I I 

# =

II 9 I 

### x 

# -

=E .I. 9- II 1- 1 9 ma- 

# --= -= =- 

# -
--C-

II 

## = Tuesday September 8, 1998



# Part Ill


# Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 

## CFR Part 430 

## Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Cooking Products (Electric Cooktops, Electric Self-CleaningOvens, and Microwave Ovens); Final Rule Tuesday September 8, 1998



# Part III



# Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy



## 10 CFR Part 

## 430 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Cooking Products (Electric Cooktops, Electric Self-CleaningOvens, and Microwave Ovens); Final Rule

## 48038 Federal Register/Vol. 

### 63, No. 

### 173/Tuesday, September 

### 8, 

### 1998/Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENTOF ENERGY 

### TSD may be obtained from: U.S. Conservation Program for Consumer Department of Energy, Office of Energy Products otherthan Automobiles. The Office of Energy Efficiency and 

### Efficiency and Renewable Energy, consumer products subject to this Renewable Energy 

### Forrestal Building,Mail Station EE-43, program are called "covered products." 1000Independence Avenue, S.W., The covered products specifiedby 10 CFR Part430 

### Washington,D.C. 20585. (202)586- statute include kitchen ranges and [Docket Number EE-RM-S-97-7001 

### 9127. ovens. EPCA, §

### 322,42U.S.C. 6292.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT: 

### For kitchen ranges and ovens,EPCA RIN 1904-AA84 

### Kathi Epping,U.S. Department of prescribed an initial Federal energy Energy Conservation Program for 

### Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and conservation standard effective in 1990
Consumer Products; Energy 

### RenewableEnergy, EE-43, 1000 and specified that the Department shall
Conservation Standards for Electric 

### Independence 

### Avenue+ S.W., publish a final rule no later thanJanuary Cooking Products(Electric c~~~~~~~, 

### Washington,D.C. 20585-012 1,(202) 1, 1992, to determine if the 1990
Electric Self-Cleaning-Ovens,and 

### 586-7425, or Eugene Margolis,Esq., standards should be amended. EPCA, Microwave Ovens) 

### U.S.Department of Energy,Office of 

### 5325(h),42 U.S.C. 6295(h).Any new or General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 amended standard is required to be
AGENCY: 

### Office of Energy Efficiencyand IndependenceAvenue, S.W., designed so as to achievethe maximum Renewable Energy, Department of Washington,D.C. 20585, (202)586- improvement in energy efficiency that is Energy (DOE). 9507. technologically feasible and

ACTION: 

### Final rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### economicallyjustified. EPCA,

I. Introduction § 

### 325(0)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(0)(2)(A). SUMMARY: 

### The Energy Policy and a. Authority 

### The Secretary may not prescribe any Conservation Act, as amended, b. Background 

### amended standard which increasesthe prescribes energy conservation 11. Discussion of Electric Cooking Products 

### maximum allowable energy use or standards for certain major household Comments 

### decreases the minimum required energy appliances and requires the Department a. Classes 

### efficiencyof a covered product. EPCA, of Energy (DOEor Department)to b. Design Options

c. Other Comments §

### 325(0)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6295(0)(1). administer an energy conservation d. Other Comments Regarding the Draft 

### Section 325(0)(2)(B)(i)provides that program for these products. The Report and SupplementalAnalysis 

### DOE, in determining whether a standard National Appliance Energy 111.Analysis of Electric Cooking Products 

### is ec~nomicall~ Justified-must Conservation Act amendments require Standards 

### determine whether the benefits ofthe DOE to consider amending the energy a. Efficiency LevelsAnalyzed 

### standard exceed its burdens, based, to conservation standardsfor cooking b. Significance of Energy Savings 

### the greatest extent practicable,on a products. DOE today promulgates this c. Economic Justification 

### weighing of the following seven factors: final rule to address the energy d.Payback Period 

### (1)The economic impact of the conservation standard for electric e. Conclusion 

### IV. Procedural Issues andRegulatory Review 

### standard On the 

### manufacturers and On 

### cooking products (includingmicrowave Reviewunder the National 

### the consumers of theproducts subject to products) and substitute theterm Environmental Policy Act 

### such standard; "cooking products" for the current, b. Review under Executive Order 12866, 

### (2)The savings in operating costs obsolete term "kitchen ranges and "Regulatory Planningand Review" 

### throughout the estimated average life of ovens." DOE is not addressing at this c. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

### the covered product inthe type (or time gas cookingproducts because it has Act 

### class) compared to any increase inthe not completed its analysis of the d.Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

### price of,in the initial chargesfor, or relevant issues. e. Review Under Executive Order 12988, 

### maintenance 

### expenses the



### DOE has determined that there would "Civil Justice Reform" 

### products which are likely to result from be no significant conservation of energy f. -~~ki~~~- ~~~~~~~~~t Review 

### the imposition of the standard; for electric cooktops, electric self- g. Federalism Review 

### (3)The total projected amount of cleaning ovens and microwave ovens, h. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

### energy savings likely to result directly and standardswould not be Reform Act 

### from the imposition of the standard; economicallyjustified. Therefore, the i. Review Under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

### (4) Any lessening of the utility or the Department will not addnew standards

", DOJViews on the Proposed Rule 

### performance of the covered products forthese products. TheDepartment, likely to result from the imposition of however, is amending its regulations to 

### I. Introduction the standard; substitute the name "kitchen ranges and a, 

### (5)The impact of any lesseningof ovens" with "cooking products'. competition, as determined in writing
EFFECTIVE DATE: 

### Thisrule is effective Part of 

### 'I1 

### ofthe

### Energy by the Attorney General,that is likely to October 8, 1998. and Conservation Act (EPCA),P.L. 94- result 

### fromthe 

### imposition 

### ofthe 

### 163,as amended by the National Energy
ADDRESSES: 

### A 

### ofthe 

### Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), P.L. Support Document (TSD)for these 95-619, by the National Appliance (6)The need for national energy products may be read at the DOE conservation; and Energy Conservation Act (NAECA),P.L. (7)Other 

### factors the 

### Secretary Freedom of Information Reading Room, 100-12, by the ~~~~~~~l ~~~l~~~~~ U.S. ofEnergy,Forrestal Energy ConservationAmendments of considers relevant. Building,room 1E-190, 1000 1988 (NAECA 1988),P.L. 100-357, and Independence Avenue, S.W., the EnergyPolicy Act of 1992 (EpAct), Policy Act,the Nationd ApplianceEnergy 

### Washington,D.C. 20585, (202)586- P,L, 102-486 E 

### createdthe Energy Conservation Act,the National ApplianceEnergy 

### 3142, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. Conservation Amendments of 1988, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992,is referredto in this notice as 

### and 4100 p.m.,Monday through Friday, ITheEnergy Policy and Conservation~ct, as the "EPCA." PartB ofTitle 111iscodified at 42 

### except Federal holidays. Copies of the amended by the National Energy Conservation U.S.C. 6291 et seq. 

### 48038 Federal Register IVai. 

### 63, No. 173 I

### Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Number EE-RM-S-97-700]

RIN 1904-AA84

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Cooking Products (Electric Cooktops, Electric Self-Cleaning-Ovens, and Microwave Ovens)

AGENCY: Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for certain major household appliances and requires the Department ofEnergy (DOE or Department) to administer an energy conservation
program for these products. The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act amendments require DOE to consider amending the energy conservation standards for cooking products. DOE today promulgates this final rule to address the energy conservation standard for electric cookingproducts (including microwave products) and substitute the term "cookingproducts" for the current, obsolete term "kitchen ranges and ovens." DOE is not addressing at this time gas cooking products because it has
not completed its analysis ofthe relevant issues.

DOE has determined that there would be no significant conservation ofenergy for electric cooktops, electric selfcleaning ovens and microwave ovens, and standards would not be economicallyjustified. Therefore, the Department will not add new standards for these products. The Department, however, is amending its regulations to substitute the name "kitchen ranges and ovens" with "cooking products'.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective October 8. 1998.

ADDRESSES: A copy ofthe Technical Support Document (TSD) for these products may be read at the DOE Freedom ofInformation Reading Room, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Forrestal Building, room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586- 3142, between the hours of9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Copies ofthe TSD maybe obtained from: U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585. (202) 586- 9127.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathi Epping, U.S. Department of Energy, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202) 586-7425, or Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office of General Counsel, GC-72

, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586- 9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

L Introduction

a. Authority b. Background II. Discussion ofElectric Cooking Products Comments

a. Classes b. Design Options

c. Other Comments d. Other Comments Regarding the Draft

Report and Supplemental Analysis III. Analysis ofElectric Cooking Products Standards

a. Efficiency Levels Analyzed b. Significance ofEnergy Savings

c. Economic Justification d. Payback Period

e. Conclusion IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

a. Review under the National

Environmental Policy Act b. Review under Executive Order 12866,

"Regulatory Planning and Review"

c. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act d. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act

e. Review Under Executive Order 12988,

"CivilJustice Reform" f. "Takings" Assessment Review
g. Federalism Review h. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act i. Review Under Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 V. DO] Views onthe Proposed Rule

I. Introduction



### a. Authority

Part B ofTitle III ofthe Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), P.L. 94- 163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), P,L. 95-619, by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), P.L. 100-12, by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988), P.L. 100-357, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), P,L. 102-486 I created the Energy

1The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Conservation Program for Consumer Products otherthan Automobiles. The

consumer products subject to this
program are called "covered products." The covered products specified by
statute include kitchen ranges and

ovens. EPCA, § 322, 42 U.s.c. 6292.

For kitchen ranges and ovens, EPCA prescribed an initial Federal energy conservation standard effective in 1990 and specified that the Department shall publish a final rule no later thanJanuary 1, 1992, to determine ifthe 1990 standards should be amended, EPCA, § 325(h), 42 U.s.C. 6295(h). Any new or amended standard is reqUired to be designed so as to achieve the maximum improvement in energy effiCiency that is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified. EPCA, § 325(0)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(0)(2)(A). The Secretarymay not prescribe any amended standard which increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency ofa covered product. EPCA, § 325(0)(1),42 U.S,C. 6295(0)(1).

Section 325(0)(2)(B)(i) provides that DOE, in determining whether a standard is economicallyjustified, must determine whether the benefits ofthe standard exceed its burdens, based, to the greatest extent practicable, on a weighing ofthe follOWing seven factors:

(1) The economic impact ofthe standard onthe manufacturers and on the consumers ofthe products subject to such standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition ofthe standard;

(3) The total projected amount of
energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition ofthe standard;

(4) Any lessening ofthe utility orthe performance ofthe covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

(5) The impact ofany lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition ofthe standard;

(6) The need for national energy conservation; and

(7) Otherfactors the Secretary considers relevant.

Policy Act, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act. the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, is referred to in this notice as the "EPCA." Part B ofTitie III is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.

### Federal Register

### /Vol. 

### 63, 

### No. 173 /Tuesday, September 

### 8, 1998 

### /Rules and Regulations. 

## 48039

In addition,section 325(0)(2)

### (B)(iii) 

### TABLE 1-1 

### .-PROPOSED STANDARDS Residential Cooking Products establishes a rebuttable presumption of 

### LEVELS FOR 

### KITCHEN RANGES AND 

### (hereinafter referred to as Draft Report). economic justification in instances OVENS-CO~~~~U~~ 

### The Draft Report contained DOE'S where the Secretary determinesthat revised analysis,begun in 1995, "the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with Kitchen range and oven 

### an energy conservation standard level component 

### will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as 3. G~~ovens, self-cleaning 

### ,.., a result ofthe standard, as calculated 4. Gas ovens, non-self-clean

### under the applicabletest procedure." ing.



### The Department analyzes the merits 5. Microwaveovens



### ................ of efficiency improvements for each 6. Electric cooktop, coil ele

### class ofproduct independently. The ment. 

### Department applies the same criteria to 7. Electric cooktop, smooth element. determine the 8. Gas cooktop



### ........................ and economic justification of each

Kitchen range and oven component

1. Electric ovens, self-cleaning 2. Electric ovens, non-selfcleaning. ~~~~~l en- 

### examining five alternative efficiency
ergy use, ef- 

### levels.Therevised analysis drastically fective as of 

### reduced the amount of energy which
S~[t~~~~r 

### could be saved at each efficiency level. The Draft Report was distributed to a

1.64 MMB~~, 

### mailing list that included all ofthe
1.14 MMB~~. 

### commenters on the proposed rule on kitchen cooktops, ovens,and microwave 233 kwh. 

### ovens on May 5, 1996.(EE-RM-S-97- 260 kwh. 

### 700 No. 1and No. 2.) The letter invited
comment onthe Draft Report by no later 294 

### thanJuly 1, 1996. DuringJuneandJuly

1.71 MMBtu. 

### 1996,DOE received three comments on the Draft Report and related issues.

Annual en

# f!~~~$~s~~ September

10, 2001

267 kwh. 218 kwh. 

### product class,regardless of fuel type. The analysis inthe Draft Report DOE received over 8,000comments indicates

### that establishing

### new or b. 

### Background during the 'Omment 

### period On the 

### lgg4 revised for

### microwave ovens

The current standard (effective and 

### fromparticipants at 

### is not economicallyjustified because the January 1, 1990)statesthat kitchen the

### public 

### in Washington, payback period exceeds the lifeofthe ranges and ovens with an electrical On 5-7q 

### lgg4and June 

### 7-8, product and would produce increased supply cord shall not be equipped with 

# 59comments life-cycle costs and a negative net a constant burning pilot light. with k~tchen ovens,cooktops, and present value. The analysis inthe Draft In 1990,DOE published an advance microwave Ovens. Report and the commentsreceived notice of proposed rulemaking with After reviewing the On the 

### prompted further examination ofgas regard to standardsfor nine covered proposed standards for kitchen 

### cooktops, gas ovens, and electric nonproducts, including electric kitchen cooktops, Ovens, and 

### self-cleaning ovens.DOE prepared an ranges and ovens. 55 FR 39624 microwave ovens, the Department analysis to supplement the Draft Report (September 28, 1990)(hereinafter that a 

### number significant that focusesexclusively on the possible referred to asthe September 1990 issues were raised which required elimination of standing pilot lights for advance notice). The September 1990 additional analysis. In 1995,the gas products and improving non-selfadvance notice presented the product revised 

### the 

### cleaning conventional electric ovensby classesthat DOE planned to analyze and regarding kitchen 

### cooktops, Ovens, 

### and venting and insulatingthem like selfprovided 

### a detailed discussion 

### ofthe microwave ovens to account forthe cleaning electric ovens. The analytical methodology and analytical 

### comments and data 

### received duringthe 

### supplemental analysis used the latest models that the Department expected to public period. (This

### revised available datafrom AHAM regarding the

use. analysis became the basis forthe 1996 trends over timeof of 

### sales 

### of

On March 4, 1994,DOE published a DraftReport.) non-self-cleaning conventional ovens notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) A moratorium was placed on and gas products with pilot lights. It concerning eight products, including publication ofproposed or finalrules also used the latest utility price the kitchen ranges and ovens. 59 FR for appliance efficiencystandards 

### as forecasts fromthe Annual Energy 10464 (March4, 1994)(hereinafter part of the FY 1996appropriations Outlook of the Energy Information referred to asthe Proposed Rule.) The legislation. Pub. L. 104-134. That Administration,AEO 97,andthe Gas Department proposed that the annual moratorium expired on September 30, ResearchInstitute, GRI 97.
energy use ofkitchen ranges and ovens 1996. In a

### FederalRegisterNotice of limited shall be the sum of the annual energy In 1995and 1996.the Department reopening of the record and opportunity

use ofany ofthe following components conducted a review ofitsprocess for for public comment (63FR 9975) dated incorporated intothe kitchen range and developingappliance energyefficiency February 27, 1998,the Department

oven and shall not exceedthe allowable standards. This review resulted in the reopened the comment period for

sum of energy usages for those publication of a final rule, entitled cookingproducts for 30 days.This components listed inTable 1-1, These "Procedures for Consideration ofNew notice announced the availability of the proposed standardswere estimated to 0' 

### Revised Energy Conservation supplemental analysis and gave save 5.9 quads. Standards for Consumer Products" indication of the prescriptive standard (hereinafter referred to asthe Process the Department was inclined to
TABLE 

### 1-1 

### .-PROPOSED 

### STANDARDS Rule). 61FR 36973 Uuly 15, 1996). promulgate inthe final rule. The notice LEVELS FOR 

### KITCHEN RANGES AND 

### the new procedures 

### in the 

### also indicated the Department's intent 

### OVENS Process Rule do not apply to this to change the name of this rulemaking rulemaking (61FR at 36980)DOE has from "kitchen ranges and ovens" to employed 

### an approach consistent with "cooking products." This change was the newprocedures in completing work made because the term "kitchen ranges on thisrule. In keeping with the new and ovens" does not accurately describe process, and based on comments the products considered which include received in response to the Proposed conventionalranges, cooktops and Rule, DOE distributed for comment a ovens and microwave ovens. Draft Report onthe Potential Impact of Due to arequest by the American Gas Alternative Energy Efficiency Levels for Association (AGA) for additional time, 

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations. 

### 48039

In addition, section 325(0)(2)(B)(iii) establishes a rebuttable presumption of economicjustification in instances wherethe Secretary determines that "the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complyingwith

an energy conservation standard level will be less thanthree times the value ofthe energy savings during the first
year that the consumer will receive as

a result ofthe standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure."

The Department analyzes the merits ofeffiCiency improvements for each class ofproduct independently. The Department applies the same criteriato determine the technological feasibility and economicjustification ofeach product class, regardless offuel type.

b. Background

The current standard (effective January 

### 1. 1990) statesthat kitchen
ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord shall not be equipped with

a constant burning pilot light.

In 1990, DOE published an advance notice ofproposed rulemaking with regard to standards for nine covered products, including electric kitchen
ranges and ovens. 55 FR 39624 (September 28, 1990) (hereinafter referred to as the September 1990 advance notice). The September 1990 advance notice presented the product classes that DOE planned to analyze and provided a detailed discussion ofthe analytical methodology and analytical models that the Department expected to

use.

On March 4,1994, DOE published a notice ofproposed rulemaking (NOPR) concerning eight products, including the kitchen ranges and ovens. 59 FR 10464 (March 4, 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Rule.) The Department proposed that the annual
energy use ofkitchen ranges and ovens shall be the sum ofthe annual energy

use ofany ofthe following components incorporated into the kitchen range and

oven and shall not exceed the allowable

sum ofenergy usages for those components listed in Table 1-1. These proposed standards were estimated to

save 5.9 quads.

TABLE 1-1.-PROPOSED STANDARDS LEVELS FOR KITCHEN RANGES AND OVENS

Kitchen range and oven component

1. Electric ovens, self-cleaning 2. Electric ovens, non-selfcleaning. Annual energy use, effective as of September

10,2001

267 kWh. 218 kWh. TABLE 1-1.-PROPOSED STANDARDS LEVELS FOR KITCHEN RANGES AND OVENs-Continued

Kitchen range and oven component

3. Gas ovens, self-cleaning

.... 4. Gas ovens, non-self-cleaning. 5. Microwave ovens

................ 6. Electric cooktop, coil element. 7. Electric cooktop, smooth

element. 8. Gas cooktop

........................ Annual en- ergy use, effective as of September

10,2001

1.64 MMBtu. 1.14 MMBtu.

233 kWh. 260 kWh.

294 kWh.

1.71 MMBtu.

DOE received over 8,000 comments during the comment period on the 1994 Proposed Rule andfrom participants at the public hearings held in Washington, DC on April 5-7, 1994 andJune 7-8, 1994.59 comments dealt specifically with kitchen ovens, cooktops, and microwave ovens.

After reviewing the comments onthe proposed standards for kitchen cooktops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens, the Department concludedthat a number ofsignificant issues were raised which required additional analysis. In 1995, the Departmentrevised the analyses regarding kitchen cooktops, ovens, and microwave ovens to account for the
comments and data received during the public comment period. (This revised analysis became the basis for the 1996 Draft Report.)

A moratorium was placed on publication ofproposed orfinal rules for appliance efficiency standards as part ofthe FY 1996 appropriations legislation. Pub. L. 104-134. That moratorium expired on September 30, 1996.

In 1995 and 1996, the Department conducted a review ofits process for developing appliance energy efficiency standards. This review resulted in the publication ofa final rule, entitled "Procedures for Consideration ofNew

orRevised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products" (hereinafter referred to as the Process Rule). 61 FR 36973 Ouly 15, 1996). Although the new procedures inthe Process Rule do not apply to this rulemaking (61 FR at 36980) DOE has employed an approach consistent with the newprocedures in completing work

onthis rule. In keepingwith the new process, and based on comments received in response to the Proposed Rule, DOE distributed for comment a Draft Report onthe Potential Impact of Alternative Energy Efficiency Levels for Residential Cooking Products (hereinafter referred to as Draft Report). The Draft Report contained DOE's revised analysis, begun in 1995, examiningfive alternative effiCiency levels. The revised analysis drastically reduced the amount ofenergy which could be saved at each efficiency leveL The Draft Report was distributed to a mailing listthat included all ofthe
commenters on the proposed rule on kitchen cooktops, ovens, and microwave

ovens on May 5, 1996. (EE-RM-S-97- 700 No. 1 and No.2.) The letter invited
comment on the Draft Report by no later thanJuly 1, 1996. DuringJune andJuly 1996, DOE received three comments on the Draft Report and related issues.

The analysiS inthe Draft Report indicates that establishing new or revised standards for microwave ovens is not economicallyjustified because the payback period exceeds the life ofthe product and would produce increased life-cycle costs and a negative net present value. The analysis in the Draft Report and the comments received prompted further examination ofgas cooktops, gas ovens, and electric nonself-cleaning ovens. DOE prepared an analysis to supplement the Draft Report thatfocuses exclUSively on the possible elimination ofstanding pilot lights for
gas products and improving non-selfcleaning conventional electric ovens by venting and insulatingthem like selfcleaning electric ovens. The supplemental analysis used the latest available datafrom AHAM regarding the trends over time ofshares ofsales of non-self-cleaning conventional ovens and gas products with pilot lights. It also used the latest utility price forecasts from the Annual Energy Outlook ofthe Energy Information Administration, AEO 97, and the Gas Research Institute, GRI 97.

In a Federal Register Notice oflimited reopening ofthe record and opportunity for public comment (63 FR 9975) dated February 27, 1998, the Department reopened the comment period for cooking products for 30 days. This notice announced the availability ofthe supplemental analysis and gave indication ofthe prescriptive standard the Department was inclined to promulgate in the final rule. The notice also indicated the Department's intent
to change the name ofthis rulemaking from "kitchen ranges and ovens" to "cooking products." This change was made because the term "kitchen ranges and ovens" does not accurately describe the products considered which include conventional ranges, cooktops and

ovens and microwave ovens.

Due to a request by the American Gas Association (AGA) for additional time,

## 48040 Federal Register/Vol. 

### 63, 

### No. 173 /Tuesday, September 

### 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

this notice was followed by another notice reopening the comment period through April 28, 1998.The Department received 31 comments in response to these notices. Based on the comments to the ReopeningNotice that identified significant issues surroundinggas cookingproducts, DOE decided to sever the electric cookingproducts from the
gas cookingproducts in thisrulemaking.


### 11. DiscussionofElectric Cooking Products Comments

This section addresses commentsto the 1994Proposed Rule,the 1996Draft Report,the SupplementalAnalysis,and the 1998reopening notice. 2 

### This section only addresses comments relatingto electric cookingproducts and does not discuss gas cookingproducts.



### a. Classes

Microwave Ovens

D. Wilson (Frigidaire,Transcript,Apr. 7 at 268) commented that heating elements are a utility to Frigidaire's
customersand therefore require an additional product class for microwave

ovens. Les Harris (Sharp Electronics Corporation, Transcript,Apr. 7 at 285- 288) commented that there should be separate product classes for the convection and browner type microwave ovens based on their specific utility, aswell as additionalproduct classes for different cavity sizes. Jack Weizeorick (AHAM,Transcript, Apr. 7
at 258-260) also argued for two product classes: conventionalmicrowave ovens with and without browning elements. He based this argument onthe test procedure which he says doesnot

measure the energy that the browning element absorbs fromthe microwaves. Mr. Weizeorick also argued for a third product class to include combination microwave/convection ovens.

Amana Refrigeration, Inc. (No. 347 at 6) urged DOE to define a specific product class for convection/microwave ovens because of the browning utility which causes a loss of about four percentage points of efficiency. Frigidaire Company (No. 544 at 2) submitted that microwave ovens with browning elementsneed a separate product class because its data shows the browner versions are consistently lower in efficiencyby 2.0 percent. Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM,No. 001 at 5-7) argued that DOE'S approach of a single class microwave oven is too simplistic because there are certain design constraints in the various type products that have a significant effect on their design and efficiency. They commented that the following design differences in microwave ovens justify additional product classes: (a) (structurally) fixed
ovens, (b)portable ovens, (c)heating elements in the oven which absorb microwave energy, (d)convection ovens where the heating elements are not located in the cooking cavity,and (e) volume efficiency relationships for portable ovens only. Consequently, AHAM recommended the adoption of five classes of microwave ovens, as follows: 

### I.PortableMicrowave Only-Less than 0.8ft 3 

### total cavity volume 2. PortableMicrowave Only-0.8 to 1.19 ft3 

### total cavity volume 3. Portable Microwave Only-1.2 ft 3 

### total cavity volume 4. PortableMicrowaveIThermal 

### 5. Built-in (Fixed)

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool,No. 599 at 5) agreed with these classes, and Tim Brooks (Whirlpool,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at 2) reiterated in his 1996
commentsthe need for separate microwave oven classes in future rulemakings.

### O.P. Clay (Sharp,No. 521
at 2), relyingon data supplied to DOE, supported at least three product classes: small cavity size,large cavity size, and convection/microwave ovens.C.M. Walsh (Thermador,No. 622 at 1) 

### recommended that microwave ovens with a usable volume greater than 1.75 cubic feetbe put into a separate category that is excluded fromthe standard.

Les Harris (Sharp Electronics Corporation,Transcript,Apr. 

### 7 at 287- 288) requested exclusion of the microwave standard for convection and browner type microwave ovens because ofthe small number that are sold and because they provide a specific utility different from the standard microwave

oven.

The Department believesmore efficiencylcost data is needed to separate the ovens into separate product classes. However, because DOE is not promulgating standards for microwave ovens in this rule (seesection 111. e.),the and No. 866 at 1)requested a separate
energy classification for commercialtype home cookingproducts. He argued that the replacement alternative for these products would be purely commercialproducts which consume large amounts of energy and are not safe for home use. A purely commercial
range if placed next to cabinetry will not pass the heat requirements (will cause scorching and burning of the cabinetry). Mr. Durden statedthat there is a precedent for separate product classes for through-the-door service refrigeratorsand larger-sized refrigerator freezers,and consequently, a similar consideration (separate energy class) should be considered for commercialtype home cookingproducts. G. Greulich (Whirlpool,Transcript,Apr. 7
at 219)suggestedDOE have a more specific definition in regard to commercial-typeversus standard products. AHAM (AHAM,No. 001 at 14-15) and R. Zipkin (RussellRange. Transcript, Jun. 7 at 323)recommended that DOE define a separate product class for high-capacity ranges.

C.B. Walsh (Thermador,No. 622 at 2- 

### 6) commented that the useful characteristics of the professional style
range would have to be sacrificed in order for it to meet the best efficiency levels of a standard range. He commented that these appliances should be categorized as high capacity. He said the definition of a high capacity

oven shouldbe changed from a volume of 5 or more cubicfeetto 4.5 or more cubic feet (toinclude a professional

ovenwith the dimensions of 28 inches wide, 14 inches high, and 20 inches deep) and its bake burner energy minimum changed from 30,000BTUIh
to 22,500BTUIh because efficiency improvements may make today's level ofperformance (at 30,000BTU/h) possible with a burner rated at 25,000 BTUIh or less.

ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should develop a separate product class for commercial products that are sold in limited quantities in the residential sector. Because the Department is not promulgating minimum energy efficiencystandards for cooking products in today's rule, the Department believesthis comment is not a concern at this time.

Commentswith unspecified docket numbers 

### Departmentdoes not believe it is b. 

### Design Options belongtodocket number EE-RM-90-201, hi^ 

### necessaryto examine this issue at this

docket containsthe September 1990advance notice 

### time. Oven Door Window

and the 1994~ro~osed~ule. DocketNo. EE-RM- 

### The Department received several S-97-700 containsthe 1996Draft Report, 

### Commercial-type Products for comments which argued there would be comments tothe 1996DraftReport, comments to 

### Residential Use the 1998 reopening notice and the supplemental 

### reduced utility and a decrease in analysis. Commentsfromthis docket are specified 

### L. Durden (VikingRange 

### Gorp, efficiency with this design option. G.
with Docket number EE-RM-S-97-700. 

### Transcript,Apr. 7 at 180, 189, 196, 197 Greulich (Whirlpool,Transcript,Apr. 7



## 48040 Federal 

### Register/Vol. 63. No. 173/Tuesday. September 8. 1998/Rules and Regulations

this notice was followed by another notice reopening the comment period through April 28. 1998. The Department received 31 comments in response to these notices. Based on the comments to the Reopening Notice that identified significant issues surroundinggas cooking products. DOE decided to sever the electric cooking products from the
gas cooking products in this rulemaking.

II. Discussion ofElectric Cooking Products Comments

This section addresses comments to the 1994 Proposed Rule. the 1996 Draft Report. the Supplemental Analysis. and the 1998 reopening notice. 2 This section only addresses comments relating to electric cooking products and does not discuss gas cookingproducts.



### a. Classes

Microwave Ovens

D. Wilson (Frigidaire. Transcript, Apr. 7 at 268) commented that heating elements are a utility to Frigidaire's
customers and therefore require an additional product class for microwave

ovens. Les Harris (Sharp Electronics Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 285- 288) commentedthat there should be separate product classes for the convection and brownertype microwave ovens based on their specific utility, as well as additionalproduct classes for different cavity sizes. Jack Weizeorick (AHAM, Transcript, Apr. 7
at 258-260) also argued for two product classes: conventional microwave ovens with and without browning elements. He based this argument onthe test procedure which he says does not

measure the energy that the browning element absorbs from the microwaves. Mr. Weizeorick also argued for a third product class to include combination microwave/convection ovens.

AmanaRefrigeration, Inc. (No. 347 at 6) urged DOE to define a specific product class for convection/microwave

ovens because ofthe browningutility which causes a loss ofabout four percentage points ofefficiency. Frigidaire Company (No. 544 at 2) submitted that microwave ovens with browningelements need a separate product class because its data shows the brownerversions are consistently lower in efficiency by 2.0 percent.

2 Comments with unspecified docket numbers belong to docket number EE-RM-90-201. This docket containsthe September 1990 advance notice and the 1994 Proposed Rule. Docket No. EE-RMS-97-700 contains the 1996 Draft Report,
comments to the 1996 Draft Report, comments to the 1998 reopening notice and the supplemental analysis. Comments from this docket are specified with Docket number EE-RM-S-97-700. Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 5-7) argued that DOE's approach ofa single class microwave oven is too simplistic because there are certain design constraints in the various type products that have a significant effect on their design and efficiency. They commented that the follOWing design differences in microwave ovensjustify additional product classes: (a) (structurally) fixed

ovens, (b) portable ovens, (c) heating elements in the oven which absorb microwave energy, (d) convection ovens where the heating elements are not located in the cooking cavity, and (e) volume effiCiency relationships for portable ovens only. Consequently, AHAM recommendedthe adoption of five classes ofmicrowave ovens, as follows:
1. Portable Microwave Only-Less than 0.8 ft 3 total cavity volume 2, Portable Microwave Only-0,8 to 1.19 ft 3 total cavity volume 3. Portable Microwave Only-1.2 f13 total cavity volume 4. Portable Microwave/Thermal 5. Built-in (Fixed)

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 5) agreed withthese classes, and Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No.6 at 2) reiterated in his 1996
comments the need for separate microwave oven classes in future rulemakings, 

### a.p. Clay (Sharp, No. 521
at 2), relying on data suppliedto DOE, supported at least three product classes: small cavity size, large cavity size, and convection/microwave ovens. C.M. Walsh (Thermador, No. 622 at 1) recommended that microwave ovens with a usable volume greater than 1.75 cubic feet be put into a separate category that is excluded from the standard.

Les Harris (Sharp Electronics Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 287- 288) requested exclusion ofthe microwave standard for convection and browner type microwave ovens because ofthe small number that are sold and because they provide a speCific utility different from the standard microwave
oven,

The Department believes more effiCiency/cost data is needed to separate the ovens into separate product classes. However, because DOE is not promulgating standards for microwave

ovens in this rule (see section III. e.), the Department does not believe it is
necessary to examine this issue at this time, CommerCial-type Products for Residential Use

L. Durden (Viking Range Corp, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 180, 189, 196, 197 and No. 866 at 1) requested a separate energy classification for commercialtype home cooking products, He argued that the replacement alternative for these products would be purely commercial products which consume large amounts ofenergy and are not safe for home use, A purely commercial
range ifplaced next to cabinetry will not pass the heat requirements (will cause scorching and burning ofthe cabinetry), Mr. Durden statedthatthere is a precedent for separate product classes for through-the-door service refrigerators and larger-sized refrigerator freezers, and consequently, a similar consideration (separate energy class) should be considered for commercialtype home cookingproducts, G, Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7
at 219) suggested DOE have a more specific definition in regard to commercial-typeversus standard products, AHAM (AHAM, No, 001 at 14-15) and R. Zipkin (Russell Range, Transcript, Jun, 7 at 323) recommended that DOE define a separate product class for high-capacity ranges.

C,B. Walsh (Thermador, No. 622 at 2- 6) commented that the useful characteristics ofthe professional style
range would have to be sacrificed in orderfor it to meet the best efficiency levels ofa standard range, He commented that these appliances should be categorized as high capacity, He said the definition ofa high capacity

oven should be changed from a volume of5 or more cubic feet to 4.5 or more cubic feet (to include a professional

oven with the dimensions of 28 inches wide, 14 inches high, and 20 inches deep) and its bake burner energy minimum changed from 30,000 BTU/h
to 22,500 BTU/h because effiCiency improvements may make today's level ofperformance (at 30,000 BTU/h) possible with a burner rated at 25,000 BTU/h or less.

ACEEE (ACEEE, No, 557 at 23) commented that DOE should develop a separate product class for commercial products that are sold in limited quantities in the residential sector. Because the Department is not promulgating minimum energy efficiency standards for cooking products in today's rule, the Department believes this comment is not a concern at this time,



### b. Design Options

Oven Door Window

The Department received several
comments which argued there would be reduced utility and a decrease in efficiency with this design option. G, Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7

### Federal Register/

### Vol. 63

at 2 11-2 12)commented that more than half of its consumers prefer to purchase products with the window feature and those consumers say it is an important part of customer satisfaction from a utility standpoint. G. Greulich (Whirlpool,No. 391 at 7) andD. Karl Landstrom (Battelle,Transcript, Apr. 7
at 239-240 andTranscript,Jun.7 at 292-294) commented thatthe 1994 proposed standard would adversely affect cooking utility and quality because of the number of times the

consumer would openthe door to check the food. H. Brooke Stauffer (AHAM. Transcript, Apr. 7 

### at 170-172, 177) argued that the elimination of the oven door window would not only reduce utility but also is probably prohibited by the NAECA Safe Harbor Provisions. AHAM (AHAMNo. 001 at 6) said the Proposed Rule "violates NAECA's 'safe harbor' prohibition against standards which result in significant adverse utility or feature impacts (Section 325 (0)(4)).'*

Lyn Cook (IndependentHome Economist, No. 749 at 1) conducted limited tests using 17door openings with no window. Shefound the cooking results to be borderline to unacceptable in terms of cooking performance.

Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL,No. 001 at 22-24) commented that this option has

a "positive energy savings" (from 12.49
to 14.35percent for a standard oven) and 

### a "good payback." ADL also commented, however,this design option "does changethe utility of the oven, that is, consumers currently perceive a major benefit in the window option,and are willing to pay a premium for this feature." ADL reported 70 percent of all units shipped include a window.

W. W. Olson (Assoc Professor & 

### Extension Housing Technology Specialist,No. 736 at 1)requested that the removal of the oven door window optionbe deleted from the proposed standard. Shebased her comment on the added burden this design would place

on persons with limited strength or a painful grasp. In addition, the elimination of the oven window would burden people who use a wide range of wheeled assistive devices,frail people (earlyAlzheimers),and people with impaired sense of smell because the window would serve as an earlyvisual warning of burning or a fire within the

oven.

Margery Tippie (RedbookMagazine, No. 488 at 1)commented that allbaked goods recipes state arange of baking times,e.g. "bake 15to 20 minutes, or until golden brown". She said the

consumers should "begin checking for doneness at a minimum of 15minutes 

### No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 4804

### 1

bakingtime, and to proceed until the desired degreeof doneness is achieved. An oven window helps in the process." She argued that without the window, there would be constant heat (energy) loss sincethe oven would be opened for frequent checking. Lydia Botham (Land O'Lakes,Inc.,No. 623 at 1) commented that this design option (as well as reduced vent rate and improved door seals) may increase the energy efficiency of the oven,but more testing should be done to ensure consumers are not negatively impacted.

ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557at 23) commented that DOE should exclude this design option fromthe analysis, since it is just as likely to increase as decrease energy use.

P. Gordon (MarscoManufacturing Co., No. 595 at 1)urged DOE to consider not eliminating the glass in oven doors as an option to gain energy efficiency.He commented that heat reflective glasses have been able to replace a very expensive borosilicate glassproduced in Germany. MichaelE. Hobbs (Marsco Manufacturing Co.,No. 865 at 1)

### also urged DOE to reconsider this design option andto eliminate it. Senators Paul Simon,Carol Moseley-Braunand Barbara Boxer (U.S.Senate,No. 891 at 1,No. 892 at 1,and No. 907 at 1)also supported the argument to eliminate the oven door window design option.

DOE agreeswith the various
commenters that the removal ofthe

oven door window may cause the users ofthe ovens to open the doors more frequently and therefore, has the potential to result in increased energy
usage. The opportunity exists to improve the oven door window in the future. A newer, proven oven window material is needed that has higher thermal insulation properties, can withstand high oven temperatures,and has the mechanical strength compatible with the other oven parts. Until such a technology is proven, DOE will eliminatethis desiw o~tion.

Reduction of Thermal Mass

G. Greulich (Whirlpool,Transcript, Apr. 7 at 217)commented that Consumer Reports showed a customer preference for the larger oven cavity and
not the 

### 30 percent smaller oven cavity which was assumed inthe TSD. Also, utility may potentially be lost because

consumersmay not be able to cook multiple dishes in a smaller oven. In addition,Whirlpool stated this design option affectsproduct durability, manufacturing stability, product resistance, and susceptibility to being crushed during transit. Arthur D. Little, Inc. (AHAM,No. 001 at 21-22) commented that this design option will improve the oven efficiency, but reductions inmaterial thickness are
very limited. These limitations are based on: the averageporcelain thickness needed for adequate wall
coverage and sheet metal thickness reduction limitations (dueto theuse of already thin materials.) The ADL analysis showed that a l/z 

### to 1 lb reduction in oven cavity thermal mass will reduce oven energy consumption by 0.35to 0.70percent. ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should exclude this design option inthe analysis because the quality and life of the ovens may be harmed.

The Department agreeswith all arguments against inclusion of this design option. Due to the issues of

consumer product safety and structural integrity, DOE has eliminated reduced thermal mass as a design option. However,the opportunity exists to improve this technology inthe future. Newer, less expensive materials or coatings may be developed in the future which maintain structural strength, reduce or maintain cost,but reduce thermal mass.

Forced Convection

For electric ovens, G. Greulich (Whirlpool,Transcript, Apr. 7 at 215- 216) commented that this design option would result in considerable changes in

consumer utility because many recipes are not easily converted (fromnatural convection). The timing is different and "generational recipes" which are handed down from one generation to the next would not cook the same way. 

### M. Thompson (Whirlpool,No. 391 at 13)also submitted that industry aggregateefficiency for electric selfclean ovens is 2percent. They reported the industry aggregateincremental costs ofthis design option are approximately 6to 7 times higher than the DOE TSD
costwith payback periods dramatically increased (from6 to 302 years for electric standard ovens and from 8 to 363 years for electric self-clean ovens). Lyn Cook (IndependentHome Economist,No. 749 at 2) commented that this option would require a revolution in consumer cooking methods because it would dramatically changethe way oven cooking is done.

Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM,No. 001
at 7-1 1)

### commentedthat based on its evaluation of available data, information provided by manufacturers, and oven thermal analysis, this option does not
meet consumer payback requirements and changes the utility of the oven. ADL concluded that the overall energy savings isless than 8kWh/y as compared to DOE'Sestimates of 4 1 kWh/y and 33kWh/y for self-cleaning 

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 

### B, 199B/Rules and Regulations 

### 48041

at 211-212) commented that more than halfofits consumers prefer to purchase products with the window feature and those consumers say it is an important part ofcustomer satisfaction from a utility standpoint. G. Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 7) and D. Karl Landstrom (Battelle, Transcript, Apr. 7
at 239-240 andTranscript, Jun. 7 at 292-294) commented thatthe 1994 proposed standard would adversely affect cooking utility and quality because ofthe number oftimes the

consumer would open the door to check the food. H. Brooke Stauffer (AHAM, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 170-172, 177) argued that the elimination ofthe oven door window would not only reduce utility but also is probably prohibited by the NAECA Safe Harbor Provisions. AHAM (AHAM No. 001 at 6) saidthe Proposed Rule "violates NAECA's 'safe harbor' prohibition against standards which result in significant adverse utility or feature impacts (Section 325 (0)(4». "

Lyn Cook (IndependentHome Economist, No.749 at 1) conducted limited tests using 17 door openings with no window. She found the cooking results to be borderlineto unacceptable in terms ofcooking performance.

ArthurD. Little, Inc. (ADL, No. 001 at 22-24) commented thatthis option has

a "positive energy savings" (from 12.49
to 14.35 percent for a standard oven) and a "good payback." ADL also commented, however, this design option "does change the utility ofthe

oven, that is, consumers currently perceive a major benefit in the window option, and are willingto pay a premiumfor this feature." ADL reported 70 percent ofall units shipped include

a window.

W.W. Olson (Assoc Professor & Extension HOUSing Technology SpeCialist, No. 736 at 1) requested that the removal ofthe oven door window option be deleted from the proposed standard. She based her comment on the added burden this design would place

on persons with limited strength or a painful grasp. In addition, the elimination ofthe oven window would burden people who use a wide range of wheeled assistive devices, frail people (early Alzheimers), and people with impaired sense ofsmell because the window would serve as an early visual warning ofburning or a fire withinthe

oven.

Margery Tippie (Redbook Magazine, No. 488 at 1) commented that all baked goods recipes state a range ofbaking times, e.g. "bake 15 to 20 minutes, or until golden brown". She said the

consumers should "begin checking for doneness at a minimum of 15 minutes baking time, and to proceed until the desired degree ofdoneness is achieved. An oven window helps in the process." She argued that withoutthe window, there would be constant heat (energy) loss since the oven would be openedfor frequent checking. Lydia Botham (Land O'Lakes, Inc., No. 623 at 1) commented that this design option (as well as reduced vent rate and improved door seals) may increase the energy efficiency ofthe oven, butmore testing should be done to ensure consumers are not negatively impacted.

ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should exclude this design option from the analysis, since it isjust as likely to increase as decrease energy use.

P. Gordon (Marsco Manufacturing Co., No. 595 at 1) urged DOE to consider not eliminatingthe glass in oven doors as an option to gain energy effiCiency. He commentedthat heat reflective glasses have been able to replace a very expensive borosilicate glass produced in Germany. Michael E. Hobbs (Marsco Manufacturing Co., No. 865 at 1) also urged DOE to reconsider this design option and to eliminate it. Senators Paul Simon, Carol Moseley-Braun and Barbara Boxer (U.S. Senate, No. 891 at I, No. 892 at I, and No. 907 at 1) also supportedthe argumentto eliminate the

oven door window design option.

DOE agrees with the various
commentersthat the removal ofthe

oven doorwindow may cause the users ofthe ovens to open the doors more frequently and therefore, has the potential to result in increased energy usage. The opportunity exists to improve the oven door window in the future. A newer, proven oven window material is needed that has higher thermal insulation properties, can withstand high oven temperatures, and has the mechanical strength compatible with the other oven parts. Until such a technology is proven, DOE will eliminatethis design option.

Reduction ofThermal Mass

G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 217) commentedthat Consumer Reports showed a customer preference for the larger oven cavity and
not the 30 percent smaller oven cavity which was assumed in the TSD. Also, utility maypotentially be lost because

consumers may not be able to cook multiple dishes in a smaller oven. In addition, Whirlpool stated this design option affects product durability, manufacturing stability, product resistance, and susceptibility to being crushed during transit. Arthur D. Little, Inc. (AHAM, No. 001 at 21-22) commented that this design option will improve the oven efficiency, but reductions in materialthickness are very limited. These limitations are based on: the average porcelain thickness needed for adequate wall
coverage and sheet metalthickness reduction limitations (due to the use of already thin materials.) The ADL analysis showed that a 112 to 1 Ib reduction in oven cavity thermal mass will reduce oven energy consumption by 0.35 to 0.70 percent. ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should exclude this design option in the analysis because the quality and life of the ovens may be harmed.

The Department agrees with all arguments against inclusion ofthis design option. Due to the issues of

consumer product safety and structural integrity, DOE has eliminated reduced thermal mass as a design option. However, the opportunity exists to improve this technology in the future. Newer, less expensive materials or coatings may be developed in the future which maintain structural strength, reduce or maintain cost, but reduce thermal mass.
Forced Convection

For electric ovens, G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 215- 216) commented that this design option would result in considerable changes in

consumer utility because manyrecipes

are not easily converted (from natural convection). The timing is different and "generational recipes" which are handed down from one generation to the next would not cook the same way. M. Thompson (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 13) also submitted that industry aggregate efficiency for electric selfclean ovens is 2 percent. They reported the industry aggregate incremental costs ofthis design option are approximately 6 to 7 times higher than the DOE TSD
cost with payback periods dramatically increased (from 6 to 302 years for electric standard ovens and from 8 to 363 years for electric self-clean ovens). Lyn Cook (Independent Home Economist, No.749 at 2) commented that this option would reqUire a revolution in consumer cooking methods because it would dramatically change the way oven cooking is done.

Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001
at 7-11) commentedthat based on its evaluation ofavailable data, information provided by manufacturers, and oven thermal analysis, this option does not meet consumer payback requirements and changes the utility ofthe oven. ADL concluded that the overall energy savings is less than 8 kWh/y as compared to DOE's estimates of41 kWh/y and 33 kWh/y for self-cleaning

## 48042 Federal Register/Vol. 

### 63, No. 173 /Tuesday, September 

### 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

and standard ovens,respectively. The Additionally, the cooking performance are different than the normal radiation reported incrementalprice increase for ofthe oven may be affected. Tim Brooks emitted by the current cavity);(2)only this option is $81.95which would result (Whirlpool,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at modest energy savings are possible inpayback periods of 141and 106 2) commented that improved door seals (from 12.15 baseline efficiencyto 12.73
years,respectively, for these ovens. are not justified because of insignificant efficiency);and (3)consumerpayback is

ACEEE (ACEEE,No. 557 at 23) energy savings (0.2%)with excessive long (8.62to 11.33years). commented that this option looks payback-less than $1 saved per year. Marcia Copeland (BettyCrocker,EEpromising. ACEEE argued against the DOE agrees with the comments that ~~-~-97-700 NO. 5 at 1)

### disagreed comment concerning "old family sufficient air flow through the oven with the statement in the Draft Report recipes" and said such recipes may cavity is required to allow forProper thatreflective pans are assumed to have need modification, but this problem heating and moisture conditions while no maintenance cost and could easilybe could be solved by allowing consumers cooking.This design option does not maintained by the consumer,Copeland to turn off this feature for a single use call for elimination of the air flow by stated that ~~tt~ ~~~~k~~~~ experience at a time. improved seals; it merely statesthey Can with 

### consumer testing indicates this

The Department disagrees with be improved "without sealing the oven assumption is incorrect 

### but did not arguments that consumer utility is completely." Moreover, because this provide supportingdata,Tim Brooks decreased. The consumer is given the design option was not contained in any (~h~~l~~~l, 

### EE-RM-S-~~-~OO 

### N~. 6 at option to turnthe forced convection standard levelsthe Department found to 

### 3) concurred and stated that the 

### pans featureon or off. The consumer is be economically justified in today's would become non-reflective in about therefore given the choice to be more rule, the Department does not consider 

### oneyear, energy efficient. The Department it to be an issue in this rulemaking. realizes that certain recipes may have to DOE agrees with the lack of

be modified if the design option is used, Bi-Radiant Oven sophistication inthe technology to
but the consumer would learn howto Tim Brooks 

### (Whirlpool, 

### EE-RM-S- maintain a clean, reflective oven surface

use it if desired. Secondly,the 97-700 

### No. at 3) stated that the 

### 50 or reflective cooktop pans, andtherefore technology is already inthe percent improvement assumption is achieve an 

### energy efficiency marketplace. DOE recognizes that full unsupported by facts. He also noted improvement7 Over the 

### life 

### ofthe


### credit for energy efficiency is not technical problems making this design products. Therefore, has 

### realized because the oven test procedure option impractical.The Department the 

### improved reflective

measures energyuse over shortperiods finds in today's rule that this design surfaces in Ovens and 

### reflective pans for


### oftime. Certain foods would take less option is not economically justified. cooktops as 

### design Options in this


### time (energy)to cook with convection, Reflective

### Surfaces Oven Separator
e.g. approximately 3 hours to cook an average turkey with convection, Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool,No. 391 at Marcia Copeland (BettyCracker, 

### EEcompared to 5-6 hours without it. The 10)said that this design option causes RM-S-97-700 NO.5 at 1)

### stated that an Department also believes thisreduced loss of consumer utility (ovencleaning) oven separatorwould have low cookingtime increases utility to the and is not financiallyjustified. He also COnsumer acceptance and only addsto

consumer. commented that industry aggregate the cost of the appliance. Shealso stated incremental costs ofthisdesign option that the existence ofa (krman model Improved Door Seals are approximately 12to 13 times higher has no relevance forAmerican

M. Thompson (Whirlpool,Transcript, than the DOE TSD cost,resulting in a consumersbut did not provide any Apr. 7 at 223-224) argued that a little 152year payback (Transcript,Jun.7 at reasoning for this statement.However, bit of leakage is absolutely critical 339).Tim Brooks (Whirlpool,EE-RM- because the Oven Separator design especiallywhen bakingto allow enough S-97-700 No. 6 at 3) stated that option only was used for max tech and moisture release. Gregg Greulich maintaining highly reflective oven walls was not foundto be economically (Whirlpool,No. 391 at 9) commented is impractical. justified, the Department does not that this design option needs to be C.B.Walsh (Thermador,No. 622 at 2) believe this issue is a concern. considered in conjunction with the commented that he was not aware of a Added 

### Insulation electric standardReduced Vent Rate reflective material which will retain its design option to minimize the overall reflectivity after repeated exposure to DOE received comments which said impact on cooking performance. Lyn pyrolytic self-cleaning oven there would be loss of consumer utility Cook (IndependentHome Economist, temperatures (850-950F). Lyn Cook with this design option and that it is not No. 749 at 2) alsorecommended that (Independent Home Economist,No. 749 cost effective.D. Horstman (Maytag,No. DOE consider the Improved Door Seal at 2) commented that such surfaces 490 at 3) commented that manufacturers and Reduced Vent Rate options together would quickly discolor,and their would be forced to reduce the oven because both have an influence on the longevity would be restricted. She cavity size drastically to comply with natural convective air flowthrough the recommended DOE eliminate this the proposed standards. He said there oven cavity. Lydia Botham (Land design option. ACEEE (ACEEE,No. 557 would be less utility tothe consumer O'Lakes,No. 623 at 1)commented that at 23) commented that DOE should and insufficient fuel cost savings to this design option may increase the exclude this design option in the justify the cost premium. Likewise, energy efficiency of the oven,but more analysis because it would be impossible Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool,NO.391 at testing should be done. to keep the surfaces clean and shiny, 11)submitted that this design option

For standard electric ovens,Arthur D. particularly in self-cleaning ovens. will reduce consumer utility (ovensize), Little, Inc (AHAM,No. 001 at 17-18) Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM,No. 001 andresult in an excessive payback analyzedthis design option and at 11-17) analyzed this design option (increase from 5 to 8 years for standard concluded that it will have a very minor for electric ovens and concluded: (I) electric ovens and increase from 11to impact on oven efficiency(from 12.15to current oven utility is not maintainable 35 years for self-cleaning electric ovens). 12.39 percent) and 

### a price premium that using reflective surfaces (the Whirlpool said this design option would creates a payback in excess of 10 years, characteristics ofthis reflected radiation not bejustified. 

### 48042 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules 

### and Regulations

and standard ovens, respectively. The reported incremental price increase for this option is $8l.95 which would result in payback periods of 141 and 106
years, respectively, for these ovens.

ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that this option looks promising. ACEEE argued against the
comment concerning "old family recipes" and said such recipes may need modification, but this problem could be solved by allowing consumers to turn offthis feature for a single use at a time.

The Department disagrees with arguments that consumer utility is decreased. The consumer is given the option to turn the forced convection feature on or off. The consumer is therefore given the choice to be more energy efficient. The Department realizes that certain recipes may have to be modified ifthe design option is used, but the consumer would learn howto

use it ifdesired. Secondly, the technology is already in the marketplace. DOE recognizes that full credit for energy effiCiency is not realized because the oven test procedure

measures energy use over short periods oftime. Certain foods would take less time (energy) to cook with convection,
e.g. approximately 3 hours to cook an average turkey with convection, compared to 5-6 hours without it. The Department also believes this reduced cooking time increases utilityto the

consumer. Improved Door Seals

M. Thompson (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 223-224) argued that a little bit ofleakage is absolutely critical especially when baking to allow enough moisture release. Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 9) commented that this design option needs to be considered in conjunction with the electric standard Reduced Vent Rate design option to minimize the overall impact on cookingperformance. Lyn Cook (Independent Home Economist, No. 749 at 2) also recommended that DOE consider the Improved Door Seal and Reduced Vent Rate options together because both have an influence on the natural convective air flow through the

oven caVity. Lydia Botham (Land O'Lakes, No. 623 at 1) commented that this design option may increase the
energy effiCiency ofthe oven, but more testing should be done.

For standard electric ovens, Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 17-18) analyzedthis design option and concludedthat it will have a very minor impact on oven efficiency (from 12.15 to 12.39 percent) and a price premiumthat
creates a payback in excess of 10 years. Additionally, the cooking performance ofthe oven may be affected. Tim Brooks (Whirlpool. EE-RM-S-97-700 No.6 at 2) commented that improved door seals

are notjustifiedbecause ofinsignificant
energy savings (0.2%) with excessive payback-less than $1 saved peryear.

DOE agrees with the comments that sufficient air flow through the oven cavity is required to allow for proper heating and moisture conditions while cooking. This design option does not call for elimination ofthe air flow by improved seals; it merely states they can be improved "without sealing the oven completely." Moreover, because this design option was not contained in any standard levels the Departmentfound to be economicallyjustified in today's rule, the Department does not consider it to be an issue in this ru1emaking.

Bi-Radiant Oven

Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S97-700 No.6 at 3) stated that the 50 percent improvement assumption is unsupported by facts. He also noted technical problems making this design option impractical. The Department finds in today's rule that this design option is not economicallyjustified.

Reflective Surfaces

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 10) saidthat this design option causes loss ofconsumer utility (oven cleaning) and is not finanCiallyjustified. He also commented that industry aggregate incremental costs ofthis design option

are approximately 12 to 13 times higher than the DOE TSD cost, resulting in a 152 year payback (Transcript, Jun. 7 at 339). Tim Brooks (Whirlpool. EE-RMS-97-700 No.6 at 3) stated that maintaining highly reflective oven walls is impractical.

C.B. Walsh (Thermador, No. 622 at 2) commented that he was not aware ofa reflective material which will retain its reflectivity after repeated exposure to pyrolytic self-cleaning oven temperatures (850-950F). Lyn Cook (Independent Home Economist, No. 749
at 2) commented that such surfaces would quickly discolor, and their longevity would be restricted. She recommended DOE eliminate this design option. ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557
at 23) commentedthat DOE should exclude this design option in the analysis because it would be impossible
to keep the surfaces clean and shiny, particularly in self-cleaning ovens.

Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001
at 11-17) analyzed this design option for electric ovens and concluded: (1)
current oven utility is not maintainable using reflective surfaces (the characteristics ofthis reflected radiation are different than the normal radiation emitted by the current cavity); (2) only modest energy savings are possible (from 12.15 baseline efficiency to 12.73 efficiency); and (3) consumerpayback is long (8.62 to 1l.33years).

Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EERM-S-97-700 No.5 at 1) disagreed with the statement in the Draft Report thatreflective pans are assumed to have

no maintenance cost and could easily be maintained bythe consumer. Copeland stated that Betty Crocker's experience with consumer testing indicates this assumption is incorrect but did not provide supporting data. Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No.6 at 3) concurred and stated that the pans would become non-reflective in about

oneyear.

DOE agrees withthe lack of sophistication in the technology to maintain a clean, reflective oven surface

or reflective cooktop pans, and therefore achieve an energy efficiency improvement, over the life ofthe products. Therefore, DOE has eliminated the improved reflective surfaces in ovens and reflective pans for cooktops as design options in this rule.

Oven Separator

Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EERM-S-97-700 No.5 at 1) stated that an

oven separator would have low

consumer acceptance and only adds to the cost ofthe appliance. She also stated that the existence ofa German model has no relevance for American

consumers but did not provide any reasoning for this statement. However, because the Oven Separator design option only was used for max tech and

was not found to be economically justified, the Department does not believe this issue is a concern.
Added Insulation

DOE received comments which said there would be loss ofconsumerutility with this design option and that it is not cost effective. D. Horstman (Maytag, No. 490 at 3) commented that manufacturers would be forced to reduce the oven cavity size drastically to comply with the proposed standards. He said there would be less utility to the consumer and insufficient fuel cost savings to justifythe cost premium. Likewise, Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 11) submittedthat this design option will reduce consumer utility (oven size). and result in an excessive payback (increase from 5 to 8 years for standard electric ovens and increase from 11 to 35 years for self-cleaning electric ovens). Whirlpool said this design option would
not bejustified.

### Federal Register/

### Vol. 63,

Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM,No. 001
at 19-21) commented that its analysis shows that although a 2-inch increase in insulation will have a large impact (1.4 percentage points on a 12.15 percent efficiency baseline) onthe oven energy usage, it will have a negative impact on the utility ofthe oven and range appliances. Either the size ofthe overall cabinet must increase,or the oven cavity volume must be reduced. In additionAHAM's comments agreed that thicker insulation (upto 4 inches) can achieve a 1.4 percentage point increase in oven efficiency, but the implementation ofthis design may affectthe utility of the appliance forthe reasons stated above.

The arguments against this design option involve reduction of consumer utility dueto decreased oven cavity volume, if the sameoven footprint is maintained. TheDepartment has eliminated thisdesign option because it reduces consumer utility and results in

an increase inthe life-cycle cost with a negligible decrease in energy use. Improved Insulation

Tom Hoff (MicrothermInc.,No. 605 at 2-4) commented that his company has a micro porous thermal insulation which has significantly higher thermal insulation capabilitythan existing technology and can be used in oven and range appiications.

Maytag (Maytag,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 9 at 4) stated that insulatingthe non-self-cleaning oven in a manner similarto the self-cleaning oven does not improve efficiency in a cost justifiable manner. Maytag stated that the higher efficiency of the self-cleaning models is not due solelyto the difference in insulation but is also due
to the several panes of heat reflective glass in 

### the door and the inner baffles.

AHAM (AHAM,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) commented that there is nothing in DOE's analysis which contradicts the significant evidence from manufacturers that further insulation will result in negligible savingsin energy. AHAM commented that in order to attain anypossible real increase in efficiency, non-selfcleaning products would have to undergo total door reconstruction (includingdoor seal, heat insulating glass) at great, costprohibitive expense.

The Department did consider higher performing insulation (SeeDraft Report Table 1-9) but did not consider the Microtherm product specifically dueto

a lack of data,particularly material costs andpossible installation or fabrication
cost. TheDepartment only considered the increased performance and cost of higher density fiberglass insulation in 

### No. 

### 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 

### 1998 /

### Rules and Regulations 

## 48043

existing cavities and did not consider cycle. Sincethe venting systemson selfchanges to any door glass orinner cleaning ovens provide satisfactory baffles, although improved door seals cooking performance, it was assumed

were considered separately. that these reduced vents could

Reduced Vent Size satisfactorily be applied to non-selfcleaning ovens and yield an efficiency Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool,NO.391 at imgrovement. However,this 9) commented that this design option needs to be considered in conjunction with the design option for Improved Door Sealdesign to minimize the overall impact on cooking performance. Marcia K. Copeland (GeneralMills, Inc., No. 355 at 2) commented that reducing
oven vent size will negatively impact high moisture foods such as pound cake, two-crust fruit pies, roasting, meat loaf, lasagna, andfoods that need drying such as pastry, biscuits, and cookies. The reduced vent size may result in increased baking time, and consumers will be less satisfied with the results. KarenJohnson (Borden,No. 560 at 1) supported these comments. Lydia Botham (Land O'Lakes, No. 623 at 1) 

### commented that this design option may increase the energy efficiency ofthe
oven,but more testing should be done.

Maytag (Maytag,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 9 at 4) stated that because vent size isdesigned to be at an optimum for cooking performance, any reduction in sizewill affect cooking performance. Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool,EE-RM-S97-700 No. 33 at 2) stated that the venting Whirlpool uses in self-cleaning

ovens isvirtually identical to the 

## - venting in its non-self-cleaning models. Whirlpool's testing showsthat reducing the venting will only serve to degrade cooking performance and will not save energy.

AHAM (AHAM,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 

### 3) commented that DOE erroneously assumed that areduction in the vent opening of a non-self-cleaning

oven to the same size as a self-clean

oven would result in energy savings. AHAM commented that vent openings are not automatically larger in non-selfcleaning ovens. AHAM statedthat the size ofthe vent opening is determined by several factors, only one ofwhich is the cleaning type. AHAM commented that if a smaller vent openingwere effectively required for all models, the product performance would be degraded on some models by reducing the moisture loss.

Oven venting is necessary for the cooking process, but reducing thevent rate inherently reduces the energy lost in the cooking process and therefore, increases the overall efficiencyofthe

oven. The Department assumed that self-cleaning ovens have smaller vents than non-self-cleaning ovens dueto safety concernsregarding air flow during the high temperature cleaning as&mption is refuted by the Whirlpool
comment that there is no difference in venting in itsproducts and the AHAM
comment that vent openings are not automatically larger innon-self-cleaning

ovens.Thus,the Department has probably overstated any energy savings fromthis design option. In making today's determination DOE is not considering any energy savings from this design option. Improved Contact Conductance

Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM,No. 001
at 24-27) reported the results ofits analysis andtesting on this design option for electric cooktops. Its results showed that the major mechanism for heat transfer was physical contact between thepot and coil, not contact pressure. The DOE test procedure uses

an aluminum block which may be flatter than an actual cooking pot. ADL stated it found minimal real world efficiency improvementspossible. The Department agreesthat the heat transfer method is a function of physical contact andthat this contact is influenced by the flatness of the obiecton the cooktog. Improved Efficiencyof the Magnetron Power Supply/Transformer

Charles Samuels (AHAM,Transcript, Apr. 7 at 51)argued that the transformer improvementswere based onfaulty communicationsbetween DOE's
contractors and industry; consequently DOE has over-estimated the cost and
energy improvement potential and not taken into account the problems with product size and weight that would be caused by more efficient transformers,

even if technologically feasible.

D. Susak (Advance Transformer Company,Transcript, Apr. 7 at 272) commented that efficiency increases to 96 percent are not attainable at any price, much less at 

### $5 as stated in the TSD. Mr. Susak reported results from some testingthat resulted in a transformer efficiency of 91.4percent with an additional cost of $6.45 per unit and a payback period greaterthan six years. This improvement was from only

one of its current designs and should
not be expected for all designs. Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool,No. 599 at 3) agreedwith the Advance Transformer study and said that Whirlpool's own studycorroborates it. He said this design option should be dropped. Jack Weizeorick,AHAM (April7,rebuttal at 

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

### 48043

Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001
at 19-21) commented that its analysis shows that although a 2-inch increase in insulation will have a large impact (1.4 percentage points on a 12.15 percent efficiency baseline) onthe oven energy usage, it will have a negative impact on the utility ofthe oven and range appliances. Either the size ofthe overall cabinet must increase, or the oven cavity volume must be reduced. In addition AHAM's comments agreed that thicker insulation (up to 4 inches) can achieve a 1.4 percentage point increase in oven effiCiency, butthe implementation ofthis design may affect the utility ofthe appliance for the

reasons stated above.

The arguments against this design option involve reduction ofconsumer utility due to decreased oven cavity volume, ifthe same oven footprint is maintained. The Departmenthas eliminatedthis design option because it reduces consumerutility and results in

an increase in the life-cycle cost with a negligible decrease in energy use. Improved Insulation

Tom Hoff (Microtherm Inc., No. 605 at 2-4) commented that his company has

a micro porous thermal insulation which has significantly higher thermal insulation capabilitythan existing technology and can be used in oven and range applications.

May tag (Maytag, EE-RM-S-97-700 No.9 at 4) stated that insulatingthe non-self-cleaning oven in a manner similarto the self-cleaning oven does
not improve efficiency in a cost justifiable manner. Maytag stated that the higher efficiency ofthe self-cleaning models is not due solely to the difference in insulation but is also due
to the several panes ofheat reflective glass in the door and the inner baffles.

AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) commented that there is nothing in DOE's analysis which contradicts the significant evidence from manufacturers that further insulation will result in negligible savings in energy. AHAM commented that in orderto attain anypossible real increase in efficiency, non-selfcleaning products would have to undergo total door reconstruction (including door seal, heat insulating glass) at great, costprohibitive expense.

The Department did considerhigher performing insulation (See Draft Report Table 1-9) but did not consider the Microtherm product speCifically due to

a lack ofdata, particularly material costs and possible installation or fabrication
cost. The Department onlyconsidered the increased performance and cost of higher densityfiberglass insulation in existing cavities and did not consider changes to any door glass orinner baffles, although improved door seals

were considered separately.

Reduced Vent Size

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 9) commented that this design option needs to be considered in conjunction with the design option for Improved Door Seal design to minimize the overall impact on cooking performance. Marcia K. Copeland (General Mills, Inc., No. 355 at 2) commented thatreducing

oven vent size will negatively impact high moisture foods such as pound cake, two-crust fruit pies, roasting, meat loaf, lasagna, andfoods that need drying such as pastry, biscuits, and cookies. The reduced vent size mayresult in increased baking time, and consumers will be less satisfied with the results. KarenJohnson (Borden, No. 560 at 1) supportedthese comments. Lydia Botham (Land O'Lakes, No. 623 at 1) commented that this design option may increase the energy efficiency ofthe
oven, but more testing should be done.

Maytag (Maytag, EE-RM-S-97-700 No.9 at 4) stated that because vent size is designed to be at an optimum for cooking performance, anyreduction in size will affect cooking performance. Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S97-700 No. 33 at 2) stated that the ventingWhirlpool uses in self-cleaning

ovens is virtually identicalto the venting in its non-self-cleaning models. Whirlpool's testing shows that reducing the venting will only serve to degrade cooking performance and will not save energy.

AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) commented that DOE erroneously assumed that a reduction in the vent opening ofa non-self-cleaning

ovento the same size as a self-clean

oven would result in energy saVings. AHAM commentedthat vent openings

are not automatically larger in non-selfcleaning ovens. AHAM statedthat the size ofthe vent opening is determined by several factors, only one ofwhich is the cleaning type. AHAM commented that ifa smaller vent opening were effectively reqUired for all models, the product performance would be degraded on some models by redUCing the moisture loss.

Oven venting is necessary for the cooking process, butreducing the vent rate inherently reduces the energy lost in the cookingprocess and therefore, increases the overall efficiency ofthe

oven. The Department assumed that self-cleaning ovens have smaller vents than non-self-cleaning ovens due to safety concerns regarding air flow during the high temperature cleaning cycle. Since the venting systems on selfcleaning ovens provide satisfactory cooking performance, it was assumed thatthese reduced vents could satisfactorilybe applied to non-selfcleaning ovens and yield an efficiency improvement. However, this assumption is refuted bythe Whirlpool
commentthatthere is no difference in venting in its products and the AHAM
comment that vent openings are not automatically larger innon-self-cleaning

ovens. Thus, the Department has probably overstated any energy savings from this design option. In making today's determination DOE is not considering any energy savings from this design option. Improved Contact Conductance

Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001
at 24-27) reported the results ofits analysis and testing on this design option for electric cooktops. Its results showed that the major mechanism for heat transfer was physical contact between the pot and coil, not contact pressure. The DOE test procedure uses

an aluminum block which may be flatter than an actual cooking pot. ADL stated it found minimal real world efficiency improvements possible. The Department
agrees that the heattransfer method is

a function ofphysical contact and that this contact is influenced by the flatness ofthe object on the cooktop. Improved Efficiency ofthe Magnetron Power Supply/Transformer

Charles Samuels (AHAM, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 51) argued that the transformer improvements were based on faulty communications between DOE's
contractors and industry; consequently DOE has over-estimated the cost and
energy improvement potential and not taken into account the problems with product size and weight that would be caused by more efficient transformers,

even iftechnologically feasible.

D. Susak (Advance Transformer Company, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 272) commented that efficiency increases to 96 percent are not attainable at any price, much less at $5 as stated in the TSD. Mr. Susak reported results from

sometestingthat resulted in a transformer efficiency of91.4 percent with an additional cost of $6.45 per unit and a payback period greater than six
years. This improvement was from only

one ofits current designs and should
not be expected for all designs. Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) agreed with the Advance Transformer study and said that Whirlpool's own studycorroborates it. He said this design option should be dropped. Jack Weizeorick, AHAM (April 7, rebuttal at

## 48044 Federal Register/

### Vol. 63,

341-344) commented that theTSD reference "(56)" to C. Huene (TSD,Vol 2, AppE, p 1-49) was incorrect. Mr. Huene was contacted, and he stated he never said that a 95 percent efficient transformer was available at a cost of $5.



### O.P. Clay (Sharp,No. 521 at 2) commented that DOE'Sprovided cost estimates of $7.90forthe purpose of increasing the efficiency of microwave

ovens from 54 to 62.5 percent cannot be achieved. Data was supplied that showed a 1 percent improvement would
cost $4.05, and achieving an additional 2.5 percent would cost $9.00. Sharp estimated the three design options proposed by DOE would cost at least $13.05 and only increase the efficiency 3.5 percent. Sharpurged that DOE not include microwave ovens in the rulemakingbased onthese estimates.

Robert Lagoussie, International Microwave Power Institute (April 7, at 309-3 10)commented that a technical paper by Dr. C. R. Buffler on an improved power supply was misinterpreted in theTSD. Mr. Lagoussie commented that the improvement wastechnically but not economicallyfeasible in 1978,and it would be even less economically feasible today. D. Wilson (Frigidaire, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 262-263) commented that Dr. BuMer reported an efficiency number based ontheory that

was not meant to be a practical solution. The commenter reported that it will be difficult to improve the present efficiency levels of 45 to 50percent dramatically unless there are technological breakthroughs.

Clayton Bond (Toshiba Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 317-318) commented that his company had met with the other three magnetron manufacturers in Japan (there are none in the U.S.),andtheir response tothe proposed standard is that the efficiency of the magnetron can be increased marginally (1percent, or from 71to 72 percent),but the cost of even this marginal improvement would be cost prohibitive. This one percent increase in efficiency would result in a cost increase of more than doublethe current price ofthe tube inthis country. Other

concerns were that it would take three years to develop; it would require new tooling,jigs, and expensive materials, and this improved design would be sold only in theU.S. market which is one- third ofthe world market. Likewise, Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool,No. 599 at 3) commented that magnetrons produced today are 7 1%efficient with a maximum realistic efficiency of 72%. He argued that thisdesign option shouldbe dropped since the magnetrons

are as efficient as possible already. 

### No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 

### 1998/Rules and Regulations

Dennis Wilson, Frigidaire (April7, He also said that it is possible to rebuttal at 345) commented that an increase the couplingbetween the increased efficiency microwave oven magnetron andthe cavity for a specific would require an increase in a load in such a way that the efficiency transformer size and additional costs. would improvefor that specific load. Frigidaire's written comments (No.544 However,there were several significant
at 3) further argued that the company disadvantages to thistight coupling would be at an economic disadvantage which he supplied in his written inthe European marketplace because comments. D. Wilson (Frigidaire,No. this increased size would makethe 544 at 4) commented that this design higher efficiency microwave oven option would require the redesign and incompatible with the common chassis retooling ofthe waveguide since the used for both the domestic and export waveguide itself is an integral part of markets. the cavity design, and a separate part

JackWeizeorick and Charles Samuels would be necessary in order to reduce (AHAM,No. 001 at 10)commented that the material costs. Cost estimates were the high efficiency transformer would provided in the written comments. The be larger and heavier than the Department believes these comments transformer used today and would are well founded.Therefore, this design result in an increase in the overall size option was eliminated. of microwave ovens which would result 

### Microwave 

### Oven Fan Efficiency in increased shipping costs since fewer could be shipped in a standard sized Les Harris (SharpElectronics truck or container. Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 282-

E. Toomey (Goldstar,No. 503 at 1) 

### 284) commented that the efficiency commented that her company is increase and associated cost increase currently using a 95% efficient with the fan in the TSD are in error. magnetron which "leaves no room for Various options are listed and improvement." At present, she said her agreement with the TSD is possible (at company's ovens are already rated at 0.8percent increase),but the cost close to 60% efficiency.ACEEE (ACEEE, increase is $7to $8.22,not $1.05 as No. 557 at 24) urged DOE to include the stated inthe TSD.This cost would effectsof the adoption of European significantly extend the payback period.
power supply standards on U.S. Also, the improvementpreviously microwave manufacturers. stated requires an electronically

DOE has analyzed the data which was commuted DC motor, which has been submitted during the comment period theoretically proven, but not proven in and found the data to be contradictory practice. in part. The comments summarized Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels above indicatetechnological barriers to (AHAM,No. 001 at 11)commented that improving the efficiency ofmicrowave manufacturers' data indicatesthat most ovens abovethe baseline value of 54 fans use between 15 and 32 watts of percent. However,AHAM data (AHAM, power,but some use a high of 75 watts. No. 001 at B-1) reports efficiency/cavity AHAM supplied data which shows an volume and efficiencyloven type which increased efficiency fan, which uses show many units above 54 percent 15.2watts over the "standard" fan efficiency and a significant number which uses approximately 2 1watts,at above 57percent, thus indicatingthe an additional cost of $2.20.If an technology existsto improve the electronically commuted DC motor were efficiencyof the ovens. Moreover, used,the power would be reduced to because this design option was not 7.7 watts at an additional cost of $8.25. contained in any standard levelsthe D. Wilson (Frigidaire,No. 544 at 4) Department found to be economically commented that a more efficient fan justified intoday's rule, the Department motor could be manufactured without a doesnot consider it to be an issue in capital investmentbut would require this rulemaking. engineering and testing to qualify the component.Therevised motor is Modified Waveguide assumed to be directly interchangeable

Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels with the current motor and not require (AHAM,No. 001 at 11)commented that a tooling investment. Cost estimates only a small efficiency improvement were provided in the written comments. may be available on somemicrowave Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool,No. 599 at

ovens by reducing the length or 3) commented that fans use about 25 improving the finish onthe waveguides. watts and an efficiency improvement of Many of the ovens produced in 1993 10% amounts to 2.5 watts. He stated already have these new features. Gregg this improvement could possibly double Greulich (Whirlpool,No. 599 at 3) the cost of the fan which increases the agreed with this comment and said that payback period, while providing this design option should be dropped. minimal energy savings. He 

### 48044 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

341-344) commentedthat theTSD reference "(56)" to C. Huene (TSD, Vol 2, App E, P 1-49) was incorrect. Mr. Huene was contacted, and he stated he

never said that a 95 percent efficient transformer was available at a cost of $5.

O.P. Clay (Sharp, No. 521 at 2) commentedthat DOE's provided cost estimates of $7.90 for the purpose of increasingthe efficiency ofmicrowave

ovens from 54 to 62.5 percent cannot be achieved. Data was supplied that showed a 1percent improvement would
cost $4.05, and achieving an additional 2.5 percent would cost $9.00. Sharp estimated the three design options proposedby DOE would cost at least $13.05 and only increase the efficiency 3.5 percent. Sharp urged that DOE not include microwave ovens in the rulemakingbased on these estimates.

Robert Lagoussie, International Microwave Power Institute (April 7, at 309-310) commented that a technical
paper by Dr. C. R. Buffler on an improved power supply was misinterpreted intheTSD. Mr. Lagoussie commented that the improvementwas technically but not economically feasible in 1978, and it would be even less economically feasible today. D. Wilson (Frigidaire, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 262-263) commented that Dr. Buffler reported an efficiency number based on theory that

was not meantto be a practical solution. The commenterreported that it will be difficult to improve the present efficiency levels of45 to 50 percent dramatically unless there are technological breakthroughs.

Clayton Bond (Toshiba Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 317-318) commentedthat his company had met with the other three magnetron manufacturers inJapan (there are none in the U.S.), and their response to the proposed standard is that the efficiency ofthe magnetron can be increased marginally (1 percent, or from 71 to 72 percent), but the cost ofeven this marginal improvement would be cost prohibitive. This one percent increase in efficiency would result in a cost increase ofmore than double the current price ofthe tube in this country. Other

concerns were that it wouldtake three
years to develop; it would require new tooling,jigs, and expensive materials, and this improved design would be sold only in the U.S. market which is onethird ofthe world market. Likewise, Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) commented that magnetrons produced today are 71% efficient with a maximum realistic efficiency of72%. He argued that this design option should be dropped since the magnetrons

are as efficient as possible already. Dennis Wilson, Frigidaire (April 7, rebuttal at 345) commented that an increased effiCiency microwave oven would require an increase in a transformer size and additional costs. Frigidaire's written comments (No.544
at 3) further argued that the company would be at an economic disadvantage inthe European marketplace because this increased size would make the higher efficiency microwave oven incompatible with the common chassis used for both the domestic and export markets.

Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 10) commented that the high efficiency transformer would be larger and heavier than the transformer used today and would result in an increase in the overall size ofmicrowave ovens which would result in increased shipping costs since fewer could be shipped in a standard sized truck or container.

E. Toomey (Goldstar, No. 503 at 1) commented that her company is currently using a 95% efficient magnetron which "leaves no room for improvement." At present, she said her company's ovens are alreadyrated at close to 60% effiCiency. ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 24) urged DOE to include the effects ofthe adoption ofEuropean
power supply standards on U.S. microwave manufacturers.

DOE has analyzed the data which was submitted during the comment period and found the data to be contradictory in part. The comments summarized above indicate technological barriers to improving the effiCiency ofmicrowave

ovens above the baseline value of54 percent. However, AHAM data (AHAM, No. 001 at B-l) reports efficiency/cavity volume and effiCiency/oven type which show many units above 54 percent efficiency and a Significant number above 57 percent, thus indicatingthe technology exists to improve the efficiency ofthe ovens. Moreover, because this design option was not contained in any standard levels the Department found to be economically justified in today's rule, the Department does not consider it to be an issue in this rulemaking.

Modified Waveguide

Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM. No. 001 at 11) commented that only a small efficiency improvement
may be available on some microwave

ovens by reducing the length or improvingthe finish onthe waveguides. Many ofthe ovens produced in 1993 already have these new features. Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool. No. 599 at 3) agreed with this comment and said that this design option should be dropped. He also said that it is possible to increase the coupling between the magnetron and the cavity for a specific load in such a way that the effiCiency would improve for that specific load. However, there were several significant disadvantages to this tight coupling which he supplied in his written
comments. D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 4) commentedthat this design option would reqUire the redesign and retooling ofthe waveguide since the waveguide itselfis an integral part of the cavity design. and a separate part wouldbe necessary in orderto reduce the material costs. Cost estimates were provided in the written comments. The Department believes these comments

are well founded. Therefore, this design option was eliminated.

Microwave Oven Fan Efficiency

Les Harris (Sharp Electronics Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 282- 284) commented that the effiCiency increase and associated cost increase with the fan in the TSD are in error. Various options are listed and agreement with the TSD is possible (at 0.8 percent increase), but the cost increase is $7 to $8.22, not $1.05 as stated in the TSD. This cost would significantly extend the payback period. Also, the improvement previously stated requires an electronically commuted DC motor. which has been theoretically proven. but not proven in practice.

Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM. No. 001 at 11) commented that manufacturers' data indicates that most fans use between 15 and 32 watts of
power, but some use a high of75 watts. AHAM supplied data which shows an increased efficiency fan. which uses 15.2 watts over the "standard" fan which uses approximately 21 watts, at

an additional cost of $2.20. Ifan electronically commuted DC motor were used. the power would be reduced to 7.7 watts at an additional cost of $8.25.

D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 4) commented that a more efficient fan
motor could be manufactured without a capital investment but would reqUire engineering and testing to qualify the component. The revised motor is assumed to be directly interchangeable with the current motor and not reqUire

a tooling investment. Cost estimates

were provided in the written comments.

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) commentedthat fans use about 25
watts and an efficiency improvement of 10% amounts to 2.5 watts. He stated this improvement could possibly double the cost ofthe fan which increases the payback period. while providing minimal energy saVings. He

### Federal Register/

### Vol. 63, 

### No. 173 

### /Tuesday, September 

### 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 

## 48045

recommended deletingthis design out that in 1979 (whenthe FTC first and new reflective surfaces.The TSD option. considered labeling ranges),a total accountsfor onlythe wave guide. The

The Department incorporated this annual operating cost savings difference oral testimony was also supportedby data in the Draft Report analysis which of $7.00would have been considered written comments (MCD Corporation, showed a decreased efficiency significantby consumers. The $6.47 No. 742 at 1-20). improvement at increased cost. figure translates into $3.33in 1979 Jack Weizeorick andCharles Samuels



### c. 

### Other Comments dollars,less than half of what the FTC (AHAM,No. 001 at 1) 

### commented that deemed to be a significant cost savings the proposed standardsformicrowave Significance of Energy Savings to consumers. ovens would "eliminate the last Whirlpool (No. 391 at 6) 

### also remaining U.S.production and may H. Brooke Stauffer (AHAM, commented that DOE standards could concentrate U.S. sales in the hands of Transcript, Apr. 7 at 169, 170) affect eight differentWhirlpool product only one or two companies." J.Geary commented that AHAM does not categories.The cost of compliance in (Peerless-PremierAppliance Co.,NO. believe a performance standard is each product category will likely be 352 at 1)commented about the adverse justified because the amount of energy millions 

### to 

### many tens 

### of millions 

### of economic impact and the potential saved is insignificant. AHAM argued dollars. 

### Whirlpool argued that 

### the 

### lessening of competition that the that the 

### energy savings are 

### exaggerated cumulative impact of addingranges, proposed standards would have on his and the costs understated. AHAM said 

### ovens, and 

### cooktops,when coupled company. He commented that DOE and this position was based ontests with the "diminutive energy savings," the Attorney Generalhad not adequately and data which 

### suggests the makes energy standards for thisproduct evaluated the impact of the standardson costs reported in the TSD are one-third 

### category unjustifiable. 

### small manufacturers. one-fourththe 

### manufacturer's The Departmenthas recalculated life- 

### D. Horstman (Maytag,No. 490 at 3) cost to implement various design cycle costsusingthe latest Annual commented that the proposed options. M. Thompson (Whirlpool, Energy Outlook (AEO)energy prices standards,if enacted,would force Transcript, Apr. 7 at 205, 206) gave available at the time ofthe analysis. The Maytagto spendmillions of dollars at annual cost savings forvarious design Draft Report used AEO 95 energyprices, its plants with considerable competitive options and argued that their collective and the supplemental analysis used disadvantage compared to itsprimary savings were small. AEO 97 energy prices. In addition, the competitors. He said Maytag may have

MIAM (AHAM,No. 001 at 6) further Gas Research Institute (GRI)97 prices to discontinue lower volume product commented that because the energy were used for abasis of comparison in lines and thus, further reduce used by ranges is minor, the proposed the Supplemental Analysis. competition in the marketplace. standardsdonot meet thethreshold D. Wilson (Frigidaire,No. 544 at 5) NAECA criterionthat an amended Test Procedures commented that the economic impact standard must result in "significant Therewere many comments onthe on the Dalton Microwave Operations conservation of energy" under Section test procedures, including annual would be significant if it needed to 325 (0)(3)(B). AHAM argued that the energyconsumption.These comments, redesign its products to meet the total projected energy savings from however, were discussed and resolved proposed DOE requirements. He added proposed range performance standards inthe Test Procedure Final Rule for thatbecause only a few U.S. companies

are solow that the standard's benefits Kitchen Ranges, Cooktops, Ovens, and continue to manufacture this product, will not exceed its burdens as required Microwave Ovens. 62 FR 51976 the addition of more economic burden under Section 325 (0)(2)(B)(i)(111). (October 3, 1997). will likely cause the remaining smaller

While the term "significant" is not Economichardship manufacturers to close down,allowing defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of the importers to completely take over Appeals for the District of Columbia JoannPrater (MCD Corporation, the market. Circuit concluded that Congress Transcript,Apr. 7 at 276-277) Becausethe Department found in intended the word "significant" to mean commented that MCD Corporation today's rule that standardsfor "non-trivial." 

### Natural Resources ~ould probably go out ofbusiness ifthe microwave ovens are not economically 

### Defense Councilv. 

### Herrington. 768 F.2d new microwaveruling isenacted forthe justified, today's rule will not result in 1355, 1373 (D.C.Cir. 1985).Thus,for followingreasons: MCD Corporation is any economic hardship. this rulemaking,DOE concludes that at a small,single-line product company each trial standard level the estimated which recently invested $5M in tooling MicrowaveNoise 

### at HigherEfficiency energy savings is non-trivial and for a new, more efficient oven which is RobertLagoussie,International therefore significant. scheduled to enter the market this year. MicrowavePower Institute (April 7, at This new oven,however, does not meet 310-313), R.D.Parlow (National Life Cycle Costs the new efficiencystandard proposed in Telecommunications and Information



### D. Karl Landstrom (Battelle, the NOPR. The company would not be Administration,No. 689 at I),Jack Transcript, Apr. 7 at 233-234) able to capture its investment during the Weizeorick and Charles Samuels commented that the life cycle cost data shorter period its new product would be (AHAM,No. 001 at 9-10) commented should be updated by DOE to use on the market, and MCD could not that a microwave oven produces
current DOE Energy Information retool for another new oven to be electronic noise outside the normal Administration estimatesof future cost manufactured by the effectivedateof frequency spectrum of 2,400 to 2,500 projections rather than the 1991 the new standards. Shealso commented MHz. There can be considerable estimated projections. that several assumptions in the TSD are electronic noise inthe 2 to 3 GHz range

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at incorrect. She maintained that the cost which affects other devices (broadcast/ 5) commented that if 

### all of DOE'Sfirst to retool is understated because the TSD cellular phone), and more noise is seven design options were to be did not include the additional costs to generated asthe efficiency of the incorporated into a new standard self- redesign features such asthe power microwave increases. The International clean electricrange, the total annual supply,the fan,the modified SpecialCommitteeonElectromagnetic
cost savingswould be $6 47. He pointed waveguide, an improved magnetron, Interference is considering a new noise 

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

### 48045

recommended deleting this design option.

The Department incorporated this data in the Draft Report analysis which showed a decreased efficiency improvement at increased cost.

e. 

### Other Comments Significance ofEnergy Savings

H. Brooke Stauffer (AHAM, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 169, 170) commented that AHAM does not believe a performance standard is justifiedbecause the amount ofenergy saved is insignificant. AHAM argued that the energy savings are exaggerated and the costs understated. AHAM said this position was based ontests conducted and data which suggests the
costs reported in the TSD are one-third
to one-fourth the actual manufacturer's
cost to implement various design options. M. Thompson (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 205,206) gave annual cost savings for various design options and argued that their collective savings were small.

AHAM (AHAM, No. 001 at 6) further commentedthat because the energy used by ranges is minor, the proposed standards do not meetthe threshold NAECA criterion that an amended standard mustresult in "significant conservation ofenergy" under Section 325 (0)(3)(B). AHAM argued that the total projected energy savings from proposed range performance standards

are so lowthat the standard's benefits will not exceed its burdens as reqUired under Section 325 (0)(2)(B)(i)(IlI).

While the term "significant" is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit concludedthat Congress intended the word "significant" to mean "non-trivial." 

### Natural Resources Defense Councilv. 

### Herrington. 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C.Cir. 1985). Thus, for this rulemaking, DOE concludes that at each trial standard level the estimated
energy savings is non-trivial and therefore Significant.

Life Cycle Costs

D. Karl Landstrom (Battelle, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 233-234) commented thatthe life cycle cost data should be updated by DOE to use current DOE Energy Information Administration estimates offuture cost projections rather than the 1991 estimated projections.

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 5) commented that ifall ofDOE's first

seven design options were to be incorporated into a new standard selfclean electric range, the total annual
cost savings would be $6.47. He pointed outthat in 1979 (when the FTC first considered labeling ranges), a total annual operating cost savings difference of$7.00 would have been considered significantby consumers. The $6.47 figure translates into $3.33 in 1979 dollars, less than halfofwhatthe FTC deemed to be a Significant cost savings
to consumers.

Whirlpool (No. 391 at 6) also commentedthat DOE standards could affect eight different Whirlpool product categories. The cost ofcompliance in each product category will likely be millions to manytens ofmillions of dollars. Whirlpool argued that the cumulative impact ofaddingranges, ovens, and cooktops, when coupled with the "diminutive energy savings," makes energy standards for this product category unjustifiable.

The Departmenthas recalculated lifecycle costs usingthe latest Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) energy prices available at the time ofthe analysis. The Draft Report used AEO 95 energy prices, and the supplemental analysis used AEO 97 energy prices. In addition, the Gas Research Institute (GRI) 97 prices

were used for a basis ofcomparison in the Supplemental AnalysiS.

Test Procedures

There were many comments onthe
test procedures, including annual
energy consumption. These comments, however, were discussed and resolved in the Test Procedure Final Rule for Kitchen Ranges, Cooktops, Ovens, and Microwave Ovens. 62 FR 51976 (October 3, 1997).

Economic hardship

Joann Prater (MCD Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 276-277) commented that MCD Corporation would probably go out ofbusiness ifthe

new microwave ruling is enacted for the follOWing reasons: MCD Corporation is

a small, single-line product company which recently invested $5M in tooling for a new, more efficient oven which is scheduled to enterthe market this year. This new oven, however, does not meet the new effiCiency standard proposed in the NOPR. The company would not be able to capture its investment during the shorter period its new product would be

on the market, and MCD could not retool for another new oven to be manufactured by the effective date of the new standards. She also commented that several assumptions in the TSD are incorrect. She maintained that the cost to retool is understated because the TSD did not include the additional costs to redesign features such as the power supply, the fan, the modified waveguide, an improved magnetron, and new reflective surfaces. The TSD
accounts for onlythe wave gUide. The oral testimony was also supported by written comments (MCD Corporation, No. 742 at 1-20).

Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 1) commented that the proposed standards for microwave

ovens would "eliminate the last remaining U.S. production and may concentrate U.S. sales in the hands of only one ortwo companies." 

### J. Geary (Peerless-Premier Appliance Co., No. 352 at 1) commented about the adverse economic impact and the potential lessening ofcompetition that the proposed standards would have on his
company. He commented that DOE and the Attorney General had not adequately evaluated the impact ofthe standards on small manufacturers.

D. Horstman (Maytag, No. 490 at 3) commented that the proposed standards, ifenacted, would force Maytag to spend millions ofdollars at its plants with considerable competitive disadvantage compared to its primary competitors. He said Maytag may have
to discontinue lower volume product lines and thus, further reduce competition in the marketplace.

D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 5) commented that the economic impact

on the Dalton Microwave Operations would be significant ifit needed to redesign its productsto meet the proposed DOE requirements. He added thatbecause only a few U.S. companies continue to manufacture this product, the addition ofmore economic burden will likely cause the remaining smaller manufacturers to close down, allowing the importers to completelytake over the market.

Because the Department found in today's rule that standards for microwave ovens are not economically justified, today's rule will not result in
any economic hardship.

Microwave Noise at Higher Efficiency

Robert Lagoussie, International Microwave Power Institute (April 7, at 310-313), R.D. Parlow (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, No. 689 at 1), Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 9-10) commented that a microwave oven produces electronic noise outside the normal frequency spectrum of 2,400 to 2,500 MHZ. There can be considerable electronic noise inthe 2 to 3 GHz range which affects other deVices (broadcast! cellular phone), and more noise is generated as the efficiency ofthe microwave increases. The International Special Committee on Electromagnetic Interference is considering a new noise

### 48046 Federal RegisterIVol. 63, No. 173 

### I Tuesday, September 

### 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

standard thisyear which would reduce GRIM was dated March 1, 1993and was in energy use among consumers the magnetron noise level requirement developed by the Arthur D. Little preparing identical meals (50and 60 from 85to 99 decibels currently to a Consulting Company (ADL)under percent differences respectively). new standard of 30to 40 decibels. contract to AHAM,the Gas Appliance AHAM recommend that DOE establish Amana Refrigeration, Inc. (No. 347 at 6) Manufacturers Association (GAMA), consumer education programs as a commented that theFCC has indicated and the Air-conditioning and national priority for savingenergy, in that future requirementsfor noise Refrigeration Institute (ARI). (See TSD, lieu ofmandatory product performance interference will be tightened Appendix Cfor more details.) The standards. G. Greulich (Whirlpool, substantially.Amana said that design results ofthis analysis are reported in Transcript, Apr. 7 at 220) also changes employed to achieve reduced section 111. c. oftoday's rule. However, commented that more emphasis should noise will reduce the unit's efficiency. these results were not utilized in be placed on consumer education rather

The National Telecommunications comingto the conclusions reported in than engineering redesign ofthe ranges. and Information Administration, section 111. e.All trial standard levels in R. Markum (Emerson Electric Co.,NO. submitted comments on behalf of U.S. today's rule were rejected based on 366 at 5) commented that much more microwave manufacturers,expressing consumer economics. Therefore, a potential energy savings exist through

concern that the Department's interest revised manufacturer impact analysis consumer education on the proper in increasing microwave oven efficiency was not necessary, methods to achieve maximum cooking
may be counterproductive to efforts efficiency rather than through being made to control radio noise. Rebound Effect mandatory efficiency standards. Lyn Increased microwave magnetron ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 3) Cook (IndependentHome Economist, efficiency could raise radio noise levels, commented that it did not understand No. 749 at 

### 2) commented that informing thereby, increasing the potential for DOE'Sestimate of 10%rebound effect the consumer on howto make optimal interference (National for cooking, because this rebound effect use of energy efficient cookingmethods Telecommunicationsand Information impliesthat households purchasing is key to reducingthe total amount of Administration, No. 689 at 1).

### The efficient ranges and ovenswould cook energyused. She quoted 18points from Department finds intoday's rule that more. ACEEE's Consumer Guide to Home this design option is not economically A ten percent rebound effectwas not Energy Savingswhich demonstrate how justified; therefore, this rule will not used in the analysis. A rebound effectof significant energy variances can be

cause increased noise. less than one percent was used. eliminated. Mark Krebs (Laclede Gas, Manufacturer Impact EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 18 at 2) Microwave OvensNot Covered Under commented that the 

### goals of

### energy In the Proposed Rule, DOE conducted NAECA efficiency and conservation are more a manufacturer impact analysis using Jack Weizeorickand CharlesSamuels likely to be achieved through facilitating the LBL Manufacturer Impact Model (AHAM, NO. 

### 001 at 2) 

### argued that consumer education rather than to (LBL-MIM) asdescribed inthe TSD nothing in the statutorylanguageof simply dictate or restrict choices of accompanyingthe 1994Proposed Rule. NAECA required or indicated that technology. Many commentswere received microwave ovens should fallwithin the The Department isrequired by statute regarding this analysis. In the revised definition of 

### "kitchen ranges and to promulgate energy efficiency analysis which supported the Draft ovens" in Section 322(a)(lO) as opposed standardsfor cookingproducts if Report,the Department used a computer to other covered products. economically justified andtechnically model that simulates a hypothetical The Department has previously feasible. EPCA,

### 5 325,42 U.S.C. $i 

### 6295. company to assess the likely impactsof determined that microwaveovens fall The Department's ENERGY STARB standards on manufacturers and to within the definition of "kitchen ranges program helpsto educate consumerson determine the effectsof standardson the and ovens," 43

### FR 20108 way 10, the purchase of more energy efficient industry at large.This model, the 1978). appliances. The program is increasing Manufacturer Analysis Model (MAM)

,

### is continually the list of products the described inthe TSD. Appendix C Baseline Values Incorrectin TSD program covers. One of the criteria the provides a broad array of outputs, Jack Weizeorickand Charles Samuels program uses to determine which including shipments,price, revenue,net (AHAM,No. 001 at 7-9) commented products it should addto the program income, and short- and long-run returns that the microwave oven baseline value is an evaluation of whether there is a

on equity. The "Output Table" in for shipment weighted average wide range of energy efficiencies among AppendixClists values for allthese efficiency of 54.5 percent used in the the products inthe marketplace. outputs forthe base case and for each TSD forthe Proposed Rule is based on Becausethere are not a wide range of of the five standard levels analyzed. It AHAM data ofmicrowaveovens efficiencies for cookingproducts, they also gives a range for each of these shipped in 1989.More recent shipment have not been addedto the Energy Star estimates. The base case representsthe data shows a new, higher value of 55.8 program thus far. forecasts of outputswith a range of 

### percent' No. 

### 557 at 

### 23) d. Other Comments Regarding theDraft energy efficiencies which are expected commented that DOE should redo its if there are no new or amended analysis after it reduces the average Report andSupplemental Analysis
standards.A "Sensitivity Chart" (TSD, baseline consumption ofovens and Marcia Copeland (BettyCrocker,EEAppendixC) showshow returns on cooktops to be in line with recent data RM-S-97-700 NO.5 at 1-3) statedthat equity would be affectedby a change in by utilities and GRI. The Department the Draft Report did not addressthe any one of the nine controlvariables of agreed and incorporated the 55.8 implication of the changes to the the model. The Manufacturer Analysis percent number into the DraftReport proposed rule on consumers. She also Model consists of 13modules. The analvsis. requested DOE provide a glossaryof module which estimatesthe impact of terms. standards on total industry net present 

### Consumer DOE does analyze the effectsof its value isversion 1.2 ofthe Government AHAM (No.001 at 16)stated that two rulemakings on consumers. For Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM).The reports indicated significant variations example,the Department abolished the 

### 48046 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

standard this year which would reduce the magnetron noise level requirement from 85 to 99 decibels currently to a

new standard of 30 to 40 decibels. AmanaRefrigeration, Inc. (No. 347 at 6) commentedthat the FCC has indicated that future requirements for noise interference willbe tightened substantially. Amana said that design changes employedto achieve reduced noise will reduce the unit's efficiency.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, submitted comments on behalfofU.S. microwave manufacturers, expressing

concern that the Department's interest in increasing microwave oven efficiency
may be counterproductive to efforts being made to control radio noise. Increased microwave magnetron efficiency could raise radio noise levels, thereby, increasingthe potential for interference (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, No. 689 at 1). The Department finds in today's rule that this design option is not economically justified; therefore, this rule will not

cause increased noise.

Manufacturer Impact

In the Proposed Rule, DOE conducted

a manufacturer impact analysis using the LBL Manufacturer ImpactModel (LBL-MIM) as described in the TSD accompanyingthe 1994 Proposed Rule. Many comments were received regarding this analysis. In the revised analysis which supported the Draft Report, the Department used a computer model that simulates a hypothetical
companyto assess the likely impacts of standards on manufacturers and to determine the effects ofstandards on the industry at large. This model, the Manufacturer Analysis Model (MAM), is described in the TSD. Appendix C provides a broad array ofoutputs, including shipments, price, revenue, net income, and short- and long-run returns

on eqUity. The "OutputTable" in Appendix C lists values for all these outputs for the base case and for each ofthe five standard levels analyzed. It also gives a range for each ofthese estimates. The base case represents the forecasts ofoutputs with a range of
energy efficiencies which are expected ifthere are no new or amended standards. A "Sensitivity Chart" (TSD, Appendix C) shows how returns on equity would be affected by a change in
anyone ofthe nine control variables of the model. The Manufacturer Analysis Model consists of 13 modules. The module which estimates the impact of standards on total industry net present value is version 1.2 ofthe Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). The GRIM was dated March I, 1993 and was developed by the Arthur D. Little Consulting Company (ADL) under
contract to AHAM, the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI). (See TSD, AppendiX C for more details.) The results ofthis analysis are reported in section III. c. oftoday's rule. However, these results were not utilized in coming to the conclusions reported in section III. e. All trial standard levels in today's rule were rejected based on

consumer economics. Therefore, a revised manufacturer impact analysis

was not necessary.
Rebound Effect

ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 3) commented that it did not understand DOE's estimate of 10% rebound effect for cooking, because this rebound effect implies that households purchasing efficient ranges and ovens would cook

more.

A ten percent rebound effect was not used in the analysis. A rebound effect of less than one percent was used.

Microwave Ovens Not Covered Under NAECA

Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 2) argued that nothing in the statutory language of NAECA required or indicated that microwave ovens should fall within the definition of "kitchen ranges and ovens" in Section 322(a)(lO) as opposed
to othercovered products.

The Department has previously determined that microwave ovens fall within the definition of "kitchenranges and ovens." 43 FR 20108 (May 10, 1978).

Baseline Values Incorrect in TSD

Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 7-9) commented that the microwave oven baseline value for Shipment weighted average efficiency of 54.5 percentused in the TSD for the Proposed Rule is based on AHAM data ofmicrowave ovens shipped in 1989. More recent shipment data shows a new, higher value of 55.8 percent. ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should redo its analysis after it reduces the average baseline consumption ofovens and cooktops to be in line with recent data by utilities and GRI. The Department agreed and incorporated the 55.8 percent number into the Draft Report analysis.

Consumer Education Programs

AHAM (No. 001 at 16) stated that two reports indicated significant variations in energy use among consumers preparing identical meals (50 and 60 percent differences respectively). AHAM recommend that DOE establish

consumer education programs as a national priority for savingenergy, in lieu ofmandatory product performance standards. G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 220) also commented that more emphasis should be placed on consumer education rather than engineering redesign ofthe ranges. R. Markum (Emerson ElectriC Co., No. 366 at 5) commented that much more potential energy savings exist through

consumer education on the proper methods to achieve maximum cooking efficiency rather than through mandatory efficiency standards. Lyn Cook (Independent Home Economist, No. 749 at 2) commented that informing the consumer on how to make optimal

use ofenergy efficient cooking methods is key to reducing the total amount of
energy used. She quoted 18 points from ACEEE's Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings which demonstrate how significant energy variances can be eliminated. Mark Krebs (Laclede Gas, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 18 at 2) commented that the goals ofenergy efficiency and conservation are more likelyto be achieved through facilitating

consumer education rather than to simply dictate or restrict choices of technology

.

The Department is required by statute to promulgate energy efficiency standards for cooking products if economicallyjustified and technically feasible. EPCA. § 325,42 U.s.C. § 6295. The Department's ENERGY STAR®
program helps to educate consumers on the purchase ofmore energy efficient appliances. The program is increasing continually the list ofproducts the
program covers. One ofthe criteria the
program uses to determine which products it should add to the program is an evaluation ofwhether there is a wide range ofenergy efficiencies among the products in the marketplace. Because there are not a wide range of efficiencies for cooking products, they have not been added to the Energy Star
programthus far.



### d. Other Comments Regarding theDraft ReportandSupplementalAnalysis

Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EERM-S-97-700 No.5 at 1-3) stated that the Draft Report did not address the implication ofthe changes to the proposed rule on consumers. She also requested DOE provide a glossary of
terms.

DOE does analyze the effects ofits rulemakings on consumers. For example, the Department abolished the

### Federal Register/Vol. 

### 63, No. 

### 173 /Tuesday, September 

### 8, 1998 

### /Rules and Regulations 

### 48047

design option that eliminated the oven but given the modest savingsof a and adversely affects investment and door window because of the adverse standard, the burden ofperformance redesign decisions. Amana (Amana,EEimpact it would have on consumer testing, and the fact that the rulemaking RM-S-97-700 No. 38 at 1)emphasized utility. Becausetoday's rule does not is already years behind, public interest the importance of finalizing the electric impose additional efficiency isbest served by finalizing a "no range and microwave oven portions of requirements on cookingproducts, the standard" standard for electric products. the rule as soon aspossible and Department concludes that today's rule Mark Krebs (LacledeGas,EE-RM-S- separately,if necessary, from the gas will not impact consumers. 97-700 No. 18at 1)

### questioned how cookingproducts rule. Amana cited the

The first time the Department uses an DOE could state that the record for adverse effects the delay has caused on
acronym,the Department spellsit out, electric cookingproducts is complete if planning and investment. Whirlpool for example, "Technical Support performance data on electric ovens does (Whirlpool,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 33at Document (TSD)";then the Department not exist. In the reopening notice of 4) stated that it hasbeen waiting eight

uses the acronym (e.g.TSD) throughout February 27, 1998, however,the years for a final rule,which has not the rest of the document. The Department statedthat DOE believed allowed them tobe completely freeto Department, however, agrees a glossary the record was complete for eIectric dedicate resources to innovative is a good suggestion, and the cooktops, electric self-cleaning ovens, consumer features, without setting them Department will provide a glossaryin and microwave ovens. The Department forth. Consequently, Whirlpoolurged the TSD. did not statethe record was complete DOE to issue a seoarate rule for electric Electric Non-Self-cleaning Ovens

In the reopening notice of February 27, 1998,DOE indicated a likelihood of
not establishing standards for electric non-self-cleaning ovens.Many
commenters supportedno standards for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. Whirlpool (Whirlpool,EE-RM-S-97- 700 No. 33at 2) stated that no improved venting or insulation for electric nonself-cleaning ovens would meet all of DOE's minimum economic andutility requirements or its energy savings requirements under NAECA. Whirlpool supportedthe Department's decision not to establish performance standards for any electric cookingproducts. Whirlpool (Whirlpool,EE-RM-S-97- 700No. 6 at 1)stated that the cost of compliance testing would be greater than the potential energy savings of the design options. Maytag (Maytag,EERM-S-97-700 No. 9 at 4) supported DOE's conclusions regarding venting and insulating improvements on electric non-self-cleaGing electric ranges. AHAM (AHAM.EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2)

### supported DOE's conclusion that no standards are appropriate for microwave ovensor other electric cooking products. AHAM (AHAM,EERM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) also cited cumulative regulatory burden placed on the manufacturers (due to the refrigerator, room air conditioner, and clothes washer rules) as another reason why standardsfor cookingproducts are inappropriate.

Steve Nadel (ACEEE,EE-RM-S-97- 700 No. 32 at 2) supported no new standard for 

### electrknon-self-cleaning ovens. However, ACEEE disagreed with the rationale that the Department cannot be certain that all products if vented and insulated like self-cleaning counterparts will meet a specificperformance standardbecause DOE can never be sure that a specific design option will always achieve a specific performance level. DOE could perform additional testing, for electric non-self-cleaningov&s. The Department issued the February 1998 notice in order to complete the record.

The American Gas Association (AGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 37 at 11-1

### 2) commented that the Department has not shown adequate justification for not issuing standards for electric cooking products. AGA commented that the analysis shows a performance standard for electric non-self-cleaning ovens is technologically feasible, economically justified, and will save significant energy. AGA stated that DOE's argument that no performance or usage data exists forthese products (thereforeit is unknown if they could meet a performance standard with improved insulation & 

### venting) would imply that DOE would not pursue standards for
any NAECA products where data did
not already exist. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA,EE-RM-S-97- 700 No. 31at 2) concurred with AGA's
comments.

As discussed under "design options," the Department has received information from manufacturers indicating that their self-cleaningand non-self-cleaning ovens typically already use the same venting, and the Department has probably overstated the energy savings.The Department also believes that it has shown adequate justification (seeSection "111. e. Conclusion") for rejecting standards for electric cookingproducts. Separating the Rule

Many commenters requested the Department split off certain products from thisrule and finalize the rule for those products immediately. AHAM (AHAM,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2) commented that the electric range and

oven and microwave oven portion of this rulemaking shouldbe finalized immediately. AHAM stated that failure
to finalize this rule has created uncertainty among manufacturers, component suppliers,and other parties cookingproducts'immediately. Sharp (Sharp,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 35 at 1)fully supportedDOE's conclusion that establishingnew or revised energy conservation standards for microwave ovens are not technologically feasible or economically justified. Sharp requested that DOE separate microwave ovens fromthe other consumer products identified in the notice and issue, without delay, a final determination that DOE will not establish any energy conservation standardsfor microwave ovens. Sharp commented that such a final pronouncement by DOE will remove the lingering uncertainty that hashindered the microwave oven industry.

Due to requests that the rule be split in order to issue a final rule for electric cooking products without further delay, the Department has severedthe electric cookingproducts fromthe gas cooking products inthis rule. Energy Rates

Commenters recommended that the Department should use the latest energy price forecasts and the Consumer Marginal Energy Rates (CMER)as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy EfficiencyStandards (ACAES).Sharp (Sharp,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 35 at 2) commented that if consumer marginal energy rates were used inthe calculations for microwave ovens,it would greatly increase the payback period, which already extends beyond the economically acceptable timeframe. AGA (AGA,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 37 at 9) also commented that DOE should use the latest AEO price projections and the energy cost recommendations ofthe ACAES. TheNational Propane Gas Association (NPGA,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 31 at 2) concurred with AGA's comments. Edison Electric Institute (EEI,EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 21 at 1) commented that the analysis should be changed to showthe results of 

### Federal Register/Vol. 

### 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

## 48047

design option that eliminated the oven door window because ofthe adverse impact it would have on consumer utility. Because today's rule does not impose additional efficiency requirements on cookingproducts, the Department concludes that today's rule will not impact consumers.

The first time the Department uses an acronym, the Department spells it out, for example, "Technical Support Document (TSD)"; then the Department

uses the acronym (e.g. TSD) throughout the rest ofthe document. The Department, however, agrees a glossary is a good suggestion, and the Department will provide a glossary in the TSD.

Electric Non-Self-Cleaning Ovens

In the reopening notice ofFebruary 27, 1998, DOE indicated a likelihood of
not establishing standards for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. Many
commenters supported no standards for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. Whirlpool (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97- 700 No. 33 at 2) stated that no improved venting or insulation for electric nonself-cleaning ovens would meet all of DOE's minimum economic and utility requirements or its energy savings reqUirements under NAECA. Whirlpool supportedthe Department's decision
not to establish performance standards for any electric cookingproducts. Whirlpool (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97- 700 No.6 at 1) stated that the cost of compliance testing would be greater than the potential energy savings ofthe design options. May tag (Maytag, EERM-S-97-700 No.9 at 4) supported DOE's conclusions regarding venting and insulating improvements on electric non-self-cleaning electric ranges.

AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2) supported DOE's conclusion that no standards are appropriate for microwave ovens or other electric cooking products. AHAM (AHAM, EERM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) also cited cumulative regulatory burden placed on the manufacturers (due to the refrigerator, room air conditioner, and clothes washer rules) as another reason why standards for cooking products are inappropriate.

Steve Nadel (ACEEE, EE-RM-S-97- 700 No. 32 at 2) supported no new standard for electric non-self-cleaning

ovens. However, ACEEE disagreed with the rationale that the Department cannot be certain that all products ifvented and insulated like self-cleaning counterparts will meet a specific performance standard because DOE can never be sure that a specific design option will always achieve a specific performance level. DOE could perform additionaltesting, butgiven the modest savings ofa standard, the burden ofperformance testing, and the fact that the rulemaking is alreadyyears behind, public interest is best served by finalizing a "no standard" standard for electric products.

Mark Krebs (Laclede Gas, EE-RM-S97-700 No. 18 at 1) questioned how DOE could state that the record for electric cooking products is complete if performance data on electric ovens does
not exist. In the reopening notice of February 27, 1998, however, the Department statedthat DOE believed the record was complete for electric cooktops, electric self-cleaning ovens, and microwave ovens. The Department did not state the record was complete for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. The Department issuedthe February 1998 notice in orderto complete the record.

The American Gas Association (AGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 37 at 11-12) commented that the Department has not shown adequatejustification for not issuing standards for electric cooking products. AGA commentedthat the analysis shows a performance standard for electric non-self-cleaning ovens is technologically feasible, economically justified, and will save Significant
energy. AGA stated that DOE's argument that no performance or usage data exists for these products (therefore it is unknown ifthey could meet a performance standard with improved insulation &venting) would imply that DOE would not pursue standards for
any NAECA products where data did
not already exist. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA. EE-RM-S-97- 700 No. 31 at 2) concurred with AGA's
comments.

As discussed under "design options," the Department has received information from manufacturers indicatingthat their self-cleaning and non-self-cleaning ovens typically already use the same venting, and the Department has probably overstated the
energy saVings. The Department also believes that it has shown adequate justification (see Section "III. e. Conclusion") for rejecting standards for electric cooking products. Separatingthe Rule

Many commenters requested the Department split offcertain products from this rule and finalize the rule for those products immediately. AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2) commented that the electric range and

oven and microwave oven portion of this rulemaking should be finalized immediately. AHAM stated that failure
to finalize this rule has created uncertainty among manufacturers, component suppliers, and other parties and adversely affects investment and redesign decisions. Amana (Amana, EERM-S-97-700 No. 38 at 1) emphasized the importance offinaliZing the electric
range and microwave oven portions of the rule as soon as possible and separately, ifnecessary, from the gas cooking products rule. Amana cited the adverse effects the delay has caused on planning and investment. Whirlpool (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 33 at 4) stated that ithas been waiting eight
years for a final rule, which has not allowed themto be completely free to dedicate resources to innovative

consumer features, without setting them forth. Consequently, Whirlpool urged DOE to issue a separate rule for electric cooking products immediately.

Sharp (Sharp, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 35 at 1) fully supported DOE's conclusion that establishingnew or revised energy conservation standards for microwave ovens are not technologically feasible or economically justified. Sharp requested that DOE separate microwave ovens from the otherconsumer products identified in the notice and issue, Without delay, a final determination that DOE will not establish any energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. Sharp commented that such a final pronouncement by DOE will remove the lingering uncertainty that has hindered the microwave oven industry.

Due to requests that the rule be split in orderto issue a final rule for electric cooking products without further delay, the Department has severedthe electric cooking products from the gas cooking products in this rule. Energy Rates

Commenters recommended that the Department should use the latest energy price forecasts and the Consumer Marginal Energy Rates (CMER) as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (ACAES). Sharp (Sharp, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 35 at 2) commented that ifconsumer marginal
energy rates were used in the calculations for microwave ovens, it would greatly increase the payback period, which already extends beyond the economically acceptable timeframe. AGA CAGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 37 at 9) also commented that DOE should use the latest AEO price projections and the
energy cost recommendations ofthe ACAES. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 31 at 2) concurred with AGA's
comments. Edison Electric Institute (EEL EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 21 at 1) commented that the analysis should be changed to showthe results of

## 48048 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173 /Tuesday, September 

### 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

calculations over a range of marginal energy prices, which would lead to more accurate ranges of life-cycle-costs, rather than using "average" prices. EEI statedthat the avoided energy cost rates using AEO 98 are lowerthan the rates used in the DOE analysis. EEI also commented that discount factorsfor this type of consumer appliance are prbbably too low. ~h'addition, EEI commented that if the peak demand savings are assuming 100%coincidence with utility peak demands, 100% diversity,and 100% load factors,then the values aretoo high and shouldbe adjusted downward to reflect actual coincidence, diversity, and load factors. AHAM (AHAM,EE-RM-S-97-700 NO. 26 at 

### 2) also commented that AEO 98 and CMER should be used. AHAM statedthat these lower electricity rates would result in even longerpaybacks for any possible standard level.

The Department is committed to certain procedures under the Process Rule. 61 FR 36973 (July15, 1996). These procedures, however, do not apply entirely to certain rules already underway, 6 1FR at 36980, including the cookingproducts rulemaking.The Supplemental Analysis, conducted in 1997,did use the most current energy price forecasts available at that time. In addition, the Advisory Committee had not yet made its recommendations to the Department regardingCMER at the time the SupplementalAnalysiswas conducted. Furthermore, using these lower energy rates would not increase the likelihood that standards for electric cooking products would be economically iustified because lower energypriceswould only increase the payback period and decreasethe lifecycle-cost savings. Consequently,the Departmentdid not expend the resources to reanalyzethe data using these new energy rates. Regardingpeak demand savings,the Department agrees with EEI and did not assume 100 percent diversity, coincidence, or load factors. See Appendix E of the General Methodology in the TSD for a more complete explanation.

EEI questioned whether an energy efficiencystandard should discuss emissions and environmental impacts. EEI commented that the Draft Report downplays the reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants, on an overall and
per kwhbasis, and it does not appear that the report shows a decline in emissions for theyears 2001-2030. EEI also statedthat the impact of restructured electricity markets could have a significant impact on emissions, as customers choose their preference of generation sources. The Department
agreesthat forecast emission rates for NOx, SOz,and COz dofall over time. Emission rates may be affectedby restructuring, but given the absence of clear indications of this effect, it was not incor~orated into the analysis.



### 111. 

### AnalysisofElectric Cooking Products Standards

Revised standards for cooking products shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that istechnologically feasible and economically justified. These and related statutory criteria are addressed below.

a. EfficiencyLevelsAnalyzed

TheDepartment examined a range of standard levels for cookingproducts. Table 4-1 presents the five efficiency levelsthat had been selected for analysis for the five classes of electric cookingproducts. Level 5 corresponds to the highest efficiencylevel,max tech, considered in the engineering analysis. Thefinal TSD contains the information analyzed in the Draft Report and the supplemental analysis.



### TABLE 4-1 .-ANNUAL 

### ENERGY USEFOR 

### STANDARD LEVELS 

### ANALYZED IN THE 

### PROPOSED RULE FOR 

### KITCHENRANGES,
OVENS AND MICROWAVE OVENS



### For analytical purposes the Department segmented the above classes intothree groups: conventional ovens, conventionalcookingtops, and microwave ovens. Ratherthan presenting the results for all classes of cookingproducts in today's notice, the Department selected a class of cooking products as being representative, or typical, of each group of the product, and DOE is presenting the results only for those representative classes.The results for the other classes can be found in the TSD in the same sections as those referenced for the representative class. The results and conclusionsfor each
group are presented separately below. Product class

Electric ovens, self-cleaning(kwh)



### ....................................................... Electric ovens, non-self-cleaning (kwh)



### ................................................ Microwave ovens (kwh)



### ........................................................................... Electric cookingtop, coil element (kwh)



### ............................................... Electric cookingtop, smooth element (kwh)



### ...........................................

1.Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Conventional Ovens

The Department selected non-selfcleaning electric ovens asbeingthe representative class of conventional

ovens. For non-self-cleaning electric ovens, trial standard level 1 accomplishes energy efficiency improvement from the baselineby reduced venting; level 2 includes improved insulation;level 3 

### includes improved seals; level 

### 4 provides for a biradiant oven; level 5 includes reduced conduction losses, forced convection, and an oven separator.

For efficiency levels 1-3 of conventional ovens, the calculations are based on the supplemental analysis, using AEO 97 energy price forecasts. Efficiencylevels 4-5 of conventional

ovens are based on the Draft Report Standard level



### analysis, which used AEO 95 energy price forecasts. They were not reanalyzed in the Supplemental analysis.



### 2. EfficiencyLevels Analyzed for Conventional CookingTops Baseline

303.7 274.9 143.2 234.7 233.4



### The Department selected electric-coil cookingtops as being representative of conventional cooking tops. For electriccoil cookingtops, trial standard level 1 remains at the baseline while levels 2 and 3 accomplish energy efficiency improvements from the baseline by incorporating improved heating element
contact conductance;levels 4 

### and 5 add reflective surfaces. 3

303.7 248.0 143.2 225.2 233.4



### Conventional electric cooktopswere not addressed in the Supplemental Analysis.Values pertaining to cooktops referenced in today's rule are based on 1

303.7 263.2 143.2 234.7 233.4 4

220.0 169.6 143.2 222.9 233.4 2

303.7 251.8 143.2 225.2 233.4 5

213.7 162.4 132.4 222.9 206.4 

## 48048 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

calculations over a range ofmarginal
energy prices, which would lead to

more accurate ranges oflife-cycle-costs, rather than using "average" prices. EEl statedthat the avoided energy costrates using AEO 98 are lowerthan the rates used inthe DOE analysis. EEl also commented that discount factors for this type ofconsumer appliance are probably too low. In addition, EEl commented that ifthe peakdemand savings are assuming 100% coincidence with utility peak demands, 100% diversity, and 100% load factors. then the values are too high and should be adjusted downward to reflect actual coincidence. diversity, and load factors. AHAM (AHAM. EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2) also commented that AEO 98 and CMER should be used. AHAM statedthat these lower electricity rates would result in even longer paybacks for any possible standard level.

The Department is committed to certain procedures under the Process Rule. 61 FR 36973 (July 15,1996). These procedures. however, do not apply entirely to certain rules already underway, 61 FR at 36980. including the cooking products rulemaking. The Supplemental Analysis, conducted in 1997. did use the most current energy price forecasts available at that time. In addition, the Advisory Committee had
not yet made its recommendations to the Department regarding CMER at the time the Supplemental Analysis was conducted. Furthermore, usingthese lower energy rates would not increase the likelihood that standards for electric cooking products would be economicallyjustifiedbecause lower
energy prices would only increase the payback period and decrease the lifecycle-cost saVings. Consequently. the Department did not expend the

resources to reanalyze the data using these new energy rates. Regarding peak demand saVings. the Department agrees with EEl and did not assume 100 percent diversity. coincidence. or load factors. See AppendixE ofthe General Methodology in the TSD for a more complete explanation.

EEl questioned whether an energy efficiency standard should discuss emissions and environmental impacts. EEl commented that the Draft Report downplays the reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from powerplants. on an overall and
perkWh basis, and it does not appear that the report shows a decline in emissions for the years 2001-2030. EEl also statedthat the impact of restructured electricity markets could have a significant impact on emissions,

as customers choose their preference of generation sources. The Department
agrees thatforecast emission rates for NOx. S02, and CO2do fall over time. Emission rates maybe affected by restructuring, but given the absence of clear indications ofthis effect, it was not incorporated into the analysis.

III. Analysis ofElectric Cooking Products Standards

Revised standards for cooking products shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified. These and related statutory criteria are addressed below.

a. EfficiencyLevels Analyzed

The Department examined a range of standard levels for cooking products. Table 4-1 presents the five effiCiency levels that had been selected for analysis for the five classes ofelectric cooking products. Level 5 corresponds
to the highest efficiency level, maxtech, considered in the engineering analysis. The final TSD contains the information analyzed in the Draft Report and the supplemental analysis.

TABLE 4-1.-ANNUAL ENERGY USE FOR STANDARD LEVELS ANALYZED IN THE PROPOSED RULE FOR KITCHEN RANGES, OVENS AND MICROWAVE OVENS

Product class Baseline 1

Electric ovens, self-cleaning (kWh)



### .......................................................... 303.7 303.7 Electric ovens, non-self-cleaning (kWh)



### ................................................... 274.9 263.2 Microwave ovens (kWh)



### ........................................................................... 143.2 143.2 Electric cooking top, coil element (kWh)



### .................................................. 234.7 234.7 Electric cooking top, smooth element (kWh)



## ............................................ 233.4 233.4

For analytical purposes the Department segmented the above classes into three groups: conventional ovens, conventional cooking tops, and microwave ovens. Rather than presenting the results for all classes of cooking products in today's notice, the Department selected a class ofcooking products as being representative, or typical, ofeach group ofthe product, and DOE is presentingthe results only for those representative classes. The results for the other classes can be found in the TSD in the same sections as those referenced for the representative class. The results and conclusions for each
group are presented separatelybelow. 1. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Conventional Ovens

The Department selected non-selfcleaning electric ovens as beingthe representative class ofconventional

ovens. For non-self-cleaning electric

ovens, trial standard level 1 accomplishes energy efficiency improvement from the baseline by reduced venting; level 2 includes improved insulation; level 3 includes improved seals; level 4 provides for a biradiant oven; level 5 includes reduced conduction losses, forced convection, and an oven separator.

For efficiency levels 1-3of conventional ovens, the calculations are based on the supplemental analysiS. using AEO 97 energy price forecasts. Efficiency levels 4-5 ofconventional

ovens are based on the Draft Report Standard level

2 3 4 5

303.7 303.7 220.0 213.7 251.8 248.0 169.6 162.4 143.2 143.2 143.2 132.4 225.2 225.2 222.9 222.9 233.4 233.4 233.4 206.4

analysis, which used AEO 95 energy price forecasts. They were not reanalyzed in the Supplemental analysis.

2. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Conventional Cooking Tops

The Department selected electric-coil cookingtops as being representative of conventional cooking tops. For electriccoil cooking tops, trial standard level 1 remains at the baseline while levels 2 and 3 accomplish energy efficiency improvements from the baseline by incorporating improved heating element
contact conductance; levels 4 and 5 add reflective surfaces.

Conventional electric cooktops were not addressed in the Supplemental Analysis. Values pertainingto cooktops referenced in today's rule are based on

### Federal Register/

### Vol. 63,

the Draft Report,which used AEO 95 energy price forecasts. 3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Microwave Ovens

The Department considers all microwave ovens to comprise one class. For microwave ovens, trial standard levels 1through 4 remain at the baseline, while level 5 incorporates an efficient power supply,an efficient fan,

an efficient magnetron, and a reflective surface. All values referenced are from the Draft Report,which used AEO 95 energy price forecasts.

b. 

### Significance ofEnergy Savings

Under section 325(0)(3)(B) of EPCA, the Department is prohibited from adopting a standard for a product if that standard would not result in "significant" energy savings. The Department forecasted energy consumption by the use of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory-Residential Energy Model (LBL-REM). See Appendix Bofthe TSD. To estimatethe energy savings by theyear 2030 dueto revised standards, the energy consumption of new cooking products under the base case is compared to the energy consumption of those sold under the candidate standard levels. For the candidate energy conservation standards,the analysisprojects that over the period 2001-2030, the following energy savings would result for all classes of the product. SeeTables 3.3 and Supplemental Table 3.16b in the TSD.

1. Conventional Ovens
Level 1-0.05 Quad3 Level 2-0.10 Quad 3 

### Level 3-0.03 Quad 3 

### Level 4-1.68 Quad Level 5-1.68 Quad 4


### 2. Conventional CookingTops
Level 1-0 Quad Level 2-0.05 Quad Level 3-0.05 Quad Level 4-0.10 Quad Level 5-0.45 Quad

3.Microwave Ovens.
Level 1-0 Quad Level 2-0 Quad Level 3-0 Quad Level 4-0 Quad Level 5-0.33 Quad

While the term "significant" is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

3Calculations are based onthe supplemental analysis, using AEO 97 energy prices. Calculations are based Draft Report analysis, which used AEO 95 energy prices. They were not reanalyzed in the Supplementalanalysis. 

### No. 173 

### /Tuesday, September 8, 1998

### /Rules and Regulations 48049

Circuit concluded that Congress and level 5 is $314.For electric nonintended the word "significant" to mean self-cleaning ovens, the per-unit "non-trivial.'' Natural Resources reduction in annual cost of operation, Defense Councilv. Herrington. 768 F.2d including energy expenses and any 1355, 1373 @.C.Cir. 1985).Thus,for additional maintenance costs, at level 1 this rulemaking, DOE concludes that is $13; standard level 2 is $23; level 3 is each standard level results in significant $23;level 4 is $84, and level 5 is $84. See energy savings.

c. Economic Justification Technical Support Document, Table 4.4 and Supplemental Table 4.4.

The Lawrence Berkelev LaboratorvSection 325(0) (2)(A)ofEPCA provides Manufacturer Impact Mdbel analyzGs

sevenfactorsto be evaluated, tothe the effectsof the trial standard levels on greatest extent practicable, in both the long run and short run returns determining whether a conservation on equity, Short run return on equity standard is economically justified. referto the effect during approximately 1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

The engineering analysis identified improvements in efficiency alongwith the associated costs to manufacturers for each efficiency level for each class of product. For each design option, these associated costs constitutethe increased per-unit cost to manufacturers to achieve the indicated energy efficiency levels. Manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer markups will result in a consumer purchase price higher than the manufacturer cost.

To assess the likely impacts of standards on manufacturers and to determinethe effects of standards on different-sized firms,the Department used a computer model that simulates hypothetical firms in the industry under consideration. This model,the Manufacturer Analysis Model (MAM)

,

### is explained in the TSD. (See TSD, Appendix 

### C.) The cost of a compliance testing and certification program is an additional impact on the manufacturer. TheDepartment's analysis, however, did not assess the impact ofthis
program onthe manufacturers.

For consumers,measures of economic impact are the changes in purchase price, annualenergy expense, and installation costs. The purchase price, installation cost, and cumulative annual energy expense, i.e., life-cyclecost,of each standard level are presented in Chapter 3 ofthe TSD. Under section 325 of the EPCA, the life-cycle cost analysis is a separatefactorto be considered in determiningeconomic justification.

Conventional Ovens.The per-unit increased cost to manufacturers to meet efficiency level 1for electric non-selfcleaning ovens is $1.63; to meet level 2, themanufacturers' cost increase is $4.84: level 3 is $8.53: level 4 is $71.03, and level 5 is $125.94. See Technical Support Document, Table 1.11.

At those levels of efficiency,the consumer price increase, for electric non-self-cleaning ovens at level 1 is $3.5;to meet level 2,the cost increase is $1 1;

### level 3 is $29;level 4 is $179, the first three years, and long run return on equityrefers to the effects beyond three years. The results (analyzed in the DraftReport) for all classes of conventional ovens 5 

### show that revised standardswould have some effect on a prototypical manufacturer's short-run return on equity with some decrease at the higher standardlevels fromthe 10.53percent inthe base case. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce short-run returns on equity of 10.64percent, 10.63percent, 10.21 percent, 8.85percent, and 5.14percent, respectively. These standard levels have slight impacts onlong-run return on equity. Standard levels 1through 5 are projected to produce long-run return on equities of 10.51percent, 10.51percent, 10.35percent, 10.33percent, and 9.75 percent, respectively. SeeTechnical Support Document, Tables 5.2 and 5.8.

Conventional Cookjng Tops. The perunit increased cost to manufacturers to
meet the level 1 efficiencyfor electriccoil cookingtops is zero, since this class is at the baseline; to meet levels 2 and 3the manufacturers' cost increase is $2.28,and to meet levels 4 and 5 the cost is $5.31. See Technical Support Document, Table 1.6.

At those levels of efficiency,the

consumer price increase,for electriccoil cookingtops at level 1is unchanged, since it is at the baseline; to meet levels 2 and 3the cost increase is $5, and at levels 4 and 5 it is $12. See Technical Support Document, Table 4.1.

The per-unit reduction in annual cost of operation, including energy expenses and any increase in maintenance cost, for electric-coil cookingtops at level 1 is unchanged since it is at the baseline; standard levels 2 and 3would reduce operational expenses by $1, and levels 4 and 5 

### would reduce operational
expensesby $1, See Technical Support Document, Table 4.1.

The Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryManufacturer Impact Model results for

SThesevalues, calculated inthe Draft Report,

were based on all classesof conventional ovens, including gasovens 

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

### 48049

the Draft Report, which used AEO 95
energy price forecasts.

3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Microwave Ovens

The Department considers all microwave ovens to comprise one class. For microwave ovens, trial standard levels 1through 4 remain at the baseline, while level 5 incorporates an efficient power supply, an efficient fan,

an efficient magnetron, and a reflective surface. All values referenced are from the Draft Report, which used AEO 95
energy price forecasts.



### b. Significance of

### EnergySavings

Under section 325(0)(3)(B) ofEPCA, the Department is prohibited from adopting a standard for a product ifthat standard would not result in "significant" energy savings. The Department forecasted energy consumption bythe use ofthe Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory-Residential Energy Model (LBL-REM). See AppendiX B ofthe TSD. To estimate the
energy savings bythe year 2030 due to revised standards, the energy consumption ofnew cooking products under the base case is compared to the
energy consumption ofthose sold under the candidate standard levels. For the candidate energy conservation standards, the analysis projectsthat over the period 2001-2030, the follOWing
energy savings would result for all classes ofthe product. See Tables 3.3 and Supplemental Table 3.16b in the TSD.

1. Conventional Ovens
Level 1-0.05 Quad 3 Level 2-0.10 Quad 3 Level 3-0.03 Quad 3 Level 4-1.68 Quad4 Level 5-1.68 Quad 4
2. Conventional Cooking Tops
Level 1-0 Quad Level 2-0.05 Quad Level 3-0.05 Quad Level 4-0.10 Quad Level 5-0.45 Quad

3. Microwave Ovens.
Level 1-0 Quad Level 2-0 Quad Level 3-0 Quad Level 4-0 Quad Level 5-0.33 Quad

While the term "significant" is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia

3 Calculations are based on the supplemental analYSis. using AEO 97 energy prices.

4 Calculations are based Draft Report analysis. which used AEO 95 energy prices. They were not reanalyzed inthe Supplemental analysis. Circuit concluded that Congress intended the word "significant" to mean "non-trivial." 

### Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

### Herrington. 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C.Cir. 1985). Thus, for this rulemaking, DOE concludes that each standard level results in significant
energy savings.

Co 

### EconomicJustification

Section 325(0)(2)(A) ofEPCA provides

seven factors to be evaluated, to the greatest extent practicable, in determining whether a conservation standard is economicallyjustified.

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

The engineering analysis identified improvements in efficiency along with the associated costs to manufacturers for each effiCiency level for each class of product. For each design option, these associated costs constitute the increased per-unit cost to manufacturers to achieve the indicated energy efficiency levels. Manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer markups will result in a

consumer purchase price higher than the manufacturer cost.

To assess the likely impacts of standards on manufacturers and to determine the effects ofstandards on different-sized firms, the Department used a computer model that simulates hypothetical firms in the industry under consideration. This model, the Manufacturer Analysis Model (MAM), is explained in the TSD. (See TSD, Appendix C.) The cost ofa compliance testing and certification program is an additional impact on the manufacturer. The Department's analYSiS, however, did not assess the impact ofthis
program onthe manufacturers.

For consumers, measures ofeconomic impact are the changes in purchase price, annual energy expense, and installation costs, The purchase price, installation cost, and cumulative annual
energy expense, Le" life-cycle cost, of each standard level are presented in Chapter 3 ofthe TSD. Under section 325 ofthe EPCA, the life-cycle cost analysis is a separate factor to be considered in determining economicjustification.



### Conventional Ovens, The per-unit increased cost to manufacturers to meet efficiency level 1for electric non-selfcleaning ovens is $1.63; to meet level 2, the manufacturers' cost increase is $4,84; level 3 is $8,53; level 4 is $71.03, and level 5 is $125.94. 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 1.11.

At those levels ofeffiCiency, the

consumer price increase, for electric non-self-cleaning ovens at level 1is $3.5; to meet level 2, the cost increase is $11; level 3 is $29; level 4 is $179, and level 5 is $314. For electric nonself-cleaning ovens, the per-unit reduction in annual cost ofoperation, including energy expenses and any additional maintenance costs, at level 1 is $J3; standard level 2 is $23 ; level 3 is $23 ; level 4 is $84

, and level 5 is $84

. 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 4.4 and Supplemental Table 4.4.

The Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryManufacturer Impact Model analyzes the effects ofthe trial standard levels on both the long run and short run returns

on equity. Short run return on equity referto the effect during approximately the first three years, and long run return

on equity refers to the effects beyond three years. The results (analyzed in the Draft Report) for all classes of conventional ovens 5 show that revised standards would have some effect on a prototypical manufacturer's short-run
return on equity with some decrease at the higher standard levels from the 10.53 percent in the base case. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce short-run returns on equity of 10.64 percent, 10.63 percent, 10.21 percent, 8.85 percent, and 5.14 percent, respectively. These standard levels have slight impacts on long-run return on equity. Standard levels 1through 5 are projected to produce long-run return on equities of 10.51 percent, 10.51 percent, 10.35 percent, 10.33 percent, and 9.75 percent, respectively. 

### See Technical Support Document, Tables 5.2 and 5.8.



### Conventional Cooking Tops. The perunit increased costto manufacturers to meet the level 1 efficiency for electriccoil cooking tops is zero, since this class is at the baseline; to meet levels 2 and 3 the manufacturers' cost increase is $2.28, and to meet levels 4 and 5 the
cost is $5.31. SeeTechnical Support Document, Table 1.6.

At those levels ofefficiency, the

consumer price increase, for electriccoil cooking tops at level 1 is unchanged, since it is at the baseline; to meet levels 2 and 3 the cost increase is $5, and at levels 4 and 5 it is $12. 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 4.1.

The per-unit reduction in annual cost ofoperation, including energy expenses and any increase in maintenance cost, for electric-coil cooking tops at level 1 is unchanged since it is at the baseline; standard levels 2 and 3 would reduce operational expenses by $1, and levels 4 and 5 would reduce operational
expenses by $1. 

### SeeTechnical Support Document, Table 4.1.

The Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryManufacturer ImpactModel results for

5These values. calculated inthe Draft Report.

were based on all classes ofconventional ovens. including gas ovens.

### 48050 Federal Register

### /Val. 63, No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

all classes of conventional cookingtops showthat revised standardswould have slight impacts on aprototypical manufacturer's short-run return on equity 6 

### with some decrease at the higher standard levels fromthe 10.84 percent inthe base case. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce short-runreturn on equities of 11.07 percent, 11.04percent, 11.08percent, 11.02percent, and 9.24percent, respectively. These standard levels have slight impacts on long-run return on equity, with some decreases at the higher standard levels. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce long-run returns on equity of 10.77 percent, 10.78percent, 10.78percent, 10.42percent and 9.71percent, respectively. SeeTechnical Support Document,Tables 5.1 and 5.7.

Microwave Ovens.The per-unit increased cost to manufacturers to meet efficiency levels 1through 4for microwave ovens is zero since these levels are at the baseline; to meet level 5,the manufacturers' cost increase is $51.11. See Technical Support Document,Table 1.17.

At those levels of efficiency,the

consumerprice increase for microwave
ovens at levels 1 through 4 is unchanged since they are at the baseline; to meet level 5, the cost increase is $66. See Technical SupportDocument, Table 4.8.

The per-unit reduction in annual cost of operation at levels 1through 4 would
not reduce annual operational expense since it is at the baseline. Standard level 5 would reduce operational expenses by $1. SeeTechnical SupportDocument, Table 4.8.

The Lawrence BerkeleyLaboratoryManufacturer Impact Model results for microwave ovens showthat revised standards would not affect a prototypical manufacturer's long nor short-runreturn on equity of 3.65 percent inthe base case,except for max tech. Standardlevels 1through 5 are projected to produce short-run return on equities of 3.65percent, 3.65percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent and 2.30 percent,respectively. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce long-

run return on equities of 3.65percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent and 4.8 1 percent, respectively. See Technical SupportDocument, Tables 5.3and 5.9.

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Net Present Value

One measure of the effectof proposed standards on consumers is the change in life-cycle costs, includingrecurring

6Thesevalues, calculated in the Draft Report, were based on all classesof conventional cooktops, includinggas cooktops. 

### operating expenses, purchase price, and installation costs resulting fromthe new standards. The change in life-cycle cost is quantified by the difference in the life-cycle costs between the base case and candidate standard case for each of the product classes analyzed. The lifecycle cost is the sum of the purchase price and the cumulative operating expense, includinginstallation and maintenance expenditures, discounted

overthe lifetime of the appliance. The life-cycle cost was calculated forthe
range of efficiencies analyzed in the "Engineering Analysis" section of the TSD, for each class, inthe year standards are imposed,using real

consumer discount rate of six percent.

Conventional Ovens.A life-cycle cost iscalculated for a unit meeting each of the candidate standard levels. For the representative class, life-cycle costs for non-self-cleaning ovens at standard levels 1and 2are at or less than the baseline unit. Of the five candidate standard levels, units meeting level 2 have the lowest consumer life-cycle cost for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. See Technical Support Document, Table 4.4 and Supplemental Table 4.4.

For the representative class of electric
ovens, standard level 1would cause reductions in life-cycle costs forthe average consumer of $6.1;3 

### standard level 2would reduce average life-cycle
costs by $8.0;3 

### standard level 3would result in an increase of $6.6:3

### level 4 would result in an increase of $88.2;4 

### while standard level 5 would result in

an increase of $217.1.4SeeTechnical Support Document, Table 4.18 and Supplemental Table 4.39.

The Department examined the effect of different discount rates (2,6, and 15 percent) onthe life-cycle cost curves. See Figure 4.4, Table 4.4 and SupplementalTable 4.4 in the TSD. Life-cycle cost sensitivity to changes in energy price and equipment price were analyzed. See Figure 4.12, Table 4.12, and Supplemental Table 4.35 in the TSD. This analysis shows that the lifecycle cost minimum using the lowest Stateenergyprice occurs at standard level 1for electric non-self-cleaning ovens but remains at standard level 2for all other energy prices analyzed.

The Department also calculated paybacksusing the energy prices calculated by the Gas Research Institute (GRI).The life-cycle cost minimums resultingfromthe CRI projections remain unchanged from the analysis using the AEO price forecasts. The payback periods increase slightly for electric non-self-cleaning ovens using the GRI forecasts, but these paybacks remain well within the expected life of the product. Therefore,the GRI prices have no substantial impact on the
outcome of the standard levels analyzed.

The net present value analysis, a

measure ofthe net savingsto society, indicatesthat for all classes of conventional electric ovens, standard levels 1-3 would produce a net present value of $0.03billion3to consumers. The corresponding values for levels 4 and 5result in a negative $2.53billion and negative $6.23 billion, respectively.4 SeeTechnical Support Document, Table 3.6e and Supplemental Table 3.2833.

Conventional Cooking Tops.A lifecycle cost is calculated for a unit meeting each of the candidate standard levels. For the representative class, lifecycle costs at all standard levels,except at max tech,are less than the baseline unit for electric coil cooktops. Of the five candidate standard levels,units meeting levels 2 and 

### 3 have the lowest consumer life-cycle cost for electric coil cooktops. It shouldbe noted that for another class, electric smooth element cookingtops, units meeting thebaseline have the lowest consumer life-cycle
costs. See Technical SupportDocument, Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

For the representative class of electric-coil cooking tops, standard level 1 would cause no change in life-cycle
costs for the average consumer since it is the same as the baseline; standard levels 2 and 3 would reduce average life-cycle costs by $3.2, and standard levels 4 and 5 would result in an increase in life-cycle cost of $1.8. See Technical SupportDocument, Table 4.15.

TheDepartment examined the effect of different discount rates (2,6,and 15 percent) on the life-cycle cost curves. If the discount rate is increased to 15 percent, the life-cycle cost minimum

occurs at the baseline. See TSD Table 4.1. Life-cycle cost sensitivity to changes in energy price and equipment price were analyzed. See Figure 4.10 and Table 4.10 inthe TSD. This analysis shows that the life-cycle cost minimum using the lowest State energyprice dropsto standard level 1for electric coil cooktops but remains unchanged for all other energyprices analyzed.The life cycle cost minimum remains unchanged for the highest State energy price, except for the case including both the highest State energyprice andthe highest equipment price, the LCC minimum

occurs at max tech. Consequently,high
state energy prices have no effect onthe standard levels analyzed unless equipment prices are also high.

The net present value analysis, a

measure of the net savings to society, indicates that for all classes of 

### 48050 Federal Register

### IVaI. 63, 

### No. 173

### ITuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

all classes ofconventional cooking tops show that revised standards would have slight impacts on a prototypical manufacturer's short-run return on equity 6 with some decrease at the higher standard levels from the 10.84 percent in the base case. Standard levels 1through 5 are projected to produce short-run return on equities of 1l.07 percent, 1l.04 percent, 1l.08 percent, 1l.02 percent, and 9.24 percent, respectively. These standard levels have slight impacts on long-run return on equity, with some decreases at the higher standard levels. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce long-run returns on equity of 10.77 percent, 10.78 percent, 10.78 percent, 10.42 percent and 9.71 percent, respectively. 

### See Technical Support Document, Tables 5.1 and 5.7.



### Microwave Ovens. The per-unit increased cost to manufacturers to meet efficiency levels 1through 4 for microwave ovens is zero since these levels are at the baseline; to meet level 5, the manufacturers' cost increase is $5l.1l. 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 1.17.

Atthose levels ofefficiency, the

consumerprice increase for microwave

ovens at levels 1through 4 is unchanged since they are at the baseline; to meet level 5, the cost increase is $66. 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 4.8.

The per-unit reduction in annual cost ofoperation at levels 1 through 4 would
not reduce annual operational expense since it is at the baseline. Standard level 5 would reduce operational expenses by $l. SeeTechnical Support Document, Table 4.8.

The Lawrence BerkeleyLaboratoryManufacturer Impact Model results for microwave ovens showthat revised standards would not affect a prototypical manufacturer's long nor short-run return on equity of3.65 percent in the base case, except for max tech. Standard levels 1through 5 are projected to produce short-run return on equities of 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent and 2.30 percent, respectively. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce longrun return on equities of 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent and 4.81 percent, respectively. See Technical SupportDocument. Tables 5.3 and 5.9.

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Net PresentValue

One measure ofthe effect ofproposed standards on consumers is the change in life-cycle costs, including recurring

6These values. calculated in the Draft Report.

were based on all classes ofconventional cooktops. including gas cooktops. operating expenses, purchase price, and installation costs resulting from the new standards. The change in life-cycle cost is quantified bythe difference in the life-cycle costs between the base case and candidate standard case for each of the product classes analyzed. The lifecycle cost is the sum ofthe purchase price and the cumulative operating
expense, including installation and maintenance expenditures, discounted

over the lifetime ofthe appliance. The life-cycle cost was calculated for the
range ofefficiencies analyzed in the "EngineeringAnalysis" section ofthe TSD, for each class, inthe year standards are imposed, using real

consumer discountrate ofsix percent.



### Conventional Ovens. A life-cycle cost is calculated for a unit meeting each of the candidate standard levels. For the representative class, life-cycle costs for non-self-cleaning ovens at standard levels 1 and 2 are at or less than the baseline unit. Ofthe five candidate standard levels, units meeting level 2 have the lowest consumer life-cycle cost for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 4.4 and Supplemental Table 4.4.

For the representative class ofelectric
ovens, standard level 1 would cause reductions in life-cycle costs for the
average consumer of$6.1; 3 standard level 2 would reduce average life-cycle
costs by $8.0; 3 standard level 3 would result in an increase of$6.6; 3 level 4 would result in an increase of$88.2; 4 while standard level 5 would result in

an increase of $217.l.4 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 4.18 and SupplementalTable 4.39.

The Department examined the effect ofdifferent discount rates (2, 6, and 15 percent) onthe life-cycle cost curves. See Figure 4.4, Table 4.4 and SupplementalTable 4.4 in the TSD. Life-cycle cost sensitivity to changes in
energy price and eqUipment price were analyzed. See Figure 4.12, Table 4.12, and Supplemental Table 4.35 in the TSD. This analysis shows that the lifecycle cost minimumusing the lowest State energy price occurs at standard level 1 for electric non-self-cleaning

ovens but remains at standard level 2 for all other energy prices analyzed.

The Department also calculated paybacks using the energy prices calculated by the Gas Research Institute (GRI). The life-cycle cost minimums resulting from the GRI projections remain unchanged from the analysiS using the AEO price forecasts. The payback periods increase slightly for electric non-self-cleaning ovens using the GRr forecasts, but these paybacks remain well within the expected life of the product. Therefore, the GRI prices have no substantial impact on the
outcome ofthe standard levels analyzed.

The net present value analysis, a

measure ofthe net savings to SOCiety, indicates thatfor all classes of conventional electric ovens, standard levels 1-3 would produce a net present value of $0.03 billion3 to consumers. The corresponding values for levels 4 and 5 result in a negative $2.53 billion and negative $6.23 billion, respectively.4 

### SeeTechnical Support Document, Table 3.6e and Supplemental Table 3.28b.



### Conventional Cooking Tops. A lifecycle cost is calculated for a unit meeting each ofthe candidate standard levels. For the representative class, lifecycle costs at all standard levels, except at max tech, are less than the baseline unit for electric coil cooktops. Ofthe five candidate standard levels, units meeting levels 2 and 3 have the lowest

consumer life-cycle cost for electric coil cooktops. Itshould be noted that for another class, electric smooth element cooking tops, units meetingthe baseline have the lowest consumer life-cycle
costs. 

### See Technical SupportDocument, Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

Forthe representative class of electric-coil cooking tops, standard level 1 would cause no change in life-cycle
costs for the average consumer since it is the same as the baseline; standard levels 2 and 3 would reduce average life-cycle costs by $3.2, and standard levels 4 and 5 would result in an increase in life-cycle cost of $l.8. 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 4.15.

TheDepartment examined the effect ofdifferent discount rates (2, 6, and 15 percent) on the life-cycle cost curves. If the discount rate is increased to 15 percent, the life-cycle cost minimum

occurs at the baseline. See TSD Table 4.1. Life-cycle cost sensitivityto changes in energy price and eqUipment price were analyzed. See Figure 4.10 and Table 4.10 inthe TSD. This analysis shows that the life-cycle cost minimum using the lowest State energy price drops to standard level 1for electric coil cooktops butremains unchanged for all other energy prices analyzed. The life cycle cost minimum remains unchanged for the highest State energy price, except for the case including both the highest State energy price and the highest eqUipment price, the LCC minimum

occurs at max tech. Consequently, high
state energy prices have no effect on the standard levels analyzed unless eqUipment prices are also high.

The net present value analysis, a

measure ofthe net savings to society, indicates that for all classes of

### Federal Register/Vol. 

### 63, No. 173 /Tuesday, September 

### 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

### 4805

### 1

conventional electric cookingtops, attempted to minimize the impact of 15,000tons, 227,000tons, and 227,000 standard level 1 would produce a zero amended standards on the utility and tons,respectively. net present value; standard levels 2and performanceof conventional ovens, The estimated decreased need to 3 would produce a net present value of conventional cookingtops, and control SOx overthe years 2000to 2030 $0.03billion, while standard levels 4 microwave ovens. would be 12,000tons, 25,000tons, and 5would produce negative net 17,000tons, and 250,000tons for levels present values of $0.09billion and $3.10 5. Impact ofLesseningof Competition respectively. billion,respectively. SeeTechnical The Energy Policy and Conservation Another consequence ofthe standards SupportDocument, Table 3.6b. Act directs the Department to consider would be the reduction ofcarbon

MicrowaveOvens.A life-cycle cost is the impact ofany lessening of dioxide (COz)emissions. For standard calculated for a unit meeting each ofthe competition that is likely to result from level 1,overthe years 2000 to 2030,the candidate standard levels. Ofthe five the standards, as determined by the total estimated COz reduction would be candidate standard levels, units meeting Attorney General. approximately 

### 6million tons. For the baseline had the lowest consumer In a letter dated September 16, 1994, levels 2-5, the estimated life-cycle costfor microwave ovens. See the Department ofJustice (DOJ) reductions would be 13million tons, 8 Technical SupportDocument, Table 4.8. expressed concern about the effectsthe million tons, 126million tons, and 126 Standardlevels 1

### through 4 would standardsproposed in the 1994 million tons,respectively. cause no reductions in life-cycle costs Proposed Rule might have on industry. Conventional Cooking Tops.8 for the average affectedconsumer, since DOJ concluded that it is likely that Standards would results in a decrease in they are the same asthe baseline for competition inthe manufacture and sale nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. For microwave ovens. Standardlevel 5 of 

### commercial/professional-styleor standard level 1,over theyears 2000 to would increase average life-cycle costs high-end ranges and ovens will be 2030,the total estimated NOx reduction by $56.7. SeeTechnical Support eliminated ifthe proposed standards are would be 

### zero, 

### D~~~~~this 

### time period, Document, Table 4.22. adopted.The Department ofJustice also there would be no reduction of

## jyox

The Department examined the effect concludedthat there is a possibility that emissionsemitted by power plants. For of different discount rates (2.6,and 15 the P~OPOS~~ 

### standard could force one levels 2-5, the reductions percent) on the life-cycle cost curves or more firmsout ofthe manufactureof would be approximately 9,000tons, and generally found little impact. Life- stmdard rangesthus lessening 9,000tons, 18,000tons,and 80,000 tons, cycle cost sensitivity to changes in competition. (DOJ, No. 840 at 5.)The 

### respectively, energy price and equipment price Were September 16,l994,letter is printed at The estimated decreased need to analyzed. SeeFigure 4.14 andTables the end oftoday's rule. control SOx overthe years 2000to 2030 4.14 in the TSD. This analysis shows The Department ofJustice comments would be 11,000tons, 11,000tons, little impact. were based on the standards proposed 22,000tons, and 99,000tons for levels

The net present value analysis, a inthe 1994Proposed Rule. Because 2-5, 

### respectively.

measure of the net savings to society, today's rule is not promulgating 

### new Another consequence of the standards indicates that for microwave ovens, standards, there will not be significant would be the 

### reduction of

### carbon standard levels I through 4 would adverse effects on industry. dioxide (COz) emissions. For standard produce a zero net present value to 6.Need of the Nation To SaveEnergy level 1,overthe years 2000 to 2030,the consumers. The net present value for ~~h~~~~d 

### energyefficiencyimproves total estimated COz reduction would be level is a 

### negative $4.67billion. See the 

### N~~~~~~~ energysecurity, strengthens zero because this standard level is at the Technical SupportDocument,Table the 

### economy, and reduces the 

### baseline. Duringthis time period,there 3.6g. environmental impacts of energy would be noreduction of CO2 emissions 3. Energy Savings production. emitted by power plants in theUnited States. For standard levels 2-5, the EPCA requires DOE to consider the 7. Other Factors reductions would be approximately 4 total projected energy savings that result fromrevised standards, 

### The Department 

### Decreasing future energydemand as a million tons,4million tons, 8 million result of standards will decrease air tons,and 36 million tons,respectively. forecasted energy consumption through Microwave Ovens: Standards would the use of the LBL-REM. (SeeAppendix 

### P"~$&~tion,l 

### Ovens,i Standards result in a decrease in nitrogen oxide



### ofthe 

### TSD for 

### a discussion 

### would result in a decrease in nitrogen (NOx)emissions. For standard levels 1 

### ofthe

### LBL-REM') See section 'I1' b' 

### in oxide (NOx)emissions. For standard through 4,over the years 2000 to 2030, today's 

### forthe energy savings of 

### level I,overtheyears 2000to 2030,the the total estimated NOx reduction efficiency levels. total estimated NOx reduction would be would be zero. Duringthis time period, 4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of approximately 11,000tons. For standard those levels of efficiencyimprovement Products levels 2-5, the estimated reductions would cause no reduction of NOx establishing classes 

### ofproducts and would be approximately 23,000tons, emissions from power plants inthe design options,the ~e~artment tried to 'The emissions calculated in the Draft Report 8Theemissions calculated in the Draft Report 

### from consideration any design Tables7.6-7.10 were based on both eas and electric Tables7.1-7.5 were based on both gasand electric 

### option that would result in degradation ,en, However fromthe emissions~reductions for cooktops.However,from the emissions reductions

--~- ~-

~~ 

### of utility or performance. ~hus, a standard levels

### i and 2 (forwhich gas ovens are at for staAdardlevel 2 (forwhich gas cooktopsare at 

### separate classwith a different efficiency the baseline), the emissions reductions per quad the baseline), the emissions reductions per quad 

### standard was created for a product can be approximatedfor electric ovens overthe can be approximated for electric cooktopsover the
years 2000 to 2030. These approximations are 75 years 2000 to 2030. These approximations are 80 

### where the record indicated that the million tons C02per quad, 135,000tons NOx per million tons COz per quad, 180,000 tons NOXper 

### ~roduct included a 

### utilitv or auad. and 150.000tons SO, per auad. Decreases in auad, and 220,000 tons SO2 per quad. Decreasesin 

# -. ierformance-related 

# featGre that affected $02 emissions w~ll not occur bec'ause the CleanAir 502emsslons will not occur becausethe Clean Air


### energy efficiency ~i~~

### separate classes Act places a ceiling on SO2emissions that wlll be Act places a ceding on SO2emsslonsthat w~ll be
met under anyregulatory regme Therefore these met under any regulatory regime Therefore these 

### were analyzed; seeTable 4-1 intoday's reduc~on, should be interpreted asreduced costs reduct~ons hould be Interpreted asreduced costs 

### rule. In this way, the Department to electricity generatorsfo; controlling SOz. to electricity generatorsfo; controlling S02. 

### Federal Register/Vol. 

### 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

### 48051

conventional electric cooking tops, standard level 1 would produce a zero net presentvalue; standard levels 2 and 3 would produce a net present value of $0.03 billion, while standard levels 4 and 5 would produce negative net presentvalues of $0.09 billion and $3.10 billion, respectively. See Technical Support Document, Table 3.6b.



### Microwave Ovens. A life-cycle cost is calculated for a unit meeting each ofthe candidate standard levels. Ofthe five candidate standard levels, units meeting the baseline had the lowest consumer life-cycle costfor microwave ovens. See Technical Support Document, Table 4.8. Standard levels 1through 4 would

cause no reductions in life-cycle costs for the average affected consumer, since they are the same as the baseline for microwave ovens. Standard level 5 would increase average life-cycle costs by $56.7. See Technical Support Document, Table 4.22.

The Department examined the effect ofdifferent discount rates (2, 6, and 15 percent) on the life-cycle cost curves and generallyfound little impact. Lifecycle cost sensitivityto changes in
energy price and eqUipment price were analyzed. See Figure 4.14 and Tables 4.14 inthe TSD. This analysis shows little impact.

The net present value analysis, a

measure ofthe net savings to society, indicates that for microwave ovens, standard levels 1through 4 would produce a zero net present value to

consumers. The net present value for level 5 is a negative $4.67 billion. 

### See Technical SupportDocument, Table 3.6g.

3. Energy Savings

EPCA reqUires DOE to considerthe total projected energy savings that result from revised standards. The Department forecasted energy consumption through the use ofthe LBL-REM. (See Appendix B ofthe TSD for a detailed discussion ofthe LBL-REM.) See section III. b. in today's rule for the energy savings ofall efficiency levels.

4. Lessening ofUtility or Performance of Products

In establishing classes ofproducts and design options, the Departmenttried to eliminate from consideration any design option that would result in degradation ofutility or performance. Thus, a separate class with a different efficiency standard was created for a product where the record indicated that the product included a utility or performance-related feature that affected
energy efficiency. Five separate classes

were analyzed; see Table 4-1 in today's rule. In this way, the Department attempted to minimize the impact of amended standards on the utility and performance ofconventional ovens, conventional cooking tops, and microwave ovens.
5. Impact ofLessening ofCompetition

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act directs the Department to consider the impact ofany lessening of competitionthat is likely to result from the standards, as determined by the Attorney General.

In a letter dated September 16, 1994, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) expressed concern about the effects the standards proposed in the 1994 Proposed Rule might have on industry. DOJ concluded that it is likely that competition in the manufacture and sale ofcommercial/professional-style or high-end ranges and ovens will be eliminated ifthe proposed standards are adopted. The Department ofJustice also concludedthat there is a possibility that the proposed standard could force one

ormore firms out ofthe manufacture of standard ranges thus lessening competition. (DO], No. 840 at 5.) The September 16, 1994, letter is printed at the end oftoday's rule.

The Department ofJustice comments

were based on the standards proposed inthe 1994 Proposed Rule. Because today's rule is not promulgating new standards, there will notbe Significant adverse effects on industry.

6. Need ofthe Nation To Save Energy

Enhanced energy effiCiency improves the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts ofenergy production.

7. Other Factors

Decreasing future energy demand as a result ofstandards will decrease air pollution.



### Conventional Ovens.? Standards would result in a decrease in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. For standard levell, over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated NOx reduction would be approximately 11,000 tons. For standard levels 2-5, the estimated reductions would be approximately 23,000 tons,

7The emissions calculated inthe Draft Report Tables 7.6-7.10 were based on both gas and electric

ovens. However. from the emissions reductions for standard levels I and 2 (for which gas ovens are at the baseline). the emissions reductions perquad

can be approximated for electric ovens over the
years 2000 to 2030. These approximations are 75 million tons CO2perquad, 135,000 tons NOx per quad, and 150,000 tons SO, per quad. Decreases in SO, emissions will not occur because the Clean Air Act places a ceiling on S02 emissions that will be
met under any regulatory regime. Therefore, these reductions should be interpreted as reduced costs to electricity generators for controlling S02. 15.000 tons, 227.000 tons, and 227,000 tons, respectively.

The estimated decreased need to control SOx overthe years 2000 to 2030 would be 12.000 tons, 25.000 tons, 17,000 tons. and 250,000 tons for levels 1-5, respectively,

Another consequence ofthe standards would be the reduction ofcarbon dioxide (C02 ) emissions, For standard levell, over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated C02 reduction would be approXimately 6 million tons, For standard levels 2-5, the estimated reductions would be 13 million tons. 8 million tons. 126 million tons. and 126 million tons. respectively,



### Conventional Cooking Tops,8 Standards would results in a decrease in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, For standard levell, over the years 2000 to 2030. the total estimated NOx reduction would be zero. During this time period. there would be no reduction ofNOx emissions emitted by power plants. For standard levels 2-5. the reductions would be approximately 9.000 tons, 9,000 tons, 18,000 tons, and 80.000 tons, respectively.

The estimated decreased need to control SOx overthe years 2000 to 2030 would be 11.000 tons, 11,000 tons. 22.000 tons, and 99,000 tons for levels 2-5, respectively,

Another consequence ofthe standards would be the reduction ofcarbon dioxide (C02 ) emissions. For standard levell, overthe years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated C02 reduction would be

zero because this standard level is at the baseline. During this time period, there would be no reduction ofC02 emissions emitted by power plants in the United States, For standard levels 2-5, the reductions would be approXimately 4 milliontons. 4 million tons, 8 million
tons. and 36 milliontons, respectively.



### Microwave Ovens: Standards would result in a decrease in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. For standard levels 1 through 4, over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated NOx reduction would be zero, During this timeperiod, those levels ofefficiency improvement would cause no reduction ofNOx emissions from power plants in the

8Theemissions calculated in the Draft Report Tables 7.1-7.5 were based on both gas and electric cooktops. However, from the emissions reductions for standard level 2 (for which gas cooktops are at the baseline), the emissions reductions perquad

can be approximated for electric cooktops over the
years 2000 to 2030. These approximations are 80 million tons CO, per quad, 180,000 tons NOx per quad, and 220,000 tons S02 perquad. Decreases in SO, emissions will not occurbecause the Clean Air Act places a ceiling on SO, emissions that will be
met under any regulatory regime. Therefore, these reductions should be interpreted as reduced costs to electricity generators for controlling SO,.cost-of-operationbased on the ~OE test procedures. Therefore,the consumer is assumed to be an "average" consumer as defined by the DOE test procedures. Consumers who use the products less than the test procedure assumes will experience a longerpayback while those who use them more than the test procedure assumes will have a shorter payback.

11These payback periods areweighted averages. They compare the portion ofthe projected distributions of designs in the base case that are less efficient than the standard level to the design atthe standard level. Designswith energy consumption at

or below the standard level are not affectedby the standard and are excluded fromthe calculation of impacts. 

### 48052 Federal Register 1 Vol. 

### 63, No. 173 /Tuesday, September 

### 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

United States. For standard level 5,the ofthe energy savingsthat the consumer e. Conclusion reduction would be 48,000 tons. The will receive during the first year. See Product 

### Name Change highest peak annualreduction of these Table 4.18and SupplementalTable 4.43 levels would be 0.08 percent. See Tables inthe TSD. The Department ischanging the name 7.11-7.15 in the TSD. Energy associated of this product from "kitchen ranges with these standardswould also reduce 

### TABLE 4-2.-PAYBACK PERIODS OF 

### and ovens" to "cooking products." This the costs associated with SOX 

### DESIGN OPTIONS (YEARS) FOR NON- 

### change is made because the term compliance 9. 

### SELF-CLEANING CONVENTIONAL "kitchen ranges and ovens" does not Another consequence ofthe standards OVENs 

### accurately describethe products would be the reduction of carbon considered which includemicrowave



### TABLE 4-4.-PAYBACK PERIODS OF DESIGN OPTIONS (YEARS) FOR 

### MICROWAVE 

### OVENS

Standard Payback

level period

1



### ....................................................

3



### .................................................... 4



### .................................................... 5



### .................................................... dioxide (COz) emissions. For standard Standard 

### levels 1through 4, over the years 2000 level 

### to 2030,the total estimated COz reduction would be zero. Duringthis 1



### .................................................. 2



### .................................................. time period, there would be no reduction ofC02emissions emitted by 3



### .................................................. power plants in the United States, For 4



### .................................................. standard level 5,the reduction would be 5



### ..................................................

Product class Payback 

### ovens, conventional ranges, cooktops, Period 

### and ovens.Tobe consistent with this change, the Department is addinga regulatory definition of "cooking

14:5 

### products" that is the same as the

422 

### existing definition of "kitchen ranges
436 

### and ovens" to Title 10CFR Part 430.2.

Annual energy use 

### 25 million tons. The highest peak 2. Standards annual reduction of these levels would Conventional Cooking Tops.Table 4- be 0.06percent. 3presents thepayback periods forthe Section 325(0)(2)(A) oftheAct efficiency levels analyzed forthe specifies that the Department must d. Payback Period representative class of

### conventional establish standardsthat "achieve the

If the increase in initial price of an cookingtops. For electric cooktops, maximum improvementin energy appliancedueto a conservation none ofthe trial standard levels satisfies efficiencywhich the Secretary standardwould repay itself to the therebuttable presumption test,i.e.,the determines is

### technologic all^

consumer in energy savings in less than additional price ofpurchasing a product and economicallyjustified." EPCA. three years, then it is presumed that will be less than three timesthe value 

### 5 325(0)(2)(A). 

### technologic all^ feasible such standard is economically ofthe energy savings that the consumer design options are "technologies which justified. lo

### EPCA,

### 5325(0)(2)(B)(iii)

,

### 42 will receive during the first year. See can be incorporated in commercial U.S.C.

### S 6295(0)(2)(B)(iii). This Table 4.15 inthe TSD. products or inworking prototypes." 10 presumption of economic justification CFR Part 430, Appendix 

### A to Subpart C,

can be rebutted upon a proper showing. 

### TABLEPAYBACK PERIODS OF 

### 4(a)(4)(i). A standard level is Failure to qualify forthis presumption 

### DESIGN OPT~ONS (YEARS) FOR CON- 

### economically justified if the benefits shaII not be taken into consideration in exceed the burdens. EPCA, determining whether a standard is 

### S 325(0) (2)(B)(9. economically justified. Id. Conventional Ovens.Table 4-2 Standard level 

### presents the payback periods 11

### for the efficiency levels analyzed for the 1



### .................................................. representative class of conventional 2



### .................................................. ovens. For electric ovens, none ofthe 3



### ..................................................

.................................................. trial standard levels satisfies the 4 

### rebuttable presumption test, i.e.,the 5



### ..................................................

......... Electric oven, self-cleaning

Electric oven, non-self-cleaning



### ..



### .......................... Microwaveoven



### ..... Electric cooktop, coil element

Electric cooktop, smooth element Payback 

### Amaximum technologically feasible period 

### (maxtech) design option was identified for each class of cooking products. The 

# N't.5

max tech levels were derived by adding 6.5 

### energy-conserving engineering design

13 

### options to the baseline units for each of

13 

### the respective classes in order of

213.7

kwh. 162.4

kwh. 132.4

kwh. 229.9

kwh. 206.4

kwh. 

### additional price ofpurchasing a product decreasing consumer payback. A

will be less than three times the value 

### Microwave Ovens.Table 4-4 presents complete discussion of each max tech level,and the design options included the payback period forthe efficiency 

### in each, is 

### found 

### in the

9Decreases in SO2 emissionswill not occur 

### levels analyzed for microwave ovens. becausethe CleanAir Act places a ceiling on SO2 

### F~~ microwave 

### ovens, 

### none of;he trial Analysis in the TSD,Chapter 1.Table 5-

emissions that will be met under any regulatory 

### standard levels satisfies the rebuttable 

### 1presents the Department's max tech regime. Therefore, these reductions should be 

### performance levels for all classes of the interpreted asreduced coststo electricity generators 

### presumption test, i.e., the additional for controlling SO2. For microwave ovens at 

### price ofpurchasing a product will be products:

standard levels 1through 4,over the years 2000 to 

### less than three times the value 

### ofthe 2030,the total estimated SO2reduction would be 

### TABLE 5-1 

### .-COOKING PRODUCTS

zero. For standard level 5,the need to control SO2 

### energy savings that 

### the

would be reduced by an estimated 53,000 tons. 

### receive duringthe first year. SeeTable 

### MAXIMUMTECHNOLOGICALLY FEA-

'OFor this calculation. the Deoartmentcalculated 

### 4.22 in the TSD. SIBLE LEVELS 

### 48052 Federal Register

### IVaI. 63, No. 173 

### ITuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

United States. For standard level 5, the reduction would be 48,000 tons. The highest peak annual reduction ofthese levels would be 0.08 percent. See Tables 7.11-7.15 in the TSD. Energy associated with these standards would also reduce the costs associated with SOx compliance 9.

Another consequence ofthe standards would be the reduction ofcarbon dioxide (C02) emissions. For standard levels 1 through 4, over the years 2000
to 2030, the total estimated CO2 reduction would be zero. During this time period, there would be no reduction ofCO2 emissions emitted by
power plants in the United States. For standard level 5, the reduction wouldbe 25 million tons. The highestpeak annual reduction ofthese levels would be 0.06 percent.

d. 

### Payback Period

Ifthe increase in initial price ofan appliance due to a conservation standard would repay itselfto the

consumer in energy savings in less than three years, then it is presumed that such standard is economically justified. lO EPCA, § 325(0)(2) (B) (iii), 42 U.S.C. § 6295(0)(2)(B)(iii). This presumption ofeconomicjustification

can be rebutted upon a proper showing. Failure to qualify for this presumption shall not be taken into consideration in determining whether a standard is economicallyjustified. [d.



### Conventional Ovens. Table 4-2 presents the payback periods 11 for the efficiency levels analyzed for the representative class ofconventional

ovens. For electric ovens, none ofthe trial standard levels satisfies the rebuttable presumption test, i.e., the additional price ofpurchasing a product will be less than three times the value

9 Decreases in S02 emissions will not occur because the Clean Air Act places a ceiling on S02 emissions thatwill be met under any regulatory regime. Therefore, these reductions should be interpreted as reduced costs to electricity generators for controlling S02. For microwave ovens at standard levels I through 4. over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated S02 reduction would be

zero. For standard level 5, the need to control S02 would be reduced by an estimated 53,000 tons.

IOFor this calculation, the Department calculated cost-of-operation based on the DOE test procedures. Therefore, the consumer is assumed to be an "average" consumer as defined by the DOE test procedures. Consumers who use the productsless than the test procedure assumes will experience a longer payback while those who use them more than the test procedure assumes will have a shorter payback.

II These payback periods are weighted averages. Theycompare the portion ofthe projected distributions ofdesigns in the base case that are less efficient than the standard level to the design atthe standard level. Designs with energy consumption at

or below the standard level are not affected by the standard and are excluded from the calculation of impacts. ofthe energy savings that the consumer will receive during the first year. See Table 4.18 and SupplementalTable 4.43 inthe TSD.

TABLE 4-2.-PAYBACK PERIODS OF DESIGN OPTIONS (YEARS) FOR NONSELF-CLEANING CONVENTIONAL OVENS

Standard level

1

.................................................. 2

.................................................. 3

.................................................. 4

.................................................. 5

.................................................. Payback period

34.0 36.5 314.5 422 436



### Conventional Cooking Tops. Table 4- 3 presents the payback periods for the effiCiency levels analyzed for the representative class ofconventional cooking tops. For electric cooktops,

none ofthe trial standard levels satisfies the rebuttable presumption test, i.e., the additionalprice ofpurchasing a product will be less than three times the value ofthe energy savings that the consumer will receive during the first year. See Table 4.15 in the TSD.

TABLE 4-3.-PAYBACK PERIODS OF DESIGN OPTIONS (YEARS) FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING Tops

Standard

level

1

.................................................. 2

.................................................. 3

.................................................. 4

.................................................. 5

.................................................. Payback period

N/A

6.5 6.5 13 13

Microwave Ovens. Table 4-4 presents the payback period for the efficiency levels analyzed for microwave ovens. For microwave ovens, none ofthe trial standard levels satisfies the reb'uttable presumption test, i.e., the additional price ofpurchasing a product will be less than three times the value ofthe
energy savings that the consumer will receive during the first year. See Table 4.22 in the TSD.

TABLE H.-PAYBACK PERIODS OF DESIGN OPTIONS (YEARS) FOR MICROWAVE OVENS

Standard Payback

level period

1

.................................................... N/A 2.................................................... N/A 

### 3.................................................... N/A 

## 4.................................................... N/A 

### 5.................................................... 79 e. 

### Conclusion

1. Product Name Change

The Department is changingthe name ofthis product from "kitchen ranges and ovens" to "cooking products." This change is made because the term "kitchen ranges and ovens" does not accurately describe the products considered which include microwave

ovens, conventional ranges, cooktops, and ovens. To be consistent with this change, the Department is adding a regulatory definition of "cooking products" that is the same as the existing definition of "kitchen ranges and ovens" to Title 10 CFR Part 430.2.

2. Standards

Section 325(0) (2) (A) ofthe Act specifies that the Department must establish standards that "achieve the maximum improvement in energy effiCiency which the Secretary determines is technologicallyfeasible and economicallyjustified." EPCA, § 325(0)(2)(A). Technologicallyfeasible design options are "technologies which

can be incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes." 10 CFR Part 430, AppendiX A to Subpart C, 4(a)(4)(i). A standard level is economicallyjustified ifthe benefits exceed the burdens. EPCA, § 325(0)(2)(B)(i).

A maximumtechnologically feasible (max tech) design option was identified for each class ofcooking products. The

maxtech levels were derived by adding energy-conserving engineering design options to the baseline units for each of the respective classes in order of decreasing consumer payback. A complete discussion ofeach max tech level, and the design options included in each, is found in the 

### Engineering Analysisin the TSD, Chapter 1. Table 5- 1presents the Department's max tech performance levels for all classes ofthe subject products:

TABLE 5-1 .-COOKING PRODUCTS MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE LEVELS

Product class

Electric oven, self-cleaning

.........

Electric oven, non-self-cleaning

..

Microwave oven

..........................

Electric cooktop, coil element

.....

Electric cooktop, smooth element Annual energy use

213.7

kWh. 162.4

kWh. 132.4

kWh. 229.9

kWh. 206.4

kWh.

### Federal Register/Vol. 63



## . No. 173/Tuesdav. Sentember 

### 8. 1998lRules and Retrulations 

## 48053

Accordingly,DOE first considered the

max tech level of efficiency,i.e., standard level 5.

Conventional Ovens 12. 

### Of the standard levels analyzed,level 5 will save the most energy (1.68 quads between 2000 and 2030).In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that the representative class of conventional ovens will incorporate improved door seals,reduced venting, increased and improved insulation, forced convection, an oven separator, would be biradiant and have reduced conduction losses. However,the payback at this standard level of 36
years for the representative class exceeds the 19-yearproduct life. At this standard level, all classes have increased life-cycle costs and negative net present value. TheDepartment therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 

### 5 for conventional ovens outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard level 4. This standard level is projected to save 

### 1.68quads of energy. In order tomeet this standard, the Department assumes that the representative class of conventional ovens will incorporate improved door seals,reduced venting,increased and improved insulation, andwould be biradiant. However,for the representative class the payback at this standard level is 22 years. This standard level increases the life-cycle costs for both classes of electric ovens. In addition, this standard level results in a negative net present value for all classes of conventional ovens. The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standardlevel 4 for conventional ovens outweighthe benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard level 3.This standard level isprojected to save 0.03 quad of energy. In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that all conventional electric ovens incorporate improved door seals,reduced venting, and improved insulation. The payback at this standard level is 14years. This standardlevel increases the life-cycle
costs for the representative class of electric ovens. The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 3 for conventional ovens outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard level 2. In the Supplemental

l2Standard levels 1-3 were reanalyzed in the SupplementalAnalysis (which used AEO 97 energy forecasts),and standard levels4-5 were not reanalyzed and are based solely on the Draft Report, using AEO 95. 

### Analysis prepared in Fall 1997, standard level 2 was projectedto save 0.1quad of energy. In order to meetthis standard, the Department assumes that the representative class of conventional

ovenswill incorporate reduced venting and improved insulation. However,the savings estimatesthe Department used were based onthe assumption that efficiency gains could be achieved by reducing the vent rate and improving the type of insulation used. As discussed in section "11. Discussionof Comments, reduced vent size" the Department has determined that there
may not be energy savingsfromreduced venting.Thus, in order to evaluate the
energy savingsand consumer impacts of improved insulation only,the Departmenthas considered the incremental differences between trial standardlevel 1 (which consisted of reduced venting) and trial standard level 

### 2 (which adds improved insulation). Thus,standard level 1 essentiallybecomes the baseline for this evaluation. Excludingthe effects of reduced venting on standard level 

### 2 lowersthe energy savingsfromthe reported 0.1 quad to approximately 0.05 quad,reduces the life-cyclecost savings fromthe reported 

### $6 to approximately
to 

### $2, and increasesthe paybackto from the reported 6.5 years to approximately 9 years (compared to the expected life of 19years). Additionally, because currently ovens are not labeled or tested for energy consumption andtherefore performance data on specific ovens does not exist, it isunknown whether all non-self-cleaning electric ovens would
meet a specific performance standard by the addition of insulation alone. Consequently, there is a risk that in order to bring some electric non-selfcleaning ovens into compliance with a performancestandard,manufacturers would need to use additional design options. The analysis found no other design options to be cost effective. The additional cost would be passed on to

consumers. DOE could performadditional testing on electric non-selfcleaning ovens,but giventhe modest savings (.05quad),the burden of performance and a certification program, as well as the adverse manufacturer and consumer impacts for

ovensthat might not achieve a performancestandard by using insulation alone, DOE concluded that the burdens of standard level 

### 2 outweighthe benefits, and DOErejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard level 1.In the Supplemental Analysis prepared in Fall 1997, standard level 1 was projected to save 0.05 quad of energy. In order tomeet this standard,the Department assumes that the representative class of conventional ovens will incorporate reduced venting. As discussed in the "comments" section, the Department has determined that there would likely
not be any energy savings from standard level 1.Therefore,the Department rejectsstandard level 1.

ConventionalCooking Tops13. Of the standard levels analyzed,level 5 will

savethe most energy (0.45quad between 2000 and 2030).In order to meetthis standard, the Department

assumesthat the representative class of conventional cooking tops will have reflective surfaces and would have improved element contact conductance. At this standard level, all classes have increased life-cycle costs and negative net present value. The Department therefore concludesthat the burdens of standard level 5 for conventional cooktopsoutweigh the benefits, and DOE rejectsthe standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard level 

### 4. This standard level isprojectedto save 0.1 quad of energy. In orderto meet this standard, electriccoil cookingtops would have improved element contact conductance and reflective surfaces. However,this standards level results in a negative net present value and increased life-cycle
costsfor the representative class of conventional cooktops. The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 4 for conventional cooktopsoutweigh the benefits, and DOErejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standardlevel is standard level 3. In order to meet this standard,electric-coil cookingtops would have improved element contact conductance. This standard level is projectedto savethe average consumer approximately $3over the life ofthe product,using AEO 95 energyprice forecasts.This standard level is projectedto save 0.05 quad of energy; however,the Department has concerns as to whether this energy saving will be realized. Cooktopsare somewhat unique in that they are completely controlled by the consumer. They are not thermostatically controlled,as are refrigerators,nor dothey operate in a cyclical mode like a dishwasher.They are operated for an amount of time determined by the consumer to complete a cooking task. Given the smallrelative efficiency improvement of this design level, 4.3percent,the

l3Cooktopsand microwave ovens were not reanalyzed in the Supplemental Analysis, therefore they arebased solelyonthe Draft Report, using AEO 95 energy forecasts. 

### Federal 

### Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

### 48053

Accordingly, DOE first considered the

max tech level ofefficiency, Le., standard level 5.



### Conventional Ovens 12. Ofthe standard levels analyzed, level 5 will

save the most energy (l.68 quads between 2000 and 2030). In order to meet this standard, the Department

assumes that the representative class of conventional ovens will incorporate improved door seals, reduced venting, increased and improved insulation, forced convection, an oven separator, would be biradiant and have reduced conduction losses. However, the payback at this standard level of 36
years for the representative class exceeds the 19-year product life. At this standard level, all classes have increased life-cycle costs and negative
net present value. The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 5 for conventional ovens outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard level 4. This standard level is projected to save 1.68 quads of
energy. In orderto meet this standard, the Department assumes that the representative class ofconventional

ovens will incorporate improved door seals, reduced venting, increased and improved insulation, and would be biradiant. However, for the representative class the payback at this standard level is 22 years. This standard level increases the life-cycle costs for both classes ofelectric ovens. In addition, this standard level results in a negative net present value for all classes ofconventional ovens. The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 4 for conventional ovens outweighthe benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard level 3. This standard level is projected to save 0.03 quad ofenergy. In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that all conventional electric ovens incorporate improved door seals, reduced venting, and improved insulation. The payback
at this standard level is 14 years. This standard level increases the life-cycle
costs for the representative class of electric ovens. The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 3 for conventional ovens outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard level 2. In the Supplemental

12Standard levels 1-3 were reanalyzed in the Supplemental Analysis (which used AEO 97 energy forecasts), and standard levels 4-5 were not reanalyzed and are based solely on the Draft Report, using AEO 95, Analysis prepared in Fall 1997, standard level 2 was projectedto save 0,1 quad ofenergy. In orderto meetthis standard, the Department assumes that the representative class ofconventional

ovens will incorporate reduced venting and improved insulation. However, the savings estimatesthe Department used

were based onthe assumptionthat efficiency gains could be achieved by reducing the ventrate and improving the type ofinsulation used. As discussed in section "II. Discussion of Comments, reduced vent size" the Department has determined that there
may not be energy savings from reduced venting. Thus, in order to evaluate the
energy savings and consumer impacts of improved insulation only, the Departmenthas considered the incremental differences between trial standard level 1 (which consisted of reduced venting) and trial standard level 2 (which adds improved insulation). Thus, standard level 1 essentiallybecomes the baseline for this evaluation. Excluding the effects of reduced venting on standard level 2 lowers the energy savings from the reported 0.1 quad to approximately 0.05 quad, reduces the life-cycle cost savings from the reported $6 to approximately
to $2, and increases the paybackto from the reported 6,5 years to approximately 9 years (compared to the expected life of 19 years). Additionally, because currently ovens are not labeled or tested for energy consumption and therefore performance data on specific ovens does
not exist, it is unknown whether all non-self-cleaning electric ovens would
meet a specific performance standard by the addition ofinsulation alone. Consequently, there is a risk that in orderto bring some electric non-selfcleaning ovens into compliance with a performance standard, manufacturers would need to use additional design options. The analysiS found no other design options to be cost effective. The additional cost would be passed on to

consumers. DOE could perform additional testing on electric non-selfcleaning ovens, but given the modest savings (,05 quad), the burden of performance and a certification
program, as well as the adverse manufacturerand consumer impacts for

ovens that might not achieve a performance standard by using insulation alone, DOE concluded that the burdens ofstandard level 2 outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard levell, In the Supplemental Analysis prepared in Fall 1997, standard level 1was projected to save 0,05 quad ofenergy, In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes thatthe representative class of conventional ovens will incorporate reduced venting. As discussed inthe

..comments" section, the Department has determined that there would likely
not be any energy savings from standard levell. Therefore, the Department rejects standard levell,



### Conventional Cooking Tops 13. Ofthe standard levels analyzed, level 5 will

save the most energy (0.45 quad between 2000 and 2030). In order to meetthis standard, the Department

assumes that the representative class of conventional cooking tops will have reflective surfaces and would have improved element contact conductance. At this standard level, all classes have increased life-cycle costs and negative
net presentvalue. The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 5 for conventional cooktops outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard level 4, This standard level is projected to save 0,1 quad ofenergy, In orderto meet this standard, electriccoil cooking tops would have improved element contact conductance and reflective surfaces. However, this standards level results in a negative net present value and increased life-cycle
costs for the representative class of conventional cooktops. The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 4 for conventional cooktops outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.

The next most stringent standard level is standard level 3, In order to meetthis standard, electric-coil cooking tops would have improved element contact conductance, This standard level is projected to save the average consumer approXimately $3 over the life ofthe product, using AEO 95 energy price forecasts. This standard level is projected to save 0.05 quad ofenergy; however, the Department has concerns

as to whetherthis energy saving will be realized, Cooktops are somewhat unique in that they are completely controlled by the consumer. They are not thermostatically controlled, as are refrigerators, nor do they operate in a cyclical mode like a dishwasher. They

are operated for an amount oftime determined by the consumerto complete a cooking task. Given the small relative efficiency improvement of this design level, 4.3 percent, the

13Cooktops and microwave ovens were not reanalyzed in the Supplemental Analysis, therefore they are based solely onthe Draft Report, using AEO 95 energy forecasts.

### 48054 Federal Register/

### Vol. 63,

savings would only be realized if consumers reduced their cookingtimes by 4.3 percent.While this is theoretically possible, especially for cooking tasks that have apossible definite end point such asboiling water

or melting butter which would occur 4.3 percent faster, it seemshighly questionable that consumer behavior would change forthe majority of cooking tasks to perform them in 4.3 percent less time. The savings donot occur unless this consumer behavior change takes place. Giventhe questionable nature ofthe energy savings, the Department believes that the burdens of a testing and certification
program and the possible manufacturer impacts for cooktops that might not achieve a performance standard outweighthe benefits of the standard. The Department concludes that the burdens of standard level 3for conventional cooktops outweigh the benefits, andDOE rejects the standard level.

Standardlevel 2is identical to standard level 3 for electric cooktops, and standard level 1is at the baseline. Consequently, the Department isnot issuing a standard for conventional cooktops because the burdens outweigh the benefits for all standardlevels analyzed.

Microwave Ovens '3.

### Of the standard levels analyzed,level 5 will savethe most energy (0.33quad between 2000 and 2030).In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that all microwave ovens will incorporate reflective surfaces andmore efficient
power supplies, fans,and magnetrons. However, the payback at this standard level of 79years exceeds the 10-year product life. In addition this level produces increased life-cycle costs and

a negative net present value. The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 5for microwave ovens outweighthe benefits, and DOE rejectsthe standard level.

Standardlevels 1

### through 4 are at the baseline. The Department is not issuing

a standard for microwave ovensbecause the burdens outweigh the benefits for all standard levels analyzed.

After carefully consideringthe analysis, the Department isnot issuing

a standard for electric cookingproducts because the Department believes the burdens outweigh the benefits for all standard levels and all classes of these products. 

### No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998 /

### Rules and Regulations

IV. ProceduralIssuesand Regulatory regulations to minimize litigation; and 

### Review (3)~rovide a clear legal standard for



### a. Review Under the National Environmental PolicyAct

In issuing the proposed rule, the Department prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-08 19)that was published within the Technical Support Documentforthe Proposed Rule. (DOE/EE-0009, November 1993.) The environmentaleffects associated with various standard levels were found
to be not significant, and a Findingof No Significant Impact (FONSI)was published. 59 FR 15869 (April

### 5, 1994). Because the Department is not issuing now a new standard forthese products, there are no environmental impacts associated with today's rule.

b. Review Under Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory PlanningandReview"

Today's rule has been determined not to be a "significant regulatory action,"

asdefined in section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866,"Regulatory Planning and Review" (58FR 51735),and has not been reviewed by the Office of Managementand Budget.

c. Review Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 081980 (Pub. 

### L. 96-354), 5 U.S.C. 601 etseq., requires an assessment ofthe impact of regulations on smallbusinesses &less

an agency certifiesthat the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses and other small entities. Because the Department is not issuing a

new standard, this final rule will not have significant economic impact on manufacturers of cookingproducts. DOE certifies that today's final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

d. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

No new information or record keeping requirementsare imposed by this rulemaking. Accordingly,no Officeof Management andBudget clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.

e. Review Under Executive Order 12988, "CivilJustice Reform

"



### With respect tothe review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a)of Executive Order 12988,"Civil Justice Reform," 61FR 4729 (February

### 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agenciesthe general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)eliminatedrafting

errors and ambiguity; (2)write afficted conduct rathyer than a general standard and promote simplification andburden reduction. With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b)of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effortto

ensure that the regulation: (I)clearly specifies the preemptive effect,if any; (2)clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affectedconduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies theretroactive effect,if any; (5) adequately defineskey terms;and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c)of Executive Order 12988requires Executive agenciesto review regulations in light of applicable standardsin section 3(a)and section 3(b)to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final rule under the standardsof section 3 of the Executive Order and determined that,to the extent permitted by law,the final regulations meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.



### f. "Takings "

### Assessment Review

It has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630, "Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights," 53FR 8859 (March 18, 1988) that this regulation would not result in
anytakings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.



## a.Federalism Review

Executive Order 12612, "Federalism," 52 FR 41685 (October30, 1987)requires thatregulations, rules, legislation, and any other policy actionsbe reviewed for any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal Government andthe States,or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among various levels of government. If there are sufficient, substantial direct effects,then Executive Order 12612requires preparation of a federalism assessment to be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing aregulation or a rule. The Department findsthat this finalrule will
not have a substantial direct effect on Stategovernments. 

### 48054 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

savings would only be realized if

consumers reduced their cooking times by 4.3 percent. While this is theoretically possible, especially for cookingtasks that have a possible definite end point such as boiling water

or melting butter which would occur 4.3 percent faster. it seems highly questionable that consumer behavior would change for the majority of cookingtasks to performthem in 4.3 percent less time. The savings do not

occur unless this consumer behavior change takes place. Given the questionable nature ofthe energy savings. the Department believes that the burdens ofa testing and certification
program and the possible manufacturer impacts for cooktops that might not achieve a performance standard outweighthe benefits ofthe standard. The Department concludes that the burdens ofstandard level 3 for conventional cooktops outweigh the benefits. and DOE rejects the standard level.

Standard level 2 is identical to standard level 3 for electric cooktops. and standard level 1 is at the baseline. Consequently. the Department is not issuing a standard for conventional cooktops because the burdens outweigh the benefits for all standard levels analyzed.



### Microwave Ovens 13. Ofthe standard levels analyzed. level 5 will save the

most energy (0.33 quad between 2000 and 2030). In order to meet this standard. the Department assumes that all microwave ovens will incorporate reflective surfaces and more efficient
power supplies. fans. and magnetrons. However. the payback at this standard level of79 years exceeds the lO-year product life. In addition this level produces increased life-cycle costs and

a negative net present value. The Department therefore concludes that the burdens ofstandard level 5 for microwave ovens outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.

Standard levels 1 through 4 are at the baseline. The Department is not issuing

a standard for microwave ovens because the burdens outweigh the benefits for all standard levels analyzed.

After carefully consideringthe analysis, the Department is not issuing

a standard for electric cookingproducts because the Department believes the burdens outweigh the benefits for all standard levels and all classes ofthese products. IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review



### a. Review Under the National EnvironmentalPolicyAct

In issuingthe proposed rule. the Department prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-0819) that

was published within the Technical Support Documentfor the Proposed Rule. (DOE/EE-0009. November 1993.) The environmental effects associated with various standard levels were found
to be not Significant. and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was published. 59 FR 15869 (April 5. 1994). Because the Department is not issuing

now a new standard for these products. there are no environmental impacts associated with today's rule.



### b. Review Under Executive Order 12866. 

### "RegulatoryPlanningandReview"

Today's rule has been determined not to be a "significant regulatory action."

as defined in section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866. "Regulatory Planning and Review" (58 FR 51735). and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

c. 

### Review Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 081980 (pub. L. 96-354). 5 U.S.C. 601 et

### seq

.. reqUires an assessment ofthe impact of regulations on small businesses unless

an agency certifies thatthe rule will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number ofsmall businesses and other small entities. Because the Department is not issuing a

new standard. this final rule will not have significant economic impact on manufacturers ofcooking products. DOE certifies that today's final rule will not have a Significant economic impact on

a substantial number ofsmall entities.

d. 

### Review Under the Paperwork ReductionAct

No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by this rulemaking. Accordingly. no Office of Management and Budget clearance is reqUired under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 

### etseq.

e. 

### Review Under Executive Order 12988. 

### "CivilJustice Reform"

With respect to the review ofexisting regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations. section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988. "CivilJustice Reform." 61 FR 4729 (February 7. 1996). imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following reqUirements: (1) eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review reqUired by section 3(a). section 3(b) ofExecutive Order 12988 specifically reqUires that Executive agencies make everyreasonable effort to

ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect. ifany; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies theretroactive effect. ifany; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) ofExecutive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light ofapplicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final rule under the standards ofsection 3 ofthe Executive Order and determined that. to the extent permitted by law. the final regulations meet the relevant standards ofExecutive Order 12988.

f. 

### "Takings"AssessmentReview

It has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630. "Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights." 53 FR 8859 (March 18. 1988) that this regulation would not result in
any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.



### g. Federalism Review

Executive Order 12612. "Federalism." 52 FR 41685 (October 30. 1987) requires thatregulations. rules. legislation. and
any other policy actions be reviewed for
any substantial direct effect on States.

on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among various levels of government. Ifthere are sufficient. substantial direct effects. then Executive Order 12612 reqUires preparation of a federalism assessment to be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing a regulation or a rule. The Department finds that this final rule will
not have a substantial direct effect on State governments.

### Federal Register/

### Vol. 63,

h. Review Under the Unfunded MandatesReform Act

With respect to

### a proposed regulatory actionthat may result 

### in the expenditure by state, local, andtribal governments, inthe aggregate, 

### or the private sectorof $100 million ormore 

### in any oneyear, section 202 of the UnfundedMandatesReform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires a Federal agencyto publish estimates of theresulting costs, benefits andother effects onthe national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b). Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternativesbefore promulgating 

### a rule forwhich 

### a written

statement under section 202 isrequired. DOE is required to select from those alternatives themost cost-effectiveand least burdensome alternativethat achievestheobjectives of therule unlessDOE publishes

### an explanation for doingotherwise orthe selection of suchanalternative is inconsistent with law. Thisfinal rule 

### does not impose

### a Federal mandate 

### on State, local,ortribal governments or ontheprivate sector.

i.Review Under the SmallBusiness Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

### of 1996

Consistent with SubtitleE of the SmallBusinessRegulatory Enforcement 

### FairnessAct of 1996,

### 5 U.S.C. 801-808, DOE will submittoCongress 

### a report regarding the issuance of today's final rule before theeffective date setforth in the outset of this notice. Thereport will
statethat ithasbeen determined that this rule is not 

### a "major rule" 

### as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(a). V. Department 

### ofJusticeViews 

### on the Proposed Rule. September 16, 1994 Honorable Christine A. Ervin Assistant Secretary forEnergy Efficiency,and RenewableEnergy, United States Department ofEnergy,Forrestal Building, 1000IndependenceAve., S.W., Washington,D.C. 20585
Dear Ms. Ervin: By letter dated March 14, 1994,the Department of Energy ("DOE") transmitted to the Attorney General a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (59FR 10464)addressing energy standards for eight classes of household appliances. Those classes are: room air conditioners, water heaters, direct heating equipment, mobile home furnaces, kitchen
ranges and ovens, pool heaters, fluorescent lamp ballasts and television sets. Section 325 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended in 1992 (42 U.S. C. 6295).("the Act:) requires the Attorney General to determine the impact,if any,of any lessening of competition likely to result from the proposed standards. This letter contains the 

### No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

## 48055

competitive impact determination of the fluorescent lampballasts are attainable with DepartmentofJustice. ("Department") currently available technology. Numerous ballast manufacturers assert that in many Summary instances they are not. The Department

The evidence availableto the Department concludes that the doubtsraised about the does not indicate that any significant technical feasibility of the standards are lessening of competition is likely to result serious andaffecta substantial number of from the imposition of the proposed ballast classes. Thus, if the proposed standardsfor mobile home furnaces and pool standards were adopted some or all heaters contained in the Notice. For television sets,fluorescent lampballasts and manufacturers likely have cease the professional-styleor high-end kitchen ranges production Of many products and

it is the Departmentss judgementbased on the competition in the those products available evidence that significant would cease or diminish. anticompetitive effects are likely to occur. ~~l~~i~i~~ 

## sets and ~~l~t~d Technologies For electric water heaters the evidence indicates that a significantanticompetitive 1.The weight of available evidence isthat
effect could take place if sufficient time is not adoption the proposed standard for permitted firmsto develop, produce and television sets could force all of many marketproducts complyingwith the new manufacturers to revise their products to standard.For microwave ovens, oil-fired lessen the number and quality of their water heaters, room air conditioners, and features.Many in the industry contend that direct heating equipmentthe evidence the only way to produce products that will indicatesthat anticompetitive effects could comply with the standard would be toreduce result; the Department is unable on the basis or eliminatefeatures that consume electricity of the available evidence to determine such asbrighter pictures,remote control, whether sucheffects are likely. Finally, the picture-in-picture, improved sound and inevidence indicatesthat the cumulative effects set program guides and other features ofthese and other regulatorystandardscould presently being developed. Development and be to lessen competition in certain markets marketing ofproduct improvements and new for household appliances. features has been animportant factor driving

In preparing these commentsthe competition inthe market for television sets. Department has considered the Notice, the ~~d~~~~~ or retardingthe development of (TSD)prepared such features could substantiallyreduce Lawrence written demand for sets, retard development and and by refinement of technology, andreduce utility the department inthe time allowed and of the product. without the benefit of compulsory process. might attempt to Discussion circumvent the proposed standardby letting

Adoption of standardsrequiring greater energy efficiencyinhousehold appliances could affect competition ina number of ways. First, by raising the cost of appliances andreducing design and feature choices, standardsmay lower demand.If standards impose costs onmanufacturers that can not be passed to consumers they can lower manufacturers' rates of return. Either one or both of these effects could cause manufacturers to exist the marketwith the effect of lessening competition andraising prices. Second,imposition of standardsmay lessen or discourage competition inthe design and development of new product features or technologies; such competition benefits consumers and the economy.

The record in thisproceeding raises many factual issues relating, among other things, to the technical feasibility of certain standards, their economic impact on manufacturers and

consumers and consumer reaction tothe changes inproducts that they might require. In numerous instances,industry re~resentatives and technical consultants reiained by them have challenged assum~tions and conclusions in the Notice and

## TSD. The Department is not ina position to resolve many of these contested issues on the basis of the available record. Accordingly, in some instances,the Departmentisunable to reach a conclusion about the impact of the proposed standards on competition.
FluorescentLampBallasts

One technical issue that has been raised is whether the proposed standardsfor features "migrate"~incorporating them in units to be sold separately or packagedwith television sets. It isclaimed that disaggregating features inthis manner will decrease overall television energy efficiency. There is evidence that it could also lessen competition because the development and marketing of features in such attached units could be costly and cumbersome, among other things encountering receivers that receive cable signals.

There is evidence that the proposed standard for television setscould affect competition in other markets. Representatives of the television industry
assert that as the "Information Highway" develops television manufacturers intend to expand the capabilities of their products to include new features to enable them to serve

as in-home devices for data transmission and communication. They argue that the TV receiver,alreadylocated invirtually every American home, could be a uniquely efficient vehicle for the introduction of new data-processing and communication devices. The Department does not make final judgement on this contentionbut does conclude that,giventhe apparent difficulties in the marketing of new features as part of attached units, the standard is likely to retard the development of technology and inhibit the ability of television manufacturers to competewith computer manufacturers and other in the development of new technologiesandfeatures for the Information Highway. 

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

### 48055

h. 

### Review Under the Unfunded Mandates ReformAct

With respect to a proposed regulatory action that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, inthe aggregate, orthe private sector of $100 million or more in anyone year, section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires a Federal agency to publish estimates ofthe resulting costs, benefits and other effects onthe national economy. 2 U.s.C. 1532(a), (b). Under section 205 ofUMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a written
statement under section 202 is reqUired. DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing otherwise orthe selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. This final rule does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local, ortribal governments or on the private sector.



### i. Review Under the Small Business RegulatoryEnforcementFairnessActof 1996

Consistent with Subtitle E ofthe Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,5 U.S.C. 801-808, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance oftoday's final rule before the effective date set forth in the outset ofthis notice. The report will
state that ithas been determined that this rule is not a "majorrule" as defined by 5 U.s.C. 804(a).

V. Department ofJustice Views onthe Proposed Rule.
September 16, 1994
Honorable Christine A. Ervin AssistantSecretaryfor EnergyEfficiency, and RenewableEnergy. United States Department ofEnergy, Forrestal Building. 1000IndependenceAve

.. S.

## w.. Washington. D.C. 20585
Dear Ms. Ervin: By letter dated March 14, 1994, the Department ofEnergy ("DOE") transmitted to the Attorney General a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (59 FR 10464) addressing energy standards for eight classes ofhousehold appliances. Those classes are: room air conditioners, water heaters. direct heating equipment. mobile home furnaces. kitchen
ranges and ovens. pool heaters. fluorescent lamp ballasts and television sets. Section 325 ofthe Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

as amended in 1992 (42 U.S. C. 6295). ("the Act:) requires the Attorney General to determine the impact, ifany. ofany lessening ofcompetition likely to result from the proposed standards. This letter contains the competitive impact determination ofthe Department ofJustice. ("Department")
Sununary

The evidence available to the Department does not indicate that any Significant lessening ofcompetition is likely to result from the imposition ofthe proposed standards for mobile home furnaces and pool heaters contained in the Notice. For television sets. fluorescent lamp ballasts and professional-style or high-end kitchen ranges it is the Department'sjudgementbased on the available evidence that significant anticompetitive effects are likely to occur. For electric water heaters the evidence indicates that a Significant anticompetitive effect could take place ifsufficient time is not permitted firms to develop. produce and market products complyingwith the new standard. For microwave ovens. oil-fired
waterheaters. room air conditioners, and direct heating equipmentthe evidence indicates that anticompetitive effects could result; the Department is unable onthe basis ofthe available evidence to determine whether sucheffects are likely. Finally. the evidence indicates that the cumulative effects ofthese and other regulatory standards could be to lessen competition in certain markets for household appliances.

Inpreparingthese comments the Department has considered the Notice. the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, written
comments and oral comments collected by the department in the time allowed and without the benefit ofcompulsory process.

Discussion

Adoption ofstandards requiring greater energy efficiency in household appliances could affect competition in a number of
ways. First. by raising the cost ofappliances and reducing design and feature choices, standards may lower demand. Ifstandards impose costs onmanufacturers that can not be passed to consumers they can lower manufacturers' rates ofreturn. Either one or both ofthese effects could cause manufacturers to exist the market with the effect oflessening competition and raising prices. Second. imposition ofstandards may lessen or discourage competition in the design and development ofnew product features or technologies; such competition benefits consumers and the economy.

The record in this proceeding raises many factual issues relating. among other things. to the technical feaSibility ofcertain standards, their economic impact on manufacturers and

consumers and consumerreaction to the changes in products that they might require. In numerous instances. industry representatives and technical consultants retained by them have challenged assumptions and conclusions in the Notice and TSD. The Department is not in a position
to resolve many ofthese contested issues on the basis ofthe available record. Accordingly. in some instances. the Department is unable
to reach a conclusion about the impact ofthe proposed standards on competition.

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

One technical issue that hasbeen raised is whether the proposed standards for fluorescent lampballasts are attainable with currently available technology. Numerous ballast manufacturers assert that in many instances they are not. The Department concludes that the doubts raised about the technical feasibility ofthe standards are serious and affect a substantial number of ballast classes. Thus, ifthe proposed standards were adopted some or all manufacturers would likely have to cease the production ofmany products and competition inthe sale ofthose products would cease or diminish.

Television Setsand Related Technologies

1. The weight ofavailable evidence is that adoption ofthe proposed standard for television sets could force all or many manufacturers to revise theirproducts to lessenthe number and quality oftheir features. Many in the industry contend that the only way to produce products that will comply with the standard would be to reduce

or eliminate features that consume electricity such as brighter pictures. remote control, picture-in-picture, improved sound and inset program guides and other features presentlybeing developed. Development and marketing ofproduct improvements and new features has been an important factor driving competition in the market for television sets. Reducing orretarding the development of such features could substantiallyreduce demand for sets. retard development and refinement oftechnology, and reduce utility ofthe product.

Manufacturers might attempt to circumvent the proposed standardby letting features "migrate"-incorporating them in units to be sold separately or packaged with television sets. It is claimed that disaggregating features in this manner will decrease overall television energy efficiency. There is evidence that it could also lessen competitionbecause the development and marketing offeatures in such attached units could be costly and cumbersome, among other things encountering receivers that receive cable Signals.

There is evidence that the proposed standard for television sets could affect competition in othermarkets. Representatives ofthe television industry
assert that as the "Information Highway" develops television manufacturers intend to expand the capabilities oftheir products to include new features to enable them to serve

as in-home devices for data transmission and communication. They argue that the TV receiver, already located invirtually every American home, could be a uniquely efficient vehicle for the introduction ofnew data-processing and communication devices. The Department does not make final judgement on this contention but does conclude that. given the apparent difficulties in the marketing ofnew features as part of attached units, the standard is likely to retard the development oftechnology and inhibit the ability oftelevision manufacturers to compete with computermanufacturers and other in the development ofnew technologies and features for the Information Highway.

## 48056 Federal Register/

### Vol. 63,

Professional-Style and Standard Ranges

The Notice proposes a single set of standards for gas ovens and cooking tops in household ranges. There is substantial evidence that one categoryof home range
cannot be manufactured to meet these proposed standards without losing somuch of its distinct characteristics that it is no longer marketable. Professional-styleor highend ranges are products designed to provide

some of the performance characteristics of professional or restaurant ranges for home kitchens. Some of these characteristics which differentiate them from standard kitchen
ranges, such as high performance burners and ovens, involve considerably more energy consumptionthan do standard ranges:the special uses and appeal of these products, and their premium inprice, depends in good

measure on these features. Representatives of the range industry assert that high-end ranges
cannotbe modified to comply with the proposed standards without givingup so much of the special features of the product that they are no longer marketable.The Department concludes that it is likely that competition inthe manufacture and saleof these products willbe eliminated if the proposed standards are adopted.

While not as strong as the evidence relating
toprofessional styleranges there isevidence challenging the conclusionsinthe TSD that the proposed standards for standard gas and electric range ovens and cooking tops will not require significant retooling or redesign and will have not more than minimal impact

on manufacturers' longrun rates ofreturn on equity. TheAssociation of Home Appliance Manufacturers contends that the standard could have a destructive impact on the range industry. It and variousrange manufacturers claim that design options suggestedin the TSD are not effectiveandthat compliance would require substantialinvestment in redesign andretooling. The Association also insists that suppliers of equipmentand technology necessary to comply may not be able to respond simultaneouslyand evenly to range manufacturers, a problem that could impose a competitive handicap on some range manufacturers.

A range manufacturer has commented that compliance with the standard cold seriously weaken it and its abilityto compete. There isalso evidence that the cumulative costs of compliance with this standard and with other and future appliance standards could induce or force "full line" appliance manufacturers to exit one or more of the markets that they serve. The range market is concentrated and,while there is conflicting evidence,the Department concludes that there is a possibility that this proposed standard could force one or more firms out of the manufacture of standard ranges thus lessening competition.
Microwave Ovens

The Notice and the TSD conclude that the proposed standard for microwave ovens will not involve any substantial redesign or retoolingby manufacturers and will have little impact on their longrun returns on equity. Representatives of the industry strongly challenge these conclusions. For example, a representative of MCD 

### No. 173/Tuesdav, Serstember 8, 19!

Corporation has testified that compliance with the standard would require that her company,amanufacturer of microwaves, make large investments inretooling,and would threaten its viability.TheAssociation of Home Appliance Manufacturers contends that the standard will in all likelihood eliminate all U.S. Production of microwaves and concentrate U.S. sales inthe hands of

one or two companies.TheDepartment is not in a position to resolve all of the contested technical and financial issues but concludes that thisproposed standard could force some significant producers from this concentrated marketand substantially lessen competition in it.

RoomAir Conditioners

The Notice andTSD conclude that this proposed standard will not involve substantial redesign or retooling and,while it may produce some reductions inthe short run, will have little or no effect on manufacturers' longrun returns on equity. This conclusion has been challenged by firms inthe industry. Thereis evidence that some of the design options suggestedinthe Notice are less effective and more costly than the TSD assumes and that manufacturers may, among other things, need to redesign the chassis of some classesto comply with the standard. Suchredesigns could add to unit installation costs,make units larger and more cumbersome to install, and otherwise depress demand. There is evidence that at least one product, the five thousand BTU unit, may

ceasetobe manufactured if the standard is adopted. There are also unresolved issues about such matters asthe availability and efficacy of some design options suggestedin the TSD. The Department is not able to resolve these issues but concludes that the standard could have a substantia1negative impact on demand and rates ofreturn, and

cause one or more firms to cease the manufacture and sale of some ofthese products, thus lessening competition. Direct HeatingEquipment

Manufacturersof direct heating equipment contend that this standard will seriously depress demand for their product and likely force some,perhaps all,manufacturers out of thisbusiness. Among other things, they contend that the TSD substantially underestimates the added costs of manufacture, and also the added installation
costs forventing andwiring, that will be required. They insist that consumer cost increases will seriously depress demand for their product and that their profit margins will suffer because it will be impossible to
pass on much of the increased manufacturing
costs to consumers. The Department cannot resolve many of these issues but concludes that there is a possibility that several of the five companies that account for most of the production of these products might exit the market if the standard is adopted thus substantially lessening competition.

Water Heaters

Manufacturersof oil-fired heaters content that the proposed standard for their product class would threaten the survival of the product, likely forcing all or most producers
out of this business. Some claim that it may 

### 38/

### Rules and Regulations

not be possible with presently available technology to design and manufacture a product that would comply. Manufacturers assert that the added costs of producing a product in compliance with the standard would,inany event,be considerably higher than the TSD indicates and that increasesin price would very seriously depress consumer demand for this product. Five firms, two of them Canadian producers, account for most ofthe sales of this product inthe U.S. The Department is not able to resolve all the questions raised regardingthis standard: it concludes that there is at least a possibility that the standard might force one or more of these competitors to existthe U.S. market. Another firm has been taking steps to enter the oil-fired water heater market: adoption of the standard may deter it from doing so.The loss of one suchfirm could result ina substantial lessening of competition.

DOE'S proposed standard for electricwater heaters would, in effect,require that such products have an integral heat pump. DOE concedes that thiswould involve major changes and might cause one or more existing firms to cease the marketing of electric water heaters but believes that other firms such as air conditioner manufacturers may begin producing electric water heaters as

a result of the standard.There are complex and unresolved issues as to what would happen to demand for electric water heaters ifconsumers were required topurchase heat pumpswith them. It seems clear that the price of suchunits will be considerably higher than that of the electric resistance heaters that the standard would remove from the market, but the range of future prices,
costs of installation and maintenance and degreeof consumer acceptance of a product that has not been widely accepted until now

are very difficult to predict. Heat pumpwater heaters may be useful and economically attractive to many consumers but serious issues have been raised in this proceeding as to whether certain kinds of consumers, such

as households with relatively little demand for hot water, will derive abenefit from the product.

Even if the heat pump water heater is eventually widely accepted inthe market the Department has concluded that it is likely that competition will be adversely affected for some period of time if adequate time is not permitted forthe phasing in of the standard.Three millions units or more of electric resistance units are now sold annually inthe U.S. Only a few thousand heat pump units are now produced annually in this country, by two firms.It could take

a considerable time for other firms to design new product lines and being substantial ne production capacity on line. there is also evidence from those with experience with the product that heat pumpwater heaters require special maintenance and servicing. Considerable time may be required for firms to develop and train adequate distribution and service networks if they are to compete effectively.If adequate time for phasing in the standard is not allowed, for a considerable period of time there could be fewer companies competing effectivelyinthe electric water heater business than there are now,and competition in this concentrated market could be substantially lessened. 

### 48056 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations

Professional-Style and Standard Ranges

The Notice proposes a single set of standards for gas ovens and cooking tops in household ranges. There is substantial evidence that one category ofhome range cannotbe manufactured to meet these proposed standards without losing so much ofits distinct characteristics that it is no longer marketable. Professional-style or highend ranges are products designed to provide

some ofthe performance characteristics of professional or restaurant ranges for home kitchens. Some ofthese characteristics which differentiate them from standard kitchen
ranges, such as high performance burners and ovens, involve considerably more energy consumptionthan do standard ranges; the special uses and appeal ofthese products, and their premium in price. depends in good

measure on these features. Representatives of the range industry assert that high-end ranges cannotbe modified to comply with the proposed standards without giving up so much ofthe special features ofthe product that they are no longermarketable. The Department concludes that it is likely that competition in the manufacture and sale of these products willbe eliminated ifthe proposed standards are adopted.

While not as strong as the evidence relating
to professional style ranges there is evidence challenging the conclusions in the TSD that the proposed standards for standard gas and electric range ovens and cooking tops will
not require significant retooling or redesign and will have not more than minimal impact

on manufacturers' longrunrates ofreturn on equity. TheAssociation ofHome Appliance Manufacturers contends that the standard could have a destructive impact on the range industry. It and various range manufacturers claim that design options suggested in the TSD are not effective and that compliance would require substantial investment in redesign and retooling. The Association also insists that suppliers ofequipment and technology necessary to comply may notbe able to respond Simultaneously and evenly to range manufacturers, a problem that could impose a competitive handicap on some range manufacturers.

A range manufacturer has commented that compliancewith the standard cold seriously weaken it and its ability to compete. There is also evidence that the cumulative costs of compliancewith this standard and with other and future appliance standards could induce orforce "full line" appliance manufacturers to exit one or more ofthe markets that they serve. The range market is concentrated and. while there is conflicting eVidence. the Departmentconcludes that there is a possibilitythat this proposed standard could force one or more firms out ofthe manufacture ofstandard ranges thus lessening competition.

Microwave Ovens

The Notice and the TSD conclude that the proposed standard for microwave ovens will
not involve any substantial redesign or retooling by manufacturers and will have little impact on their longrunreturns on equity. Representatives ofthe industry strongly challenge these conclusions. For example. a representative ofMCD Corporation has testified that compliance with the standard would require that her company, a manufacturer ofmicrowaves, make large investments in retooling, and would threaten its viability. The Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers contends that the standard will in all likelihood eliminate all U.S. Production ofmicrowaves and concentrate U.S. sales inthe hands of

one ortwo companies. The Department is not in a position to resolve all ofthe contested technical and financial issuesbut concludes that this proposed standard could force some significant producers from this concentrated market and substantially lessen competition in it.

RoomAir Conditioners

The Notice and TSD conclude that this proposed standard will not involve substantial redesign orretooling and, while it may produce some reductions in the short

run, will have little or no effect on manufacturers' long run returns on equity. This conclusion hasbeen challengedby firms in the industry. There is evidence that some ofthe design options suggested in the Notice

are less effective and more costly than the TSD assumes and that manufacturers may, among other things, need to redesign the chassis ofsome classes to comply with the standard. Such redesigns could add to unit installation costs. make units larger and more cumbersome to install. and otherwise depress demand. There is evidence that at least one product, the five thousand BTU unit, may

cease tobe manufactured ifthe standard is adopted. There are also unresolved issues about such matters as the availability and efficacy ofsome design options suggested in the TSD. The Department is not able to resolve these issues but concludes that the standard could have a substantial negative impact on demand and rates ofreturn. and

cause one or more firms to cease the manufacture and sale ofsome ofthese products. thus lessening competition.

Direct Heating Equipment

Manufacturers ofdirect heating equipment contend that this standard will seriously depress demand for their product and likely force some. perhaps all, manufacturers out of this business. Among other things, they contend that the TSD substantially underestimates the added costs of manufacture. and also the added installation
costs for venting and wiring, that will be required. Theyinsist that consumer cost increases will seriously depress demand for their product and that their profit margins will suffer because it will be impossible to pass on much ofthe increased manufacturing
costs to consumers. The Department cannot resolve many ofthese issues but concludes that there is a possibility that several ofthe five companies that account for most ofthe production ofthese products might exit the market ifthe standard is adopted thus substantially lessening competition.

Water Heaters

Manufacturers ofoil-fired heaters content that the proposed standard for theirproduct class would threaten the survival ofthe product, likely forcing all ormostproducers
out ofthis business. Some claim that itmay notbe possible with presently available technology to design and manufacture a product that would comply. Manufacturers
assert that the added costs ofproducing a product in compliance with the standard would. in any event. be considerably higher than the TSD indicates and that increases in price would very seriously depress consumer demand for this product. Five firms. two of them Canadian producers. accountfor most ofthe sales ofthis product inthe U.S. The Department is not able to resolve all the questions raised regarding this standard; it concludes that there is at least a possibility that the standard might force one ormore of these competitors to exist the U.S. market. Another firm has beentaking steps to enter the oil-fired water heater market; adoption of the standard may deter it from doing so. The loss ofone suchfirm could result in a substantial lessening ofcompetition.

DOE's proposed standard for electric water heaters would, in effect, require that such products have an integral heat pump. DOE concedes that this would involve major changes and might cause one ormore existing firms to cease the marketing of electric water heaters butbelieves that other firms such as air conditioner manufacturers
may begin producing electric water heaters as

a result ofthe standard. There are complex and unresolved issues as to what would happen to demand for electric water heaters ifconsumers were required to purchase heat
pumps with them. It seems clear that the price ofsuch units will be conSiderably higher than that ofthe electricresistance heaters that the standard would remove from the market, but the range offuture prices,
costs ofinstallation and maintenance and degree ofconsumer acceptance ofa product that has notbeen Widely accepted until now

are very difficult to predict. Heat pump water heaters may be useful and economically attractive to many consumers but serious issues have been raised in this proceeding as to whether certain kinds ofconsumers, such

as households with relatively little demand for hot water, will derive a benefit from the product.

Even ifthe heatpump water heater is eventually widely accepted in the market the Department has concluded that it is likely that competition will be adversely affected for some period oftime ifadequate time is
notpermitted for the phasing in ofthe standard. Three millions units ormore of electric resistance units are now sold annually in the U.S. Only a few thousand heat pump units are nowproduced annually in this country, by two firms. It could take

a considerable time for other firms to design

new productlines and being substantial ne production capacity on line. there is also evidence from those with experience with the product that heat pump water heaters require special maintenance and servicing. Considerable time may be reqUired for firms
to develop and train adequate distribution and service networks ifthey are to compete effectively. Ifadequate time for phasing in the standard is not allowed, for a considerable period oftime there could be fewer companies competing effectively in the electric water heaterbusiness than there are

now. and competition in this concentrated market could be substantially lessened.

### Federal Register/

### Vol. 63, 

### No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

## 48057

CumulativeEffectsofRegulation Issued in Washington,D.C., on July22, 

### consist of a horizontal cooking top

Many of the manufacturers of appliances lgg8. 

### containing one or more surface units subject tothe ~roposed standards Dan W. Reicher, 

### and/or one or more heating mahufacture several different types of appliance, each subject to those standards or to others authorized by the Act. As indicated above, there is evidence that compliance with some of these standards may require manufacturers to make considerable investments. It is anticipated that future standards for other appliancescould require manufacturers to make similar investments. Full-linemanufacturers such as General Electric, Whirlpool, Frigidaire,Amana and Maytag could thusbe required to make changes in several product lines.

As the TSD recognizes, it is difficult for manufacturers to passredesign and retooling
costs onto consumers. And the impact of a single product redesign may fall more heavily onfirms with small shares of the market since they must write off their costs against less sales volume. There is some evidence that firms, particularly the smaller
ones, facingthe prospect ofrepeated redesigns involving several different products, may be induced to cease manufacturing one or more of such product lines. Thusto a degree that we can not fully assess there is a possibility that the cumulative effect of these and future energy efficiency standards could be to lessen competition in one or more home appliance markets. Sincerely yours, Anne K. Binpaman. Assistant Secretary,EnergyEfficiencyand Renewable Energy



### For the reasons set forth inthe preamble Part 430 of Chapter I1 

### ofTitle 10,Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as setforth below.

PART430-ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS



### 1.The authority citation for Part 430 continuesto read asfollows:

Authority:42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28U.S.C. 2461 note.



### 2. Section 430.2of SubpartA is amended by removingthe definitions for "kitchen ranges and ovens" and "other kitchen ranges and ovens" and adding, in alphabetical order, the definitionsfor "cooking products" and "other cooking products" to read as follows:
SubpartA--General Provisions


### 5430.2 Definitions. 

## *****

Cookingproductsmeans consumer " 

### compartments. They must be one of the following classes: conventional ranges, conventional cookingtops, conventional

ovens,microwave ovens, microwave/ conventionalranges and other cooking products. 

### *****

Other cookingproducts means any cla.ss of cookingproducts otherthan the conventionalrange, conventional cookingtop,conventional oven, microwave oven, andmicrowave/ conventionalrange classes.

3. Section430.32 of Subpart Cis amended by revising paragraph 

### (j) to read as follows:


### 5430.32 Energy conservation standards and effective dates.



### (j) CookingProducts. Gas cooking products with an electrical supply cord shallnot be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. This standard is effectiveon January 1, 1990. 

### ***** " AssistantAttorney General. 

### productsThat areused as the major household cooking appliances.They are [FRDoc. 98-23886 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am] 

### List 

### ofSubjects in 10 

### CFR Part 

### 430 designed to cook or heat different types 'ODE 645*1-P



### Administrative practice and offood by one or more of the following procedure,Energy Conservation, sources ofheat: gas, electricity, or Household appliances. microwave energy.Each product may 

### Federal Register IVo!. 

### 63, No. 173 I

### Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

### 48051

Cumulative Effects ofRegulation

Many ofthe manufacturers ofappliances subjectto the proposed standards manufacture several different types of appliance. each subject to those standards or to others authorizedby the Act. As indicated above. there is evidence that compliance with some ofthese standards may require manufacturers to make considerable investments. It is anticipated that future standards for other appliances could require manufacturers to make similar investments. Full-line manufacturers such as General Electric. Whirlpool. Frigidaire. Amana and Maytag could thus be required to make changes in several product lines.

As the TSD recognizes. it is difficult for manufacturers to passredesign and retooling
costs onto consumers. And the impact ofa single product redesign may fall more heavily on firms with small shares ofthe market since they must write offtheir costs against less sales volume. There is some evidence that firms. particularly the smaller

ones. facing the prospect ofrepeated redesigns involving several different products. may be induced to cease manufacturing one ormore ofsuch product lines. Thus to a degree that we can not fully

assess there is a possibility that the cumulative effect ofthese and future energy efficiency standards could be to lessen competition in one or more home appliance markets. Sincerelyyours. Anne K. Bingaman.
AssistantAttorneyGeneral.

List ofSubjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Energy Conservation, Household appliances. Issued in Washington. D.C

.. onJuly 22. 1998.
Dan W. Reicher.
AssistantSecretary. EnergyEfficiencyand RenewableEnergy

For the reasons set forth inthe preamble Part 430 ofChapter II ofTitle 10, Code ofFederal Regulations, is amended as setforth 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. Section 430.2 ofSubpart A is amended by removing the definitions for "kitchen ranges and ovens" and "otherkitchen ranges and ovens" and adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions for "cooking products" and "other cooking products" to read as follows:

Subpart A-General Provisions

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

## * * * * *

Cookingproductsmeans consumer products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat different types offood by one or more ofthe following

sources ofheat: gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist ofa horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments. They must be one ofthe follOWing classes: conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional

ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/ conventional ranges and othercooking products. 

### * 

## * * * 

### *

Other cookingproducts means any class ofcooking products otherthan the conventional range, conventional cookingtop, conventional oven, microwave oven, and microwave/ conventional range classes. 

## * * * * 

## *

3. Section 430.32 ofSubpart C is amended by revising paragraph 

### G) to read as follows:

§ 430.32 Energy conservation standards and effective dates. 

### * * * * 

## *

G) Cooking Products. Gas cooking products with an electrical supply cord shall not be eqUipped with a constant burning pilot light. This standard is effective onJanuary 1, 1990. 

### * 

### * * 

## * * [FR Doc. 98-23886 Filed 9-4-98: 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 645Q-01-P