11548 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

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

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005] 

RIN 1904–AF57 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Conventional Cooking Products 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

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. In this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), the 

U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

proposes new and amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products identical 

to those set forth in a direct final rule 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. If DOE receives 

adverse comment and determines that 

such comment may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule, DOE will publish a 

notice of withdrawal and will proceed 

with this proposed rule. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this NOPR no 

later than June 3, 2024. Comments 

regarding the likely competitive impact 

of the proposed standard should be sent 

to the Department of Justice contact 

listed in the ADDRESSES section on or 

before March 15, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: See section IV of this 

document, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

details. If DOE withdraws the direct 

final rule published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register, DOE will 

hold a public meeting to allow for 

additional comment on this proposed 

rule. DOE will publish notice of any 

meeting in the Federal Register. 

Interested persons are encouraged to 

submit comments using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005. 

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) Email: 

ApplicanceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005 in the 

subject line of the message. 

(2) 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. 

(3) 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 telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

IV of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

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 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2014-BT-STD-0005. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section IV 

of this document for information on 

how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

EPCA requires the Attorney General 

to provide DOE a written determination 

of whether the proposed standard is 

likely to lessen competition. The U.S. 

Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

invites input from market participants 

and other interested persons with views 

on the likely competitive impact of the 

proposed standard. Interested persons 

may contact the Antitrust Division at 

www.energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or 

before the date specified in the DATES

section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’ 

line of your email the title and Docket 

Number of this proposed rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Carl Shapiro, 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– 

5649. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 751– 

5157. Email: Melanie.Lampton@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, 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 Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. Current Test Procedure 

3. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Products 

4. The Joint Agreement 

III. Proposed Standards 

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Consumer Conventional 

Cooking Product Standards 

B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Public Meeting 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements Including Differences in 

Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of 

Small Entities 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA 2


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11549 

3This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0005-12811. 

4This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0005-12812. 

5This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0005-12813. 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309) These products include consumer 

conventional cooking products, the 

subject of this proposed rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(10)) 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must, among other things, be designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that DOE 

determines is technologically feasible 

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

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

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

In light of the above and under the 

authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4), DOE is proposing this rule 

establishing and amending the energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products and is 

concurrently issuing a direct final rule 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. DOE will proceed with this 

NOPR only if it determines it must 

withdraw the direct final rule pursuant 

to the criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4). The new and amended 

standard levels in the proposed rule and 

direct final rule were proposed in a 

letter submitted to DOE jointly by 

groups representing manufacturers, 

energy and environmental advocates, 

consumer groups, and a utility. This 

letter, titled ‘‘Energy Efficiency 

Agreement of 2023’’ (hereafter, the 

‘‘Joint Agreement’’ 3), recommends 

specific energy conservation standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products that, in the commenters’ view, 

would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently 

received letters of support from States 

including New York, California, and 

Massachusetts 4 and utilities including 

San Diego Gas and Electric and 

Southern California Edison 5 advocating 

for the adoption of the recommended 

standards. As discussed in more detail 

in the accompanying direct final rule 

and in accordance with the provisions 

at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has 

determined that the recommendations 

contained in the Joint Agreement 

comply with the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). 

In accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

document, DOE proposes new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

that are performance-based standards 

for conventional cooking tops and 

prescriptive standards for conventional 

ovens. The standards for conventional 

cooking tops are expressed in terms of 

integrated annual energy consumption 

(‘‘IAEC’’), measured in thousand British 

thermal units per year (‘‘kBtu/year’’) for 

gas cooking tops and in kilowatt-hours 

per year (‘‘kWh/year’’) for electric 

cooking tops, as measured according to 

DOE’s current conventional cooking top 

test procedure codified at title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) 

part 430, subpart B, appendix I1 

(‘‘appendix I1’’). 

Table I.1 presents the proposed new 

and amended standards for 

conventional cooking tops. Table I.2 

presents the proposed new and 

amended standards for conventional 

ovens. These proposed new and 

amended standards would exclude 

portable cooking products. The 

proposed standards are the same as 

those recommended by the Joint 

Agreement. These standards apply to all 

products listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States starting on January 31, 

2028, as recommended in the Joint 

Agreement. 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING TOPS

[Compliance starting January 31, 2028] 

Product class 

Maximum integrated 

annual energy consumption 

(IAEC) 

Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops ........................................................................................................................... No standard. 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops .............................................................................................................. 207 kWh/year. 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Component of Combined Cooking Products ............................................................ 207 kWh/year. 

Gas Standalone Cooking Tops ............................................................................................................................................... 1,770 kBtu/year. 

Gas Cooking Top Component of Combined Cooking Products ............................................................................................. 1,770 kBtu/year. 

TABLE I.2—PROPOSED PRESCRIPTIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL OVENS

[Compliance starting January 31, 2028] 

Product class New and amended standards 

Electric Ovens ........... Shall not be equipped with a control system that uses linear power supply.* 

Gas Ovens ................ The control system for gas ovens shall: 

(1) Not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light; and 

(2) Not be equipped with a linear power supply.* 

* A linear power supply produces unregulated as well as regulated 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, direct current output. Linear power supplies are described in section IV.C.1.b of the direct final rule published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed rule, as well 

as some of the relevant historical 

background related 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
11550 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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, 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 

directed DOE to conduct future 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

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

6295(h)(2)) EPCA further provides that, 

not later than 6 years after the issuance 

of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

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

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). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption in 

limited instances for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with 

the procedures and other provisions set 

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

6297(d)). 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

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

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

covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

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

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 

conventional cooking tops appear at 

appendix I1. There are currently no 

DOE test procedures for conventional 

ovens. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including consumer conventional 

cooking products. Any new or amended 

standard for a 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)) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). 

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 proposed 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 the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products likely to 

result from 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 standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and water 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers 

relevant. 

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

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)). 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States 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 a covered product that has 

two or more subcategories. A rule 

prescribing an energy conservation 

standard for a type (or class) of product 

must specify a different standard level 

for a type or class of products that has 

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 considers 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)). 

Additionally, pursuant to the 

amendments contained in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(‘‘EISA 2007’’), Public Law 110–140, 

final rules for new or amended energy 

conservation standards promulgated 

after July 1, 2010, are required to 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) 

Specifically, when DOE adopts a 

standard for a covered product after that 

date, it must, if justified by the criteria 

for adoption of standards under EPCA 

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

mode and off mode energy use into a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11551 

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 has since published a final rule on June 

20, 2023, adopting amended energy conservation 

standards for microwave oven standby mode and 

off mode. 88 FR 39912. DOE is not considering 

energy conservation standards for microwave ovens 

as part of the direct final rule published elsewhere 

in this issue of the Federal Register. 

single standard, or, if that is not feasible, 

adopt a separate standard for such 

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

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

procedures for conventional cooking 

tops address standby mode and off 

mode energy use, as do the standards 

proposed in this NOPR. 

Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in 

relevant part, to grant DOE authority to 

directly issue a final rule (i.e., a ‘‘direct 

final rule’’) establishing an energy 

conservation standard upon receipt of a 

statement submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates), as 

determined by the Secretary, that 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy or water conservation 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the 

Secretary must also determine whether 

a jointly-submitted recommendation for 

an energy or water conservation 

standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 

A NOPR that proposes an identical 

energy efficiency standard must be 

published simultaneously with the 

direct final rule, and DOE must provide 

a public comment period of at least 110 

days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)–(B)) Based on the 

comments received during this period, 

the direct final rule will either become 

effective, or DOE will withdraw it not 

later than 120 days after its issuance if 

(1) one or more adverse comments is 

received, and (2) DOE determines that 

those comments, when viewed in light 

of the rulemaking record related to the 

direct final rule, may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 

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

Receipt of an alternative joint 

recommendation may also trigger a DOE 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

same manner. (Id.) After withdrawing a 

direct final rule, DOE must proceed 

with the NOPR published 

simultaneously with the direct final rule 

and publish in the Federal Register the 

reasons why the direct final rule was 

withdrawn. (Id.) 

DOE has previously explained its 

interpretation of its direct final rule 

authority. In a final rule amending the 

Department’s ‘‘Procedures, 

Interpretations and Policies for 

Consideration of New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Products’’ at 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may 

issue standards recommended by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relative points of view 

as a direct final rule when the 

recommended standards are in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 

FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the 

direct final rule provision in EPCA, 

under which this proposed rule is 

issued, does not impose additional 

requirements applicable to other 

standards rulemakings, which is 

consistent with the unique 

circumstances of rules issued through 

consensus agreements under DOE’s 

direct final rule authority. Id. DOE’s 

discretion remains bounded by its 

statutory mandate to adopt a standard 

that results in the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified—a requirement 

found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. As such, 

DOE’s review and analysis of the Joint 

Agreement is limited to whether the 

recommended standards satisfy the 

criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

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 that 

prohibit constant burning pilot lights for 

all gas cooking products (i.e., gas 

cooking products with or without an 

electrical supply cord) manufactured on 

and after April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. 

These standards are set forth in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)–(2). 

2. Current Test Procedure 

On August 22, 2022, DOE published 

a test procedure final rule (‘‘August 

2022 TP Final Rule’’) establishing a test 

procedure for conventional cooking 

tops, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix I1, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for 

the Measuring the Energy Consumption 

of Conventional Cooking Products.’’ 87 

FR 51492. The test procedure adopted 

the latest version of the relevant 

industry standard published by the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’), Standard 60350–2 

(Edition 2.0 2017–08), ‘‘Household 

electric cooking appliances—Part 2: 

Hobs—Methods for measuring 

performance’’ (‘‘IEC 60350–2:2021’’), for 

electric cooking tops with modifications 

including adapting the test method to 

gas cooking tops, normalizing the 

energy use of each test cycle to a 

consistent final water temperature, and 

including a measurement of standby 

mode and off mode energy use. Id. The 

standard levels proposed in this NOPR 

are based on the IAEC metric as 

measured according to appendix I1. 

3. 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 (‘‘September 1998 

Final Rule’’), 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 pilot lights 

for gas cooking products without an 

electrical supply cord was economically 

justified, DOE did not include amended 

standards for gas cooking products in 

the September 1998 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 

pilot lights for all gas cooking products 

(i.e., gas cooking products 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

4. The Joint Agreement 

On September 25, 2023, DOE received 

a joint statement (i.e., the Joint 

Agreement) recommending standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
11552 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

7The signatories to the Joint Agreement include 

the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(‘‘AHAM’’), American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer 

Federation of America, Consumer Reports, 

Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company. Members of AHAM’s Major 

Appliance Division that make the affected products 

include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko 

Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, 

Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby 

Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; 

Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE 

Appliances, a Haier Company; L’Atelier Paris Haute 

Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; 

Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic 

Appliances Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) 

Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation; 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp 

Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero 

Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line 

Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool 

Corporation. 

8The Joint Agreement contained 

recommendations for 6 covered products: 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; 

clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; 

cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration 

products. 

9The Joint Agreement is available in the docket 

at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BTSTD-0005-12811. 

10 In the test procedure comment letter, only the 

following Joint Agreement signatories were 

included: AHAM, Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, Consumer Federation of America, 

Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National Consumer 

Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and the 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Furthermore, 

AHAM noted that it represents the following 

companies who manufacture consumer 

conventional cooking products are members of the 

AHAM Major Appliance Division: Arcelik A.S.; 

Beko US, Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home 

Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; 

De’Longhi America, Inc.; Electrolux Home 

Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber S.p.A.; 

FOTILE America, LLC; GE Appliances, a Haier 

Company; Gradient, Inc.; Hisense USA Corporation; 

LG Electronics USA, Inc.; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea 

America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation 

of America; Samsung Electronics America Inc.; 

Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; SubZero Group, Inc.; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool 

Corporation. 

products that was submitted by groups 

representing manufacturers, energy and 

environmental advocates, consumer 

groups, and a utility.7 In addition to the 

recommended standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products, the Joint 

Agreement also included separate 

recommendations for several other 

covered products.8 And, while 

acknowledging that DOE may 

implement these recommendations in 

separate rulemakings, the Joint 

Agreement also stated that the 

recommendations were recommended 

as a complete package and each 

recommendation is contingent upon the 

other parts being implemented. DOE 

understands this to mean that the Joint 

Agreement is contingent upon DOE 

initiating rulemaking processes to adopt 

all of the recommended standards in the 

agreement. That is distinguished from 

an agreement where issuance of an 

amended energy conservation standard 

for a covered product is contingent on 

issuance of amended energy 

conservation standards for the other 

covered products. If the Joint Agreement 

were so construed, it would conflict 

with the anti-backsliding provision in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would 

imply the possibility that, if DOE were 

unable to issue an amended standard for 

a certain product, it would have to 

withdraw a previously issued standard 

for one of the other products. The antibacksliding provision, however, 

prevents DOE from withdrawing or 

amending an energy conservation 

standard to be less stringent. As a result, 

DOE will be proceeding with individual 

rulemakings that will evaluate each of 

the recommended standards separately 

under the applicable statutory criteria. 

The Joint Agreement recommends new 

and amended standard levels for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products as presented in Table II.1. 

(Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) 

Details of the Joint Agreement 

recommendations for other products are 

provided in the Joint Agreement posted 

in the docket.9

TABLE II.1—RECOMMENDED NEW AND AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL

COOKING PRODUCTS

Product class Standard level Compliance date 

Electric Coil ............................................................................................. No standard ................................... January 31, 2028. 

Propose new class: Electric smooth Cooktop * ...................................... 207 kWh/year.

Propose new Class: Electric smooth range * .......................................... 207 kWh/year.

Propose new class: Gas cooktop * ......................................................... 1,770 kBtu/year.

Propose new class: Gas range * ............................................................. 1,770 kBtu/year.

Ovens (Electric and Gas) * ...................................................................... Electric: Baseline + SMPS ............

Gas: Baseline + SMPS.

* Excludes portable cooking products. 

The Joint Agreement also stated that 

the signatories would propose 

separately to DOE the inclusion of an 

alternative simmer calculation in the 

DOE test procedure for use in 

certification. (Id.) The Joint Agreement 

specified that, for enforcement 

purposes, DOE would rely on the full 

simmer test, rather than the alternative 

simmer calculation (which would be 

similar to the triangulation method used 

for refrigerator/freezers at 10 CFR 

429.134(b)(2)). (Id.) DOE received a 

comment on the cooking top test 

procedure from the Joint Agreement 

signatories 10 on January 5, 2024, and 

will address the issues raised in the 

comment in a separate test procedure 

rulemaking. 

DOE has evaluated the Joint 

Agreement and believes that it meets the 

EPCA requirements for issuance of a 

direct final rule. As a result, DOE 

published a direct final rule establishing 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. If DOE receives 

adverse comments that may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal and 

withdraws the direct final rule, DOE 

will consider those comments and any 

other comments received in determining 

how to proceed with this proposed rule. 

For further background information 

on these proposed standards and the 

supporting analyses, please see the 

direct final rule published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register. That 

document and the accompanying 

technical support document (‘‘TSD’’) 

contain an in-depth discussion of the 

analyses conducted in evaluating the 

Joint Agreement, the methodologies 

DOE used in conducting those analyses, 

and the analytical results. 

When the Joint Agreement was 

submitted, DOE was conducting a 

rulemaking to consider amending the 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products. As part of that 

process, DOE published a supplemental 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11553 

11The TSD is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE– 

2014–BT–STD–0005/document. 

12P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic 

Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/ 

0034–6527.00354. 

13Sanstad, A. H. Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf 

(last accessed November 2, 2023). 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘SNOPR’’) and announced a public 

meeting on February 1, 2023, (‘‘February 

2023 SNOPR’’) seeking comment on its 

proposed new and amended standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products to inform its decision 

consistent with its obligations under 

EPCA and the Administrative Procedure 

Act (‘‘APA’’). 88 FR 6818. The February 

2023 SNOPR proposed new and 

amended standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products, 

consisting of maximum IAEC levels for 

electric and gas cooking tops and design 

requirements for conventional ovens. Id. 

Subsequently, on February 28, 2023, 

DOE published a notification of data 

availability (‘‘NODA’’) providing 

additional information to clarify the 

February 2023 SNOPR analysis for gas 

cooking tops. 88 FR 6818. Finally, on 

August 2, 2023, DOE published a 

second NODA updating its analysis for 

gas cooking tops based on the 

stakeholder data it received in response 

to the February 2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 

50810. The February 2023 SNOPR TSD 

is available at: www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005- 

0090. 

III. Proposed Standards 

When considering new or 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)) 

DOE considered the impacts of new 

and amended standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products at each 

trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’), beginning 

with the maximum technologically 

feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) level, to determine 

whether that level was economically 

justified. Where the max-tech level was 

not justified, DOE then considered the 

next most efficient level and undertook 

the same evaluation until it reached the 

highest efficiency level that is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. DOE refers 

to this process as the ‘‘walk-down’’ 

analysis. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard and impacts on employment. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. There is evidence that 

consumers undervalue future energy 

savings as a result of (1) a lack of 

information; (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases; (4) excessive focus on the 

short term, in the form of inconsistent 

weighting of future energy cost savings 

relative to available returns on other 

investments; (5) computational or other 

difficulties associated with the 

evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) 

a divergence in incentives (for example, 

between renters and owners, or builders 

and purchasers). Having less than 

perfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. 

In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, 

potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in 

consumer purchase decisions are 

included in two ways. First, if 

consumers forgo the purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers, and the impact on 

manufacturers attributed to lost revenue 

is included in the manufacturer impact 

analysis (‘‘MIA’’). Second, DOE 

accounts for energy savings attributable 

only to products actually used by 

consumers in the standards case; if a 

standard decreases the number of 

products purchased by consumers, this 

decreases the potential energy savings 

from an energy conservation standard. 

DOE provides estimates of shipments 

and changes in the volume of product 

purchases in chapter 9 of the direct final 

rule TSD 11 available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. However, DOE’s 

current analysis does not explicitly 

control for heterogeneity in consumer 

preferences, preferences across 

subcategories of products or specific 

features, or consumer price sensitivity 

variation according to household 

income.12

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an energy 

conservation standard, DOE is 

committed to developing a framework 

that can support empirical quantitative 

tools for improved assessment of the 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

standards. DOE has posted a paper that 

discusses the issue of consumer welfare 

impacts of appliance energy 

conservation standards, and potential 

enhancements to the methodology by 

which these impacts are defined and 

estimated in the regulatory process.13

DOE welcomes comments on how to 

more fully assess the potential impact of 

energy conservation standards on 

consumer choice and how to quantify 

this impact in its regulatory analysis in 

future rulemakings. 

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Consumer Conventional 

Cooking Product Standards 

Table III.1 and Table III.2 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 the new and 

amended standards (2027–2056 for all 

TSLs except TSL 1, i.e., the 

‘‘Recommended TSL’’ for consumer 

conventional cooking products, and 

2028–2057 for TSL 1). The energy 

savings, emissions reductions, and 

value of emissions reductions refer to 

full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) results. DOE is 

presenting monetized benefits of 

greenhouse gas (‘‘GHG’’) emissions 

reductions in accordance with the 

applicable Executive Orders and would 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
11554 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

reach the same conclusion presented in 

this NOPR in the absence of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases, including the 

Interim Estimates presented by the 

Interagency Working Group. The 

efficiency levels contained in each TSL 

are described in section V.A of the 

direct final rule published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register. 

TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS TSLS: NATIONAL

IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings: 

Quads ................................................................................................................................... 0.22 0.66 1.52 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction: 

CO2 (million metric tons) ...................................................................................................... 3.99 21.16 36.69 

CH4 (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................. 34.70 235.42 366.22 

N2O (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................ 0.04 0.10 0.25 

SO2 (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................. 1.15 2.26 6.96 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................ 7.61 51.14 80.03 

Hg (tons) ............................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.05 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$): 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...................................................................................... 1.63 4.30 3.97 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................. 0.22 1.28 2.16 

Health Benefits ** .................................................................................................................. 0.42 2.15 3.85 

Total Benefits † .............................................................................................................. 2.27 7.73 9.99 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ............................................................................... 0.07 3.96 47.86 

Consumer Net Benefits ........................................................................................................ 1.56 0.34 (43.89) 

Total Net Benefits .......................................................................................................... 2.20 3.77 (37.87) 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$): 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...................................................................................... 0.69 1.90 0.86 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................. 0.22 1.28 2.16 

Health Benefits ** .................................................................................................................. 0.16 0.87 1.56 

Total Benefits † .............................................................................................................. 1.07 4.04 4.58 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 0.04 2.30 27.21 

Consumer Net Benefits ........................................................................................................ 0.65 (0.40) (26.34) 

Total Net Benefits .......................................................................................................... 1.03 1.74 (22.62) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped during the period 

2027¥2056 for all TSLs except for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) and 2028–2057 for TSL 1. These results include benefits to consumers 

which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped during the period 2027¥2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 and 2057 from the products shipped 

during the period 2028–2057 for TSL 1. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4 and SC–N2O. Together, these represent the global 

SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are 

shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses 

the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under 

Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent 

and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG 

point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

TABLE III.2—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS TSLS: 

MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS * 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Manufacturer Impacts: 

Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 1,601) ............................... 1,457–1,458 1,042–1,078 (302)–(25) 

Industry NPV (% change) ..................................................................................................... (9.0)–(9.0) (34.9)–(32.6) (118.9)– 

(101.6) 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$): 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops ........................................................... 62.80 8.54 (638.87) 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product 62.80 8.54 (638.87) 

Gas Standalone Cooking Tops ............................................................................................ 3.09 (1.03) (1.03) 

Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product ................................ 3.09 (1.03) (1.03) 

Electric Ovens ...................................................................................................................... 16.23 (39.55) (24.87) 

Gas Ovens ............................................................................................................................ 15.17 (24.16) (24.16) 

Shipment-Weighted Average ** ............................................................................................. 23.34 (17.72) (153.51) 

Consumer Simple Payback Period (years): 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops ........................................................... 0.6 4.0 170.4 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product 0.6 4.0 170.4 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11555 

14A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

15 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative 

to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key 

assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 

(‘‘AEO2023’’). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent 

possible, laws and regulations adopted through 

mid-November 2022, including the Inflation 

Reduction Act. See section IV.K of the direct final 

rule published elsewhere in in this issue of the 

Federal Register for further discussion of AEO2023 

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions. 

TABLE III.2—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS TSLS: 

MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS *—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Gas Standalone Cooking Tops ............................................................................................ 6.6 10.5 10.5 

Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product ................................ 6.6 10.5 10.5 

Electric Ovens ...................................................................................................................... 2.1 25.4 20.8 

Gas Ovens ............................................................................................................................ 1.9 18.0 18.0 

Shipment-Weighted Average ** ............................................................................................. 2.7 16.1 50.7 

Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost: 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops ........................................................... 0 52 100 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product 0 52 100 

Gas Standalone Cooking Tops ............................................................................................ 1 38 38 

Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product ................................ 1 38 38 

Electric Ovens ...................................................................................................................... 0 27 81 

Gas Ovens ............................................................................................................................ 0 21 21 

Shipment-Weighted Average ** ............................................................................................. 0 34 64 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 2028. 

** Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2022. 

DOE first considered TSL 3, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 3 would save an estimated 

1.52 quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 3, the 

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

benefit would decrease compared to the 

no-new-standards case by $26.34 billion 

using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 

$43.89 billion using a discount rate of 

3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 36.69 million metric tons 

(‘‘Mt’’) 14 of carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’), 

6.96 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 

(‘‘SO2’’), 80.03 thousand tons of nitrogen 

oxides (‘‘NOX’’), 0.05 tons of mercury 

(‘‘Hg’’),15 366.22 thousand tons of 

methane (‘‘CH4’’), and 0.25 thousand 

tons of nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’). The 

estimated monetary value of the climate 

benefits from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average social cost 

of GHG (‘‘SC–GHG’’) at a 3-percent 

discount rate) at TSL 3 is $2.2 billion. 

The estimated monetary value of the 

health benefits from reduced SO2 and 

NOX emissions at TSL 3 is $1.6 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.9 

billion using a 3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 3 is $22.6 billion less 

than the no-new-standards case. Using a 

3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs, the estimated total NPV at 

TSL 3 is $37.9 billion less than the nonew-standards case. The estimated total 

NPV is provided for additional 

information, however DOE primarily 

relies upon the NPV of consumer 

benefits when determining whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified. 

At TSL 3, the average life-cycle costs 

(‘‘LCC’’) impact is a loss of $638.87 for 

electric smooth element cooking top 

product classes, a loss $1.03 for gas 

cooking top product classes, a 

shipments-weighted average loss of 

$24.87 for electric ovens, and a 

shipment-weighted average loss of 

$24.16 for gas ovens. The simple 

payback period is 170.5 years for 

electric smooth element cooking top 

product classes, 10.5 years for gas 

cooking top product classes, 20.8 years 

for electric ovens, and 18.0 years for gas 

ovens. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is 100 

percent for electric smooth element 

cooking top product classes, 38 percent 

for gas cooking top product classes, 81 

percent for electric ovens, and 21 

percent for gas ovens. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

industry net present value (‘‘INPV’’) 

ranges from a decrease of $1,903 million 

to a decrease of $1,626 million, which 

corresponds to decreases of 118.9 

percent and 101.6 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$2,069.2 million to comply with 

standards set at TSL 3. DOE estimates 

that less than 1 percent of electric 

smooth element cooking top (standalone 

and component of a combined cooking 

product) shipments, 41 percent of gas 

cooking top (standalone and component 

of a combined cooking product) 

shipments, zero percent of electric 

standard oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments, zero percent of electric 

self-clean oven (freestanding) 

shipments, 2 percent of electric selfclean oven (built-in) shipments, 62 

percent of gas standard oven 

(freestanding) shipments, 38 percent of 

gas standard oven (built-in) shipments, 

93 percent of gas self-clean oven 

(freestanding) shipments, and 77 

percent of gas self-clean oven (built-in) 

shipments would already meet the 

efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 

2027. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 3 for consumer conventional 

cooking products, the benefits of energy 

savings, emission reductions, and the 

estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the negative NPV of 

consumer benefits, the economic burden 

on many consumers (e.g., negative LCC 

savings across all product classes), and 

the significant impacts on 

manufacturers, including the large 

conversion costs and the significant 

reduction in INPV. A significant fraction 

of consumers across all product classes 

would experience a net LCC cost and 

negative LCC savings. The consumer 

NPV is negative at both 3 and 7 percent. 

The potential reduction in INPV could 

be as high as 118.9 percent. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 2, which 

represents EL 2 for all product classes. 

TSL 2 would save an estimated 0.66 

quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 2, the 

NPV of consumer benefit would 

decrease compared to the no-newVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Feb 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP2.SGM 14FEP2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
11556 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

standards case by $0.40 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and increase 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

by $0.34 billion using a discount rate of 

3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 21.16 Mt of CO2, 2.26 

thousand tons of SO2, 51.14 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 235.42 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.10 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 2 is 

$1.3 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the health benefits from 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 

2 is $0.9 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $2.1 billion using a 3- 

percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 2 is $1.7 billion. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs, the estimated total NPV at 

TSL 2 is $3.8 billion. The estimated 

total NPV is provided for additional 

information, however DOE primarily 

relies upon the NPV of consumer 

benefits when determining whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $8.54 for electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes, a 

loss of $1.03 for gas cooking top product 

classes, a shipments-weighted average 

loss of $39.55 for electric ovens, and a 

shipment-weighted average loss of 

$24.16 for gas ovens. The simple 

payback period is 4.0 years for electric 

smooth element cooking top product 

classes, 10.5 years for gas cooking top 

product classes, 25.4 years for electric 

ovens, and 18.0 years for gas ovens. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing a net 

LCC cost is 52 percent for electric 

smooth element cooking top product 

classes, 38 percent for gas cooking top 

product classes, 27 percent for electric 

ovens, and 21 percent for gas ovens. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $559 

million to a decrease of $522 million, 

which corresponds to decreases of 34.9 

percent and 32.6 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$576.5 million to comply with 

standards set at TSL 2. DOE estimates 

that approximately 15 percent of electric 

smooth element cooking top (standalone 

and component of a combined cooking 

product) shipments, 41 percent of gas 

cooking top (standalone and component 

of a combined cooking product) 

shipments, 38 percent of electric 

standard oven (freestanding) shipments, 

30 percent of electric standard oven 

(built-in) shipments, 77 percent of 

electric self-clean oven (freestanding) 

shipments, 88 percent of electric selfclean ovens (built-in) shipments, 62 

percent of gas standard oven 

(freestanding) shipments, 38 percent of 

gas standard oven (built-in), 93 percent 

of gas self-clean oven (freestanding) 

shipments, and 77 percent of gas selfclean oven (built-in) shipments would 

already meet or exceed the efficiency 

levels required at TSL 2 in 2027. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 2 for consumer conventional 

cooking products, the benefits of energy 

savings, emission reductions, and the 

estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the negative NPV of 

consumer benefits, the economic burden 

on many consumers, and the significant 

impacts on manufacturers, including the 

large conversion costs and the 

significant reduction in INPV. At TSL 2, 

consumers, on average, would 

experience a negative LCC savings for 

gas cooking tops, electric ovens, and gas 

ovens. For electric cooking tops, 52 

percent of consumers would experience 

a net cost. At TSL 2, the simple payback 

period for electric and gas ovens would 

exceed the average product lifetime. 

Additionally, the consumer NPV is 

negative at 7 percent. The potential 

reduction in INPV could be as high as 

34.9 percent. Consequently, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

TSL 2 is not economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 1, which 

corresponds to the TSL recommended 

in the Joint Agreement (the 

‘‘Recommended TSL’’) and which 

represents EL 1 for all product classes. 

The Recommended TSL would save an 

estimated 0.22 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV 

of consumer benefit would be $0.65 

billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $1.56 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at the Recommended TSL are 3.99 Mt of 

CO2, 1.15 thousand tons of SO2, 7.61 

thousand tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 

34.70 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.04 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at the 

Recommended TSL is $0.22 billion. The 

estimated monetary value of the health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions at the Recommended TSL is 

$0.16 billion using a 7-percent discount 

rate and $0.42 billion using a 3-percent 

discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at the Recommended TSL is 

$1.03 billion. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate for all benefits and costs, 

the estimated total NPV at the 

Recommended TSL is $2.20 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

At the Recommended TSL, the 

average LCC impact is a savings of 

$62.80 for electric smooth element 

cooking top product classes, a savings of 

$3.09 for gas cooking top product 

classes, a shipments-weighted average 

savings of $16.23 for electric ovens, and 

a shipment-weighted average savings of 

$15.17 for gas ovens. The simple 

payback period is 0.6 years for electric 

smooth element cooking top product 

classes, 6.6 years for gas cooking top 

product classes, 2.1 years for electric 

ovens, and 1.9 years for gas ovens. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing a net 

LCC cost is 0 percent for electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes, 1 

percent for gas cooking top product 

classes, 0 percent for electric ovens, and 

0 percent for gas ovens. 

At the Recommended TSL, the 

projected change in INPV ranges from a 

decrease of $144 million to a decrease 

of $143 million, which corresponds to 

decreases of 9.0 percent and 9.0 percent, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 

industry must invest $66.7 million to 

comply with standards set at the 

Recommended TSL. DOE estimates that 

approximately 77 percent of electric 

smooth element cooking top (standalone 

and component of a combined cooking 

product) shipments, 97 percent of gas 

cooking top (standalone and component 

of a combined cooking product) 

shipments, 95 percent of electric 

standard oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments, 95 percent of electric 

self-clean oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments, 96 percent of gas 

standard oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments, and 96 percent of gas 

self-clean oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

the Recommended TSL in 2028. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11557 

16 In this analysis, DOE defines an HIR burner as 

a burner rated at or above 14,000 Btu per hour 

(‘‘Btu/h’’). 

17 In this analysis, DOE defines an LIR burner as 

a burner with an input rate below 6,500 Btu/h. 

at a standard set at the Recommended 

TSL for consumer conventional cooking 

products would be economically 

justified. At this TSL, the average LCC 

savings for all consumer conventional 

cooking product consumers is positive. 

A shipment-weighted 0 percent of 

conventional cooking product 

consumers experience a net cost, with 

the largest impact being 1 percent net 

cost for gas cooking top product classes. 

The FFC national energy savings are 

significant and the NPV of consumer 

benefits is positive using both a 3- 

percent and 7-percent discount rate. 

Notably, the benefits to consumers 

vastly outweigh the cost to 

manufacturers. At the Recommended 

TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits, 

even measured at the more conservative 

discount rate of 7 percent is over 4 times 

higher than the maximum estimated 

manufacturers’ loss in INPV. The 

standard levels at the Recommended 

TSL are economically justified even 

without weighing the estimated 

monetary value of emissions reductions. 

When those emissions reductions are 

included—representing $0.22 billion in 

climate benefits (associated with the 

average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount 

rate), and $0.42 billion (using a 3- 

percent discount rate) or $0.16 billion 

(using a 7-percent discount rate) in 

health benefits—the rationale becomes 

stronger still. 

As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required under 

EPCA. The walk-down is not a 

comparative analysis, as a comparative 

analysis would result in the 

maximization of net benefits instead of 

energy savings that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, 

which would be contrary to the statute. 

86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has 

not conducted a comparative analysis to 

select the new and amended energy 

conservation standards, DOE notes that 

the Recommended TSL has higher 

average LCC savings, a shorter average 

payback period, a lower fraction of 

consumers experiencing a net LCC cost, 

and higher consumer net present values 

compared to TSL 2 and 3. 

Although DOE considered new and 

amended standard levels for consumer 

conventional cooking products by 

grouping the efficiency levels for each 

product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates 

all analyzed efficiency levels in its 

analysis. For electric smooth element 

cooking top product classes, the 

Recommended TSL corresponds to 

efficiency level (‘‘EL’’) 1, which 

incorporates low-standby-loss electronic 

controls. Setting a standard at EL 2 or 

EL 3 would result in a majority of 

consumers experiencing a net LCC cost 

and longer payback periods relative to 

EL 1. For gas cooking top product 

classes, the Recommended TSL 

corresponds to EL 1, which represents 

the efficiency level defined in the Joint 

Agreement and which would not 

preclude any combination of other 

features mentioned by manufacturers 

(e.g., multiple high input rate burners 

(‘‘HIR burners’’),16 continuous cast-iron 

grates, different nominal unit widths, 

sealed burners, at least one low input 

rate burner (‘‘LIR burner’’),17 multiple 

dual-stacked and/or multi-ring HIR 

burners, and at least one extra-high 

input rate burner), as demonstrated by 

products from multiple manufacturers 

in the expanded test sample. Setting a 

standard at EL 2 would result in an 

average net LCC cost and a higher 

payback period relative to EL 1. For 

electric and gas ovens, the 

Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 1, 

which incorporates switch mode power 

supplies (‘‘SMPSs’’). A standard at EL 2 

or EL 3 for electric ovens would result 

in a significantly higher percentage of 

consumers experiencing a net LCC cost 

and longer payback periods relative to 

EL 1. Similarly, for gas ovens, a 

standard at EL 2 would result in a larger 

percentage of consumers experiencing a 

net LCC cost and longer payback 

periods relative to EL 1. The proposed 

levels at the Recommended TSL result 

in positive LCC savings for all product 

classes and a lower percentage of 

consumers experiencing a net cost to the 

point where DOE has tentatively 

concluded that they are economically 

justified, as discussed for the 

Recommended TSL in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

Accordingly, the Secretary tentatively 

concludes that the Recommended TSL 

would offer the maximum improvement 

in efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. 

Therefore, based on the previous 

considerations, DOE proposes to adopt 

the energy conservation standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products at the Recommended TSL. 

The proposed new and amended 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products, excluding portable cooking 

products, are shown in Table III.3 and 

Table III.4. 

TABLE III.3—PROPOSED NEW AND AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING TOPS

Product class 

Maximum integrated 

annual energy 

consumption (IAEC) 

Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops ........................................................................................................................... No standard. 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops .............................................................................................................. 207 kWh/year. 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Component of a Combined Cooking Product ........................................................... 207 kWh/year. 

Gas Standalone Cooking Tops ............................................................................................................................................... 1,770 kBtu/year. 

Gas Cooking Top Component of a Combined Cooking Product ............................................................................................ 1,770 kBtu/year. 

TABLE III.4—PROPOSED NEW AND AMENDED PRESCRIPTIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL

OVENS

Product class New and amended standards 

Electric Ovens ........... Shall not be equipped with a control system that uses linear power supply.* 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
11558 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III.4—PROPOSED NEW AND AMENDED PRESCRIPTIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL

OVENS—Continued 

Product class New and amended standards 

Gas Ovens ................ The control system for gas ovens shall: 

(1) Not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light; and 

(2) Not be equipped with a linear power supply. 

The Secretary also tentatively 

concludes that an amended standard is 

not technologically feasible and 

economically justified for electric open 

(coil) element cooking tops. Therefore, 

DOE is not proposing any energy 

conservation standards for electric open 

(coil) element cooking tops. 

B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2022$) of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the proposed standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy), minus 

increases in product purchase costs, and 

(2) the annualized monetary value of the 

climate and health benefits. 

Table III.5 shows the annualized 

values for consumer conventional 

cooking products under the 

Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. 

The results under the primary estimate 

are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent 

discount rate case for GHG social costs, 

the estimated cost of the proposed 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products is $3.9 million per 

year in increased equipment installed 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $68.1 million from reduced 

equipment operating costs, $12.4 

million in GHG reductions, and $16.1 

million from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $92.6 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products is $4.0 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $90.8 million in reduced 

operating costs, $12.4 million from GHG 

reductions, and $23.5 million from 

reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this 

case, the net benefit amounts to $122.7 

million per year. 

TABLE III.5—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS (RECOMMENDED TSL) FOR CONSUMER

CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

Million 2022$/year 

Primary 

estimate 

Low-netbenefits 

estimate 

High-netbenefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 90.8 84.0 95.6 

Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................................... 12.4 11.9 12.5 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... 23.5 22.6 23.8 

Total Benefits † ..................................................................................................................... 126.7 118.4 131.9 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...................................................................................... 4.0 4.1 3.8 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 122.7 114.3 128.1 

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV‡‡) .................................................................................. (13.8) (13.8) (13.8) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. 68.1 63.3 71.5 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) .......................................................................................... 12.4 11.9 12.5 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... 16.1 15.5 16.3 

Total Benefits † ..................................................................................................................... 96.6 90.7 100.3 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...................................................................................... 3.9 4.0 3.8 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 92.6 86.7 96.5 

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV‡‡) .................................................................................. (13.8) (13.8) (13.8) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2028–2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and 

High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low 

decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected 

price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.2 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Note 

that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC– 

GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11559 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register for more details. 

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE 

does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life-cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE’s national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture 

the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cash flow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all 

changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized 

change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 9.1 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For consumer conventional cooking products, the annualized change in INPV is ¥$13.8 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a trial standard level is economically justified. See section V.C of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, 

which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of 

Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases 

in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register to provide additional context for 

assessing the estimated impacts of the proposed rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent 

with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for the proposed rule, the 

annualized net benefits would be $108.9 million at 3-percent discount rate and would be $78.8 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses () 

indicate negative values. 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule on the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rule. 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. Comments relating to 

the direct final rule published elsewhere 

in this issue of the Federal Register 

should be submitted as instructed 

therein. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

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 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 

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 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 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 

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. 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 

telefacsimiles (‘‘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 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
11560 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

18The signatories to the Joint Agreement include 

AHAM, American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project, Consumer Federation 

of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, 

National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

Members of AHAM’s Major Appliance Division that 

manufacture the affected products include: Alliance 

Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko 

US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home 

Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; 

Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de 

C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier 

Company; L’Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG 

Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America 

Corp.; Miele, Inc.; PAPRSA Corporation of America; 

Perlick Corporation; Samsung Electronics America, 

Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; 

Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; 

U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and 

Whirlpool Corporation. 

believed to be confidential deleted. 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). 

B. Public Meeting 

As stated previously, if DOE 

withdraws the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public 

meeting to allow for additional 

comment on this proposed rule. DOE 

will publish notice of any meeting in 

the Federal Register. 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

The regulatory reviews conducted for 

this proposed rule are identical to those 

conducted for the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. Please see the direct 

final rule for further details. 

A. 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’’) and a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) 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 (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). DOE has 

prepared the following IRFA for the 

products that are the subject of this 

proposed rulemaking. 

For manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products, the SBA 

has set a size threshold, which defines 

those entities classified as ‘‘small 

businesses’’ for the purposes of the 

statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

(See 13 CFR part 121.) The size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) code and industry 

description and are available at 

www.sba.gov/document/support-tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products is classified under NAICS 

335220, ‘‘Major Household Appliance 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

EPCA prescribed energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking 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)) EPCA further provides that, 

not later than 6 years after the issuance 

of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

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

DOE is proposing amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products in 

accordance with DOE’s obligations 

under EPCA. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

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

In light of the above and the 

requirements under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)–(B), DOE is issuing this 

NOPR proposing energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products. These standard levels 

were submitted jointly to DOE on 

September 25, 2023, by groups 

representing manufacturers, energy and 

environmental advocates, consumer 

groups, and a utility.18 The Joint 

Agreement recommends specific energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products that, in 

the commenters’ view, would satisfy the 

EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, 

Rule 

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)) EPCA 

additionally requires that, not later than 

6 years after the issuance of a final rule 

establishing or amending a standard, 

DOE must publish either notice of 

determination that standards for the 

product do not need to be amended, or 

a NOPR including new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

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

6295(m)(1)) 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

DOE conducted a focused inquiry into 

small business manufacturers of the 

products covered by this rulemaking. 

DOE used the SBA’s small business size 

standards to determine whether any 

small entities would be subject to the 

requirements of the rule. The size 

standards are listed by NAICS code as 

well as by industry description and are 

available at www.sba.gov/document/ 

support-table-size-standards. 

Manufacturing of consumer 

conventional cooking products is 

classified under NAICS 335220, ‘‘major 

household appliance manufacturing.’’ 

The SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 

employees or fewer for an entity to be 

considered as a small business for this 

category. DOE used available public 

information to identify potential small 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11561 

19U.S. Department of Energy Compliance 

Certification Management System, available at: 

www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms. 

20California Energy Commission’s Modernized 

Appliance Efficiency Database System, available at: 

cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx. 

21Natural Resources Canada searchable product 

list, available at: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/. 

manufacturers. DOE accessed the 

Compliance Certification Database 19

(‘‘CCD’’), the Modernized Appliance 

Efficiency Database System 20

(‘‘MAEDbS’’), and the National 

Resources Canada database 21

(‘‘NRCan’’) to create a list of companies 

that import or otherwise manufacture 

the products covered by this NOPR. 

Once DOE created a list of potential 

manufacturers, DOE used market 

research tools to determine whether any 

companies met SBA’s definition of a 

small entity—based on the total number 

of employees for each company 

including parent, subsidiary, and sister 

entities—and gather annual revenue 

estimates. 

Based on DOE’s analysis, DOE 

identified 35 companies that 

manufacture consumer conventional 

cooking products covered by this 

rulemaking. DOE screened out 

companies that have more than 1,500 

total employees, are not original 

equipment manufacturers (i.e., do not 

manufacture the products they sell), or 

are entirely foreign owned and operated, 

and therefore do not meet SBA’s 

requirements to be considered a small 

entity. Of the 35 companies DOE 

identified as manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products sold in 

the United States, 15 were identified as 

small businesses. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements Including 

Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different 

Groups of Small Entities 

DOE is proposing TSL 1 in this NOPR. 

For all conventional oven product 

classes, TSL 1 requires that the 

conventional ovens not be equipped 

with a linear power supply. Based on 

DOE’s shipments analysis, more than 95 

percent of conventional ovens use an 

SMPS and therefore are not equipped 

with a linear power supply. Based on 

DOE’s shipment analysis, DOE assumed 

most, if not all, small businesses already 

use SMPSs for the conventional ovens 

they manufacture. If any small 

businesses do still use linear power 

supplies in their conventional ovens, 

there would be minimal conversion 

costs to these small businesses, as 

SMPSs can be purchased as a separate 

component and would most likely not 

require a significant redesign to 

incorporate these SMPSs. The 

remainder of this cost analysis focuses 

on the costs associated with complying 

with the proposed conventional cooking 

top energy conservation standards. 

As stated in the previous section, DOE 

identified 15 small manufacturers of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. All 15 of these small 

businesses manufacture conventional 

cooking tops. These 15 small businesses 

can be grouped into two manufacturing 

groups: those that manufacture 

premium cooking tops and those that 

manufacture non-premium cooking 

tops. 

Gas cooking top non-premium 

products typically have thinner noncontinuous grates with one or no HIR 

burner (although some of these small 

businesses may offer a limited number 

of models with thicker continuous 

grates). Electric cooking top nonpremium products mostly have electric 

open (coil) element cooking tops 

(although a few small businesses may 

have up to 25 percent of their electric 

ranges or electric cooking tops using 

electric smooth element cooking tops). 

These non-premium small businesses 

usually compete on price in the market. 

Gas cooking top premium products 

typically have thicker continuous grates 

with multiple HIR burners. Electric 

cooking top premium products use 

smooth elements, typically with 

induction technology. Small businesses 

manufacturing premium products do 

not offer electric open (coil) element 

cooking tops. Lastly, small businesses 

manufacturing premium products 

typically compete on the high quality 

and professional look and design of 

their products. These ranges or cooking 

tops are typically significantly more 

expensive than non-premium products. 

Based on data from each small 

business’s websites, DOE estimated the 

number of basic models each small 

business offers. 

TABLE V.1—NUMBER OF UNIQUE BASIC MODELS FOR EACH SMALL BUSINESS

Manufacturer Small business type 

Number of cooking top basic models 

(by product class) 

Gas Electric—smooth 

element 

Small Business 1 .................................................... Non-Premium ......................................................... 4 4 

Small Business 2 .................................................... Non-Premium ......................................................... .............................. 30 

Small Business 3 .................................................... Non-Premium ......................................................... 27 13 

Small Business 4 .................................................... Non-Premium ......................................................... 24 ..............................

Small Business 5 .................................................... Non-Premium ......................................................... 14 ..............................

Small Business 6 .................................................... Non-Premium ......................................................... 3 2 

Small Business 7 .................................................... Premium ................................................................. 11 ..............................

Small Business 8 .................................................... Premium ................................................................. 24 5 

Small Business 9 .................................................... Premium ................................................................. 20 7 

Small Business 10 .................................................. Premium ................................................................. 16 ..............................

Small Business 11 .................................................. Premium ................................................................. 14 1 

Small Business 12 .................................................. Premium ................................................................. 12 ..............................

Small Business 13 .................................................. Premium ................................................................. 42 ..............................

Small Business 14 .................................................. Premium ................................................................. 13 ..............................

Small Business 15 .................................................. Premium ................................................................. 14 ..............................

DOE estimated the small business 

conversion costs and testing costs using 

the same methodology used to estimate 

the industry conversion costs, described 

in section IV.J.2.c of the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. There are two types of 

conversion costs that small businesses 

could incur due to the proposed 

standards: product conversion costs 

(including any testing costs) and capital 

conversion costs. In the August 2022 TP 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
11562 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Final Rule, DOE estimated a lower perunit testing cost for testing done inhouse and a more-costly third-party 

laboratory per-unit testing cost. For this 

IRFA, DOE assumed all small 

businesses would incur the more costly 

third-party laboratory per-unit testing 

cost, as most small businesses do not 

have in-house testing capabilities or 

capacity to test all their products in 

accordance with the DOE test 

procedure. 

Product conversion costs are 

investments in research and 

development (‘‘R&D’’), testing, 

marketing, and other non-capitalized 

costs necessary to make product designs 

comply with new and amended energy 

conservation standards. Capital 

conversion costs are investments in 

property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities such that new 

compliant product designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. 

Manufacturers would have to incur 

testing costs for all gas cooking tops and 

all electric smooth element cooking tops 

since DOE is proposing new 

performance-based energy conservation 

standards for cooking tops. Therefore, 

even products that meet the proposed 

energy conservation standards would 

incur testing costs to test these gas 

cooking tops and electric smooth 

element cooking tops to demonstrate 

compliance with the proposed energy 

conservation standards. However, 

manufacturers would only incur R&D 

product conversion costs and capital 

conversion costs if they have products 

that do not meet the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

Based on the estimated model counts 

for each conventional cooking top 

product class shown in Table V.1 and 

the conversion cost and testing cost 

methodology used to calculate industry 

conversion costs, DOE estimated the 

conversion costs and testing costs for 

each small business, displayed in Table 

V.2. DOE then used D&B Hoovers to 

estimate the annual revenue for each 

small business. DOE presents the 

estimated conversion costs and testing 

costs as a percent of the estimated 4 

years of annual revenue for each small 

business. 

TABLE V.2—ESTIMATED CONVERSION COSTS AND ANNUAL REVENUE FOR EACH SMALL BUSINESS

Manufacturer Small business type 

Total conversion and testing costs 

Annual revenue 

Conversion 

cost as a % of 

4-years of annual revenue 

Small Business 1 ............................................ Non-Premium ................................................. $326,600 $950,000 9 

Small Business 2 ............................................ Non-Premium ................................................. 573,002 8,780,000 2 

Small Business 3 ............................................ Non-Premium ................................................. 611,001 58,630,000 <1 

Small Business 4 ............................................ Non-Premium ................................................. 196,800 31,370,000 <1 

Small Business 5 ............................................ Non-Premium ................................................. 114,800 23,980,000 <1 

Small Business 6 ............................................ Non-Premium ................................................. 302,000 107,350,000 <1 

Small Business 7 ............................................ Premium ......................................................... 733,204 2,730,000 7 

Small Business 8 ............................................ Premium ......................................................... 1,224,306 5,000,000 6 

Small Business 9 ............................................ Premium ......................................................... 1,136,404 8,800,000 3 

Small Business 10 .......................................... Premium ......................................................... 774,204 7,990,000 2 

Small Business 11 .......................................... Premium ......................................................... 1,027,004 8,648,000 3 

Small Business 12 .......................................... Premium ......................................................... 741,404 10,970,000 2 

Small Business 13 .......................................... Premium ......................................................... 1,201,909 32,600,000 1 

Small Business 14 .......................................... Premium ......................................................... 749,604 19,800,000 1 

Small Business 15 .......................................... Premium ......................................................... 757,804 23,730,000 1 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion in the previous 

section analyzes impacts on small 

businesses that would result from the 

proposed standards, represented by TSL 

1. In reviewing alternatives to the 

proposed standards, DOE examined not 

setting energy conservation standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products. While not setting energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products would 

reduce the impacts on small business 

manufacturers, it would come at the 

expense of 0.22 quads of energy savings 

and between $1.56 billion to $0.65 

billion in consumer net benefits. 

Establishing standards at TSL 1 would 

balance the benefits of the energy 

savings and consumer net benefits at 

TSL 1 with the potential burdens placed 

on consumer conventional cooking 

product manufacturers, including small 

business manufacturers. Accordingly, 

DOE is proposing to adopt TSL 1 and is 

not proposing any of the other policy 

alternatives examined as part of the 

regulatory impact analysis and included 

in chapter 17 of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed $8 

million may apply for an exemption 

from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) 

Additionally, manufacturers subject to 

DOE’s energy efficiency standards may 

apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals for exception relief under 

certain circumstances. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional 

details. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on January 26, 2024, 

by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11563 

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 January 29, 

2024. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 430.2 by adding in 

alphabetical order, the definition of 

‘‘Portable indoor conventional cooking 

top’’ to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Portable indoor conventional cooking 

top means a conventional cooking top 

designed— 

(1) For indoor use; and 

(2) To be moved from place to place. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 430.32 by revising 

paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) and the heading 

to paragraph (j)(3) introductory text to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) Conventional cooking tops. (i) Gas 

cooking tops, other than gas portable 

indoor conventional cooking tops, 

manufactured on or after April 9, 2012, 

and before January 31, 2028, shall not be 

equipped with a constant burning pilot 

light. 

(ii) Gas portable indoor conventional 

cooking tops, manufactured on or after 

April 9, 2012, shall not be equipped 

with a constant burning pilot light. 

(iii) Conventional cooking tops, other 

than portable indoor conventional 

cooking tops, manufactured on or after 

January 31, 2028, shall have an 

integrated annual energy consumption 

(IAEC), excluding any downdraft 

venting system energy consumption, no 

greater than: 

Product class 

Maximum integrated 

annual energy 

consumption (IAEC) 

(A) Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops ........................................................................................................ 207 kWh/year. 

(B) Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Component of Combined Cooking Products ...................................................... 207 kWh/year. 

(C) Gas Standalone Cooking Tops ......................................................................................................................................... 1,770 kBtu/year. 

(D) Gas Cooking Top Component of Combined Cooking Products ....................................................................................... 1,770 kBtu/year. 

(2) Conventional ovens. The control 

system of a conventional oven shall: 

(i) Not be equipped with a constant 

burning pilot light, for gas ovens 

manufactured on or after April 9, 2012; 

and 

(ii) Not be equipped with a linear 

power supply, for electric and gas ovens 

manufactured on or after January 31, 

2028. 

(3) Microwave ovens. * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–02007 Filed 2–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2