

the entire product may consume 

standby power, the controls for the 

cooking top component consist of 

electromechanical switches that 

consume no standby power. GE stated 

that, as a result of assigning a portion of 

the standby energy consumption 

measured for the full combined cooking 

product to the cooking top component, 

when comparing the IAEC between an 

electromechanically controlled standalone cooking top and a similarly 

controlled combined cooking product 

that has a cooking top, the combined 

product’s cooking top will appear to use 

more energy. (GE, No. 72 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with GE’s assertion that 

apportioning standby power to the 

cooking top component on a combined 

cooking product negatively impacts the 

cooking top IAEC. As discussed in 

chapter 9 of the TSD for this NOPD, 

combined cooking products, such as 

ranges, represent over 70 percent of the 

total shipments for consumer 

conventional cooking products. As a 

result, DOE revised its analysis for 

electric coil and gas cooking tops, 

including the baseline efficiency levels, 

to account for the standby power 

consumption apportioned to the 

cooking top component of a combined 

product based on the maximum standby 

power for each product class in DOE’s 

test sample for a cooking top that is part 

of a combined cooking product. DOE 

estimated the annual standby energy 

consumption for gas and electric coil 

cooking tops to be 30 thousand British 

thermal units per year (‘‘kBtu/yr’’) and 

5 kWh/yr, respectively. Because DOE’s 

analysis for electric smooth cooking 

tops already included standby power, 

and because the range of observed 

standby power was similar for standalone electric smooth cooking tops and 

combined cooking products with an 

electric smooth cooking top, DOE is 

maintaining its estimates for the standby 

power consumption of electric smooth 

cooking tops in this NOPD. DOE also 

notes that the majority of products in 

AHAM’s test sample, which was 

factored into this analysis, were 

conventional ranges that included 

standby power consumption for the 

cooking top component. 

Based on AHAM’s comments 

regarding the validity of DOE’s test 

sample discussed in section IV.C.1.a of 

this document, DOE evaluated the 

combined dataset, including both DOE 

and AHAM test data, to determine the 

baseline efficiency levels for this NOPD. 

For each product class, the IAEC of 

several units in AHAM’s test sample 

exceeded the baseline efficiency 

proposed in the September 2016 

SNOPR. In light of this, DOE revised the 

baseline IAEC to equal the maximum 

IAEC observed in the combined DOE 

and AHAM test sample for each product 

class, as shown in Table IV–17. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81011 

Conventional Ovens 

As part of the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE developed baseline 

efficiency levels for conventional ovens 

considering both data from the previous 

standards rulemaking and the measured 

energy use for the test units. DOE 

conducted testing for all units in its test 

sample to measure IAEC, which 

included energy use in active mode 

(including fan-only mode) and standby 

mode. 81 FR 60784, 60814 (Sept. 2, 

2016). As discussed in the September 

2016 SNOPR, to address concerns raised 

by interested parties in response to the 

June 2015 NOPR regarding the limited 

data used to establish the baseline 

efficiency levels for the electric standard 

oven product classes, DOE augmented 

its analysis of electric standard ovens by 

considering the energy use of the 

electric self-clean units in its test 

sample, adjusted to account for the 

differences between standard-clean and 

self-clean ovens. Augmenting the 

electric standard oven dataset with selfclean models from the DOE test sample 

allowed DOE to consider a wider range 

of cavity volumes in its analysis. 81 FR 

60784, 60815. 

To establish the baseline efficiency 

levels for conventional ovens, DOE first 

derived a relationship between IAEC 

and cavity volume as discussed in 

section IV.C.2.c of this document. Using 

the slope from the previous rulemaking, 

DOE selected new intercepts 

corresponding to the ovens in its test 

sample with the lowest efficiency, so 

that no ovens in the test sample were 

cut off by the baseline curve. DOE then 

set baseline standby energy 

consumption for conventional ovens 

equal to that of the oven (including the 

oven component of a range) with the 

highest standby energy consumption in 

DOE’s test sample to maintain the full 

functionality of controls for consumer 

utility. As part of the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE proposed the baseline 

efficiency levels presented in Table IV– 

18, which are based on an oven with a 

cavity volume of 4.3 ft3. 81 FR 60784, 

60815–60816 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

DOE did not receive comment on the 

baseline efficiency levels considered for 

conventional ovens. Thus, DOE did not 

modify the baseline levels for 

conventional ovens in this NOPD. 

b. Incremental Efficiency Levels 

For each product class for both 

conventional cooking tops and 

conventional ovens, DOE analyzes 

several efficiency levels (‘‘ELs’’) and 

determines the incremental cost at each 

of these levels. 

Conventional Cooking Tops 

For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

developed incremental efficiency levels 

for each cooking top product class by 

first considering information from the 

previous rulemaking analysis available 

in the 2009 TSD. In cases where DOE 

identified design options during testing 

and reverse engineering teardowns, DOE 

updated the efficiency levels based on 

the test data. 81 FR 60784, 60817 (Sept. 

2, 2016). Table IV–19 and Table IV–20 

show the incremental efficiency levels 

for the electric cooking top product 

classes as proposed in the September 

2016 SNOPR, including whether the 

efficiency level is from the 2009 TSD or 

based on testing for that SNOPR. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.017</GPH> EP14DE20.018</GPH> EP14DE20.019</GPH>
81012 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

34 DOE observed during product teardowns that 

many electric smooth cooking top heating elements 

are supplied by E.G.O. Worldwide (http://

www.egoproducts.com/en/home/). 

35Manufacturers selling products into the 

European market publish the normalized average 

test energy consumption for a cooking top. To 

compare EU data to DOE test data, DOE adjusted 

for the differences in the normalization factors 

specified in EN 60350–2:2013 and the DOE test 

procedure adopted in the December 2016 TP Final 

Rule. DOE then calculated annual energy 

consumption for the European cooking tops using 

the method specified in section 4.1.2.1.1 of the test 

procedure adopted in the December 2016 TP Final 

Rule. 

AHAM commented that the induction 

cooking tops in AHAM’s test sample 

appear to consume more energy than 

many of the smooth–electric resistance 

models in both the DOE and AHAM 

datasets, which AHAM claimed 

undermines DOE’s estimate of the 

efficiency improvement due to 

induction. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 21) 

AHAM stated that it was not clear 

whether the difference between DOE 

and AHAM’s induction test data can be 

attributed to differences in how the 

laboratories conducted testing or to 

differences in the test units themselves. 

(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 22) AHAM 

expressed concern that smooth–electric 

resistance cooking tops, which perform 

better when the contact between the 

element and the pan is optimized, may 

benefit more from the flat cookware 

specified in the test procedure than do 

induction cooking tops. AHAM noted 

that induction cooking tops, which 

induce an electromagnetic field in the 

cookware itself, are not affected by 

contact. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 22) 

To evaluate whether DOE’s analysis 

provides an accurate representation of 

the efficiency improvement associated 

with induction heating elements, DOE 

reviewed data for 128 electric cooking 

tops sold on the European market and 

compared the data to results from DOE’s 

test sample. Cooking tops sold on the 

European market are tested and rated 

using the same basic test provisions as 

the DOE test procedure adopted in the 

December 2016 TP Final Rule. DOE also 

notes that, based on product teardowns 

conducted in support of the September 

2016 SNOPR, the heating elements and 

glass cooking surfaces used in electric 

smooth cooking tops are typically 

purchased parts that are manufactured 

by companies that produce and supply 

these parts to countries worldwide.34 As 

a result, DOE believes that the 

comparative energy use of smooth– 

electric resistance and smooth– 

induction cooking tops on the European 

market is similar to the comparative 

performance of products on the U.S. 

market. As demonstrated in Table IV– 

21, for both smooth–electric resistance 

and smooth–induction cooking tops, 

DOE’s test data fell within the range of 

AEC observed for products on the 

European market. For both DOE’s test 

data and data for products on the 

European market, smooth–induction 

cooking tops are, on average, more 

efficient than smooth–electric resistance 

cooking tops. 

If the test procedure provided an 

advantage to smooth–electric resistance 

cooking tops over smooth–induction 

cooking tops due to the flatness of the 

test vessel, DOE would expect to see 

similar results in the DOE, AHAM, and 

European market data. However, as 

discussed above, both DOE and 

European data indicate that smooth– 

induction cooking tops consume less 

energy compared to smooth–electric 

resistance cooking tops. Therefore, DOE 

believes that its test data and analysis 

accurately reflect the decrease in AEC 

associated with a change from electric 

resistance to induction heating. As a 

result, DOE relied on its own test 

sample to estimate the average decrease 

in AEC due to induction. 

Moreover, as discussed in section III.B 

of this document, DOE updated the AEC 

and IAEC values for all electric smooth 

cooking tops in its test sample that were 

equipped with multi-ring surface units 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.020</GPH> EP14DE20.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81013 

to reflect the test procedure adopted in 

the December 2016 TP Final Rule. 

Accordingly, DOE updated its estimates 

for the efficiency improvement due to 

induction for this NOPD. Additional 

discussion of DOE’s estimate of the 

energy savings attributable to induction 

technology is presented in chapter 5 of 

the TSD for this NOPD. 

AHAM expressed concern that the use 

of the automatic power-down lowstandby-loss electronic controls design 

option to reduce energy consumption 

for electric smooth cooking tops is not 

technologically feasible. AHAM 

commented that, based on the combined 

dataset, reducing or eliminating standby 

energy consumption through the use of 

the automatic power-down design 

option would not be sufficient to 

achieve the proposed efficiency level for 

electric smooth cooking tops. AHAM 

noted that only one induction cooking 

top model in the test sample could meet 

the proposed level by reducing or 

eliminating its standby energy 

consumption. Therefore, AHAM 

recommended that DOE adopt a less 

stringent level for electric smooth 

cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 22– 

23) 

DOE notes that AHAM’s conclusion 

appears to be based on the max-tech 

efficiency level rather than the 

efficiency levels associated with lowstandby-loss electronic controls that 

were evaluated in this NOPD. As 

discussed in section IV.C.2.a of this 

document, DOE revised the baseline 

efficiency level for electric smooth 

cooking tops based on the combined 

dataset. DOE then applied its estimates 

for the decrease in IAEC that would be 

expected from implementing lowstandby-loss electronic controls to the 

new baseline efficiency level. This 

resulted in higher overall IAECs for 

these efficiency levels than were 

proposed in the September 2016 

SNOPR. With these revised efficiency 

levels, more than 50 percent of electric 

smooth cooking tops in the combined 

DOE and AHAM test sample have a 

measured IAEC that already meets the 

efficiency level associated with 

automatic power-down, the most 

stringent implementation of lowstandby-loss electronic controls. 

Nonetheless, as discussed in section 

V.A of this document, DOE determined 

that the electric smooth cooking top 

efficiency level associated with the 

automatic power-down low-standbyloss design option may result in a loss 

in the utility of the clock display for 

combined cooking products. As a result, 

DOE evaluated prescriptive design 

standards in this NOPD for electric 

smooth cooking tops that would allow 

for a continuous clock display, and 

accordingly, would not require the 

elimination of clocks from products. 

Table IV–22 and Table IV–23 show 

the efficiency levels considered for the 

electric cooking top product classes. As 

discussed in section IV.A.2.a and 

section IV.B.1.a of this document, DOE 

is no longer considering improved 

contact conductance and halogen lamp 

elements as design options for electric 

coil cooking tops and electric smooth 

cooking tops, respectively. As a result, 

DOE did not analyze incremental 

efficiency levels associated with these 

design options for this NOPD. For 

electric coil cooking tops, this resulted 

in no incremental efficiency levels 

above the baseline. Additional 

discussion of DOE’s analysis of the 

incremental efficiency levels is 

presented in chapter 5 of the TSD for 

this NOPD. 

Table IV–24 shows the incremental 

efficiency levels for the gas cooking top 

product class proposed in the 

September 2016 SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 

60818 (Sept. 2, 2016). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.022</GPH> EP14DE20.023</GPH>
81014 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

As discussed in the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE considered multiple 

efficiency levels associated with 

optimized burner and grate design for 

gas cooking tops. 81 FR 60784, 60817 

(Sept. 2, 2016). DOE’s testing showed 

that energy use was correlated to burner 

design (e.g., grate weight, flame angle, 

distance from burner ports to the 

cooking surface) and could be reduced 

by optimizing the design of the burner 

and grate system. DOE noted that 

cooking tops that incorporate different 

combinations of burners, including high 

input rate burners for larger food loads, 

have differing capabilities to cook or 

heat different sized food loads. Based on 

DOE’s review of the test data for the gas 

cooking tops in its test sample, DOE 

identified three efficiency levels 

associated with improving the burner 

and grate design that take into account 

key burner configurations. Id. 

DOE proposed Efficiency Level 1 

based on an optimized burner and 

improved grate design of the unit in the 

test sample with the lowest measured 

IAEC among those with cast-iron grates 

and a six-surface unit configuration 

with at least four out of the six surface 

units having burner input rates 

exceeding 14,000 Btu/h. DOE selected 

these criteria to maintain the full 

functionality of cooking tops marketed 

as commercial-style. DOE noted that 

while there are some such products 

with fewer than six surface units and 

fewer than four high input rate burners, 

DOE did not observe any products 

marketed as residential-style with the 

burner configuration DOE associated 

with Efficiency Level 1. Id. 

DOE proposed Efficiency Level 2 for 

conventional gas cooking tops based on 

an optimized burner and further 

improved grate design of the unit in the 

DOE test sample with the lowest 

measured IAEC among those units with 

cast iron grates and at least one surface 

unit having a burner input rate 

exceeding 14,000 Btu/h. None of the gas 

units in the DOE test sample marketed 

as commercial-style were capable of 

achieving this efficiency level. The 

cooking tops in the DOE test sample 

capable of meeting this efficiency level 

were marketed as residential-style and 

had significantly lighter cast iron grates 

than the commercial-style units. Id. 

DOE proposed Efficiency Level 3 

(max-tech) based on the unit in the DOE 

test sample with the lowest measured 

IAEC among those with cast iron grates, 

regardless of the number of burners or 

burner input rate. DOE noted that the 

grate weight for this unit was not lowest 

in the DOE test sample, confirming that 

a fully optimized burner and grate 

design, and not a reduction in grate 

weight alone, is required to improve 

cooking top efficiency. Id. 

In response to the September 2016 

SNOPR, AHAM agreed that DOE should 

adopt standards for gas cooking tops 

that would ensure that commercial-style 

cooking tops are not eliminated from the 

market. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 24) 

However, AHAM commented that there 

were commercial-style products on the 

market at that time with up to six high 

input rate burners. AHAM’s test data 

indicated that cooking products meeting 

this description were not able to meet 

DOE’s Efficiency Level 1 (see Table IV– 

24, above) as proposed in the September 

2016 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 25) 

Because DOE’s proposed standard level 

was designed to maintain the full 

functionality of commercial-style gas 

cooking tops, AHAM urged DOE to 

propose a less stringent level for gas 

cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 28) 

Sub-Zero commented that the U.S. 

market has evolved differently than 

international markets such as Europe, 

which has driven manufacturers on the 

U.S. market to update product designs 

to satisfy consumer demand for high 

input rate burners. Sub-Zero 

commented that for high-performance 

cooking tops, a range of burner input 

rates allows consumers the ability to 

cook foods that require searing on one 

burner and foods that require melting 

temperatures on another burner. SubZero commented that the large, massive 

grates complement the burner by 

absorbing heat and allowing consumers 

more control over the distribution of 

heat so that cooking vessels can be 

moved off of a burner’s dead-center 

position, but still maintain a proper 

food temperature. To demonstrate 

evidence of the evolving commercialstyle market and how DOE’s efficiency 

levels for gas cooking tops do not 

adequately account for the utility 

provided by a range of burner input 

rates, Sub-Zero provided the IAECs for 

both a model that it had discontinued 

shortly before its comments (with five 

15,000 Btu/h burners and one 9,200 

Btu/h burner) and the updated version 

of that same model that incorporated 

higher input rate burners (including one 

burner at 20,000 Btu/h and two at 

18,000 Btu/h). Sub-Zero’s test data, 

presented in Table IV–25, showed that 

the updated model with the higher 

input rate burners had a higher 

measured IAEC. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at pp. 

3–4) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81015 

As discussed in section IV.B.1.a of 

this document, DOE is no longer 

considering optimized burners and grate 

designs as a technology option for gas 

cooking tops. As a result, DOE did not 

analyze incremental efficiency levels 

associated with these design options for 

this NOPD. For gas cooking tops, this 

resulted in no incremental efficiency 

levels above the baseline. 

Table IV–26 includes the efficiency 

levels for gas cooking tops considered in 

this NOPD. 

Conventional Ovens 

For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

developed incremental efficiency levels 

for each conventional oven product 

class by first considering information 

from the previous rulemaking analysis 

described in the 2009 TSD. In cases 

where DOE identified design options 

during testing and reverse engineering 

teardowns, DOE updated the efficiency 

levels based on the tested data. 81 FR 

60784, 60818 (Sept. 2, 2016). Table IV– 

27 through Table IV–30 present the 

efficiency levels for each product class 

proposed in the September 2016 

SNOPR, normalized based on an oven 

with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft3. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.025</GPH> EP14DE20.026</GPH> EP14DE20.027</GPH> EP14DE20.028</GPH>
81016 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.029</GPH> EP14DE20.030</GPH> EP14DE20.031</GPH> EP14DE20.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81017 

c. Relationship Between IAEC and Oven 

Cavity Volume 

The conventional oven efficiency 

levels detailed above are predicated 

upon baseline ovens with a cavity 

volume of 4.3 ft3. Based on DOE’s 

testing of conventional gas and electric 

ovens and discussions with 

manufacturers, IAEC scales with oven 

cavity volume due to larger ovens 

having higher thermal masses and larger 

volumes of air (including larger vent 

rates) than smaller ovens. Because the 

DOE test procedure adopted in the July 

2015 TP Final Rule for measuring IAEC 

uses a fixed test load size, larger ovens 

with higher thermal mass will have a 

higher measured IAEC. As a result, DOE 

considered available data to characterize 

the relationship between IAEC and oven 

cavity volume. 

For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

established the slopes by first evaluating 

the data from the previous rulemaking 

analysis described in the 2009 TSD, 

which presented the relationship 

between measured energy factor (‘‘EF’’) 

and cavity volume, then translating 

from EF to IAEC, considering the range 

of cavity volumes for the majority of 

products available on the market as well 

as testing of units in DOE’s test sample. 

The intercepts for each efficiency level 

were then chosen so that the equations 

passed through the desired IAEC 

corresponding to a particular volume. 

81 FR 60784, 60821–60822 (Sept. 2, 

2016). 

As part of the NOPD analysis, DOE 

updated the intercepts in the IAEC 

versus cavity volume relationships for 

each product class to reflect the 

revisions to the incremental efficiency 

levels described in section IV.C.2.b of 

this document. Table IV–35 and Table 

IV–36 present the updated slopes and 

intercepts for the IAEC versus cavity 

volume relationship for electric and gas 

ovens, respectively. Additional 

discussion of DOE’s derivation of the 

oven IAEC versus cavity volume 

relationship is presented in chapter 5 of 

the TSD for this NOPD. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.033</GPH> EP14DE20.034</GPH> EP14DE20.035</GPH>
81018 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

36Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

developed the cost-efficiency results for 

each conventional cooking top product 

class shown in Table IV–37. Where 

available, DOE developed incremental 

MPCs based on manufacturing cost 

modeling of test units in its sample 

featuring the proposed design options. 

For design options that were not 

observed in DOE’s sample of test units 

for this rulemaking, DOE used the 

incremental manufacturing costs 

developed as part of the previous 

rulemaking analysis described in the 

2009 TSD, then adjusted the values to 

reflect changes in the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) 

for household cooking appliance 

manufacturing.36 81 FR 60784, 60822 

(Sept. 2, 2016). 

DOE did not receive comments on the 

incremental MPCs for conventional 

cooking tops presented in the 

September 2016 SNOPR. As a result, 

DOE maintained its estimates for the 

incremental MPCs in this NOPD, but 

adjusted the cost-efficiency results to 

reflect updates to parts pricing estimates 

and the most recent PPI data. DOE also 

notes that it is no longer considering 

improved contact conductance for 

electric coil cooking tops, halogen lamp 

elements for electric smooth cooking 

tops, and optimized burner and grate 

designs for gas cooking tops, as 

discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this 

document. As a result, DOE updated the 

cost-efficiency results to reflect the 

revised efficiency levels. The updated 

estimates for the incremental MPCs 

considered in this NOPD are presented 

in Table IV–38. 

b. Conventional Ovens 

As described in the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE developed the costefficiency results for each conventional 

oven product class shown in Table IV– 

39. DOE noted that the estimated 

incremental MPCs would be equivalent 

for the freestanding and built-in/slide-in 

oven product classes. 81 FR 60784, 

60823 (Sept. 2, 2016). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.036</GPH> EP14DE20.037</GPH> EP14DE20.038</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81019 

As for conventional cooking tops, 

DOE did not receive comments on the 

incremental MPCs for conventional 

ovens presented in the September 2016 

SNOPR. As a result, DOE maintained its 

estimates for the incremental MPCs in 

this NOPD, but adjusted the costefficiency results to reflect updates to 

parts pricing estimates and the most 

recent PPI data. DOE also notes that it 

is no longer considering intermittent/ 

interrupted and intermittent pilot 

ignition systems or reduced conduction 

losses as design options for 

conventional ovens, as discussed in 

section IV.C.2.b of this document. As a 

result, DOE updated the cost-efficiency 

results to reflect the revised efficiency 

levels. The updated estimates for the 

incremental MPCs considered in this 

NOPD are presented in Table IV–40. 

4. Consumer Utility 

In determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, EPCA requires 

DOE to consider ‘‘any lessening of the 

utility or the performance of the covered 

products likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

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

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

DOE stated in the September 2016 

SNOPR that it did not believe that the 

design options and efficiency levels 

associated with the proposed standards 

would impact the consumer utility of 

conventional cooking tops. DOE noted 

that the proposed standards for gas 

cooking tops corresponded to the 

efficiency level that would maintain 

features of gas cooking tops marketed as 

commercial-style, namely multiple high 

input rate burners (i.e., greater than 

14,000 Btu/h) that would allow for 

quicker cooking times. DOE stated in 

the September 2016 SNOPR that the 

proposed standards for gas cooking tops 

would not preclude the availability of 

cooking tops marketed as commercialstyle. 81 FR 60784, 60823 (Sept. 2, 

2016). 

AHAM commented that commercialstyle products provide consumer utility 

and incorporate certain features that are 

expected by purchasers of such 

products such as heavier cast iron grates 

to support larger, heavier loads and high 

input rate burners to provide faster 

cooking times for such loads. According 

to AHAM, the heavier grates provide 

additional consumer utility by retaining 

heat that helps provide for even heat 

distribution in the cooking vessel during 

the cool down/simmering phase and 

allows consumers to keep the cooking 

vessel warm by moving the pot off 

center. AHAM added that heavier grates 

allow for a sliding motion across 

burners to mix food without dislodging 

the grates. AHAM commented that 

heavier grates also provide increased 

durability and reliability over the 

lifetime of the product. AHAM stated 

that high input rate burners allow for 

cooking techniques not possible with 

lower burner input rates, such as 

flambe ́, wok cooking, canning, and 

pressure cooking. AHAM claims that 

high input rate burners also provide for 

a better sear on meat, which provides 

better flavor and texture, due to the 

higher temperature. (AHAM, No. 64 at 

p. 24) 

Spire and AHAM stated that DOE’s 

proposed standards would likely 

eliminate commercial-style gas cooking 

products from the market, which Spire 

believes would contravene the 

provisions set forth for adopting new or 

amended standards under section 

6295(o)(4)) of EPCA. (AHAM, No. 64 at 

p. 27; Spire, No. 61 at p. 5) 

AHAM stated that although products 

in Europe can be designed to have a 

lower flame to reduce energy 

consumption, this is not possible in the 

United States because the CO levels of 

the burner will increase beyond the 

acceptable limits specified in ANSI 

Z21.1. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 28) AHAM 

stated that manufacturers are already 

incentivized to optimize burner and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.039</GPH> EP14DE20.040</GPH>
81020 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

37AHAM also commented that while reducing 

the gauge of the grates reduces material cost, this 

does not include the retooling costs resulting from 

a switch from heavier grates to lighter ones. 

(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 24) 

38Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the 

price of baseline products, using the same markup 

for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 

result in higher per-unit operating profit. While 

such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in 

markets that are reasonably competitive it is 

unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable 

increase in profitability in the long run. 

39 2012 Annual Retail Trade Survey, Electronics 

and Appliance Stores (NAICS 443). 2012. 

Washington, DC http://www.census.gov/retail/arts/ 

historic_releases.html. 

grate design because it is less costly to 

use smaller gauge metals.37 AHAM 

believes the lower material costs for 

lighter-weight grates supports its point 

that heavier grates and higher input rate 

burners offer consumer utility—if 

consumers did not demand these 

features, manufacturers would choose 

the lower cost option. (AHAM, No. 64 

at p. 24) Miele commented that the 

European market for cooking appliances 

varies greatly from the product offerings 

in the United States. Miele noted that 

gas cooking has a very small market 

share in Europe, electric cooking 

products are most prevalent, and 

commercial-style cooking products are 

not typically offered to residential 

consumers. Miele also noted that safety 

standards and CO emission levels are 

stricter in the United States. (Miele, No. 

60 at p. 3) 

For electric cooking tops, DOE 

conducted the engineering analysis by 

considering cooking top design options 

that are consistent with products 

currently on the U.S. market. For gas 

cooking tops, as discussed in section 

IV.C.2.b of this document, DOE revised 

the evaluated baseline efficiency level 

based on additional test data and 

information regarding commercial-style 

cooking tops. As discussed in section 

IV.A.1.a of this document, DOE did not 

consider establishing a separate product 

class for commercial-style gas cooking 

tops, noting that there are no clearlydefined and consistent design 

differences and corresponding utility 

provided by commercial-style gas 

cooking tops as compared to residentialstyle gas cooking tops. Further, as 

discussed in section III.B of this 

document, DOE eliminated optimized 

burner and grate designs from 

consideration as a technology option in 

this NOPD. As a result, DOE has 

initially determined that the existing 

prescriptive standards for gas cooking 

tops that preclude the use of constant 

burning pilot lights do not warrant 

amendment. 

b. Conventional Ovens 

DOE stated in the September 2016 

SNOPR that it conducted the 

engineering analysis by considering 

design options that are consistent with 

products currently on the market and 

that it did not believe that any of the 

design options and efficiency levels 

considered would impact the consumer 

utility of conventional ovens. 81 FR 

60784, 60823. DOE noted in the 

September 2016 SNOPR that it was not 

able to identify a clearly-defined utility 

provided to consumers by commercialstyle ovens and, as a result, DOE did not 

establish separate product classes for 

these products. However, DOE 

recognized that commercial-style ovens 

are a product type that typically 

incorporate certain features that may be 

expected by purchasers of such 

products (e.g., heavier-gauge cavity 

construction, high input rate burners, 

and extension racks). DOE also noted 

that these features result in inherently 

lower efficiencies for commercial-style 

ovens than for residential-style ovens 

with comparable cavities sizes, due to 

the greater thermal mass of the cavity 

and racks, when measured using the test 

procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP 

Final Rule. As discussed in section III.B 

of this document, DOE repealed the 

oven test procedure in the December 

2016 TP Final Rule due to uncertainties 

in its ability to measure representative 

energy use of commercial-style ovens. 

As a result of these uncertainties, DOE 

did not propose a performance-based 

standard for conventional ovens, but 

instead proposed a prescriptive design 

requirement for the conventional oven 

control system in the September 2016 

SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60823–60824 

(Sept. 2, 2016). DOE did not receive any 

comments regarding the impact of the 

proposed standards on conventional 

ovens. For the reasons discussed above, 

DOE maintains its findings from the 

September 2016 SNOPR that the 

evaluated prescriptive-based standards 

would not impact the consumer utility 

of conventional ovens. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., manufacturer 

markups, retailer markups, distributor 

markups, contractor markups) in the 

distribution chain and sales taxes to 

convert the MPCs determined in the 

engineering analysis to consumer prices, 

which are then used in the LCC and PBP 

analysis and in the MIA. At each step 

in the distribution channel, companies 

mark up the price of the product to 

cover business costs and profit margins. 

For consumer conventional cooking 

products, the main parties in the 

distribution chain are manufacturers, 

retailers, and consumers. 

The manufacturer markup converts 

MPC to manufacturer selling price 

(‘‘MSP’’). DOE developed an average 

manufacturer markup by examining the 

annual Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 10–K reports filed 

by publicly-traded manufacturers 

primarily engaged in appliance 

manufacturing and whose combined 

product range includes consumer 

conventional cooking products. 

DOE developed baseline and 

incremental markups for each actor in 

the distribution chain. Baseline 

markups are applied to the price of 

products with baseline efficiency, while 

incremental markups are applied to the 

difference in price between baseline and 

higher-efficiency models (the 

incremental cost increase). The 

incremental markup is typically less 

than the baseline markup, and is 

designed to maintain similar per-unit 

operating profit before and after new or 

amended standards.38

DOE relied on economic data from the 

U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average 

baseline and incremental markups.39

AHAM commented that it strongly 

disagrees with the concept of 

incremental markups. According to 

AHAM, manufacturers, wholesalers, 

retailers and contractors have all 

provided numerous amounts of data, 

studies, and surveys saying that the 

incremental markup concept has no 

foundation in actual practice. AHAM 

asked what additional information DOE 

would need to reassess the markups 

approach. AHAM further asked if DOE 

would agree to put the concept of 

incremental markups up for peer 

review. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 31) AHAM 

stated that DOE persists in relying on a 

simplistic interpretation of economic 

theory that assumes only variable costs 

can be passed through to customers 

because economic returns on capital 

cannot increase in a competitive 

marketplace. According to AHAM, it 

and the other associations and industry 

participants take the position that DOE’s 

conclusions are incorrect and that 

percentage margins throughout the 

distribution channels have remained 

largely constant. In addition, AHAM 

asserted that Shorey Consulting has 

shown that empirical studies of industry 

structure and other variables have only 

weak correlation with profitability, 

demonstrating that the economic theory 

DOE relies upon is proven not to apply 

in practice. AHAM commented that 

DOE should submit both its work and 

that of the various industry groups to an 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81021 

40Spurlock, C. A. 2013. ‘‘Appliance Efficiency 

Standards and Price Discrimination.’’ Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL–6283E. 

41Houde, S. and C. A. Spurlock. 2015. ‘‘Do 

Energy Efficiency Standards Improve Quality? 

Evidence from a Revealed Preference Approach.’’ 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report 

LBNL–182701. 

42Taylor, M., C. A. Spurlock, and H.-C. Yang. 

2015. ‘‘Confronting Regulatory Cost and Quality 

Expectations: An Exploration of Technical Change 

in Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards.’’ 

Resources for the Future (RFF) 15–50. 

43Bagwell, K. and Riordan, M.H., 1991. ‘‘High 

and declining prices signal product quality.’’ The 

American Economic Review, pp. 224–239. 

44Betts, E. and Peter, J.M., 1995. ‘‘The strategy of 

the retail ‘sale’: typology, review and synthesis.’’ 

International Review of Retail, Distribution and 

Consumer Research, 5(3), pp. 303–331. 

45Elmaghraby, W. and Keskinocak, P., 2003. 

‘‘Dynamic pricing in the presence of inventory 

considerations: Research overview, current 

practices, and future directions.’’ Management 

Science, 49(10), pp. 1287–1309. 

46California Energy Commission, Residential 

Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) (2009). 

47Parker, D., Fairey, P., Hendron, R., ‘‘Updated 

Miscellaneous Electricity Loads and Appliance 

Energy Usage Profiles for Use in Home Energy 

Ratings, the Building America Benchmark 

Procedures and Related Calculations,’’ Florida Solar 

Energy Center (FSEC) (2010). 

48U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: 2015 RECS Survey Data (2017) (Available 

at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/ 

data/2015/). RECS 2015 is based on a sample of 

5,686 households statistically selected to represent 

118.2 million housing units in the United States. 

49 DOE was unable to use the frequency of use to 

calculate the annual energy consumption using a 

bottom-up approach, as data in RECS did not 

include information about the duration of a cooking 

event to allow for an annual energy use calculation. 

independent peer review process. 

(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 31) 

DOE disagrees that the theory behind 

the concept of incremental markups has 

been disproved. The concept is based on 

a simple notion: an increase in 

profitability, which is implied by 

keeping a fixed markup percentage 

when the product price goes up, is not 

likely to be viable over time in a 

business that is reasonably competitive. 

DOE agrees that empirical data on 

markup practices would be desirable, 

but such information is closely held and 

difficult to obtain. 

Regarding the Shorey Consulting 

interviews with appliance retailers, 

although the retailers said that they 

maintained the same percentage margin 

after amended standards for refrigerators 

took effect, it is not clear to what extent 

the wholesale prices of refrigerators 

actually increased. There is some 

empirical evidence indicating that 

prices may not always increase 

following a new standard.40 41 42 If this 

happened to be the case following the 

new refrigerator standard, then there is 

no reason to suppose that percentage 

margins changed either. 

DOE’s analysis necessarily considers a 

simplified version of the world of 

appliance retailing; namely, a situation 

in which other than appliance product 

offerings, nothing changes in response 

to amended standards. DOE’s analysis 

assumes that product cost will increase 

while the other costs remain constant 

(i.e., no change in labor, material, or 

operating costs), and asks whether 

retailers will be able to keep the same 

markup percentage over time. DOE 

recognizes that retailers are likely to 

seek to maintain the same markup 

percentage on appliances if the price 

they pay goes up as a result of appliance 

standards, but DOE contends that over 

time downward adjustments are likely 

to occur due to competitive pressures. 

Some retailers may find that they can 

gain sales by reducing the markup and 

maintaining the same per-unit gross 

profit as they had before the new 

standard took effect. Additionally, DOE 

contends that retail pricing is more 

complicated than a simple percentage 

margin or markup. Retailers undertake 

periodic sales and they reduce the 

prices of older models as new models 

come out to replace them.43 44 45 Even if 

retailers maintain the same percent 

markup when appliance wholesale 

prices increase as the result of a 

standard, retailers may respond to 

competitive pressures and revert to prestandard average per-unit profits by 

holding more frequent sales, 

discounting products under promotion 

to a greater extent, or discounting older 

products more quickly. These factors 

would counteract the higher percentage 

markup on average, resulting in much 

the same effect as a lower percentage 

markup in terms of the prices 

consumers actually face on average. 

DOE acknowledges that its approach 

to estimating retailer markup practices 

after amended standards take effect is an 

approximation of real-world practices 

that are both complex and varying with 

business conditions. However, DOE 

continues to maintain that its 

assumption that standards do not 

facilitate a sustainable increase in 

profitability is reasonable. 

Chapter 6 of the TSD for this NOPD 

provides details on DOE’s development 

of markups for consumer conventional 

cooking products. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of consumer 

conventional cooking products at 

different efficiencies in representative 

U.S. single-family homes, and multifamily residences, and to assess the 

energy savings potential of increased 

cooking product efficiency. The energy 

use analysis estimates the range of 

energy use of consumer conventional 

cooking products in the field (i.e., as 

they are actually used by consumers) at 

the considered efficiency levels. DOE 

uses these values in the LCC and PBP 

analyses and in the NIA to establish the 

savings in consumer operating costs at 

various product efficiency levels. DOE 

developed energy consumption 

estimates for all product classes 

analyzed in the engineering analysis. 

For this analysis, DOE used the 2009 

California Residential Appliance 

Saturation Survey (‘‘RASS’’) 46 and a 

Florida Solar Energy Center (‘‘FSEC’’) 

study 47 to establish representative 

annual energy use values for 

conventional cooking tops and ovens. 

These studies confirmed that annual 

cooking energy use has been 

consistently declining since the late 

1970s. 

Energy use by consumer conventional 

cooking products varies greatly based on 

consumer usage patterns. DOE 

established a range of energy use from 

data in the Energy Information 

Administration (‘‘EIA’’)’s 2015 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(‘‘RECS 2015’’).48 RECS 2015 does not 

provide the annual energy consumption 

of cooking products, but it does provide 

the frequency of cooking product use.49

DOE was unable to use the frequency of 

use to calculate the annual energy 

consumption using a bottom-up 

approach, as data in RECS did not 

include information about the duration 

of a cooking event to allow for an 

annual energy use calculation. DOE 

therefore relied on California RASS and 

FSEC studies to establish the average 

annual energy consumption of 

conventional cooking tops and ovens. 

From RECS 2015, DOE developed 

household samples for each product 

class. For each household using a 

consumer conventional cooking 

product, RECS provides data on the 

frequency of use and number of meals 

cooked in the following bins: (1) Less 

than once per week, (2) once per week, 

(3) a few times per week, (4) once per 

day, (5) two times per day, and (6) three 

or more times per day. DOE utilized the 

frequency of use to define the variability 

of the annual energy consumption. First, 

DOE assumed that the weighted-average 

cooking frequency from RECS 

represents the average energy use values 

based on the California RASS and FSEC 

studies. DOE then varied the annual 

energy consumption across the RECS 

households based on their reported 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
81022 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

cooking frequency relative to the 

weighted-average cooking frequency. 

Since there were no comments on 

DOE’s approach to developing the 

energy use analysis, DOE retained the 

approach used for this NOPD. Chapter 

7 of the TSD for this NOPD describes 

the energy use analysis for consumer 

conventional cooking products in detail. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products. 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 used the 

following two metrics to measure 

consumer impacts: 

• The LCC (life-cycle cost) is the total 

consumer expense of an appliance or 

product over the life of that product, 

consisting of total installed cost (MSP, 

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 (payback period) is the 

estimated amount of time (in years) it 

takes consumers to recover the 

increased purchase cost (including 

installation) of a more-efficient 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 cooking products 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. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of housing units. As 

stated previously, DOE developed 

household samples from the 2015 RECS. 

For each sample household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

the cooking product and the appropriate 

electricity price. By developing a 

representative sample of households, 

the analysis captured the variability in 

energy consumption and energy prices 

associated with the use of consumer 

conventional cooking products. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, retailer and 

distributor markups, and sales taxes— 

and installation costs. Inputs to the 

calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE 

created distributions of values for 

product lifetime, discount rates, and 

sales taxes, with probabilities attached 

to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC and PBP, which 

incorporates Crystal BallTM (a 

commercially-available software 

program), relies on a Monte Carlo 

simulation to incorporate uncertainty 

and variability into the analysis. The 

Monte Carlo simulations randomly 

sample input values from the 

probability distributions and cooking 

product user samples. The model 

calculated the LCC and PBP for 

products at each efficiency level for 

10,000 housing units per simulation 

run. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

all consumers of conventional cooking 

products as if each were to purchase a 

new product in the expected first year 

of required compliance with new or 

amended standards. Any amended 

standards would apply to cooking 

products manufactured 3 years after the 

date on which any new or amended 

standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) Therefore, DOE used 

2023 as the first full year of compliance 

with any amended standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. 

Table IV–41 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 of the TSD for this NOPD and 

its appendices. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81023 

50RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Residential 

Cost Data (2015) (Available at http://

rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/default.aspx). 

51Willem, H. et al. 2015. ‘‘Understanding 

Cooking Behavior in U.S. Households.’’ 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the markups 

described in section IV.D of this 

document (along with sales taxes). DOE 

used different markups for baseline 

products and higher-efficiency 

products, because DOE applies an 

incremental markup to the increase in 

MSP associated with higher-efficiency 

products. DOE assumed that the product 

costs would be the same in the 

compliance year as at the time of this 

analysis. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation costs include labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product. For this evaluation, DOE used 

data from the 2015 RS Means 

Residential Cost Data on labor 

requirements to estimate installation 

costs for consumer conventional 

cooking products.50

In general, DOE estimated that 

installation costs would be the same for 

different efficiency levels. In the case of 

electric smooth cooking tops, the 

induction heating design option 

requires a change of cookware to those 

that are ferromagnetic to operate the 

cooking tops. DOE treated this as 

additional installation cost for this 

particular design option. DOE used 

average number of pots and pans 

utilized by a representative household 

and average retail price of inductioncompatible cooking utensils to estimate 

this portion of the installation cost. 

AHAM requested DOE to provide 

details on how the cost required to 

change cookware when purchasing an 

induction cooking top was obtained. 

The comment specifically requested 

details regarding the approach used for 

estimating the average number of pots 

and pans to be replaced, as well as the 

retail average price of an inductioncompatible utensil. AHAM also 

suggested that DOE investigate 

consumers’ cost of upgrading their 

wiring to ensure necessary amperes are 

directed to the cooking activity without 

compromising power to other areas of 

the home. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 31–32) 

For the September 2016 SNOPR as well 

as the updated analysis in this proposal, 

DOE utilized the Willem et al. study to 

determine the average number of pots 

and pans to be replaced.51 With regard 

to those consumers who may need to 

upgrade the electrical wiring to 

accommodate for higher amperage, DOE 

did not have information about the 

existing amperage of the electrical 

circuit of the consumer population. In 

order to be representative of the 

consumer population in this NOPD, 

DOE estimated an average additional 

cost based on the assumption that 50 

percent of the user population may need 

upgrades and 50 percent may not, using 

the wiring cost contained in 2015 RS 

Means Mechanical Cost Data. See 

chapter 8 of the TSD for this NOPD for 

details about this component. Given the 

installation costs of the induction 

cooking top, the market share is 

expected to remain at 1.6 percent in the 

standards case in the year 2023. See 

section IV.F.9 and section IV.H.1 of this 

document for details on the market 

shares. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.041</GPH>
81024 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

52 DOE characterized the geographic distribution 

into 27 geographic areas to be consistent with the 

27 States and group of States reported in RECS 

2009. 

53Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and 

Average Rates Report. Winter 2018 published 

January 2018, Summer 2018 published July 2018. 

Available at: http://www.eei.org/ 

resourcesandmedia/products/Pages/Products.aspx. 

54U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. Form EIA–861 Annual Electric 

Power Industry Database. http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. 

55U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. Natural Gas Navigator. 

2014. (Last accessed September 26, 2016.) http://

eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm. 

56EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2019 with 

Projections to 2050. Washington, DC. Available at 

www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

a cooking product at different efficiency 

levels using the approach described 

above in section IV.E of this document. 

4. Energy Prices 

DOE used average prices (for baseline 

products) and marginal prices (for 

higher-efficiency products) which vary 

by season, region, and baseline 

electricity consumption level for the 

LCC. DOE derived marginal residential 

electricity and natural gas prices for 27 

geographic areas.52 Marginal prices are 

appropriate for determining energy cost 

savings associated with possible 

changes to efficiency standards. 

For electricity, DOE derived marginal 

and average prices which vary by 

season, region, and baseline electricity 

consumption level. DOE estimated these 

prices using data published with the 

Edison Electric Institute (‘‘EEI’’), 

Typical Bill and Average Rates reports 

for summer and winter 2018.53 For the 

residential sector each report provides, 

for most of the major investor-owned 

utilities (‘‘IOUs’’) in the country, the 

total bill assuming household 

consumption levels of 500, 750, and 

1,000 kWh for the billing period. 

For the residential sector, DOE 

defined the average price as the ratio of 

the total bill to the total electricity 

consumption. DOE also used the EEI 

data to define a marginal price as the 

ratio of the change in the bill to the 

change in energy consumption. DOE 

first calculated weighted-average values 

for each geographic area for each type of 

price. Each EEI utility in an area was 

assigned a weight based on the number 

of consumers it serves. Consumer 

counts were taken from the most recent 

EIA Form 861 data (2018).54

DOE assigned seasonal average prices 

to each household in the LCC sample 

based on its location and its baseline 

monthly electricity consumption for an 

average summer or winter month. For 

sampled households who were assigned 

a product efficiency greater than or 

equal to the considered level for a 

standard in the no-new-standards case, 

DOE assigned marginal price to each 

household based on its location and the 

decremented electricity consumption. In 

the LCC sample, households could be 

assigned to one of 27 geographic areas. 

DOE obtained data for calculating 

prices of natural gas from the EIA 

publication, Natural Gas Navigator.55

DOE used the complete annual data for 

2017 to calculate an average annual 

price for each geographic area. (For use 

in the LCC model, prices were scaled to 

2018$.) For each State, DOE calculated 

the annual residential price of natural 

gas using a simple average of data. DOE 

then calculated a price for each 

geographic area, weighting each State in 

an area by its number of households. 

The method used to calculate 

marginal natural gas prices differs from 

that used to calculate electricity prices, 

because EIA does not provide 

consumer- or utility-level data on gas 

consumption and prices. EIA provides 

historical monthly natural gas 

consumption and expenditures by State. 

This data was used to determine 10-year 

average marginal price factors for the 

geographical areas. These factors are 

then used to convert average monthly 

energy prices into marginal monthly 

energy prices. Because cooking products 

operate all year around, DOE 

determined summer and winter 

marginal price factors. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the average 

regional energy prices by projections of 

annual change in national-average 

residential energy found in AEO 

2019.56 AEO 2019 has an end year of 

2050. To estimate price trends after 

2050, DOE used the average annual rate 

of change in prices from 2030 through 

2050. 

See Chapter 8 of the TSD for this 

NOPD for more information on the 

derivation of energy prices. 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing product 

components that have failed in an 

appliance; maintenance costs are 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the product. Typically, 

small incremental increases in product 

efficiency produce no, or only minor, 

changes in repair and maintenance costs 

compared to baseline efficiency 

products. 

For all electric cooking products, DOE 

did not include any changes in 

maintenance and repair for products 

more efficient than baseline products. 

Spire stated that DOE did not provide 

explanation as to why Electrolux’s 

comment regarding glo-bar repair 

frequency was ignored. (Spire, No. 61 at 

p. 6–7). In the September 2016 SNOPR, 

DOE determined the repair and 

maintenance costs associated with 

different types of ignition systems for 

gas ovens. Utilizing inputs from 

interested parties, including Electrolux, 

along with the earlier data from 

manufacturers, DOE revised the average 

repair cost attributable to glo-bar and 

electronic spark ignition systems and 

annualized it over the life of the unit for 

glo-bar and electronic spark ignition 

systems. 81 FR 60784, 60827. For this 

rule, taking into account manufacturer 

inputs and test data for standard and 

self-clean gas ovens, DOE revised the 

efficiency levels, and electronic spark 

ignition has been eliminated in the 

considered levels (see section IV.C of 

this document). The issue of frequency 

of repair of glo-bar is therefore no longer 

relevant. 

Based on input from manufacturers, 

DOE did not include maintenance costs 

for glo-bars. 

See chapter 8 of the TSD 

accompanying this NOPD for further 

information regarding repair and 

maintenance costs. 

6. Product Lifetime 

Equipment lifetime is the age at 

which the equipment is retired from 

service. In the September 2016 SNOPR, 

DOE revised the average lifetime 

estimates based on data provided by 

AHAM, thereby establishing average 

product lifetime of 16 years for all 

electric cooking products and 13 years 

for all gas cooking products. 81 FR 

60784, 60827. AHAM provided further 

detail on the average useful life by 

product categories, such as electric 

range, gas range, wall oven, and electric 

cooking top. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 32) 

Utilizing this detail and the market 

shares of these product categories, DOE 

fine-tuned the average lifetime estimates 

to a more representative 16.8 years for 

all electric cooking products and 14.5 

years for all gas cooking products. DOE 

characterized the product lifetimes with 

Weibull probability distributions. 

See chapter 8 of the TSD 

accompanying this NOPD for further 

details on the sources used to develop 

product lifetimes, as well as the use of 

Weibull distribution. 

7. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

households to estimate the present 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81025 

57The implicit discount rate is inferred from a 

consumer purchase decision between two otherwise 

identical goods with different first cost and 

operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the 

increment of first cost to the difference in net 

present value of lifetime operating cost, 

incorporating the influence of several factors: 

Transaction costs, risk premiums and response to 

uncertainty, time preferences, interest rates at 

which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. 

58The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of 

Consumer Finances 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 

2010, 2013, and 2016. http://

www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/ 

scfindex.html. 

59 DOE developed this consumer choice model for 

this proposed determination, the details of which 

are outlined in chapter 8 of the TSD for this NOPD. 

This consumer choice framework has been used in 

many rulemakings and is also a key component in 

EIA’s NEMS residential model to simulate 

appliance purchases over a range of efficiencies. 

60 DOE assumed that landlords would have no 

economic incentive to purchase higher-efficiency 

products and renters would have no decisionmaking power to purchase or replace an electric 

cooking product or gas oven. 

61UBM Canon, Market Research Magazine: 

Appliance Historical Statistical Review, 2014. 

62U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price 

Index Industry Data: Household cooking appliance 

manufacturing, 2014. 

63Model data collected from the websites of AJ 

Madison, Best Buy, and Lowe’s. 

64For the conventional oven product classes, the 

efficiency levels are based on an oven with a cavity 

volume of 4.3 ft3. As discussed in section IV.C.2.c 

of this document, DOE developed slopes and 

intercepts to characterize the relationship between 

IEAC and cavity volume for each efficiency level. 

value of future operating costs. DOE 

estimated a distribution of residential 

discount rates for cooking products 

based on consumer financing costs and 

the opportunity cost of consumer funds. 

DOE applies weighted-average 

discount rates calculated from consumer 

debt and asset data, rather than marginal 

or implicit discount rates.57 DOE notes 

that the LCC does not analyze the 

appliance purchase decision, so the 

implicit discount rate is not relevant in 

this model. The LCC estimates net 

present value over the lifetime of the 

product, so the appropriate discount 

rate will reflect the general opportunity 

cost of household funds, taking this 

time scale into account. Given the long 

time horizon modeled in the LCC, the 

application of a marginal interest rate 

associated with an initial source of 

funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the 

method of purchase, consumers are 

expected to continue to rebalance their 

debt and asset holdings over the LCC 

analysis period, based on the 

restrictions consumers face in their debt 

payment requirements and the relative 

size of the interest rates available on 

debts and assets. DOE estimates the 

aggregate impact of this rebalancing 

using the historical distribution of debts 

and assets. 

To establish residential discount rates 

for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all 

relevant household debt or asset classes 

in order to approximate a consumer’s 

opportunity cost of funds related to 

appliance energy cost savings. It 

estimated the average percentage shares 

of the various types of debt and equity 

by household income group using data 

from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey 

of Consumer Finances 58 (‘‘SCF’’) for 

1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 

2013, and 2016. Using the SCF and 

other sources, DOE developed a 

distribution of rates for each type of 

debt and asset by income group to 

represent the rates that may apply in the 

year in which amended standards 

would take effect. DOE assigned each 

sample household a specific discount 

rate drawn from one of the distributions. 

The average rate across all types of 

household debt and equity and income 

groups, weighted by the shares of each 

type, is 4.2 percent. See chapter 8 of the 

TSD for this NOPD for further details on 

the development of consumer discount 

rates. 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the 

No-New-Standards Case 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC 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 share of consumers 

that would be affected by a potential 

energy conservation standard at a 

particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC 

analysis considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of product 

efficiencies in the no-new-standards 

case (i.e., the case without amended or 

new energy conservation standards). 

This approach reflects the fact that some 

consumers may purchase products with 

efficiencies greater than the baseline 

levels. 

To establish the current efficiency 

distribution for electric cooking 

products and conventional gas ovens, 

DOE developed and implemented a 

consumer-choice model 59 that assumes 

most consumers (i.e., home owners 60) 

are sensitive to the appliance first cost, 

and calculates the market share for 

available efficiency options based on the 

initial cost of electric cooking products 

and gas ovens at each efficiency level. 

DOE used a logit model to characterize 

historical shipments as a function of 

purchase price. In order to develop the 

logit model, DOE utilized shipments 

data collected by Market Research 

Magazine 61 and the PPI of household 

cooking appliance manufacturing 62 in 

the years 2002–2012, along with the 

consumer purchase price derived from 

the engineering analysis, to analyze 

factors that influence consumer 

purchasing decisions. Using this model, 

DOE found that historical shipments 

show a strong dependence on the first 

costs for electric cooking products and 

conventional gas ovens, and developed 

the best-fit logit parameters to capture 

this relationship. DOE then used the 

parameters to derive the market share 

for available efficiency options for home 

owners. Given that landlords generally 

have little incentive to install higherefficiency products. DOE assigned the 

purchases of renters in the RECS sample 

to the baseline efficiency level. 

To establish the current efficiency 

distribution for gas cooking tops, DOE 

relied on publicly available data on gas 

cooking top models in the market 63 and 

their configuration with regard to grates 

and burner input rates to characterize 

the efficiency distribution. Given the 

lack of data on historic efficiency 

trends, DOE assumed that the estimated 

current distributions would apply in 

2023. 

Table IV–42, Table IV–43, and Table 

IV–44 present the market shares of the 

efficiency levels in the no-newstandards case for consumer 

conventional cooking products.64


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
81026 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

See chapter 8 of the TSD 

accompanying this NOPD for further 

information regarding no-new-standards 

efficiency distribution. 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of moreefficient products, compared to baseline 

products, through energy cost savings. 

Payback periods are expressed in years. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.042</GPH> EP14DE20.043</GPH> EP14DE20.044</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81027 

65 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

66Appliance Magazine Market Research. The U.S. 

Appliance Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy 

& Replacement Picture 2012. 

67Appliance 2011. U.S. Appliance Industry 

Statistical Review: 2000 to YTD 2011. 

Payback periods that exceed the life of 

the product mean that the increased 

total installed cost is not recovered in 

reduced operating expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the product and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 

that discount rates are not needed. 

As noted above, EPCA, as amended, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the first 

year’s energy savings resulting from the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered 

efficiency level, DOE determined the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

by calculating the energy savings in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test 

procedure, and multiplying those 

savings by the average energy price 

projection for the year in which 

compliance with the new or amended 

standards would be required. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

product shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

or new energy conservation standards 

on energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.65 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach, tracking market shares of 

each product class and the vintage of 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

product shipments as inputs to estimate 

the age distribution of in-service 

product stocks for all years. The age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

is a key input to calculations of both the 

NES and NPV, because operating costs 

for any year depend on the age 

distribution of the stock. The shipment 

projections are based on historical data 

and an analysis of key market drivers for 

each product. For conventional cooking 

products, DOE accounted for three 

market segments: (1) New construction, 

(2) existing homes (i.e., replacing failed 

products), and (3) retired but not 

replaced products. 

To determine new construction 

shipments, DOE used a forecast of new 

housing coupled with product market 

saturation data for new housing. For 

new housing completions and mobile 

home placements, DOE adopted the 

projections from EIA’s AEO 2019 

through 2052. The market saturation 

data for new housing came from RECS 

2015. 

DOE estimated replacements using 

product retirement functions developed 

from product lifetimes. DOE used 

retirement functions based on Weibull 

distributions. 

To reconcile the historical shipments 

with the model, DOE assumed that 

every retired unit is not replaced. DOE 

attributed the reason for this nonreplacement to building demolition 

occurring over the period 2013–2052. 

The not-replaced rate is distributed 

across electric and gas cooking 

products. 

DOE allocated shipments to each 

product class based on the current 

market share of the class. DOE 

developed the market shares based on 

data collected from Appliance Magazine 

Market Research report 66 and U.S. 

Appliance Industry Statistical Review.67

The shares are kept constant over time. 

DOE did not estimate any fuel 

switching for electric and gas cooking 

products, as no significant switching 

was observed from historical data. 

Table IV–45 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the shipments analysis for this NOPD. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
81028 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

68The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 States 

and U.S. territories. 

69For the NIA, DOE adjusts the installed cost data 

from the LCC analysis to exclude sales tax, which 

is a transfer. 

DOE considered the impact of 

prospective standards on product 

shipments. DOE concluded that it is 

unlikely that the price would increase 

due to the considered standards would 

impact the decision to install a cooking 

product in the new construction market. 

In the replacement market, DOE 

assumed that, in response to an 

increased product price, some 

consumers will choose to repair their 

old cooking product and extend its 

lifetime instead of replacing it 

immediately. DOE estimated the 

magnitude of such impact through a 

purchase price elasticity of demand. 

The estimated price elasticity of –0.367 

is based on data for cooking products as 

described in appendix 9A of the TSD for 

this NOPD. This elasticity relates the 

repair or replace decision to the 

incremental installed cost of higher 

efficiency cooking products. DOE 

estimated that the average extension of 

life of the repaired unit would be 5 

years, before the unit would be replaced 

with a new cooking unit. 

AGA and APGA stated that DOE 

failed to assess the potential for fuel 

switching from natural gas to electric 

cooking products as a result of a 

conservation standard. (AGA and 

APGA, No. 68 at p. 3) Because DOE is 

proposing standards for both electric 

and natural gas appliances, any increase 

in the price of the appliance would 

impact cooking products of both fuel 

types. As switching typically includes 

additional installation costs for 

accessing the new fuel source (e.g., 

installation of a gas line for gas 

appliances and installation of electrical 

lines for electrical appliances), which 

would outweigh the incremental change 

in equipment price, DOE determined 

that fuel switching would not occur. 

For further details on the shipments 

analysis, please refer to chapter 9 of the 

TSD for this NOPD. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

NPV from a national perspective of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new or 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels.68 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context 

refers to consumers of the product being 

regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV for the potential standard levels 

considered based on projections of 

annual product shipments, along with 

the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data from the energy 

use and LCC analyses.69 For the present 

analysis, DOE projected the energy 

savings, operating cost savings, product 

costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 

over the lifetime of conventional 

cooking products sold from 2023 

through 2052. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each product 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 product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

standards cases, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of products with 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.045</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81029 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each TSL. Interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical values (as opposed 

to probability distributions) as inputs. 

The NIA calculations are based on the 

annual energy consumption and total 

installed cost data from the energy use 

analysis and the LCC analysis. DOE 

projected the lifetime energy savings, 

energy cost savings, equipment costs, 

and NPV of customer benefits for each 

product class over the lifetime of 

equipment sold from 2023 through 

2052. 

Table IV–46 summarizes the key 

inputs for the NIA. The sections 

following provide further details, as 

does chapter 10 of the TSD for this 

NOPD. 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

A key component of DOE’s estimates 

of NES and NPV is the energy 

efficiencies forecasted over time. 

Section IV.F.8 of this document 

describes how DOE developed an 

energy efficiency distribution for the nonew-standards case (which yields a 

shipment weighted-average efficiency) 

for each of the considered product 

classes for the year of anticipated 

compliance with an amended or new 

standard. For the no-new-standards 

case, DOE utilized the consumer choice 

model (in combination with the 

equipment price projection (as 

described in section IV.F.1 of this 

document) to determine the efficiencies 

in each future year, for conventional 

electric cooking products and gas ovens. 

For conventional gas cooking tops, DOE 

relied on manufacturer inputs, modelbased market distribution available from 

retail websites. The approach is further 

described in chapter 10 of the TSD for 

this NOPD. 

For the standards cases, DOE assumed 

that equipment efficiencies in the nonew-standards case that do not meet the 

standard level under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new 

standard level, and market shares at 

efficiencies above the standard level 

under consideration will shift based on 

the consumer choice model. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The NES analysis involves a 

comparison of national energy 

consumption of the considered products 

between each potential standards case 

(TSL) 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.046</GPH>
81030 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

70For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ 

index.cfm. 

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 AEO 2019. Cumulative energy 

savings are the sum of the NES for each 

year over the timeframe of the analysis. 

Use of higher-efficiency products is 

occasionally associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the product 

due to the increase in efficiency. DOE 

did not find any data on the rebound 

effect specific to cooking products. The 

calculated NES at each efficiency level 

therefore remains unimpacted by 

rebound effect. DOE does not include 

the rebound effect in the NPV analysis 

because it reasons that the increased 

service from greater use of the product 

has an economic value that is reflected 

in the value of the foregone energy 

savings. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011 notice, DOE published a statement 

of amended policy in which DOE 

explained its determination that EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System 

(‘‘NEMS’’) is the most appropriate tool 

for its FFC analysis and its intention to 

use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public 

domain, multi-sector, partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector 70 that EIA uses to prepare its 

Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors 

incorporate losses in production and 

delivery in the case of natural gas 

(including fugitive emissions) and 

additional energy used to produce and 

deliver the various fuels used by power 

plants. The approach used for deriving 

FFC measures of energy use and 

emissions is described in appendix 10A 

of the TSD for this NOPD. 

Table IV–47 through Table IV–51 

present the FFC equivalent of IAEC for 

the considered efficiency levels. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.047</GPH> EP14DE20.048</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81031 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are: (1) Total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs, and (3) a discount factor 

to calculate the present value of costs 

and savings. DOE calculates net savings 

each year as the difference between the 

no-new-standards case and each 

standards case in terms of total savings 

in operating costs versus total increases 

in installed costs. DOE calculates 

operating cost savings over the lifetime 

of each product shipped during the 

projection period. 

DOE assumed that consumer product 

costs for conventional cooking products 

would remain unchanged over the 

analysis period. 

The operating cost savings are energy 

cost savings accounting for associated 

repair and maintenance costs, which are 

calculated using the estimated energy 

savings in each year and the projected 

price of the appropriate form of energy. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE used projections of annual 

national-average residential energy price 

changes from AEO 2019 (see section 

IV.F.4 for details). To estimate price 

trends after 2050, DOE used the average 

annual rate of change in prices from 

2030 through 2050. DOE also analyzed 

scenarios that used inputs from cases 

that have lower and higher energy price 

trends. NIA results based on these cases 

are presented in appendix 10C of the 

TSD for this NOPD. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this NOPD, DOE 

estimated the NPV of consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.049</GPH> EP14DE20.050</GPH> EP14DE20.051</GPH>
81032 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

71United States Office of Management and 

Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. 

September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03– 

21.html. 

regulatory analysis.71 The discount rates 

for the determination of NPV are in 

contrast to the discount rates used in the 

LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE conducted an MIA for consumer 

conventional cooking products to 

estimate the financial impacts of 

analyzed new and amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products. The 

MIA has both quantitative and 

qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA relies on the GRIM, an 

industry cash-flow model customized 

for the consumer conventional cooking 

products covered in this proposed 

determination. The key GRIM inputs are 

data on the industry cost structure, 

MPCs, and shipments; as well as 

assumptions about manufacturer 

markups and manufacturer conversion 

costs. The key MIA output is INPV. The 

GRIM calculates annual cash flows 

using standard accounting principles. 

DOE used the GRIM to compare changes 

in INPV between the no-new-standards 

case and various TSLs (the standards 

cases). The difference in INPV between 

the no-new-standards case and the 

standards cases represents the financial 

impact of potential new and amended 

energy conservation standards on 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturers. Different sets of 

assumptions (manufacturer markup 

scenarios) produce different INPV 

results. The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses factors such as manufacturing 

capacity; characteristics of, and impacts 

on, any particular subgroup of 

manufacturers, including small 

manufacturers; the cumulative 

regulatory burden placed on consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers; and any impacts on 

competition. 

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flows over time due to 

potential new and amended energy 

conservation standards. These changes 

in cash flows result in either a higher or 

lower INPV for the standards cases 

compared to the no-new-standards case. 

The GRIM uses a standard annual cashflow analysis that incorporates MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, shipments, and 

industry financial information as inputs. 

It then models changes in MPCs, 

investments, and manufacturer margins 

that may result from analyzed new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses these inputs 

to calculate a series of annual cash flows 

beginning with the reference year of the 

analysis, 2019, and continuing to the 

terminal year of the analysis, 2052. DOE 

computes INPV by summing the stream 

of annual discounted cash flows during 

the analysis period. DOE used a real 

discount rate of 9.1 percent, the same 

discount rate used in the September 

2016 SNOPR, for consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers in this NOPD. Many of 

the GRIM inputs come from the 

engineering analysis, the shipments 

analysis, manufacturer interviews, and 

other research conducted during the 

MIA. The major GRIM inputs are 

described in detail in the following 

sections. 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

consumer conventional cooking 

products is more expensive than 

manufacturing baseline products due to 

the need for more complex and costly 

components. The higher MPCs for these 

more efficient products can affect the 

revenues, gross margins, and cash flow 

of the industry, making these product 

costs key inputs for the GRIM and the 

MIA. 

In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs 

calculated in the engineering analysis, 

as described in section IV.C of this 

document and further detailed in 

chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD. For 

this NOPD analysis, DOE updated the 

MPCs used in the September 2016 

SNOPR analysis based on comments 

received from interested parties and 

additional research. The MIA stated 

these values in 2018 dollars, as opposed 

to the September 2016 SNOPR’s 2015 

dollar values. DOE used these updated 

MPCs for this NOPD analysis. 

b. Shipments Projections 

INPV, the key GRIM output, depends 

on industry revenue, which depends on 

the quantity and prices of consumer 

conventional cooking products shipped 

in each year of the analysis period. 

Industry revenue calculations require 

forecasts of: (1) Total annual shipment 

volume of consumer conventional 

cooking products, (2) the distribution of 

shipments across the product classes 

(because prices vary by product class), 

and (3) the distribution of shipments 

across efficiency levels (because prices 

vary with efficiency). 

DOE updated the shipments analysis 

for this NOPD analysis to reflect new 

historical statistics, updated AEO 2019 

values, and the elimination of certain 

efficiency levels, due to comments and 

data provided by interested parties in 

response to the September 2016 SNOPR. 

The MIA used these updated shipments 

for this NOPD analysis. For a complete 

description of the shipments, see the 

shipments analysis discussion in 

section IV.G of this document and 

chapter 9 of the TSD for this NOPD. 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

DOE expects the analyzed new and 

amended consumer conventional 

cooking product energy conservation 

standards would cause manufacturers to 

incur conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and product 

designs into compliance with potential 

new and amended standards. For the 

MIA, DOE classified these conversion 

costs into two groups: (1) Capital 

conversion costs and (2) product 

conversion costs. Capital conversion 

costs are investments in property, plant, 

and equipment necessary to adapt or 

change existing production facilities so 

new product designs can be fabricated 

and assembled. Product conversion 

costs are investments in research, 

development, testing, marketing, 

certification, and other non-capitalized 

costs necessary to make product designs 

comply with potential new and 

amended standards. 

In general, DOE assumes all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year of publication of the 

final rule and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

potential new and amended standards. 

Product conversion costs depend on the 

per-model costs associated with 

redesigning non-compliant models into 

compliant ones and then re-testing and 

marketing those newly compliant 

models. Product conversion costs also 

depend on the number of models 

estimated to require a redesign. DOE 

used the efficiency distribution of 

shipments calculated in the shipment 

analysis as an input to estimate the 

number of models that would not meet 

an analyzed efficiency level. As 

discussed in section IV.I.2.b of this 

document, shipments were updated as 

part of this NOPD, and these new 

shipment efficiency distributions were 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81033 

72MIA conversion cost estimates and INPV 

results from the September 2016 SNOPR can be 

found at 81 FR 60874, 60851 (Sept. 2, 2016). 

used to calculate the product conversion 

costs used in this NOPD MIA. 

The updated efficiency distribution 

increased the product conversion costs 

at most efficiency levels for most 

product classes. Additionally, Felix 

Storch commented that DOE overlooked 

a number of consumer conventional 

cooking product manufacturers that sell 

products in the United States in its 

manufacturer list. (Felix Storch, No. 62 

at p. 2) DOE revisited the list of 

potential manufacturers and total 

number of covered models offered by 

these manufacturers. As a result, DOE 

added three manufacturers to its list of 

manufacturers of covered products. DOE 

also increased the number of covered 

models due to this updated 

manufacturer list. This caused capital 

and product conversion costs to 

increase due to the addition of more 

manufacturers and more covered 

models. 

DOE notes that while the conversion 

costs for most efficiency levels 

increased from the September 2016 

SNOPR to this NOPD, the TSLs used in 

this NOPD generally comprise lower 

efficiency levels than the TSLs used in 

the September 2016 SNOPR, causing the 

conversion costs at most TSLs to 

decrease from the September 2016 

SNOPR to this NOPD. DOE also 

represented these conversion costs in 

2018 dollars, as opposed to the 

September 2016 SNOPR’s 2015 dollar 

values. Overall, although the conversion 

costs used in this NOPD analysis differ 

from those used in the September 2016 

SNOPR MIA, the methodology, permodel conversion costs, and permanufacturer conversion costs used to 

calculate conversion costs remain the 

same as those used in the September 

2016 SNOPR.72

The conversion cost estimates used in 

the GRIM can be found in section 

V.B.2.a of this document. For additional 

information on the estimated capital 

and product conversion costs, see 

chapter 11 of the TSD for this NOPD. 

d. Markup Scenarios 

As discussed in section IV.I.2.a of this 

document, the MPCs for consumer 

conventional cooking products are the 

manufacturers’ costs for those units. 

These costs include materials, direct 

labor, depreciation, and overhead, 

which are collectively referred to as the 

cost of goods sold. The MSP is the price 

received by consumer conventional 

cooking product manufacturers from the 

first sale of those products, typically to 

a distributor, regardless of the 

downstream distribution channel 

through which the consumer 

conventional cooking products are 

ultimately sold. The MSP is not the 

price the end-user pays for consumer 

conventional cooking products because 

there are typically multiple sales along 

the distribution chain and various 

markups applied to each sale. The MSP 

equals the MPC multiplied by the 

manufacturer markup. The 

manufacturer markup covers all the 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturer’s non-production costs 

(i.e., selling, general, and administrative 

expenses; research and development; 

and interest) as well as profit. Total 

industry revenue for consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers equals the MSPs at each 

efficiency level multiplied by the 

number of shipments at that efficiency 

level for all product classes. 

Modifying the manufacturer markups 

in the standards cases yields a different 

set of impacts on consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers than in the no-newstandards case. For the MIA, DOE 

modeled two standards case 

manufacturer markup scenarios for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products to represent the uncertainty 

regarding the potential impacts on MSPs 

and profitability for consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of potential new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The two manufacturer 

markup scenarios are: (1) a preservation 

of gross margin markup scenario and (2) 

a preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. Each scenario leads to 

different manufacturer markup values, 

which, when applied to the MPCs 

derived in the engineering analysis, 

result in varying revenue and cash-flow 

impacts on consumer conventional 

cooking product manufacturers. 

DOE modeled two manufacturer 

markup scenarios to represent the upper 

and lower bounds of MSPs and 

profitability following potential new 

and amended standards. The 

preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario represents the best-case 

scenario for manufacturers. DOE 

recognizes that manufacturers may not 

be able to mark up the additional cost 

of production in the standards cases, 

given the competitive consumer 

conventional cooking products market. 

Therefore, DOE also modeled a 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario to represent a lower bound on 

profitability for manufacturers. While 

DOE used the same markup scenarios in 

this NOPD MIA that were used in the 

September 2016 SNOPR analysis, the 

manufacturer markup values of the 

preservation of operating profit depend 

on the efficiency distribution of 

shipments calculated in the shipments 

analysis. As discussed in section IV.I.2.b 

of this document, shipments were 

updated and these new efficiency 

distributions were used to calculate 

manufacturer markups in the 

preservation of operating profit 

manufacturer markup scenario. 

Therefore, the manufacturer markups 

used in the preservation of operating 

profit scenario in this NOPD analysis 

differ slightly from those used in the 

September 2016 SNOPR MIA. However, 

the methodology used to calculate those 

manufacturer markup values remains 

the same. 

3. Discussion of Comments 

a. Discount Rate 

Spire commented that the assumption 

of low discount rates works against the 

natural gas-fuel appliance industry and 

indicates a pattern of bias that does not 

comport with DOE’s statutory 

obligations. (Spire, No. 61 at p. 7) DOE 

uses the weighted-average cost of capital 

in conjunction with the capital asset 

pricing model to calculate the industry 

discount rate. DOE calculated an 

industry discount rate of 9.1 percent 

using this standard accounting practice 

and financial data from publicly traded 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturers. DOE then verified this 

estimated industry discount rate with 

manufacturers during manufacturer 

interviews. DOE also notes that the 

industry discount rate used in the GRIM 

is a real discount rate, as are all other 

variables in the GRIM. DOE first 

calculated a nominal industry discount 

rate of 12.2 percent. DOE then 

subtracted 3.1 percent from this 

nominal discount rate to account for the 

historical inflation rate before arriving at 

the 9.1 percent real industry discount 

rate used in the GRIM. For additional 

information, refer to chapter 11 of the 

TSD for this NOPD. 

DOE requests comment on its use of 

12.2 percent as a nominal industry 

discount rate and its use of 3.1 percent 

as the historical inflation rate, to arrive 

at a 9.1 percent real industry discount 

rate. 

b. Changes in Test Procedure and 

Manufacturer Interviews 

AHAM commented that manufacturer 

interviews were conducted in the earlier 

stages of the rulemaking before DOE 

proposed to repeal the oven test 

procedure and to adopt a different 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
81034 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

cooking top test procedure. AHAM 

suggested that these developments raise 

doubt on the relevance of the 

information received during the 

interviews. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 34, 

35) DOE received information during 

manufacturer interviews dealing with 

conversion costs and production costs 

for a variety of different design changes 

that were analyzed both for this NOPD 

and for the September 2016 SNOPR. 

The conversion cost estimates given 

during manufacturer interviews were 

primarily based on meeting 

performance-based energy conservation 

standards. In this NOPD analysis, DOE 

estimated the performance 

characteristics of consumer 

conventional cooking products at the 

analyzed prescriptive standard levels. 

The design options, and costs of 

meeting those design options, discussed 

in the manufacturer interviews 

conducted in the earlier stages of the 

rulemaking are relevant estimates for 

manufacturers to meet the analyzed 

prescriptive standards in this NOPD 

analysis. 

c. Other Comments 

Other comments made by interested 

parties concerned either the cumulative 

regulatory burden or the small business 

analysis. The cumulative regulatory 

burden comments are addressed in 

section V.B.2.e of this document and the 

small business comments are addressed 

in section VI.C of this document. 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE conducted manufacturer 

interviews following publication of the 

February 2014 RFI in preparation for the 

June 2015 NOPR analysis. In these 

interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to 

describe their major concerns with this 

consumer conventional cooking 

products rulemaking. The following 

section describes the key issues 

identified by consumer conventional 

cooking product manufacturers during 

these manufacturer interviews. DOE 

conducted additional discussions with 

select manufacturers to follow up on 

information received on the June 2015 

NOPR, but those discussions focused 

primarily on the engineering analysis. 

DOE did not conduct any further 

interviews with manufacturers between 

the September 2016 SNOPR and this 

NOPD because further interviews were 

not necessary to revise the MIA for this 

NOPD. Instead DOE, used comments 

from interested parties to update the 

MIA. 

a. Premium Products Tend To Be Less 

Efficient 

Manufacturers stated that their 

premium products (i.e., gas cooking tops 

and ovens marketed as commercialstyle) are usually less efficient than 

products marketed as residential-style. 

Commercial-style gas cooking tops 

typically have features such as heavier 

cast iron grates that decrease efficiency 

by acting as an additional thermal load. 

Also, this style of gas cooking top 

typically has wider spacing between the 

burner and grate surface, further 

reducing the efficiency of the cooking 

top. Conversely, gas cooking tops 

marketed as residential-style tend to 

have lighter-weight, lower grates so the 

cooking vessels resting on them are 

closer to the heat sources. Commercialstyle ovens typically have large, heaviergauge cavity construction and extension 

racks that result in inherently lower 

efficiencies compared to residentialstyle ovens with comparable cavities 

sizes when measured according to the 

DOE test procedure in effect at the time 

of the interviews, due to the greater 

thermal mass of the cavity and racks. 

Manufacturers warned DOE that 

focusing only on the efficiency of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products could cause some 

manufacturers to redesign their 

products in a way that reduces 

consumer satisfaction, as consumers 

tend to value premium features even 

though they may be less efficient. As 

explained in section IV.C.2.b of this 

document, DOE did not analyze, and is 

not proposing standards at, higher 

efficiency levels for gas cooking tops in 

this NOPD. While DOE agrees that 

commercial-style ovens would not be 

able to meet the higher gas oven 

standards analyzed, DOE is not 

proposing amended standards for gas 

ovens in this NOPD. 

b. Induction Cooking Products 

Some manufacturers stated that 

induction cooking tops should be 

considered as a separate product class 

apart from electric smooth element 

cooking tops. Manufacturers stated that 

although induction cooking tops tend to 

be more efficient that other electric 

smooth element cooking tops, induction 

cooking tops could require consumers to 

replace some or all of their cookware if 

they are not ferromagnetic. DOE did not 

evaluate a separate product class for 

induction cooking tops, as discussed in 

section IV.A.1.a of this document. 

Additionally, DOE is not proposing new 

standards for electric smooth element 

cooking tops in this NOPD. 

c. Product Utility 

Manufacturers stated that energy 

efficiency is not one of the most 

important attributes that consumers 

value when purchasing consumer 

conventional cooking products. 

Manufacturers stated that there are 

several other factors, such as 

performance and durability, which 

consumers value more when purchasing 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. Required improvements to the 

efficiency of their products could lead 

some manufacturers to remove premium 

features that consumers desire from 

their products, potentially reducing 

overall consumer utility. As discussed 

in section V.C.4 of this document, DOE 

is not proposing new or amended 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products in this NOPD, and 

thus the utility or performance of the 

consumer conventional cooking 

products under consideration in this 

proposed determination would not be 

reduced. 

d. Testing and Certification Burdens 

Several manufacturers expressed 

concern about the testing and 

recertification costs associated with new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products. Because testing and 

certification costs are incurred on a per 

model basis, if a large number of models 

are required to be redesigned to meet 

potential new and amended standards, 

manufacturers would be forced to spend 

a significant amount of money testing 

and certifying products that were 

redesigned. Manufacturers stated that 

these testing and certification costs 

associated with consumer conventional 

cooking products could significantly 

strain their limited resources if these 

costs were all incurred in the 3-year 

period between the publication of a 

potential final rule and the compliance 

date of the potential new and amended 

standards. As part of the MIA, DOE 

included all certification and recertification costs that would be 

required to comply with the evaluated 

standards. Additionally, DOE is not 

proposing any new or amended 

standards in this NOPD, and has 

withdrawn the conventional cooking 

products test procedure. Therefore, 

manufacturers would not incur any 

testing or certification costs due to this 

NOPD. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for consumer 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81035 

73For the conventional oven product classes, the 

efficiency levels are based on an oven with a cavity 

volume of 4.3 ft3. As discussed in section IV.C.2.c 

of this document, DOE developed slopes and 

intercepts to characterize the relationship between 

IEAC and cavity volume for each efficiency level. 

conventional cooking products. It 

addresses the TSLs examined by DOE 

and the projected impacts of each of 

these levels. Additional details 

regarding DOE’s analyses are contained 

in the TSD for this NOPD. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of three TSLs for consumer 

conventional cooking products. These 

TSLs were developed by combining 

specific efficiency levels for each of the 

product classes analyzed by DOE. DOE 

presents the results for the TSLs in this 

document, while the results for all 

efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are 

in the TSD for this NOPD. 

Table V–1 through Table V–3 present 

the TSLs and the corresponding 

efficiency levels for consumer 

conventional cooking products.73 TSLs 

developed for the September 2016 

SNOPR were updated for this proposed 

determination to account for updates to 

the engineering analysis based on 

additional testing and analysis. Details 

regarding the updates to the efficiency 

level analysis are discussed in section 

IV.C.2 of this document. 

TSL 3 represents the max-tech 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

all product classes, except for electric 

open (coil) element cooking tops and 

gas cooking tops. TSL 2 comprises 

efficiency levels providing maximum 

NES with positive NPV. TSL 1 was 

configured to include a controls based 

strategy that would not eliminate the 

utility of a clock display on combined 

cooking products from the market. 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on consumer conventional cooking 

products consumers by looking at the 

effects that potential new and amended 

standards at each TSL would have on 

the LCC and PBP. These analyses are 

discussed below. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency products 

can affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

Purchase price increases and (2) annual 

operating costs decreases. Inputs used 

for calculating the LCC and PBP include 

total installed costs (i.e., product price 

plus installation costs), and operating 

costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy 

prices, energy price trends, repair costs, 

and maintenance costs). The LCC 

calculation also uses product lifetime 

and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the 

TSD for this NOPD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Table V–4 through Table V–25 show 

the LCC and PBP results for all 

efficiency levels considered for each 

consumer conventional cooking product 

class (‘‘PC’’). In the first of each pair of 

tables, the simple payback is measured 

relative to the baseline product. In the 

second table, the LCC savings are 

measured relative to the no-newstandards case efficiency distribution in 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.052</GPH> EP14DE20.053</GPH> EP14DE20.054</GPH>
81036 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

the compliance year (see section IV.F.9 

of this NOPD). Because some consumers 

purchase products with higher 

efficiency in the no-new-standards case, 

the average savings are less than the 

difference between the average LCC of 

the baseline product and the average 

LCC at each TSL. The savings refer only 

to consumers who are affected by a 

standard at a given TSL. Those who 

already purchase a product with 

efficiency at or above a given TSL are 

not affected. Consumers for whom the 

LCC increases at a given TSL experience 

a net cost. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.055</GPH> EP14DE20.056</GPH> EP14DE20.057</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81037 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.058</GPH> EP14DE20.059</GPH> EP14DE20.060</GPH>
81038 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.061</GPH> EP14DE20.062</GPH> EP14DE20.063</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81039 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.064</GPH> EP14DE20.065</GPH> EP14DE20.066</GPH>
81040 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.067</GPH> EP14DE20.068</GPH> EP14DE20.069</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81041 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.070</GPH> EP14DE20.071</GPH> EP14DE20.072</GPH>
81042 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.073</GPH> EP14DE20.074</GPH> EP14DE20.075</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81043 

b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section IV.F of this 

document, EPCA establishes a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased purchase cost 

for a product that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first-year energy savings resulting from 

the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) In calculating a 

rebuttable presumption PBP for each of 

the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete 

values, and, as required by EPCA, based 

the energy use calculation on the nowwithdrawn DOE test procedures for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. In contrast, the PBPs 

presented in section V.B.1.a of this 

document were calculated using 

distributions that reflect the range of 

energy use in the field. See chapter 8 of 

the NOPD TSD for more information on 

the rebuttable presumption payback 

analysis. 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of potential new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products. The 

following sections describe the expected 

impacts on consumer conventional 

cooking product manufacturers at each 

TSL. Chapter 11 of the TSD for this 

NOPD explains the MIA in further 

detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

In this section, DOE provides GRIM 

results from the analysis, which 

examines changes in the industry that 

could result from new and amended 

standards. Table V–26 and Table V–27 

depict the estimated financial impacts 

(represented by changes in INPV) of 

potential new and amended energy 

conservation standards on consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers, as well as the conversion 

costs that DOE estimates manufacturers 

would incur at each TSL. To evaluate 

the range of cash flow impacts on the 

consumer conventional cooking product 

industry, DOE modeled two 

manufacturer markup scenarios that 

correspond to the range of anticipated 

market responses to new and amended 

standards. Each manufacturer markup 

scenario results in a unique set of cash 

flows and corresponding industry 

values at each TSL. 

In the following discussion, the INPV 

results refer to the difference in industry 

value between the no-new-standards 

case and the standards cases that result 

from the sum of discounted cash flows 

from the reference year (2019) through 

the end of the analysis period (2052). 

The results also discuss the difference 

in cash flows between the no-newstandards case and the standards cases 

in the year before the analyzed 

compliance date for potential new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. This figure represents the 

size of the required conversion costs 

relative to the cash flow generated by 

the consumer conventional cooking 

product industry in the absence of new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards. In the engineering analysis, 

DOE enumerates common technology 

options that achieve the efficiencies for 

each of the analyzed product classes. 

For descriptions of these technology 

options and the required efficiencies at 

each TSL, see section IV.C and section 

V.A, respectively, of this document. 

To assess the upper (less severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturers, DOE modeled a 

preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. This scenario assumes that in 

the standards cases, manufacturers 

would be able to pass along all the 

higher production costs required for 

more efficient products to their 

consumers. Specifically, the industry 

would be able to maintain its average 

no-new-standards case gross margin (as 

a percentage of revenue) despite the 

higher production costs in the standards 

cases. In general, the larger the product 

price increases, the less likely 

manufacturers are to achieve the cash 

flow from operations calculated in this 

scenario because it is less likely that 

manufacturers would be able to fully 

mark up these larger production cost 

increases. 

To assess the lower (more severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on the 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturers, DOE modeled the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. This scenario represents the 

lower end of the range of potential 

impacts on manufacturers because no 

additional operating profit is earned on 

the higher production costs, eroding 

profit margins as a percentage of total 

revenue. 

Table V–26 and Table V–27 present 

the projected results for consumer 

conventional cooking products under 

the preservation of gross margin and 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenarios. DOE examined results for all 

product classes together since the 

majority of manufacturers sell products 

across a variety of the analyzed product 

classes. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.076</GPH>
81044 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

TSL 1 sets the efficiency level at 

baseline for two product classes (electric 

open (coil) element cooking tops and 

gas cooking tops) and at EL 1 for all 

other product classes (electric smooth 

element cooking tops, all electric ovens, 

and all gas ovens). At TSL 1, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$45.6 million to ¥$44.3 million, 

or a change in INPV of ¥2.9 percent to 

¥2.8 percent. At TSL 1, industry free 

cash flow (operating cash flow minus 

capital expenditures) is estimated to 

decrease to $106.3 million, or a drop of 

18.9 percent, compared to the no-newstandards case value of $131.0 million 

in 2022, the year leading up to the 

analyzed compliance date of potential 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

slightly negative at TSL 1. DOE does not 

anticipate that manufacturers would 

lose a significant portion of their INPV 

at this TSL, given the limited 

conversion costs and number of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products projected to comply with the 

analyzed standards at this TSL. DOE 

projects that in the analyzed year of 

compliance (2023), 100 percent of 

electric open (coil) element cooking top 

and gas cooking top shipments, 45 

percent of electric smooth element 

cooking top shipments, 60 percent of 

electric standard oven (free-standing 

and built-in) shipments, 48 percent of 

electric self-clean oven (free-standing 

and built-in) shipments, 54 percent of 

gas standard oven (free-standing and 

built-in) shipments, and 45 percent of 

gas self-clean oven (free-standing and 

built-in) shipments will meet or exceed 

the efficiency levels required at TSL 1. 

DOE expects conversion costs to be 

small at TSL 1 because the design 

changes prescribed at this TSL only 

affect standby mode power 

consumption and do not apply to active 

mode power consumption. DOE expects 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturers would incur $25.2 

million in product conversion costs for 

product redesigns that include 

converting electric smooth element 

cooking tops and both gas and electric 

ovens to transition from using linear 

power supplies to SMPS in order to 

reduce standby power consumption. 

DOE expects $35.1 million in capital 

conversion costs for manufacturers to 

upgrade production lines and retool 

equipment associated with achieving 

this reduction in standby power. 

At TSL 1, under the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, the 

shipment weighted-average MPC 

increases very slightly by approximately 

0.1 percent relative to the no-newstandards case MPC. This slight price 

increase is outweighed by the $60.3 

million in conversion costs estimated at 

TSL 1, resulting in slightly negative 

INPV impacts at TSL 1 under the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.077</GPH> EP14DE20.078</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81045 

preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, manufacturers 

earn the same nominal operating profit 

as would be earned in the no-newstandards case, but manufacturers do 

not earn additional profit from their 

investments. The slight increase in the 

shipment weighted-average MPC results 

in a slightly lower average manufacturer 

markup (slightly smaller than the 1.20 

manufacturer markup used in the nonew-standards case). This slightly lower 

average manufacturer markup and the 

$60.3 million in conversion costs result 

in slightly negative INPV impacts at TSL 

1 under the preservation of operating 

profit. 

TSL 2 sets the efficiency level at 

baseline for two product classes (electric 

open (coil) element cooking tops and 

gas cooking tops); EL 1 for four product 

classes (electric self-clean free-standing 

ovens, electric self-clean built-in ovens, 

gas self-clean free-standing ovens, and 

gas self-clean built-in ovens); EL 2 for 

electric smooth element cooking tops; 

EL 3 for two product classes (gas 

standard free-standing ovens and gas 

standard built-in ovens); and EL 4 for 

two product classes (electric standard 

free-standing ovens and electric 

standard built-in ovens). At TSL 2, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$88.2 million to ¥$82.6 million, 

or a change in INPV of ¥5.6 percent to 

¥5.2 percent. At this standard level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease to $83.5 million, or a drop of 

36.3 percent, compared to the no-newstandards case value of $131.0 million 

in 2022, the year leading up to the 

analyzed compliance date of potential 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

moderately negative at TSL 2. The 

$117.3 million in industry conversion 

costs represent a significant investment 

for manufacturers, and is the primary 

cause of the potential drop in INPV of 

up to 5.6 percent and a significant 

decrease of 36.3 percent in free cash 

flow in the year leading up to the 

analyzed compliance date of potential 

new and amended standards. DOE 

projects that in 2023, 100 percent of 

electric open (coil) cooking top and gas 

cooking top shipments, 23 percent of 

electric smooth element cooking top 

shipments, 28 percent of electric 

standard oven (free-standing and builtin) shipments, 48 percent of electric 

self-clean oven (free-standing and builtin) shipments, 27 percent of gas 

standard oven (free-standing and builtin) shipments, and 45 percent of gas 

self-cleaning oven (free-standing and 

built-in) shipments will meet or exceed 

the efficiency levels at TSL 2. 

DOE expects that product conversion 

costs will rise from $25.2 million at TSL 

1 to $54.9 million at TSL 2 for extensive 

product redesigns and testing. Capital 

conversion costs will also increase from 

$35.1 million at TSL 1 to $62.4 million 

at TSL 2 to upgrade production 

equipment to accommodate added or 

redesigned features in each product 

class. The larger conversion costs at TSL 

2 are driven by the need to reduce vent 

rates, improve insulation and door seals, 

and include forced convection for 

electric standard ovens; and improve 

insulation and door seals for gas 

standard ovens. 

At TSL 2, under the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, the 

shipment weighted-average MPC 

increases by 0.5 percent, relative to the 

no-new-standards case MPC. In this 

scenario, INPV impacts are moderately 

negative because manufacturers would 

incur sizable conversion costs ($117.3 

million) and would not be able to 

recover much of those conversion costs 

through the 0.5 percent increase in the 

shipment weighted-average MPC at TSL 

2. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 0.5 percent 

shipment weighted-average increase in 

MPC results in a slightly lower average 

manufacturer markup. This slightly 

lower average manufacturer markup and 

the $117.3 million in conversion costs 

results in moderately negative INPV 

impacts at TSL 2. 

TSL 3 sets the efficiency level at 

baseline for two product classes (electric 

open (coil) element cooking tops and 

gas cooking tops); EL 2 for two product 

classes (gas self-clean free-standing 

ovens and gas self-clean built-in ovens); 

EL 3 for three product classes (electric 

smooth element cooking tops, electric 

self-clean free-standing ovens, and 

electric self-clean built-in ovens); EL 4 

for two product classes (gas standard 

free-standing ovens and gas standard 

built-in ovens); and EL 6 for two 

product classes (electric standard freestanding ovens and electric standard 

built-in ovens). This represents maxtech for all product classes for which 

efficiency levels above the baseline were 

analyzed. At TSL 3, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV to range from ¥$629.0 

million to ¥$384.6 million, or a change 

in INPV of ¥39.6 percent to ¥24.2 

percent. At TSL 3, industry free cash 

flow is estimated to decrease to 

¥$184.0 million, or a drop of 240.4 

percent, compared to the no-newstandards case value of $131.0 million 

in 2022, the year leading up to the 

analyzed compliance date of potential 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. 

At TSL 3 conversion costs 

significantly increase, causing free cash 

flow to become significantly negative, 

¥$184.0 million, in the year leading up 

to the analyzed compliance date of 

potential new and amended standards 

and causing manufacturers to lose a 

substantial amount of INPV. Also, the 

percent change in INPV at TSL 3 is 

significantly negative due to the 

extremely large conversion costs, $776.3 

million. Manufacturers at this TSL 

would have a very difficult time in the 

short term to make the necessary 

investments to comply with the 

analyzed new and amended energy 

conservation standards prior to the 

analyzed compliance date. 

A high percentage of total shipments 

would need to be redesigned to meet the 

efficiency levels prescribed at TSL 3. 

DOE projects that in 2023, 100 percent 

of electric open (coil) element cooking 

top and gas cooking top shipments, 1 

percent of electric smooth element 

cooking top shipments, 8 percent of 

electric standard oven (free-standing 

and built-in) shipments, 15 percent of 

electric self-clean oven (free-standing 

and built-in) shipments, 13 percent of 

gas standard oven (free-standing and 

built-in) shipments, and 23 percent of 

gas self-clean oven (free-standing and 

built-in) shipments will meet the 

efficiency levels at TSL 3. 

DOE expects significant conversion 

costs at TSL 3, which represents maxtech. DOE expects product conversion 

costs to significantly increase from 

$54.9 million at TSL 2 to $362.9 million 

at TSL 3. Large increases in product 

conversion costs are due to most 

shipments needing extensive redesign 

as well as a significant increase in recertification for re-designed products. 

DOE estimates that capital conversion 

costs will also significantly increase 

from $62.4 million at TSL 2 to $413.4 

million at TSL 3. Capital conversion 

costs are driven by investments in 

production equipment to switch to 

induction heating elements for electric 

smooth element cooking tops; reduce 

vent rates, improve insulation and door 

seals, and include forced convection 

and oven separators for electric standard 

ovens; include forced convection and 

oven separators for electric self-clean 

ovens; improve insulation and door 

seals and include forced convection for 

gas standard ovens; and include forced 

convection in gas self-clean ovens. 

At TSL 3, under the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, the 

shipment weighted-average MPC 

increases by 18.4 percent relative to the 

no-new-standards case MPC. In this 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
81046 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

scenario, INPV impacts are significantly 

negative because the $776.3 million in 

conversion costs outweigh the modest 

increase in shipment weighted-average 

MPC, resulting in significantly negative 

INPV impacts at TSL 3. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 18.4 percent 

shipment weighted-average increase in 

MPC results in a lower average 

manufacturer markup (1.192 compared 

to the no-new-standards case average 

manufacturer markup of 1.200). This 

lower average manufacturer markup and 

the $776.3 million in conversion costs 

result in significantly negative INPV 

impacts at TSL 3. 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

To quantitatively assess the potential 

impacts of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on direct 

employment in the conventional 

cooking products industry, DOE used 

the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of direct 

employees in the no-new-standards case 

and at each TSL from 2023 to 2052. DOE 

used statistical data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s 2016 Annual Survey of 

Manufactures (‘‘ASM’’), the results of 

the engineering analysis, and interviews 

with manufacturers to determine the 

inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and domestic 

employment levels. Labor expenditures 

involved with the manufacturing of the 

products are a function of the labor 

intensity of the products, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor 

content of the MPCs to estimate the 

annual labor expenditures in the 

industry. DOE used census data and 

interviews with manufacturers to 

estimate the portion of the total labor 

expenditures that is attributable to 

domestic labor. 

The production worker estimates in 

this section cover only workers up to 

the line-supervisor level directly 

involved in fabricating and assembling 

a product within a manufacturing 

facility. Workers performing services 

that are closely associated with 

production operations, such as material 

handing with a forklift, are also 

included as production labor. DOE’s 

estimates account for production 

workers who manufacture only the 

specific products covered in this 

proposed determination. 

The employment impacts shown in 

Table V–28 represent the potential 

domestic production employment that 

could result following the analyzed new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards. The upper bound of the 

results estimates the maximum change 

in the number of production workers 

that could occur after compliance with 

the analyzed new and amended energy 

conservation standards when assuming 

that manufacturers continue to produce 

the same scope of covered products in 

the same production facilities. It also 

assumes that domestic production does 

not shift to lower labor-cost countries. 

Because there is a real risk of 

manufacturers evaluating sourcing 

decisions in response to the analyzed 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards, the lower bound of the 

employment results includes DOE’s 

estimate of the total number of U.S. 

production workers in the industry who 

could lose their jobs if some or all 

existing domestic production were 

moved outside of the United States. 

While the results present a range of 

domestic employment impacts 

following 2023, the following sections 

also include qualitative discussions of 

the likelihood of negative employment 

impacts at the various TSLs. 

Using 2016 ASM data and interviews 

with manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately 60 percent of the 

consumer conventional cooking 

products sold in the United States are 

manufactured domestically. With this 

assumption, DOE estimates that in the 

absence of any new and amended 

energy conservation standards, there 

would be approximately 7,186 domestic 

production workers involved in 

manufacturing consumer conventional 

cooking products in 2023. Table V–28 

shows the range of the impacts of the 

analyzed new and amended energy 

conservation standards on U.S. 

production workers in the consumer 

conventional cooking product industry. 

At the upper end of the range, all 

examined TSLs show a slight increase 

in the number of domestic production 

workers for consumer conventional 

cooking products. DOE believes that 

manufacturers would increase 

production hiring due to the increase in 

the labor associated with adding the 

required components to make consumer 

conventional cooking products more 

efficient. However, as previously stated, 

this assumes that in addition to hiring 

more production employees, all existing 

domestic production would remain in 

the United States and not shift to lower 

labor-cost countries. 

DOE does not expect any significant 

changes in domestic employment at TSL 

1 because standards would only affect 

standby mode power consumption at 

this TSL. Most manufacturers stated that 

this TSL would not require significant 

design changes and therefore would not 

have a significant impact on domestic 

employment decisions. 

At TSL 2 and TSL 3, most 

manufacturers would be required to 

make at least some modifications to 

their existing production lines. 

However, manufacturers stated that due 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.079</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81047 

to the larger size of most consumer 

conventional cooking products, very 

few units are manufactured and shipped 

from far distances such as Asia or 

Europe. The vast majority of consumer 

conventional cooking products are 

currently made in North America. Some 

manufacturers stated that even 

significant changes to production lines 

would not cause them to shift their 

production to lower labor-cost 

countries, as several manufacturers 

either only produce consumer 

conventional cooking products 

domestically or have recently made 

significant investments to continue to 

produce consumer conventional 

cooking products domestically. 

At TSL 2, manufacturers could alter 

production locations in response to 

standards, since most product classes 

would be required to meet energy 

conservation standards that would most 

likely require modifications to more 

than just standby mode power 

consumption. DOE estimated that at 

most 25 percent of the domestic labor 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products could move to other countries 

in response to the analyzed standards at 

TSL 2. 

At TSL 3, manufacturers could alter 

production locations in response to 

standards, since all product classes 

other than electric open (coil) element 

cooking tops and gas cooking tops 

would be required to meet max-tech. 

DOE estimated that at most 50 percent 

of the domestic labor for consumer 

conventional cooking products could 

move to other countries in response to 

the analyzed standards at TSL 3. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Consumer conventional cooking 

product manufacturers stated that they 

did not anticipate any capacity 

constraints at TSL 1, which would only 

require modifications to electronic 

control components. Some 

manufacturers stated that any standard 

requiring induction heating technology 

for all electric smooth element cooking 

tops would present a very difficult 

standard to meet since only around 1 

percent of the existing electric smooth 

element cooking tops use induction 

technology. Manufacturers stated that 

converting 99 percent of their electric 

smooth element cooking tops in the 3- 

year compliance window would present 

a significant challenge, since the 

production of induction heating cooking 

tops differs significantly from current 

cooking top production. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash-flow estimate 

may not be adequate for assessing 

differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche product 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting cost structures substantially 

different from the industry average 

could be affected disproportionately. 

DOE analyzed the impacts on small 

businesses in section VI.B of this 

document. DOE also identified the 

commercial-style manufacturer 

subgroup as a potential manufacturer 

subgroup that could be adversely 

impacted by the considered standards 

based on the results of the industry 

characterization. 

The commercial-style manufacturer 

subgroup consists of consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers that primarily sell gas 

cooking tops, gas ovens, and electric 

self-clean ovens marketed as 

commercial-style, either as a standalone product or as a component of a 

conventional range. While no 

commercial-style manufacturers (i.e., 

manufacturers that are producing 

conventional ovens that are primarily 

marketed as commercial-style) produce 

electric coil element cooking tops, some 

commercial-style manufacturers 

produce electric smooth element 

cooking tops. Of those commercial-style 

manufacturers that do produce electric 

smooth element cooking tops, all have 

products that use induction technology 

that would be capable of meeting maxtech for this product class. Commercialstyle electric and gas ovens typically 

have cavities with heavier-gauge cavity 

walls and heavier racks that result in 

inherently lower efficiencies compared 

to residential-style ovens with 

comparable cavity sizes, due to the 

greater thermal mass of the cavity and 

racks, when measured by the earlier 

DOE test procedure. The vast majority of 

commercial-style electric and gas ovens 

already use SMPS in their ovens and 

would not have difficulty meeting a 

potential standard level requiring SMPS 

for ovens. However, there would be 

significant uncertainty as to whether 

commercial-style manufacturers would 

be able to test their conventional ovens, 

in the absence of a DOE test procedure 

for these products, to potentially meet 

the analyzed standards at TSLs that 

require design options in addition to 

SMPS for ovens (TSL 2 and TSL 3). 

Therefore, these commercial-style 

manufacturers would likely be forced to 

exit the conventional oven market as a 

result of conventional oven standards 

set above TSL 1. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves looking at the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies that affect the manufacturers of 

a covered product or equipment. While 

any one regulation may not impose a 

significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of several existing 

or impending regulations may have 

serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or the entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts a 

cumulative regulatory burden analysis 

as part of its rulemakings for consumer 

conventional cooking products. 

DOE recognizes that cooking products 

that include both a conventional 

cooking top and oven (i.e., conventional 

ranges) may be assembled on a single 

assembly line in manufacturing 

production facilities. DOE also notes 

that some components and parts (e.g., 

cabinet housing, controls) may be 

shared between the oven and cooking 

top portion of a conventional range. 

Setting standards with different 

compliance dates for ovens and cooking 

tops could result in the need for 

manufacturers to redesign the oven and 

cooking top portions of conventional 

ranges (including shared components 

and assembly lines) separately on 

different timelines. As discussed in 

section II.B.2 of this document, DOE 

combined the rulemakings to consider 

energy conservation standards for 

conventional cooking tops and ovens 

together and has aligned the compliance 

dates for both product categories to 

reduce redesign cycles and to mitigate 

manufacturer costs. 

AHAM commented that home 

appliances are now in a continuous 

cycle of regulation, where as soon as 

one compliance effort ends or is near 

completion, another round of regulation 

to change the standard begins again. 

According to AHAM, this puts a 

continual burden on manufacturers. 

AHAM also stated that there is no time 

for DOE, manufacturers, or efficiency 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
81048 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

74Energy conservation standards final rule for 

walk-in coolers and freezers. 82 FR 31808 (July 10, 

2017). 

75Energy conservation standards final rule for 

residential boilers. 81 FR 2320 (Jan. 15, 2016). 

76Energy conservation standards final rule for 

residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. 

82 FR 1786 (Jan. 6, 2017). 

77Energy conservation standards final rule for 

small, large, and very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment. 81 FR 2420 

(Jan. 15, 2016). 

advocates to assess the success of 

standards or review their impacts on 

consumers and manufacturers. (AHAM, 

No. 64 at p. 36) Under EPCA, DOE is 

required to analyze potential new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for specific products within specific 

time periods. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) 

DOE will continue to meet its legal 

obligations for either amending 

standards or determining that revised 

standards are not justified. 

DOE acknowledges that some 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturers also make appliances 

that are or could be subject to future 

energy conservation standards 

implemented by DOE. DOE is also 

aware of energy conservation standards 

that could affect consumer conventional 

cooking product manufacturers. These 

energy conservation standards include 

those for walk-in coolers and freezers 

with a compliance date in 2020,74

residential boilers with a compliance 

date in 2021,75 residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps with a 

compliance date in 2023,76 and small, 

large, and very large commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment with a second compliance 

date in 2023.77 The compliance years 

and expected industry conversion costs 

of all relevant new and amended energy 

conservation standards are indicated in 

Table V–29. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.080</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81049 

78U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at: https://

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4/. 

79Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review 

its standards at least once every 6 years, and 

requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after 

any new standard is promulgated before 

compliance is required, except that in no case may 

any new standards be required within 6 years of the 

compliance date of the previous standards. If DOE 

makes a determination that amended standards are 

not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review 

within three years following such a determination. 

As DOE is evaluating the need to amend the 

standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the 

review timeframe associated with amended 

standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 

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

notes that it may undertake reviews at any time 

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

compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. 

A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate 

given the variability that occurs in the timing of 

standards reviews and the fact that for some 

products, the compliance period is 5 years rather 

than 3 years. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

When conducting the cumulative 

regulatory burden analysis, DOE 

considers other energy conservation 

standards for products that consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers make, especially if those 

standards occur either 3 years before or 

after the anticipated compliance date for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products standards, as part of this 

analysis. DOE discusses these and other 

requirements and includes the full 

details of the cumulative regulatory 

burden analysis in Chapter 11 of the 

TSD for this NOPD. 

AHAM expressed concern about DOE 

amending test procedures and 

proposing standards simultaneously. 

AHAM commented that the time and 

resources needed to evaluate and 

respond to both amended test 

procedures and new and amended 

energy conservation standards should 

not be discounted as a source of 

cumulative regulatory burden. AHAM 

also stated that manufacturers 

experience difficulty in determining 

how their products will perform in 

relation to the standards when the test 

procedure has not been finalized, which 

nearly precluded commenting on the 

test procedure. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 

35, 36) DOE understands that 

responding to test procedure and 

standards proposals take time and 

resources from manufacturers. As 

discussed, DOE published an update to 

the Process Rule. 85 FR 8626. Pursuant 

to the update, test procedure 

rulemakings establishing methodologies 

used to evaluate proposed energy 

conservation standards will be finalized 

at least 180 days prior to publication of 

a NOPR proposing new or amended 

energy conservation standards. Section 

8(d) of the Process Rule. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the NES and the NPV of consumer 

benefits that would result from each of 

the TSLs considered as potential new 

and amended standards. 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential new and 

amended standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products, DOE 

compared their energy consumption 

under the no-new-standards case to 

their anticipated energy consumption 

under each TSL. 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 potential 

new and amended standards (2023– 

2052). Table V–30 presents DOE’s 

projections of the NES for each TSL 

considered for consumer conventional 

cooking products. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.H of this document. 

OMB Circular A–4 78 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this proposed 

determination, DOE undertook a 

sensitivity analysis using 9, rather than 

30, years of product shipments. The 

choice of a 9-year period is a proxy for 

the timeline in EPCA for the review of 

certain energy conservation standards 

and potential revision of and 

compliance with such revised 

standards.79 The review timeframe 

established in EPCA is generally not 

synchronized with the product lifetime, 

product manufacturing cycles, or other 

factors specific to consumer 

conventional cooking products. Thus, 

such results are presented for 

informational purposes only and are not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

sensitivity analysis results based on a 

9-year analytical period are presented in 

Table V–31. The impacts are counted 

over the lifetime of conventional 

cooking products purchased in 2023– 

2031. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.081</GPH>
81050 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

80U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4/. 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

TSLs considered for consumer 

conventional cooking products. In 

accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,80 DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. Table V–32 

shows the consumer NPV results for 

each TSL DOE considered for consumer 

conventional cooking products. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2023–2052. 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V–33. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2023–2031. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and is not indicative of any change 

in DOE’s analytical methodology or 

decision criteria. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.082</GPH> EP14DE20.083</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81051 

The above results reflect the use of a 

default trend to estimate the change in 

price for consumer conventional 

cooking products over the analysis 

period (see section IV.F.1 of this 

document). DOE also conducted a 

sensitivity analysis that considered one 

scenario with a lower rate of price 

decline than the reference case and one 

scenario with a higher rate of price 

decline than the reference case. The 

results of these alternative cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the TSD 

for this NOPD. In the high-price-decline 

case, the NPV of consumer benefits is 

higher than in the default case. In the 

low-price-decline case, the NPV of 

consumer benefits is lower than in the 

default case. 

C. Proposed Determination 

When considering amended energy 

conservation standards, the standards 

that DOE adopts for any type (or class) 

of covered product must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

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

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

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by, to the greatest extent 

practicable, considering the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

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

amended standard must also result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

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

For this proposed determination, DOE 

considered the impacts of amended 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products at analyzed TSLs, 

beginning with the maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Because an 

analysis of potential economic 

justification and energy savings first 

requires an evaluation of the relevant 

technology, in the following sections 

DOE first discusses the technological 

feasibility of amended standards. DOE 

then addresses the energy savings and 

economic justification associated with 

potential amended standards. 

Table V–34 and Table V–35 

summarize the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for consumer 

conventional cooking products. The 

national impacts are measured over the 

lifetime of consumer conventional 

cooking products purchased in the 30- 

year period that begins in the 

anticipated year of compliance with 

potential new and amended standards 

(2023–2052). The efficiency levels 

contained in each TSL are described in 

section V.A of this document. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.084</GPH> EP14DE20.085</GPH>
81052 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3EP14DE20.086</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81053 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

1. Technological Feasibility 

EPCA mandates that DOE consider 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products would be 

technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and (n)(2)(B)) DOE has 

tentatively determined that there are 

technology options that would improve 

the efficiency of consumer conventional 

cooking products. These technology 

options are being used in commercially 

available consumer conventional 

cooking products and therefore are 

technologically feasible. (See section 

IV.B of this document for further 

information.) Hence, DOE has 

tentatively determined that amended 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products are technologically feasible. 

2. Significant Conservation of Energy 

EPCA also mandates that DOE 

consider whether amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products would 

result in significant conservation of 

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

U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(A)) As discussed in 

section III.D.2 of this document, to 

determine whether energy savings are 

significant, DOE conducts a two-step 

approach that considers both an 

absolute site energy savings threshold 

and a threshold that is a percent 

reduction in the covered energy use. 

Section 6(b) of the Process Rule. DOE 

first evaluates the projected energy 

savings from a potential max-tech 

standard over a 30-year period against a 

0.3 quads of site energy threshold. 

Section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule. If the 

0.3 quad-threshold is not met, DOE then 

compares the max-tech savings to the 

total energy usage of the covered 

equipment to calculate a percentage 

reduction in energy usage. Section 

6(b)(3) of the Process Rule. If this 

comparison does not yield a reduction 

in site energy use of at least 10 percent 

over a 30-year period, DOE proposes 

that no significant energy savings would 

likely result from setting new or 

amended standards. Section 6(b)(4) of 

the Process Rule. 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential amended 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products, DOE compared their 

energy consumption under the no-newstandards 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 (2023–2052). 

DOE first considered TSL 3, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 3 would save an estimated 

0.57 quads of site energy, an amount 

DOE considers significant as it exceeds 

the 0.3 quad-threshold established in 

section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule for 

evaluating the significance of energy 

savings. 

DOE then considered TSL 2, which 

would save an estimated 0.22 quads of 

energy over the evaluation period, 

which represents a 4.9-percent decrease 

in energy use of the evaluated products. 

The estimated energy savings does not 

reach the 0.3 quad-threshold or the 10- 

percent energy saving threshold 

established in section 6(b) of the Process 

Rule, and therefore would not be 

significant. Because TSL 2 would not 

achieve significant energy savings, DOE 

did not consider it further. 

Finally, DOE considered TSL 1, 

which would save an estimated 0.10 

quads of energy over the evaluation 

period, which represents a 2.2-percent 

decrease in energy use of the evaluated 

products. The estimated energy savings 

does not reach the 0.3 quad-threshold or 

the 10-percent energy saving threshold 

established in section 6(b) of the Process 

Rule, and therefore would not be 

significant. Because TSL 1 would not 

achieve significant energy savings, DOE 

did not consider it further. 

3. Economic Justification 

In determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, the Secretary 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens, 

considering to the greatest extent 

practicable the seven statutory factors 

discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) One of those seven 

factors includes whether the proposed 

standard 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. 

This factor is assessed using LCC and 

PBP analysis. DOE conducted an LCC 

analysis to estimate the net costs/ 

benefits to users from increased 

efficiency in the considered consumer 

conventional cooking products. (See 

results in Table V–53.) DOE then 

aggregated the results from the LCC 

analysis to estimate the NPV of the total 

costs and benefits experienced by the 

Nation. (See results in Table V–44 and 

Table V–45.) As noted, the inputs for 

determining the NPV are (1) total annual 

installed cost, (2) total annual operating 

costs (energy costs and repair and 

maintenance costs), and (3) a discount 

factor to calculate the present value of 

costs and savings. 

Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be negative $18.4 billion 

using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 

negative $32.1 billion using a discount 

rate of 3 percent. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact 

ranges from a savings of negative $457 

for PC2 (Electric Smooth Element 

Cooking Tops) to negative $11.12 for 

PC11 (Gas Self-Clean Oven—Built-In/ 

Slide-In). The simple payback period 

ranges from 16.5 years for PC8 (Gas 

Standard Oven—Free-Standing) and 

PC9 (Gas Standard Oven—Built-In/ 

Slide-In) to 111.7 years for PC2 (Electric 

Smooth Cooking Tops). The fraction of 

consumers experiencing a net LCC cost 

ranges from zero percent for PC1 

(Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking 

Tops) and PC3 (Gas Cooking Tops), to 

99 percent for PC2 (Electric Smooth 

Element Cooking Tops). 

DOE is concerned that TSL 3 may 

result in the unavailability of certain 

product types for conventional ovens, 

because there would be significant 

uncertainty as to whether commercialstyle manufacturers would be able to 

test their products, in the absence of a 

DOE test procedure for conventional 

ovens. DOE also notes that the reduction 

in IAEC at TSL 3 for PC2 (Electric 

Smooth Cooking Tops) could result in 

the loss of certain functions that provide 

utility to consumers, specifically the 

continuous clock display for combined 

cooking products. In addition, DOE 

recognizes that there may be uncertainty 

in conducting the standards analysis 

and analyzing energy savings from 

performance standards for conventional 

ovens based on efficiency levels using 

the previous version of the oven test 

procedure, which DOE has now 

repealed in the December 2016 TP Final 

Rule due to concerns whether the test 

procedure accurately reflects the energy 

use of all product types. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $629.0 

million to a decrease of $384.6 million, 

which correspond to decreases of 39.6 

percent and 24.2 percent, respectively. 

Products that meet the efficiency 

standards specified by TSL 3 are 

forecast to represent 39 percent of 

shipments in 2023, the analyzed 

compliance year of the evaluated 

standards. As such, manufacturers 

would have to redesign the majority of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
81054 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

their products by 2023. Redesigning 

these units to meet max-tech would 

require considerable investment from 

manufacturers. At TSL 3, DOE estimates 

capital conversion costs would total 

$413.4 million and product conversion 

costs would total $362.9 million. Total 

capital and product conversion costs 

associated with the changes in products 

and manufacturing facilities required at 

TSL 3 would require significant use of 

manufacturers’ financial reserves and 

would significantly reduce 

manufacturer INPV. Additionally, 

manufacturers are more likely to reduce 

their margins to maintain a pricecompetitive product at higher TSLs, so 

DOE expects that TSL 3 would yield 

impacts closer to the most severe range 

of INPV impacts. If the most severe 

range of impacts is reached, the maxtech standard could result in a net loss 

of 39.6 percent in INPV to consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers. As a result, at TSL 3, 

DOE expects that some companies could 

be forced to exit the consumer 

conventional cooking product market. 

The commercial-style manufacturer 

subgroup would most likely not be able 

to meet the conventional ovens 

standards required at this TSL and 

would likely be forced to exit the 

conventional oven market. 

Based on the negative NPV of TSL 3, 

the negative INPV range, and the 

potential loss of utility resulting from a 

standard at TSL 3, DOE has tentatively 

determined that any potential positive 

impact of the other statutory factors 

would not outweigh the estimated 

negative impacts. Hence, DOE has 

tentatively determined that an amended 

standard at TSL 3 is not economically 

justified. Based on this consideration, 

DOE is not proposing to amend energy 

conservation standards to adopt TSL 3 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products. 

4. Summary of Annualized Benefits and 

Costs of the Proposed Standards 

In this proposed determination, based 

on the consideration of the significance 

of energy savings and the factors 

required for consideration of whether 

amended standards would be 

economically justified, and the initial 

determination that amended standards 

would not result in significant energy 

savings and would not be economically 

justified, DOE has tentatively 

determined that energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products 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, OMB did not review this 

proposed determination. 

B. Review Under Executive Orders 

13771 and 13777 

On January 30, 2017, the President 

issued E.O. 13771, ‘‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs.’’ 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). E.O. 

13771 stated the policy of the executive 

branch is to be prudent and financially 

responsible in the expenditure of funds, 

from both public and private sources. 

E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to 

manage the costs associated with the 

governmental imposition of private 

expenditures required to comply with 

Federal regulations. 

Additionally, on February 24, 2017, 

the President issued E.O. 13777, 

‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform 

Agenda.’’ 82 FR 12285 (March 1, 2017). 

E.O. 13771 required the head of each 

agency designate an agency official as 

its Regulatory Reform Officer (‘‘RRO’’). 

Each RRO oversees the implementation 

of regulatory reform initiatives and 

policies to ensure that agencies 

effectively carry out regulatory reforms, 

consistent with applicable law. Further, 

E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of 

a regulatory task force at each agency. 

The regulatory task force is required to 

make recommendations to the agency 

head regarding the repeal, replacement, 

or modification of existing regulations, 

consistent with applicable law. At a 

minimum, each regulatory reform task 

force must attempt to identify 

regulations that: 

(1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; 

(2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or 

ineffective; 

(3) Impose costs that exceed benefits; 

(4) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with regulatory reform 

initiatives and policies; 

(5) Are inconsistent with the requirements 

of Information Quality Act, or the guidance 

issued pursuant to that Act, in particular 

those regulations that rely in whole or in part 

on data, information, or methods that are not 

publicly available or that are insufficiently 

transparent to meet the standard for 

reproducibility; or 

(6) Derive from or implement Executive 

Orders or other Presidential directives that 

have been subsequently rescinded or 

substantially modified. 

DOE initially concludes that this 

proposed determination is consistent 

with the directives set forth in these 

executive orders. 

As discussed in this document, DOE 

is proposing not to amend energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products. 

Consistent with E.O. 13771, this 

proposed determination, if finalized, is 

not estimated to result in any costs or 

cost savings. Therefore, if finalized as 

proposed, this determination is 

expected to be an E.O. 13771 ‘‘Other 

Action.’’ 

C. 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 (http://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 

consumer conventional cooking 

products, if adopted, the determination 

would not amend any energy 

conservation standards. On the basis of 

the foregoing, DOE certifies that 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). 

D. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products must 

certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. DOE has 

established regulations for the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81055 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. (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. 

E. 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. 

F. 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 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 

determination. 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. 

G. 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. 

H. 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 http://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. 

I. 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. 

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
81056 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

81 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

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

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

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 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. 

K. 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). DOE has 

reviewed this NOPD under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

L. 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 amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products, it is not 

a significant energy action, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects. 

M. Information Quality 

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 FR 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 report describing that peer review.81

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 developing 

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=34. 

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 NOPD, 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. Such persons may handdeliver requests to speak to the address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notification of 

proposed determination between 9:00 

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Requests may also be sent by postal mail 

or 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 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81057 

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 

NOPD. 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 document. 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 http://

www.regulations.gov. The http://

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 http://

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 http://

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 http://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 http://

www.regulations.gov provides after you 

have successfully uploaded your 

comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or postal mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email, hand delivery/courier, or 

postal mail also will be posted to http:// 

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. If you 

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. 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 or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE seeks comment on both its initial 

decision to no longer consider intermittent/ 

interrupted or intermittent pilot ignition 

systems as a technology option, and its initial 

decision to only evaluate prescriptive 

standards requiring that conventional ovens 

not be equipped with a control system that 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
81058 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

uses a linear power supply (see section 

IV.A.2.b of this NOPD). 

(2) DOE requests comment on the 

evaluated baseline and incremental 

efficiency levels. DOE specifically requests 

inputs and test data on the baseline 

efficiency levels and the efficiency 

improvements associated with the design 

options identified at each incremental 

efficiency level that were determined based 

on either the analysis from the 2009 TSD or 

updated based on testing and reverse 

engineering analyses for this NOPD (see 

section IV.C.2 of this NOPD). 

(3) DOE requests input and data on the 

estimated incremental manufacturing 

production costs for each efficiency level 

analyzed that were determined based on 

either the analysis from the 2009 TSD, 

adjusted to reflect changes in the PPI, or costs 

determined based on testing and reverse 

engineering analyses conducted for this 

NOPD (see section IV.C.3 of this NOPD). 

(4) DOE requests comments on the use of 

a consumer choice model to establish the nonew-standards case and standards case 

efficiency distribution for both electric and 

gas cooking products (see section IV.F.8 of 

this NOPD) 

(5) To estimate the impact on shipments of 

the price increase for the considered 

efficiency levels, DOE determined that the 

new construction market will be inelastic to 

price changes and will not impact shipments, 

and any impact of the price increase would 

be on the replacement market. DOE 

welcomes input on the effect of potential 

new and amended standards on impacts 

across products within the same fuel class 

and equipment type (see section IV.G of this 

NOPD). 

(6) DOE requests comment on its use of 

12.2 percent as a nominal industry discount 

rate and its use of 3.1 percent as the 

historical inflation rate, to arrive at a 9.1 

percent real industry discount rate (see 

section IV.I.3.a of this NOPD). 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this proposed 

determination that may not specifically 

be identified in this document. In 

particular, DOE notes that under 

Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs,’’ Executive Branch agencies such 

as DOE must manage the costs 

associated with the imposition of 

expenditures required to comply with 

Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 

(Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with that 

Executive Order, DOE encourages the 

public to provide input on measures 

DOE could take to lower the cost of its 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, and compliance 

and certification requirements 

applicable to consumer conventional 

cooking products while remaining 

consistent with the requirements of 

EPCA. 

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 December 2, 2020, 

by Daniel R Simmons, 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 December 2, 

2020. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26874 Filed 12–11–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3