= 

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 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TSD may be obtained from: U.S. Conservation Program for Consumer 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Products other than 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." 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., The covered products specified by 10 CFR Part 430 Washington, D.C. 20585. (202) 586- statute include kitchen ranges and 

[Docket Number EE-RM-S-97-7001 9127. ovens. EPCA, § 322,42 U.S.C. 6292. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 Renewable Energy, EE-43, 1000 and specified that the Department shall 

Conservation Standards for Electric Independence Avenue+ S.W., publish a final rule no later than January 

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 5 325(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 Efficiency and Independence Avenue, S.W., designed so as to achieve the 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: economically justified. 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 increases the 

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 efficiency of a covered product. EPCA, 

of Energy (DOE or 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 Supplemental Analysis 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 of the 

DOE to consider amending the energy a. Efficiency Levels Analyzed standard exceed its burdens, based, to 

conservation standards for 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 and Regulatory Review standard On the manufacturers and On 

cooking products (including microwave Review under the National the consumers of the products subject to products) and substitute the term 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 Planning and Review" throughout the estimated average life of 

ovens." DOE is not addressing at this c. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility the covered product in the type (or 

time gas cooking products because it has Act class) compared to any increase in the 

not completed its analysis of the d. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act price of, in the initial charges for, 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 standards would not be Reform Act from the imposition of the standard; 

economically justified. Therefore, the i. Review Under Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

Department will not add new standards ", DOJ Views on the Proposed Rule performance of the covered products for these products. The Department, 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 lessening of 

ovens" with "cooking products'. competition, as determined in writing 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective Part of 'I1 of the Energy by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

October 8, 1998. and Conservation Act (EPCA), P.L. 94- result from the imposition of the 163, as amended by the National Energy 

ADDRESSES: A of the 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. 

Freedom of Information Reading Room, (7) Other factors the Secretary 100-12, by the ~~~~~~~l ~~~l~~~~~ 

U.S. of Energy, Forrestal Energy Conservation Amendments of considers relevant. 

Building, room 1E-190, 1000 1988 (NAECA 1988), P.L. 100-357, and 

Independence Avenue, S.W., the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EpAct), Policy Act, the Nationd Appliance Energy 

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586- P,L, 102-486 E created the Energy Conservation Act, the National Appliance Energy 

3142, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. Conservation Amendments of 1988, and the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992, is referred to in this notice as and 4100 p.m., Monday through Friday, I The Energy Policy and Conservation ~ct, as the "EPCA." Part B of Title 111 is codified at 42 

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

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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 of Energy 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 

of Energy (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 

cooking products (including microwave 

products) and substitute the term 

"cooking products" 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 of the 

relevant issues. 

DOE has determined that there would 

be no significant conservation of energy 

for electric cooktops, electric selfcleaning ovens and microwave ovens, 

and standards would not be 

economically justified. 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 of the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for these 

products may be read at the DOE 

Freedom of Information Reading Room, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, room 1E-190, 1000 

Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-

3142, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. 

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

except Federal holidays. Copies of the 

TSD may be obtained from: U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

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 of Energy 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 of Energy, 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 of Electric Cooking Products 

Comments 

a. Classes 

b. Design Options 

c. Other Comments 

d. Other Comments Regarding the Draft 

Report and Supplemental Analysis 

III. Analysis of Electric Cooking Products 

Standards 

a. Efficiency Levels Analyzed 

b. Significance of Energy 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, 

"Civil Justice 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 on the Proposed Rule 

I. Introduction 

a. Authority 

Part B of Title III of the 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 

1 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products other than 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 than January 

1, 1992, to determine if the 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 

economically justified. EPCA, 

§ 325 (0)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(0)(2)(A). 

The Secretary may not prescribe any 

amended standard which increases the 

maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a 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 economically justified, must 

determine whether the benefits ofthe 

standard exceed its burdens, based, to 

the greatest extent practicable, on a 

weighing of the follOWing seven factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on the manufacturers and on 

the consumers of the 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 of the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy savings likely to result directly 

from the imposition of the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

(6) The need for national energy 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors 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 of Titie 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 determines that 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 of the standard, as calculated 4. Gas ovens, non-self-cleanunder the applicable test procedure." ing. 

The Department analyzes the merits 5. Microwave ovens ................ of efficiency improvements for each 6. Electric cooktop, coil eleclass of product 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. The revised 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 of the 

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. 1 and No. 2.) The letter invited 

comment on the Draft Report by no later 

294 than July 1, 1996. During June and July 

1.71 MMBtu. 1996, DOE received three comments on 

the Draft Report and related issues. 

Annual enf!~~~$~s~~ 

September 

10, 2001 

267 kwh. 

218 kwh. 

product class, regardless of fuel type. The analysis in the Draft Report DOE received over 8,000 comments indicates that establishing new or b. Background during the 'Omment period On the lgg4 revised for microwave ovens 

The current standard (effective and from participants at is not economically justified because the 

January 1, 1990) states that kitchen the public in Washington, payback period exceeds the life of the 

ranges and ovens with an electrical On 5-7q lgg4 and June 7-8, product and would produce increased 

supply cord shall not be equipped with 59 comments life-cycle costs and a negative net 

a constant burning pilot light. with k~tchen ovens, cooktops, and present value. The analysis in the Draft 

In 1990, DOE published an advance microwave Ovens. Report and the comments received 

notice of proposed rulemaking with After reviewing the On the prompted further examination of gas 

regard to standards for 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 focuses exclusively on the possible 

referred to as the 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 ovens by 

classes that DOE planned to analyze and regarding kitchen cooktops, Ovens, and venting and insulating them like selfprovided a detailed discussion of the microwave ovens to account for the cleaning electric ovens. The 

analytical methodology and analytical comments and data received during the supplemental analysis used the latest 

models that the Department expected to public period. (This revised available data from AHAM regarding the 

use. analysis became the basis for the 1996 trends over time of of sales of 

On March 4, 1994, DOE published a Draft Report.) 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 of proposed or final rules also used the latest utility price 

the kitchen ranges and ovens. 59 FR for appliance efficiency standards as forecasts from the Annual Energy 

10464 (March 4, 1994) (hereinafter part of the FY 1996 appropriations Outlook of the Energy Information 

referred to as the Proposed Rule.) The legislation. Pub. L. 104-134. That Administration, AEO 97, and the Gas 

Department proposed that the annual moratorium expired on September 30, Research Institute, GRI 97. 

energy use of kitchen ranges and ovens 1996. In a Federal Register Notice of limited 

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

use of any of the following components conducted a review of its process for for public comment (63 FR 9975) dated 

incorporated into the kitchen range and developing appliance energy efficiency February 27, 1998, the Department 

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

sum of energy usages for those publication of a final rule, entitled cooking products for 30 days. This 

components listed in Table 1-1, These "Procedures for Consideration of New notice announced the availability of the 

proposed standards were 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 as the Process the Department was inclined to 

TABLE 1-1 .-PROPOSED STANDARDS Rule). 61 FR 36973 Uuly 15, 1996). promulgate in the 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 (6 1 FR at 36980) DOE has from "kitchen ranges and ovens" to 

employed an approach consistent with "cooking products." This change was the new procedures in completing work made because the term "kitchen ranges 

on this rule. 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 conventional ranges, cooktops and 

Rule, DOE distributed for comment a ovens and microwave ovens. Draft Report on the Potential Impact of Due to a request by the American Gas 

Alternative Energy Efficiency Levels for Association (AGA) for additional time, 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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 

economic justification in instances 

where the Secretary determines that 

"the additional cost to the consumer of 

purchasing a product complying with 

an energy conservation standard level 

will be less than three times the value 

of the energy savings during the first 

year that the consumer will receive as 

a result of the standard, as calculated 

under the applicable test procedure." 

The Department analyzes the merits 

of effiCiency improvements for each 

class of product independently. The 

Department applies the same criteria to 

determine the technological feasibility 

and economic justification of each 

product class, regardless of fuel type. 

b. Background 

The current standard (effective 

January 1. 1990) states that 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 of proposed 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 of the 

analytical methodology and analytical 

models that the Department expected to 

use. On March 4,1994, DOE published a 

notice of proposed 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 of kitchen ranges and ovens 

shall be the sum of the annual energy 

use of any of the following components 

incorporated into the kitchen range and 

oven and shall not exceed the allowable 

sum of energy 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 and from participants at 

the public hearings held in Washington, 

DC on April 5-7, 1994 and June 7-8, 

1994.59 comments dealt specifically 

with kitchen ovens, cooktops, and 

microwave ovens. 

After reviewing the comments on the 

proposed standards for kitchen 

cooktops, conventional ovens, and 

microwave ovens, the Department 

concluded that a number of significant 

issues were raised which required 

additional analysis. In 1995, the 

Department revised 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 of proposed or final rules 

for appliance efficiency standards as 

part of the FY 1996 appropriations 

legislation. Pub. L. 104-134. That 

moratorium expired on September 30, 

1996. 

In 1995 and 1996, the Department 

conducted a review of its process for 

developing appliance energy efficiency 

standards. This review resulted in the 

publication of a final rule, entitled 

"Procedures for Consideration of New 

or Revised Energy Conservation 

Standards for Consumer Products" 

(hereinafter referred to as the Process 

Rule). 61 FR 36973 Ouly 15, 1996). 

Although the new procedures in the 

Process Rule do not apply to this 

rulemaking (61 FR at 36980) DOE has 

employed an approach consistent with 

the new procedures in completing work 

on this rule. In keeping with the new 

process, and based on comments 

received in response to the Proposed 

Rule, DOE distributed for comment a 

Draft Report on the 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, 

examining five alternative effiCiency 

levels. The revised analysis drastically 

reduced the amount of energy which 

could be saved at each efficiency leveL 

The Draft Report was distributed to a 

mailing list that included all of the 

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 

than July 1, 1996. During June and July 

1996, DOE received three comments on 

the Draft Report and related issues. 

The analysiS in the Draft Report 

indicates that establishing new or 

revised standards for microwave ovens 

is not economically justified because the 

payback period exceeds the life of the 

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 of gas 

cooktops, gas ovens, and electric nonself-cleaning ovens. DOE prepared an 

analysis to supplement the Draft Report 

that focuses exclUSively on the possible 

elimination of standing pilot lights for 

gas products and improving non-selfcleaning conventional electric ovens by 

venting and insulating them like selfcleaning electric ovens. The 

supplemental analysis used the latest 

available data from AHAM regarding the 

trends over time of shares of sales 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 of the Energy Information 

Administration, AEO 97, and the Gas 

Research Institute, GRI 97. 

In a Federal Register Notice of limited 

reopening of the 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 of the 

supplemental analysis and gave 

indication of the prescriptive standard 

the Department was inclined to 

promulgate in the final rule. The notice 

also indicated the Department's intent 

to change the name of this 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 Reopening Notice that identified 

significant issues surrounding gas 

cooking products, DOE decided to sever 

the electric cooking products from the 

gas cooking products in this rulemaking. 

11. Discussion of Electric 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 cooking products. 

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) commented that there should be 

separate product classes for the 

convection and browner type 

microwave ovens based on their specific 

utility, as well as additional product 

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 on the 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. 

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 elements need a separate 

product class because its data shows the 

browner versions are consistently lower 

in efficiency by 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. 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 ft 3 

total cavity volume 

4. Portable MicrowaveIThermal 

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 

comments the need for separate 

microwave oven classes in future 

rulemakings. O.P. Clay (Sharp, No. 521 

at 2), relying on 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 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 of the 

microwave standard for convection and 

browner type microwave ovens because 

of the small number that are sold and 

because they provide a specific utility 

different from the standard microwave oven. 

The Department believes more 

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 (see section 111. e.), the 

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 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 stated that there 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 cooking products. G. 

Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 

at 2 19) suggested DOE have a more specific definition in regard to 

commercial-type versus 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 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 should be changed from a volume 

of 5 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 BTUIh 

to 22,500 BTUIh because efficiency 

improvements may make today's level 

of performance (at 30,000 BTU/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 

efficiency standards for cooking 

products in today's rule, the Department 

believes this comment is not a concern 

at this time. 

Comments with unspecified docket numbers Department does not believe it is b. Design Options 

belong to docket number EE-RM-90-201, hi^ necessary to examine this issue at this 

docket contains the September 1990 advance notice time. Oven Door Window 

and the 1994 ~ro~osed~ule. Docket No. EE-RM- The Department received several S-97-700 contains the 1996 Draft Report, Commercial-type Products for comments which argued there would be comments to the 1996 Draft Report, comments to Residential Use 

the 1998 reopening notice and the supplemental reduced utility and a decrease in 

analysis. Comments from this docket are specified L. Durden (Viking Range 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 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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 surrounding gas 

cooking products. DOE decided to sever 

the electric cooking products from the 

gas cooking products in this rulemaking. 

II. Discussion of Electric 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 cooking products. 

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) commented that there should be 

separate product classes for the 

convection and browner type 

microwave ovens based on their specific 

utility, as well as additional product 

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 on the 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. 

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 elements need a separate 

product class because its data shows the 

browner versions 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 contains the 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 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: 

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 with these 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 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 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 of the 

microwave standard for convection and 

browner type microwave ovens because 

of the 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 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 stated that there 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 cooking products, G, 

Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 

at 219) suggested DOE have a more 

specific definition in regard to 

commercial-type versus 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 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 should be changed from a volume 

of 5 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 

of performance (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 1 1-2 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) and D. Karl 

Landstrom (Battelle, Transcript, Apr. 7 

at 239-240 and Transcript, Jun. 7 at 

292-294) commented that the 1994 

proposed standard would adversely 

affect cooking utility and quality 

because of the number of times 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 of the 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) 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 (Independent Home 

Economist, No. 749 at 1) conducted 

limited tests using 17 door openings 

with no window. She found 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 14.35 percent for a standard oven) 

and a "good payback." ADL also 

commented, however, this design 

option "does change the 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 

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 of the oven window would 

burden people who use a wide range of 

wheeled assistive devices, frail people 

(early Alzheimers), and people with 

impaired sense of smell because the 

window would serve as an early visual 

warning of burning or a fire within the oven. 

Margery Tippie (Redbook Magazine, 

No. 488 at 1) commented that all baked 

goods recipes state a range of baking 

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 

No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 4804 1 

baking time, and to proceed until the 

desired degree of doneness is achieved. 

An oven window helps in the process." 

She argued that without the window, 

there would be constant heat (energy) 

loss since the 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. 557 at 23) 

commented that DOE should exclude 

this design option from the analysis, 

since it is just as likely to increase as 

decrease energy use. P. Gordon (Marsco Manufacturing 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 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 

1, No. 892 at 1, and No. 907 at 1) also 

supported the argument to eliminate the 

oven door window design option. 

DOE agrees with the various 

commenters that the removal of the oven door window may cause the users of the 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 

eliminate this desiw o~tion. 

Reduction of Thermal Mass 

G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, 

Apr. 7 at 2 17) commented that 

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 may potentially 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 2 1-22) 

commented that this design option will 

improve the oven efficiency, but 

reductions in material thickness are 

very limited. These limitations are 

based on: the average porcelain 

thickness needed for adequate wall 

coverage and sheet metal thickness 

reduction limitations (due to the use 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 0.35 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 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 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 2 15- 

216) commented that this design option 

would result in considerable changes in 

consumer utility because many recipes 

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 

of this 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 7-1 1) commented that 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 is less than 8 kWh/y as 

compared to DOE'S estimates of 4 1 

kWh/y and 33 kWh/y for self-cleaning 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September B, 199B/Rules and Regulations 48041 

at 211-212) 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) and D. Karl 

Landstrom (Battelle, Transcript, Apr. 7 

at 239-240 and Transcript, Jun. 7 at 

292-294) commented that the 1994 

proposed standard would adversely 

affect cooking utility and quality 

because of the number of times 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 of the 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) 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 (Independent Home 

Economist, No.7 49 at 1) conducted 

limited tests using 17 door openings 

with no window. She found 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 14.35 percent for a standard oven) 

and a "good payback." ADL also 

commented, however, this design 

option "does change the 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 

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 of the oven window would 

burden people who use a wide range of 

wheeled assistive devices, frail people 

(early Alzheimers), and people with 

impaired sense of smell because the 

window would serve as an early visual 

warning of burning or a fire within the 

oven. 

Margery Tippie (Redbook Magazine, 

No. 488 at 1) commented that all baked 

goods recipes state a range of baking 

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 of doneness is achieved. 

An oven window helps in the process." 

She argued that without the window, 

there would be constant heat (energy) 

loss since the 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. 557 at 23) 

commented that DOE should exclude 

this design option from the analysis, 

since it is just as likely to increase as 

decrease energy use. P. Gordon (Marsco Manufacturing 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 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 

supported the argument to eliminate the 

oven door window design option. 

DOE agrees with the various 

commenters that the removal of the 

oven door window may cause the users 

of the 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 

eliminate this design option. 

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 in the TSD. Also, 

utility may potentially 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 material thickness are 

very limited. These limitations are 

based on: the average porcelain 

thickness needed for adequate wall 

coverage and sheet metal thickness 

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 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 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 many recipes 

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 

of this 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.7 49 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) commented that 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 is less than 8 kWh/y as 

compared to DOE's estimates of 41 

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 incremental price increase for of the oven may be affected. Tim Brooks emitted by the current cavity); (2) only 

this option is $81.95 which would result (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at modest energy savings are possible 

in payback periods of 141 and 106 2) commented that improved door seals (from 12.15 baseline efficiency to 12.73 

years, respectively, for these ovens. are not justified because of insignificant efficiency); and (3) consumer payback is 

ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) energy savings (0.2%) with excessive long (8.62 to 11.33 years). 

commented that this option looks payback-less than $1 saved per year. Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, 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 for Proper that reflective pans are assumed to have 

need modification, but this problem heating and moisture conditions while no maintenance cost and could easily be 

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 states they 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 supporting data, 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 turn the forced convection standard levels the Department found to 3) concurred and stated that the pans feature on 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 one year, 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 in the technology to 

but the consumer would learn how to 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, and therefore 

technology is already in the percent improvement assumption is achieve an energy efficiency 

marketplace. DOE recognizes that full unsupported by facts. He also noted improvement7 Over the life of the 

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 energy use over short periods finds in today's rule that this design surfaces in Ovens and reflective pans for 

of time. 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 (Betty Cracker, 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 this reduced loss of consumer utility (oven cleaning) oven separator would have low 

cooking time increases utility to the and is not financially justified. He also COnsumer acceptance and only adds to 

consumer. commented that industry aggregate the cost of the appliance. She also stated 

incremental costs of this design option that the existence of a (krman model 

Improved Door Seals are approximately 12 to 13 times higher has no relevance for American 

M. Thompson (Whirlpool, Transcript, than the DOE TSD cost, resulting in a consumers but did not provide any 

Apr. 7 at 223-224) argued that a little 152 year 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 

especially when baking to 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 found to 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 standard Reduced 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 (Independent Home Economist, temperatures (850-950F). Lyn Cook with this design option and that it is not 

No. 749 at 2) also recommended 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 flow through 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 to the 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 (oven size), 

Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 17-18) Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 and result in an excessive payback 

analyzed this 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 11 to 

impact on oven efficiency (from 12.15 to 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 of this reflected radiation not be justified. 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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 off this 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 if the design option is used, 

but the consumer would learn how to 

use it if desired. 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 

of time. 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 utility to the 

consumer. 

Improved Door Seals 

M. Thompson (Whirlpool, Transcript, 

Apr. 7 at 223-224) argued that a little 

bit of leakage 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 cooking performance. 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 of the oven, but more 

testing should be done. 

For standard electric ovens, Arthur D. 

Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 17-18) 

analyzed this design option and 

concluded that it will have a very minor 

impact on oven efficiency (from 12.15 to 

12.39 percent) and a price premium that 

creates a payback in excess of 10 years. 

Additionally, the cooking performance 

of the oven may be affected. Tim Brooks 

(Whirlpool. EE-RM-S-97 -700 No.6 at 

2) commented that improved door seals 

are not justified because of insignificant 

energy savings (0.2%) with excessive 

payback-less than $1 saved per year. 

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 of the 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 Department found to 

be economically justified 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 economically justified. 

Reflective Surfaces 

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 

10) said that this design option causes 

loss of consumer utility (oven cleaning) 

and is not finanCially justified. He also 

commented that industry aggregate 

incremental costs of this 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 of a 

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) commented that 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 of this 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) consumer payback is 

long (8.62 to 1l.33 years). 

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

with the statement in the Draft Report 

that reflective pans are assumed to have 

no maintenance cost and could easily be 

maintained by the 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 

one year. 

DOE agrees with the 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 of the 

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 of the appliance. She also stated 

that the existence of a 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 of consumer utility 

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 

justify the cost premium. Likewise, 

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 

11) submitted that 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 be justified. 
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) on the oven energy 

usage, it will have a negative impact on the utility of the oven and range 

appliances. Either the size of the 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, but the 

implementation of this design may 

affect the utility of the appliance for the 

reasons stated above. 

The arguments against this design 

option involve reduction of consumer utility due to decreased oven cavity 

volume, if the same oven footprint is 

maintained. The Department has 

eliminated this design option because it 

reduces consumer utility 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 capability than existing 

technology and can be used in oven and 

range appiications. 

Maytag (Maytag, EE-RM-S-97-700 

No. 9 at 4) stated that insulating the 

non-self-cleaning oven in a manner similar to 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 solely to 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 

savings in energy. AHAM commented 

that in order to attain any possible real 

increase in efficiency, non-self cleaning 

products would have to undergo total 

door reconstruction (including door 

seal, heat insulating glass) at great, costprohibitive expense. 

The Department did consider higher 

performing insulation (See Draft Report 

Table 1-9) but did not consider the 

Microtherm product specifically due to 

a lack of data, particularly material costs 

and possible installation or fabrication 

cost. The Department 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. Since the venting systems on selfchanges to any door glass or inner 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 Seal design to minimize the 

overall impact on cooking performance. 

Marcia K. Copeland (General Mills, 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, and foods 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. 

Karen Johnson (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 of the 

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, any reduction in 

size will affect cooking performance. 

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S97-700 No. 33 at 2) stated that the 

venting Whirlpool uses in self-cleaning ovens is virtually identical to 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 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 stated that the 

size of the vent opening is determined 

by several factors, only one of which is 

the cleaning type. AHAM commented 

that if a 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, but reducing the vent 

rate inherently reduces the energy lost 

in the cooking process and therefore, 

increases the overall efficiency of the 

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 

as&mption is refuted by the Whirlpool 

comment that there is no difference in 

venting in its products and the AHAM 

comment that vent openings are not 

automatically larger in non-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 of its 

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 heat transfer method is 

a function of physical contact and that 

this contact is influenced by the flatness 

of the obiect on the cooktog. 

Improved Efficiency of the Magnetron 

Power Supply/Transformer 

Charles Samuels (AHAM, Transcript, 

Apr. 7 at 5 1) 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 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 testing that resulted in a 

transformer efficiency of 9 1.4 percent 

with an additional cost of $6.45 per unit 

and a payback period greater than six 

years. This improvement was from only 

one of its 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 

study corroborates it. He said this 

design option should be dropped. Jack 

Weizeorick, AHAM (April 7, rebuttal at 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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) on the oven energy 

usage, it will have a negative impact on 

the utility ofthe oven and range 

appliances. Either the size of the 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, but the 

implementation of this design may 

affect the utility of the appliance for the 

reasons stated above. 

The arguments against this design 

option involve reduction of consumer 

utility due to decreased oven cavity 

volume, if the same oven footprint is 

maintained. The Department has 

eliminated this design option because it 

reduces consumer utility 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 capability than 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 insulating the 

non-self-cleaning oven in a manner 

similar to 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 solely to 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 

savings in energy. AHAM commented 

that in order to attain any possible real 

increase in efficiency, non-self cleaning 

products would have to undergo total 

door reconstruction (including door 

seal, heat insulating glass) at great, costprohibitive expense. 

The Department did consider higher 

performing insulation (See Draft Report 

Table 1-9) but did not consider the 

Microtherm product speCifically due to 

a lack of data, particularly material costs 

and possible installation or fabrication 

cost. The Department only considered 

the increased performance and cost of 

higher density fiberglass insulation in 

existing cavities and did not consider 

changes to any door glass or inner 

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 that reducing 

oven vent size will negatively impact 

high moisture foods such as pound 

cake, two-crust fruit pies, roasting, meat 

loaf, lasagna, and foods 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. 

Karen Johnson (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 of the 

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, any reduction in 

size will affect cooking performance. 

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S97-700 No. 33 at 2) stated that the 

venting Whirlpool uses in self-cleaning 

ovens is virtually identical to 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 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 stated that the 

size of the vent opening is determined 

by several factors, only one of which is 

the cleaning type. AHAM commented 

that if a 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, but reducing the vent 

rate inherently reduces the energy lost 

in the cooking process and therefore, 

increases the overall efficiency of the 

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 

that these reduced vents could 

satisfactorily be applied to non-selfcleaning ovens and yield an efficiency 

improvement. However, this 

assumption is refuted by the Whirlpool 

comment that there is no difference in 

venting in its products and the AHAM 

comment that vent openings are not 

automatically larger in non-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 of its 

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 heat transfer method is 

a function of physical contact and that 

this contact is influenced by the flatness 

of the object on the cooktop. 

Improved Efficiency of the 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 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 testing that resulted in a 

transformer efficiency of 91.4 percent 

with an additional cost of $6.45 per unit 

and a payback period greater than six 

years. This improvement was from only 

one of its 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 

study corroborates 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 the TSD 

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) 

commented that DOE'S provided cost 

estimates of $7.90 for the 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. Sharp urged that DOE not 

include microwave ovens in the 

rulemaking based on these 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 the TSD. Mr. 

Lagoussie commented that the 

improvement was 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. BuMer reported an 

efficiency number based on theory 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 50 percent 

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.), and their response to the 

proposed standard is that the efficiency 

of the magnetron can be increased 

marginally (1 percent, or from 71 to 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 double the current 

price of the tube in this 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 the U.S. market which is one- third of the 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 this design option 

should be dropped since the magnetrons 

are as efficient as possible already. 

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

Dennis Wilson, Frigidaire (April 7, He also said that it is possible to 

rebuttal at 345) commented that an increase the coupling between the 

increased efficiency microwave oven magnetron and the cavity for a specific 

would require an increase in a load in such a way that the efficiency 

transformer size and additional costs. would improve for that specific load. 

Frigidaire's written comments (No.544 However, there were several significant 

at 3) further argued that the company disadvantages to this tight coupling 

would be at an economic disadvantage which he supplied in his written 

in the European marketplace because comments. D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 

this increased size would make the 544 at 4) commented that this design 

higher efficiency microwave oven option would require the redesign and 

incompatible with the common chassis retooling of the 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 

Jack Weizeorick 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 (Sharp Electronics 

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 0.8 percent increase), but the cost 

close to 60% efficiency. ACEEE (ACEEE, increase is $7 to $8.22, not $1.05 as 

No. 557 at 24) urged DOE to include the stated in the TSD. This cost would 

effects of the adoption of European significantly extend the payback period. 

power supply standards on U.S. Also, the improvement previously 

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 indicate technological barriers to (AHAM, No. 001 at 11) commented that 

improving the efficiency of microwave manufacturers' data indicates that most 

ovens above the 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 15.2 watts over the "standard" fan 

efficiency and a significant number which uses approximately 2 1 watts, at 

above 57 percent, thus indicating the an additional cost of $2.20. If an 

technology exists to improve the electronically commuted DC motor were 

efficiency of 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 levels the D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 4) 

Department found to be economically commented that a more efficient fan 

justified in today's rule, the Department motor could be manufactured without a 

does not consider it to be an issue in capital investment but would require 

this rulemaking. engineering and testing to qualify the 

component. The revised 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 some microwave Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 

ovens by reducing the length or 3) commented that fans use about 25 

improving the finish on the 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 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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

341-344) commented that the TSD 

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) 

commented that DOE's provided cost 

estimates of $7.90 for the 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. Sharp urged that DOE not 

include microwave ovens in the 

rulemaking based 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 in the TSD. Mr. 

Lagoussie commented that the 

improvement was 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 meant to be a practical solution. 

The commenter reported that it will be 

difficult to improve the present 

efficiency levels of 45 to 50 percent 

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.), and their response to the 

proposed standard is that the efficiency 

of the magnetron can be increased 

marginally (1 percent, or from 71 to 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 double the current 

price of the tube in this 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 the U.S. market which is onethird of the world market. Likewise, 

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) 

commented that magnetrons produced 

today are 71 % efficient with a 

maximum realistic efficiency of 72%. 

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 

in the 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 

of microwave 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 already rated at 

close to 60% effiCiency. ACEEE (ACEEE, 

No. 557 at 24) urged DOE to include the 

effects of the adoption of European 

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 of microwave 

ovens above the baseline value of 54 

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 indicating the 

technology exists to improve the 

efficiency of the 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 

improving the finish on the waveguides. 

Many of the 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) commented that this design 

option would reqUire the redesign and 

retooling of the waveguide since the 

waveguide itself is an integral part of 

the cavity design. and a separate part 

would be necessary in order to 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 of 75 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. If an 

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) commented that 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 of the 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 deleting this design out that in 1979 (when the FTC first and new reflective surfaces. The TSD 

option. considered labeling ranges), a total accounts for only the wave guide. The 

The Department incorporated this annual operating cost savings difference oral testimony was also supported by 

data in the Draft Report analysis which of $7.00 would have been considered written comments (MCD Corporation, 

showed a decreased efficiency significant by consumers. The $6.47 No. 742 at 1-20). 

improvement at increased cost. figure translates into $3.33 in 1979 Jack Weizeorick and Charles 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 standards for microwave 

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 different Whirlpool product only one or two companies." J. Geary commented that AHAM does not categories. The cost of compliance in (Peerless-Premier Appliance 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 adding ranges, 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 on tests with the "diminutive energy savings," the Attorney General had not adequately and data which suggests the makes energy standards for this product evaluated the impact of the standards on costs reported in the TSD are one-third category unjustifiable. small manufacturers. 

one-fourth the manufacturer's The Department has recalculated life- D. Horstman (Maytag, No. 490 at 3) cost to implement various design cycle costs using the 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 of the analysis. The Maytag to spend millions of dollars at 

annual cost savings for various design Draft Report used AEO 95 energy prices, its plants with considerable competitive options and argued that their collective and the supplemental analysis used disadvantage compared to its primary 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 a basis of comparison in lines and thus, further reduce 

used by ranges is minor, the proposed the Supplemental Analysis. competition in the marketplace. standards do not meet the threshold D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 5) 

NAECA criterion that an amended Test Procedures commented that the economic impact 

standard must result in "significant There were many comments on the 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 energy consumption. 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 in the Test Procedure Final Rule for that because only a few U.S. companies are so low 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 Economic hardship 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 Joann Prater (MCD Corporation, the market. 

Circuit concluded that Congress Transcript, Apr. 7 at 276-277) Because the Department found in 

intended the word "significant" to mean commented that MCD Corporation today's rule that standards for 

"non-trivial." Natural Resources ~ould probably go out of business if the microwave ovens are not economically 

Defense Council v. Herrington. 768 F.2d new microwave ruling is enacted for the justified, today's rule will not result in 

1355, 1373 (D.C.Cir. 1985). Thus, for following reasons: 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 Microwave Noise at Higher Efficiency 

energy savings is non-trivial and for a new, more efficient oven which is Robert Lagoussie, International 

therefore significant. scheduled to enter the market this year. Microwave Power Institute (April 7, at 

This new oven, however, does not meet 310-313), R.D. Parlow (National Life Cycle Costs the new efficiency standard 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 estimates of future cost manufactured by the effective date of frequency spectrum of 2,400 to 2,500 

projections rather than the 1991 the new standards. She also commented MHz. There can be considerable 

estimated projections. that several assumptions in the TSD are electronic noise in the 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'S first 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 as the efficiency of the 

incorporated into a new standard self- redesign features such as the power microwave increases. The International 

clean electric range, the total annual supply, the fan, the modified Special Committee on Electromagnetic 

cost savings would be $6 47. He pointed waveguide, an improved magnetron, Interference is considering a new noise 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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 of Energy Savings 

H. Brooke Stauffer (AHAM, 

Transcript, Apr. 7 at 169, 170) 

commented that AHAM does not 

believe a performance standard is 

justified because the amount of energy 

saved is insignificant. AHAM argued 

that the energy savings are exaggerated 

and the costs understated. AHAM said 

this position was based on tests 

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 

commented that because the energy 

used by ranges is minor, the proposed 

standards do not meet the threshold 

NAECA criterion that an amended 

standard must result in "significant 

conservation of energy" under Section 

325 (0)(3)(B). AHAM argued that the 

total projected energy savings from 

proposed range performance standards 

are so low that 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 of Columbia 

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 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 that the life cycle cost data 

should be updated by DOE to use 

current DOE Energy Information 

Administration estimates of future cost 

projections rather than the 1991 

estimated projections. 

Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 

5) commented that if all of DOE's first 

seven design options were to be 

incorporated into a new standard selfclean electric range, the total annual 

cost savings would be $6.4 7. He pointed 

out that in 1979 (when the FTC first 

considered labeling ranges), a total 

annual operating cost savings difference 

of $7.00 would have been considered 

significant by consumers. The $6.47 

figure translates into $3.33 in 1979 

dollars, less than half of what the FTC 

deemed to be a Significant cost savings 

to consumers. 

Whirlpool (No. 391 at 6) also 

commented that DOE standards could 

affect eight different Whirlpool product 

categories. The cost of compliance in 

each product category will likely be 

millions to many tens of millions of 

dollars. Whirlpool argued that the 

cumulative impact of adding ranges, 

ovens, and cooktops, when coupled 

with the "diminutive energy savings," 

makes energy standards for this product 

category unjustifiable. 

The Department has recalculated lifecycle costs using the latest Annual 

Energy Outlook (AEO) energy prices 

available at the time of the 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 of comparison in 

the Supplemental AnalysiS. 

Test Procedures 

There were many comments on the 

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 of business if the 

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 enter the 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 only the 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 or two companies." J. Geary 

(Peerless-Premier Appliance Co., No. 

352 at 1) commented about the adverse 

economic impact and the potential 

lessening of competition that the 

proposed standards would have on his 

company. He commented that DOE and 

the Attorney General had not adequately 

evaluated the impact of the standards on 

small manufacturers. 

D. Horstman (Maytag, No. 490 at 3) 

commented that the proposed 

standards, if enacted, would force 

Maytag to spend millions of dollars 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 if it needed to 

redesign its products to meet the 

proposed DOE requirements. He added 

that because only a few U.S. companies 

continue to manufacture this product, 

the addition of more economic burden 

will likely cause the remaining smaller 

manufacturers to close down, allowing 

the importers to completely take 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 in the 2 to 3 GHz range 

which affects other deVices (broadcast! 

cellular phone), and more noise is 

generated as the efficiency of the 

microwave increases. The International 

Special Committee on Electromagnetic 

Interference is considering a new noise 
48046 Federal Register I Vol. 63, No. 173 I Tuesday, September 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 

standard this year which would reduce GRIM was dated March 1, 1993 and was in energy use among consumers 

the magnetron noise level requirement developed by the Arthur D. Little preparing identical meals (50 and 60 

from 85 to 99 decibels currently to a Consulting Company (ADL) under percent differences respectively). 

new standard of 30 to 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 the FCC has indicated and the Air-conditioning and national priority for saving energy, in 

that future requirements for noise Refrigeration Institute (ARI). (See TSD, lieu of mandatory product performance 

interference will be tightened Appendix C for more details.) The standards. G. Greulich (Whirlpool, 

substantially. Amana said that design results of this analysis are reported in Transcript, Apr. 7 at 220) also 

changes employed to achieve reduced section 111. c. of today'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 coming to the conclusions reported in than engineering redesign of the 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 (Independent Home 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'S estimate of 10% rebound effect the consumer on how to make optimal 

interference (National for cooking, because this rebound effect use of energy efficient cooking methods 

Telecommunications and Information implies that households purchasing is key to reducing the total amount of 

Administration, No. 689 at 1). The efficient ranges and ovens would cook energy used. She quoted 18 points from 

Department finds in today's rule that more. ACEEE's Consumer Guide to Home 

this design option is not economically A ten percent rebound effect was not Energy Savings which demonstrate how 

justified; therefore, this rule will not used in the analysis. A rebound effect of 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 Ovens Not 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 Weizeorick and Charles Samuels 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) as described in the TSD nothing in the statutory language of simply dictate or restrict choices of 

accompanying the 1994 Proposed Rule. NAECA required or indicated that technology. Many comments were received microwave ovens should fall within the The Department is required 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 standards for cooking products if 

Report, the Department used a computer to other covered products. economically justified and technically 

model that simulates a hypothetical The Department has previously feasible. EPCA, 5 325, 42 U.S.C. $i 6295. 

company to assess the likely impacts of determined that microwave ovens fall The Department's ENERGY STARB 

standards on manufacturers and to within the definition of "kitchen ranges program helps to educate consumers on determine the effects of standards on 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 in the TSD. Appendix C Baseline Values Incorrect in TSD program covers. One of the criteria the 

provides a broad array of outputs, Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels program uses to determine which 

including shipments, price, revenue, net (AHAM, No. 001 at 7-9) commented products it should add to 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 Appendix C lists values for all these efficiency of 54.5 percent used in the the products in the marketplace. 

outputs for the base case and for each TSD for the Proposed Rule is based on Because there are not a wide range of 

of the five standard levels analyzed. It AHAM data of microwave ovens efficiencies for cooking products, they also gives a range for each of these shipped in 1989. More recent shipment have not been added to the Energy Star 

estimates. The base case represents the data shows a new, higher value of 55.8 program thus far. 

forecasts of outputs with a range of percent' No. 557 at 23) d. Other Comments Regarding the Draft 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 and Supplemental Analysis 

standards. A "Sensitivity Chart" (TSD, baseline consumption of ovens and Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EEAppendix C) shows how returns on cooktops to be in line with recent data RM-S-97-700 NO. 5 at 1-3) stated that 

equity would be affected by a change in by utilities and GRI. The Department the Draft Report did not address the 

any one of the nine control variables of agreed and incorporated the 55.8 implication of the changes to the 

the model. The Manufacturer Analysis percent number into the Draft Report proposed rule on consumers. She also 

Model consists of 13 modules. The analvsis. requested DOE provide a glossary of 

module which estimates the impact of terms. 

standards on total industry net present Consumer DOE does analyze the effects of its 

value is version 1.2 of the 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 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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. 

Amana Refrigeration, Inc. (No. 347 at 6) 

commented that the FCC has indicated 

that future requirements for noise 

interference will be tightened 

substantially. Amana said that design 

changes employed to achieve reduced 

noise will reduce the unit's efficiency. 

The National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, 

submitted comments on behalf of U.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, increasing the 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 Impact Model 

(LBL-MIM) as described in the TSD 

accompanying the 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 

company to assess the likely impacts of 

standards on manufacturers and to 

determine the effects of standards on the 

industry at large. This model, the 

Manufacturer Analysis Model (MAM), is 

described in the TSD. Appendix C 

provides a broad array of outputs, 

including shipments, price, revenue, net 

income, and short- and long-run returns 

on eqUity. The "Output Table" in 

Appendix C lists values for all these 

outputs for the base case and for each 

of the five standard levels analyzed. It 

also gives a range for each of these 

estimates. The base case represents the 

forecasts of outputs with a range of 

energy efficiencies which are expected 

if there 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 of the 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 of the 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 of this analysis are reported in 

section III. c. of today'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 other covered products. 

The Department has previously 

determined that microwave ovens fall 

within the definition of "kitchen ranges 

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 percent used in the 

TSD for the Proposed Rule is based on 

AHAM data of microwave 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 of ovens 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 saving energy, in 

lieu of mandatory 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 of the 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 of energy 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 of energy 

efficiency and conservation are more 

likely to 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 

economically justified and technically 

feasible. EPCA. § 325,42 U.s.C. § 6295. 

The Department's ENERGY STAR® 

program helps to educate consumers on 

the purchase of more energy efficient 

appliances. The program is increasing 

continually the list of products the 

program covers. One of the criteria the 

program uses to determine which 

products it should add to the program 

is an evaluation of whether there is a 

wide range of energy 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 

program thus far. 

d. Other Comments Regarding the Draft 

Report and Supplemental Analysis 

Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EERM-S-97-700 No.5 at 1-3) stated that 

the Draft Report did not address the 

implication of the changes to the 

proposed rule on consumers. She also 

requested DOE provide a glossary of 

terms. 

DOE does analyze the effects of its 

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 savings of a and adversely affects investment and 

door window because of the adverse standard, the burden of performance 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. Because today's rule does not is already years behind, public interest the importance of finalizing the electric 

impose additional efficiency is best served by finalizing a "no range and microwave oven portions of 

requirements on cooking products, the standard" standard for electric products. the rule as soon as possible and 

Department concludes that today's rule Mark Krebs (Laclede Gas, EE-RM-S- separately, if necessary, from the gas 

will not impact consumers. 97-700 No. 18 at 1) questioned how cooking products 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 spells it out, electric cooking products is complete if planning and investment. Whirlpool 

for example, "Technical Support performance data on electric ovens does (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 33 at 

Document (TSD)"; then the Department not exist. In the reopening notice of 4) stated that it has been 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 stated that DOE believed allowed them to be completely free to 

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 glossary in and microwave ovens. The Department forth. Consequently, Whirlpool urged 

the TSD. did not state the 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 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 

supported the Department's decision 

not to establish performance standards 

for any electric cooking products. 

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 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 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 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 specific performance 

standard because 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-cleaning ov&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 

for these products (therefore it 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. 31 at 2) concurred with AGA's 

comments. 

As discussed under "design options," 

the Department has received 

information from manufacturers 

indicating that 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 "111. e. Conclusion") for rejecting standards for 

electric cooking products. 

Separating the Rule 

Many commenters requested the 

Department split off certain 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 

cooking products'immediately. 

Sharp (Sharp, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 

35 at 1) fully supported DOE's 

conclusion that establishing new or revised energy conservation standards 

for microwave ovens are not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. Sharp requested that DOE 

separate microwave ovens from the 

other consumer 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 order to issue a final rule for electric 

cooking products without further delay, 

the Department has severed the 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 if consumer 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 (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 of the 

ACAES. The National 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 show the results of 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48047 

design option that eliminated the oven 

door window because of the adverse 

impact it would have on consumer 

utility. Because today's rule does not 

impose additional efficiency 

requirements on cooking products, 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 of the 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 of February 

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 

supported the Department's decision 

not to establish performance standards 

for any electric cooking products. 

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 of the 

design options. May tag (May tag, 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 if vented 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 additional testing, 

but given the modest savings of a 

standard, the burden of performance 

testing, and the fact that the rulemaking 

is already years 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 stated that 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 issued the February 1998 

notice in order to complete the record. 

The American Gas Association (AGA, 

EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 37 at 11-12) 

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 

for these products (therefore it 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. 31 at 2) concurred with AGA's 

comments. 

As discussed under "design options," 

the Department has received 

information from manufacturers 

indicating that 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. 

Separating the Rule 

Many commenters requested the 

Department split off certain 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 of finaliZing the electric 

range and microwave oven portions of 

the rule as soon as possible and 

separately, if necessary, 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 it has been waiting eight 

years for a final rule, which has not 

allowed them to 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 establishing new or 

revised energy conservation standards 

for microwave ovens are not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. Sharp requested that DOE 

separate microwave ovens from the 

other consumer 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 order to issue a final rule for electric 

cooking products without further delay, 

the Department has severed the 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 if consumer 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 of the 

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 show the 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 

stated that the avoided energy cost rates 

using AEO 98 are lower than the rates 

used in the DOE analysis. EEI also 

commented that discount factors for 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 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 

stated that 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, 6 1 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, using these 

lower energy rates would not increase 

the likelihood that standards for electric 

cooking products would be 

economically iustified because 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 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 

efficiency standard 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 kwh basis, and it does not appear 

that the report shows a decline in 

emissions for the years 2001-2030. EEI 

also stated that the impact of 

restructured electricity markets could 

have a significant impact on emissions, 

as customers choose their preference of 

generation sources. The Department 

agrees that forecast emission rates for 

NOx, SOz, and COz do fall over time. 

Emission rates may be affected by 

restructuring, but given the absence of 

clear indications of this effect, it was not 

incor~orated into the analysis. 

111. Analysis of Electric Cooking 

Products Standards 

Revised standards for cooking 

products shall be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

These and related statutory criteria are 

addressed below. 

a. Efficiency Levels 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 of electric 

cooking products. Level 5 corresponds 

to the highest efficiency level, max tech, 

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 

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 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 conclusions for each 

group are presented separately below. 

Product class 

Electric ovens, self-cleaning (kwh) ....................................................... Electric ovens, non-self-cleaning (kwh) ................................................ Microwave ovens (kwh) ........................................................................... Electric cooking top, coil element (kwh) ............................................... Electric cooking top, smooth element (kwh) ........................................... 

1. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for 

Conventional Ovens 

The Department selected non-selfcleaning electric ovens as being the 

representative class of conventional 

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 1-3 of 

conventional ovens, the calculations are 

based on the supplemental analysis, 

using AEO 97 energy price forecasts. 

Efficiency levels 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. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for 

Conventional Cooking Tops 

Baseline 

303.7 

274.9 

143.2 

234.7 

233.4 

The Department selected electric-coil 

cooking tops 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. 

3 

303.7 

248.0 

143.2 

225.2 

233.4 

Conventional electric cooktops were 

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 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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. EEl 

stated that the avoided energy cost rates 

using AEO 98 are lower than the rates 

used in the DOE analysis. EEl also 

commented that discount factors for this 

type of consumer appliance are 

probably too low. In addition, EEl 

commented that if the peak demand 

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 

stated that 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, using these 

lower energy rates would not increase 

the likelihood that standards for electric 

cooking products would be 

economically justified because 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 Appendix E of the 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 power plants. on an overall and 

per kWh basis, and it does not appear 

that the report shows a decline in 

emissions for the years 2001-2030. EEl 

also stated that the impact of 

restructured electricity markets could 

have a significant impact on emissions, 

as customers choose their preference of 

generation sources. The Department 

agrees that forecast emission rates for 

NOx. S02, and CO2 do fall over time. 

Emission rates may be affected by 

restructuring, but given the absence of 

clear indications of this effect, it was not 

incorporated into the analysis. 

III. Analysis of Electric Cooking 

Products Standards 

Revised standards for cooking 

products shall be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

These and related statutory criteria are 

addressed below. 

a. Efficiency Levels 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 of electric 

cooking products. Level 5 corresponds 

to the highest efficiency level, max tech, 

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 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 conclusions for each 

group are presented separately below. 

1. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for 

Conventional Ovens 

The Department selected non-selfcleaning electric ovens as being the 

representative class of conventional 

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 1-3 of 

conventional ovens, the calculations are 

based on the supplemental analysiS. 

using AEO 97 energy price forecasts. 

Efficiency levels 4-5 of conventional 

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 

cooking tops 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 pertaining to 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 1 through 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 Energy 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 B of the TSD. To estimate the 

energy savings by the year 2030 due to 

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 analysis projects that over 

the period 2001-2030, the following 

energy savings would result for all 

classes of the product. See Tables 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 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 of Columbia 

3 Calculations are based on the 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 Supplemental analysis. 

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 Council v. 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) of EPCA provides Manufacturer Impact Mdbel analyzGs seven factors to be evaluated, to the the effects of 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. refer to the effect during approximately 

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 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. 

The Department's analysis, however, 

did not assess the impact of this 

program on the manufacturers. 

For consumers, measures of economic 

impact are the changes in purchase 

price, annual energy expense, and 

installation costs. The purchase price, 

installation cost, and cumulative annual 

energy expense, i.e., life-cycle cost, of 

each standard level are presented in 

Chapter 3 of the TSD. Under section 325 

of the EPCA, the life-cycle cost analysis 

is a separate factor to be considered in 

determining economic justification. 

Conventional Ovens. The per-unit 

increased cost to manufacturers to meet 

efficiency level 1 for 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 1.1 1. 

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 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 1 through 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 Cookjng Tops. The perunit increased cost to 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. See Technical Support 

Document, Table 1.6. 

At those levels of efficiency, 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 

of operation, 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, See Technical Support 

Document, Table 4.1. 

The Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryManufacturer Impact Model results for 

SThese values, calculated in the Draft Report, 

were based on all classes of conventional ovens, 

including gas ovens 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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 1 through 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 Energy 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 B of the TSD. To estimate the 

energy savings by the year 2030 due to 

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 analysis projects that over 

the period 2001-2030, the follOWing 

energy savings would result for all 

classes of the 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 Quad 4 

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 of Columbia 

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 in the 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 Economic Justification 

Section 325(0)(2)(A) of EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated, to the 

greatest extent practicable, in 

determining whether a conservation 

standard is economically justified. 

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 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. 

The Department's analYSiS, however, 

did not assess the impact of this 

program on the manufacturers. 

For consumers, measures of economic 

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 

of the EPCA, the life-cycle cost analysis 

is a separate factor to be considered in 

determining economic justification. 

Conventional Ovens, The per-unit 

increased cost to manufacturers to meet 

efficiency level 1 for 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 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 $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 of operation, 

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 of the trial standard levels on 

both the long run and short run returns 

on equity. Short run return on equity 

refer to 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 1 through 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 cost to 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. See Technical Support 

Document, Table 1.6. 

At those levels of efficiency, 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 

of operation, 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. See Technical Support 

Document, Table 4.1. 

The Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryManufacturer Impact Model results for 

5 These values. calculated in the Draft Report. 

were based on all classes of conventional ovens. 

including gas ovens. 
48050 Federal Register /Val. 63, No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 

all classes of conventional 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 

1 through 5 are projected to produce 

short-run return on equities of 11.07 

percent, 11.04 percent, 11.08 percent, 

11.02 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 1 through 4 for 

microwave ovens is zero since these 

levels are at the baseline; to meet level 

5, the manufacturers' cost increase is 

$5 1.1 1. See Technical Support 

Document, Table 1.17. 

At those levels of efficiency, the consumer price 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 Support Document, Table 4.8. 

The per-unit reduction in annual cost 

of operation 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 

$1. See Technical Support Document, 

Table 4.8. 

The Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryManufacturer Impact Model results for 

microwave ovens show that revised 

standards would not affect a 

prototypical manufacturer's long nor 

short-run return on equity of 3.65 

percent in the base case, except for max 

tech. Standard levels 1 through 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 long- run return on equities of 3.65 percent, 

3.65 percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent 

and 4.8 1 percent, respectively. See 

Technical Support Document, Tables 

5.3 and 5.9. 

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Net Present Value 

One measure of the effect of proposed 

standards on consumers is the change in 

life-cycle costs, including recurring 

6These values, calculated in the Draft Report, 

were based on all classes of conventional cooktops, 

including gas cooktops. 

operating expenses, purchase price, and 

installation costs resulting from the 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, including installation and 

maintenance expenditures, discounted 

over the lifetime of the appliance. The 

life-cycle cost was calculated for the 

range of efficiencies analyzed in the 

"Engineering Analysis" section of the 

TSD, for each class, in the year 

standards are imposed, using real consumer discount rate of six 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. 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 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 $2 17.1.4 See Technical 

Support Document, Table 4.18 and 

Supplemental Table 4.39. 

The Department examined the effect 

of different discount rates (2, 6, and 15 

percent) on the life-cycle cost curves. 

See Figure 4.4, Table 4.4 and 

Supplemental Table 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 

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 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 of the net savings to society, 

indicates that for 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 See Technical 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 should be noted that for 

another class, electric smooth element 

cooking tops, units meeting the baseline 

have the lowest consumer life-cycle 

costs. See Technical Support Document, 

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 Support Document, Table 

4.15. 

The Department 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 in the TSD. This analysis 

shows that the life-cycle cost minimum 

using the lowest State energy price 

drops to standard level 1 for electric coil 

cooktops but remains 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 of the net savings to society, 

indicates that for all classes of 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

48050 Federal Register IVaI. 63, No. 173 I Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

all classes of conventional 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 

1 through 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 1 through 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. 

At those levels of efficiency, the 

consumer price 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 Support Document, Table 4.8. 

The per-unit reduction in annual cost 

of operation 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. See Technical Support Document, 

Table 4.8. 

The Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryManufacturer Impact Model results for 

microwave ovens show that revised 

standards would not affect a 

prototypical manufacturer's long nor 

short-run return on equity of 3.65 

percent in the base case, except for max 

tech. Standard levels 1 through 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 Support Document. Tables 

5.3 and 5.9. 

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Net Present Value 

One measure of the effect of proposed 

standards on consumers is the change in 

life-cycle costs, including recurring 

6 These values. calculated in the Draft Report. 

were based on all classes of conventional cooktops. 

including gas cooktops. 

operating expenses, purchase price, and 

installation costs resulting from the 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, including installation and 

maintenance expenditures, discounted 

over the lifetime of the appliance. The 

life-cycle cost was calculated for the 

range of efficiencies analyzed in the 

"Engineering Analysis" section of the 

TSD, for each class, in the year 

standards are imposed, using real 

consumer discount rate of six 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. 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 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 

Supplemental Table 4.39. 

The Department examined the effect 

of different discount rates (2, 6, and 15 

percent) on the life-cycle cost curves. 

See Figure 4.4, Table 4.4 and 

Supplemental Table 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 

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 of the standard levels 

analyzed. 

The net present value analysis, a 

measure of the net savings to SOCiety, 

indicates that for all classes of 

conventional electric ovens, standard 

levels 1-3 would produce a net present 

value of $0.03 billion 3 to consumers. 

The corresponding values for levels 4 

and 5 result in a negative $2.53 billion 

and negative $6.23 billion, 

respectively.4 See Technical Support 

Document, Table 3.6e and 

Supplemental Table 3.28b. 

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 should be noted that for 

another class, electric smooth element 

cooking tops, units meeting the baseline 

have the lowest consumer life-cycle 

costs. See Technical Support Document, 

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 $l.8. See 

Technical Support Document, Table 

4.15. 

The Department 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 in the TSD. This analysis 

shows that the life-cycle cost minimum 

using the lowest State energy price 

drops to standard level 1 for electric coil 

cooktops but remains 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 of the 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 cooking tops, attempted to minimize the impact of 15,000 tons, 227,000 tons, and 227,000 

standard level 1 would produce a zero amended standards on the utility and tons, respectively. 

net present value; standard levels 2 and performance of conventional ovens, The estimated decreased need to 

3 would produce a net present value of conventional cooking tops, and control SOx over the years 2000 to 2030 

$0.03 billion, while standard levels 4 microwave ovens. would be 12,000 tons, 25,000 tons, 

and 5 would produce negative net 17,000 tons, and 250,000 tons for levels 

present values of $0.09 billion and $3.10 5. Impact of Lessening of Competition respectively. 

billion, respectively. See Technical The Energy Policy and Conservation Another consequence of the standards 

Support Document, Table 3.6b. Act directs the Department to consider would be the reduction of carbon 

Microwave Ovens. A life-cycle cost is the impact of any lessening of dioxide (COz) emissions. For standard 

calculated for a unit meeting each of the competition that is likely to result from level 1, over the years 2000 to 2030, the 

candidate standard levels. Of the five the standards, as determined by the total estimated COz reduction would be 

candidate standard levels, units meeting Attorney General. approximately 6 million tons. For 

the baseline had the lowest consumer In a letter dated September 16, 1994, levels 2-5, the estimated 

life-cycle cost for microwave ovens. See the Department of Justice (DOJ) reductions would be 13 million tons, 8 

Technical Support Document, Table 4.8. expressed concern about the effects the million tons, 126 million tons, and 126 

Standard levels 1 through 4 would standards proposed 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 affected consumer, since DOJ concluded that it is likely that Standards would results in a decrease in 

they are the same as the baseline for competition in the manufacture and sale nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. For 

microwave ovens. Standard level 5 of commercial/professional-style or standard level 1, over the years 2000 to 

would increase average life-cycle costs high-end ranges and ovens will be 2030, the total estimated NOx reduction 

by $56.7. See Technical Support eliminated if the proposed standards are would be zero, D~~~~~ this time period, 

Document, Table 4.22. adopted. The Department of Justice also there would be no reduction of jyox The Department examined the effect concluded that there is a possibility that emissions emitted 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 firms out of the manufacture of would be approximately 9,000 tons, 

and generally found little impact. Life- stmdard ranges thus lessening 9,000 tons, 18,000 tons, 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. See Figure 4.14 and Tables the end of today's rule. control SOx over the years 2000 to 2030 

4.14 in the TSD. This analysis shows The Department of Justice comments would be 1 1,000 tons, 1 1,000 tons, 

little impact. were based on the standards proposed 22,000 tons, and 99,000 tons for levels 

The net present value analysis, a in the 1994 Proposed 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 Save Energy level 1, over the years 2000 to 2030, the 

consumers. The net present value for ~~h~~~~d energy efficiency improves total estimated COz reduction would be 

level is a negative $4.67 billion. See the N~~~~~~~ energy security, strengthens zero because this standard level is at the Technical Support Document, Table the economy, and reduces the baseline. During this time period, there 

3.6g. environmental impacts of energy would be no reduction of CO2 emissions 

3. Energy Savings production. emitted by power plants in the United 

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 

from revised standards, The Department Decreasing future energy demand as a million tons, 4 million 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. (See Appendix P"~$&~tion,l Ovens,i Standards result in a decrease in nitrogen oxide of the TSD for a discussion would result in a decrease in nitrogen (NOx) emissions. For standard levels 1 of the LBL-REM') See section 'I1' b' in oxide (NOx) emissions. For standard through 4, over the years 2000 to 2030, today's for the energy savings of level I, over the years 2000 to 2030, the the total estimated NOx reduction efficiency levels. total estimated NOx reduction would be would be zero. During this time period, 

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of approximately 11,000 tons. For standard those levels of efficiency improvement 

Products levels 2-5, the estimated reductions would cause no reduction of NOx 

establishing classes of products and would be approximately 23,000 tons, emissions from power plants in the 

design options, the ~e~artment tried to 

'The emissions calculated in the Draft Report 8The emissions calculated in the Draft Report from consideration any design Tables 7.6-7.10 were based on both eas and electric Tables 7.1-7.5 were based on both gas and electric 

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

of utility or performance. ~hus, a standard levels i and 2 (for which gas ovens are at for staAdard level 2 (for which gas cooktops are at 

separate class with 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 approximated for electric ovens over the can be approximated for electric cooktops over 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 C02 per quad, 135,000 tons NOx per million tons COz per quad, 180,000 tons NOX per ~roduct included a utilitv or auad. and 150.000 tons SO, -. per auad. Decreases in auad, and 220,000 tons SO2 per quad. Decreases in 

ierformance-related featGre that affected $02 emissions w~ll not occur bec'ause the Clean Air 502 emsslons will not occur because the Clean Air 

energy efficiency ~i~~ separate classes Act places a ceiling on SO2 emissions that wlll be Act places a ceding on SO2 emsslons that w~ll be 

met under any regulatory regme Therefore these met under any regulatory regime Therefore these were analyzed; see Table 4-1 in today's reduc~on, should be interpreted as reduced costs reduct~onshould be Interpreted as reduced costs 

rule. In this way, the Department to electricity generators fo; controlling SOz. to electricity generators fo; controlling S02. 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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 present value; 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 

present values 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 of the 

candidate standard levels. Of the five 

candidate standard levels, units meeting 

the baseline had the lowest consumer 

life-cycle cost for microwave ovens. See 

Technical Support Document, Table 4.8. 

Standard levels 1 through 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 

of different discount rates (2, 6, and 15 

percent) on the life-cycle cost curves 

and generally found little impact. Lifecycle cost sensitivity to changes in 

energy price and eqUipment price were 

analyzed. See Figure 4.14 and Tables 

4.14 in the TSD. This analysis shows 

little impact. 

The net present value analysis, a 

measure of the net savings to society, 

indicates that for microwave ovens, 

standard levels 1 through 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 Support Document, Table 

3.6g. 

3. Energy Savings 

EPCA reqUires DOE to consider the 

total projected energy savings that result 

from revised standards. The Department 

forecasted energy consumption through 

the use of the LBL-REM. (See Appendix 

B of the TSD for a detailed discussion 

of the LBL-REM.) See section III. b. in 

today's rule for the energy savings of all 

efficiency levels. 

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products and 

design options, the Department tried to 

eliminate from consideration any design 

option that would result in degradation 

of utility 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 of conventional ovens, 

conventional cooking tops, and 

microwave ovens. 

5. Impact of Lessening of Competition 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act directs the Department to consider 

the impact of any lessening of 

competition that is likely to result from 

the standards, as determined by the 

Attorney General. 

In a letter dated September 16, 1994, 

the Department of Justice (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 

of commercial/professional-style or 

high-end ranges and ovens will be 

eliminated if the proposed standards are 

adopted. The Department of Justice also 

concluded that there is a possibility that 

the proposed standard could force one 

or more firms out of the 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 of Justice comments 

were based on the standards proposed 

in the 1994 Proposed Rule. Because 

today's rule is not promulgating new 

standards, there will not be Significant 

adverse effects on industry. 

6. Need of the Nation To Save Energy 

Enhanced energy effiCiency improves 

the Nation's energy security, strengthens 

the economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts of energy 

production. 

7. Other Factors 

Decreasing future energy demand as a 

result of standards 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, 

7 The emissions calculated in the 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 per quad 

can be approximated for electric ovens over the 

years 2000 to 2030. These approximations are 75 

million tons CO2 per quad, 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 over the 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 of the standards 

would be the reduction of carbon 

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 of NOx 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 over the 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 of the standards 

would be the reduction of carbon 

dioxide (C02) emissions. For standard 

levell, over the 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 of C02 emissions 

emitted by power plants in the United 

States, For standard levels 2-5, the 

reductions would be approXimately 4 

million tons. 4 million tons, 8 million 

tons. and 36 million tons, 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 time period, 

those levels of efficiency improvement 

would cause no reduction of NOx 

emissions from power plants in the 

8 The emissions 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 per quad 

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 per quad. Decreases in 

SO, emissions will not occur because 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-operation based 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 

longer payback while those who use them more 

than the test procedure assumes will have a shorter 

payback. 

11 These payback periods are weighted averages. 

They compare the portion of the projected 

distributions of designs in the base case that are less 

efficient than the standard level to the design at the 

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. 

48052 Federal Register 1 Vol. 63, No. 173 /Tuesday, September 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 

United States. For standard level 5, the of the energy savings that the consumer e. Conclusion 

reduction would be 48,000 tons. The will receive during the first year. See Product Name Change highest peak annual reduction of these Table 4.18 and Supplemental Table 4.43 

levels would be 0.08 percent. See Tables in the TSD. The Department is changing the name 7.1 1-7.15 in the TSD. Energy associated of this product from "kitchen ranges with these standards would 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 of the standards OVENs accurately describe the products 

would be the reduction of carbon considered which include microwave 

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 1 through 4, over the years 2000 level 

to 2030, the total estimated COz 

reduction would be zero. During this 1 .................................................. time period, there would be no 2 .................................................. reduction of C02 emissions 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. To be consistent with this 

change, the Department is adding a 

regulatory definition of "cooking 

14:5 products" that is the same as the 

422 existing definition of "kitchen ranges 

436 and ovens" to Title 10 CFR 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 0.06 percent. 3 presents the payback periods for the Section 325(0)(2)(A) of the Act 

efficiency levels analyzed for the specifies that the Department must 

d. Payback Period representative class of conventional establish standards that "achieve the 

If the increase in initial price of an cooking tops. For electric cooktops, maximum improvement in energy 

appliance due to a conservation none of the trial standard levels satisfies efficiency which the Secretary 

standard would repay itself to the the rebuttable presumption test, i.e., the determines is technologic all^ 

consumer in energy savings in less than additional price of purchasing a product and economically justified." EPCA. 

three years, then it is presumed that will be less than three times the value 5 325(0)(2)(A). technologic all^ feasible 

such standard is economically of the energy savings that the consumer design options are "technologies which 

justified. lo EPCA, 5 325(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 in the TSD. products or in working prototypes." 10 

presumption of economic justification CFR Part 430, Appendix A to Subpart C, can be rebutted upon a proper showing. TABLE PAYBACK PERIODS OF 4(a)(4)(i). A standard level is 

Failure to qualify for this 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 of the 3 .................................................. 

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

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

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

Electric oven, non-self-cleaning .. 

Microwave oven .......................... 

Electric cooktop, coil element ..... 

Electric cooktop, smooth element 

Payback A maximum technologically feasible period (max tech) 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 

21 3.7 

kwh. 

162.4 

kwh. 

132.4 

kwh. 

229.9 

kwh. 

206.4 

kwh. 

additional price of purchasing 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 for the efficiency in each, is found in the 9 Decreases in SO2 emissions will not occur levels analyzed for microwave ovens. 

because the Clean Air 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 1 presents the Department's max tech 

regime. Therefore, these reductions should be performance levels for all classes of the 

interpreted as reduced costs to electricity generators presumption test, i.e., the additional 

for controlling SO2. For microwave ovens at price of purchasing a product will be products: 

standard levels 1 through 4, over the years 2000 to less than three times the value of the 2030, the total estimated SO2 reduction 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 during the first year. See Table MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEA- 

'OFor this calculation. the Deoartment calculated 4.22 in the TSD. SIBLE LEVELS 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

48052 Federal Register IVaI. 63, No. 173 I Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

United States. For standard level 5, the 

reduction would be 48,000 tons. The 

highest peak annual reduction of these 

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 of the standards 

would be the reduction of carbon 

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 of CO2 emissions emitted by 

power plants in the United States. For 

standard level 5, the reduction would be 

25 million tons. The highest peak 

annual reduction of these levels would 

be 0.06 percent. 

d. Payback Period 

If the increase in initial price of an 

appliance due to a conservation 

standard would repay itself to 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 of economic justification 

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 

economically justified. [d. 

Conventional Ovens. Table 4-2 

presents the payback periods 11 for the 

efficiency levels analyzed for the 

representative class of conventional 

ovens. For electric ovens, none of the 

trial standard levels satisfies the 

rebuttable presumption test, i.e., the 

additional price of purchasing 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 that will 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 products less 

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. 

They compare the portion of the projected 

distributions of designs in the base case that are less 

efficient than the standard level to the design at the 

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. 

of the energy savings that the consumer 

will receive during the first year. See 

Table 4.18 and Supplemental Table 4.43 

in the 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 of conventional 

cooking tops. For electric cooktops, 

none of the trial standard levels satisfies 

the rebuttable presumption test, i.e., the 

additional price of purchasing a product 

will be less than three times the value 

of the 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 of the trial 

standard levels satisfies the reb'uttable 

presumption test, i.e., the additional 

price of purchasing a product will be 

less than three times the value of the 

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 changing the name 

of this 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) of the Act 

specifies that the Department must 

establish standards that "achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

effiCiency which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified." EPCA, 

§ 325 (0)(2)(A). Technologically feasible 

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 

economically justified if the benefits 

exceed the burdens. EPCA, 

§ 325(0)(2)(B)(i). 

A maximum technologically feasible 

(max tech) design option was identified 

for each class of cooking products. The 

max tech 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 of each max tech 

level, and the design options included 

in each, is found in the Engineering 

Analysis in the TSD, Chapter 1. Table 5-

1 presents the Department's max tech 

performance levels for all classes of the 

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-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 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, 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 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 

standard level 4 for conventional ovens 

outweigh the 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 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 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 

l2 Standard 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 projected to save 0.1 quad of energy. In order to meet this 

standard, the Department assumes that 

the representative class of conventional 

ovens will incorporate reduced venting 

and improved insulation. However, the 

savings estimates the Department used 

were based on the assumption that 

efficiency gains could be achieved by 

reducing the vent rate and improving 

the type of insulation used. As 

discussed in section "11. 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 

Department has 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 

essentially becomes 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 payback to 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 of insulation alone. 

Consequently, there is a risk that in 

order to 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 

manufacturer and consumer impacts for 

ovens that might not achieve a 

performance standard by using 

insulation alone, DOE concluded that 

the burdens of standard level 2 

outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects 

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 to meet 

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 

rejects standard level 1. 

Conventional Cooking Tops13. Of the 

standard levels analyzed, level 5 will save the most energy (0.45 quad 

between 2000 and 2030). In order to 

meet this 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 present value. 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 of energy. 

In order to 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 meet this 

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 of the 

product, using AEO 95 energy price 

forecasts. This standard level is 

projected to save 0.05 quad of energy; 

however, the Department has concerns 

as to whether this 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 of time 

determined by the consumer to 

complete a cooking task. Given the 

small relative efficiency improvement of 

this design level, 4.3 percent, the 

l3 Cooktops and microwave ovens were not 

reanalyzed in the Supplemental Analysis, therefore 

they are based solely on the Draft Report, using 

AEO 95 energy forecasts. 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48053 

Accordingly, DOE first considered the 

max tech level of efficiency, 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 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, 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 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 

standard level 4 for conventional ovens 

outweigh the 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 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 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 

12 Standard 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 projected to save 

0,1 quad of energy. In order to meet this 

standard, the Department assumes that 

the representative class of conventional 

ovens will incorporate reduced venting 

and improved insulation. However, the 

savings estimates the Department used 

were based on the assumption that 

efficiency gains could be achieved by 

reducing the vent rate and improving 

the type of insulation 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 

Department has 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 

essentially becomes 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 payback to 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 of insulation alone. 

Consequently, there is a risk that in 

order to 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 

manufacturer and consumer impacts for 

ovens that might not achieve a 

performance standard by using 

insulation alone, DOE concluded that 

the burdens of standard 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 1 was projected to save 

0,05 quad of energy, In order to meet 

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 

levell. Therefore, the Department 

rejects standard levell, 

Conventional Cooking Tops 13. Of the 

standard levels analyzed, level 5 will 

save the most energy (0.45 quad 

between 2000 and 2030). In order to 

meet this 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 present value. 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 of energy, 

In order to 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 meet this 

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 of the 

product, using AEO 95 energy price 

forecasts. This standard level is 

projected to save 0.05 quad of energy; 

however, the Department has concerns 

as to whether this 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 of time 

determined by the consumer to 

complete a cooking task. Given the 

small relative efficiency improvement of 

this design level, 4.3 percent, the 

13 Cooktops and microwave ovens were not 

reanalyzed in the Supplemental Analysis, therefore 

they are based solely on the Draft Report, using 

AEO 95 energy forecasts. 
48054 Federal Register / Vol. 63, 

savings would only be realized if 

consumers reduced their cooking times 

by 4.3 percent. While this is 

theoretically possible, especially for 

cooking tasks 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 

cooking tasks to perform them in 4.3 

percent less time. The savings do not 

occur unless this consumer behavior 

change takes place. Given the 

questionable nature of the 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 

outweigh the benefits of the standard. 

The Department concludes that the 

burdens of standard 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 '3. Of the 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 of 79 years 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 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 considering the 

analysis, the Department is not issuing 

a standard for electric cooking products 

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. Procedural Issues and Regulatory regulations to minimize litigation; and 

Review (3) ~rovide aclear legal standard for 

a. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

In issuing the proposed rule, the 

Department prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-08 19) that 

was published within the Technical 

Support Document for 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, 

"Regulatory Planning and Review" 

Today's rule has been determined not 

to be a "significant regulatory action," as defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and 

Review" (58 FR 5 1735), and has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

c. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 08 1980 

(Pub. L. 96-354), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

requires an assessment of the impact of 

regulations on small businesses &less 

an agency certifies that 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 cooking products. 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 

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 et seq. 

e. Review Under Executive Order 12988, 

"Civil Justice Reform " 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, "Civil Justice 

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 

afficted conduct rathyer than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden 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 effort to 

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 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

adequately defines key terms; and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE reviewed today's final rule 

under the standards of 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," 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. 

a. Federalism Review 

Executive Order 126 12, "Federalism," 

52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987) requires 

that regulations, 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 of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government. If there are sufficient, 

substantial direct effects, then Executive 

Order 126 12 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. 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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 

cooking tasks 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 

cooking tasks to perform them in 4.3 

percent less time. The savings do not 

occur unless this consumer behavior 

change takes place. Given the 

questionable nature of the 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 

outweigh the benefits of the standard. 

The Department concludes that the 

burdens of standard 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. Of the 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 of 79 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 of standard 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 considering the 

analysis, the Department is not issuing 

a standard for electric cooking products 

because the Department believes the 

burdens outweigh the benefits for all 

standard levels and all classes of these 

products. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

a. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

In issuing the proposed rule. the 

Department prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-0819) that 

was published within the Technical 

Support Document for 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. 

"Regulatory Planning and Review" 

Today's rule has been determined not 

to be a "significant regulatory action." 

as defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

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 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 081980 

(pub. L. 96-354). 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .. 

reqUires an assessment of the impact of 

regulations on small businesses unless 

an agency certifies that 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 cooking products. 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 

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 et seq. 

e. Review Under Executive Order 12988. 

"Civil Justice Reform" 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations. section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988. "Civil Justice 

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) of Executive Order 12988 

specifically reqUires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect. if any; 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect. if any; (5) 

adequately defines key terms; and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE reviewed today's final rule 

under the standards of 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." 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 

that regulations. 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 of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government. If there 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 

Mandates Reform Act 

With respect to a proposed regulatory 

action that may result in the 

expenditure by state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year, section 202 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) requires a Federal agency to 

publish estimates of the resulting costs, 

benefits and other effects on the 

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 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 of the rule 

unless DOE publishes an explanation 

for doing otherwise or the selection of 

such an alternative is inconsistent with 

law. This final rule does not impose a 

Federal mandate on State, local, or tribal 

governments or on the private sector. 

i. Review Under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 

Consistent with Subtitle E of the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, 

DOE will submit to Congress a report 

regarding the issuance of today's final 

rule before the effective date set forth in 

the outset of this notice. The report will 

state that it has been determined that 

this rule is not a "major rule" as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(a). 

V. Department of Justice Views on the 

Proposed Rule. 

September 16, 1994 

Honorable Christine A. Ervin 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, and 

Renewable Energy, United States 

Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Ave., 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 (59 FR 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 lamp ballasts are attainable with 

Department of Justice. ("Department") currently available technology. Numerous 

ballast manufacturers assert that in many Summary instances they are not. The Department The evidence available to the Department concludes that the doubts raised about the 

does not indicate that any significant technical feasibility of the standards are lessening of competition is likely to result serious and affect a substantial number of 

from the imposition of the proposed ballast classes. Thus, if the proposed standards for mobile home furnaces and pool standards were adopted some or all heaters contained in the Notice. For 

television sets, fluorescent lamp ballasts and manufacturers likely have cease the 

professional-style or high-end kitchen ranges production Of many products and 

it is the Departmentss judgement based 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 significant anticompetitive 1. The weight of available evidence is that 

effect could take place if sufficient time is not adoption the proposed standard for 

permitted firms to develop, produce and television sets could force all of many 

market products complying with 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 equipment the evidence the only way to produce products that will 

indicates that anticompetitive effects could comply with the standard would be to reduce 

result; the Department is unable on the basis or eliminate features that consume electricity 

of the available evidence to determine such as brighter pictures, remote control, 

whether such effects are likely. Finally, the picture-in-picture, improved sound and inevidence indicates that the cumulative effects set program guides and other features 

of these and other regulatory standards could presently being developed. Development and 

be to lessen competition in certain markets marketing of product improvements and new for household appliances. features has been an important factor driving In preparing these comments the competition in the market for television sets. 

Department has considered the Notice, the ~~d~~~~~ or retarding the development of 

(TSD) prepared such features could substantially reduce 

Lawrence written demand for sets, retard development and 

and by refinement of technology, and reduce utility the department in the time allowed and of the product. without the benefit of compulsory process. might attempt to 

Discussion circumvent the proposed standard by letting 

Adoption of standards requiring greater 

energy efficiency in household appliances 

could affect competition in a number of 

ways. First, by raising the cost of appliances 

and reducing design and feature choices, 

standards may lower demand. If standards 

impose costs on manufacturers 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 market with the 

effect of lessening competition and raising 

prices. Second, imposition of standards may 

lessen or discourage competition in the 

design and development of new 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 of certain standards, 

their economic impact on manufacturers and 

consumers and consumer reaction to the 

changes in products 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 in a position 

to resolve many of these contested issues on 

the basis of the available record. Accordingly, 

in some instances, the Department is unable 

to reach a conclusion about the impact of the 

proposed standards on competition. 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

One technical issue that has been raised is 

whether the proposed standards for 

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 

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 sets could 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, already located in virtually 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 contention but does 

conclude that, given the 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 

compete with computer manufacturers and 

other in the development of new 

technologies and features for the Information 

Highway. 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 173/Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48055 

h. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act 

With respect to a proposed regulatory 

action that may result in the 

expenditure by state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in anyone year, section 202 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) requires a Federal agency to 

publish estimates of the resulting costs, 

benefits and other effects on the 

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 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 of the rule 

unless DOE publishes an explanation 

for doing otherwise or the selection of 

such an alternative is inconsistent with 

law. This final rule does not impose a 

Federal mandate on State, local, or tribal 

governments or on the private sector. 

i. Review Under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 

Consistent with Subtitle E of the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996,5 U.S.C. 801-808, 

DOE will submit to Congress a report 

regarding the issuance of today's final 

rule before the effective date set forth in 

the outset ofthis notice. The report will 

state that it has been determined that 

this rule is not a "major rule" as defined 

by 5 U.s.C. 804(a). 

V. Department of Justice Views on the 

Proposed Rule. 

September 16, 1994 

Honorable Christine A. Ervin 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, and 

Renewable Energy. United States 

Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building. 1000 Independence Ave .. 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 (59 FR 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 

competitive impact determination of the 

Department of Justice. ("Department") 

Sununary 

The evidence available to the Department 

does not indicate that any Significant 

lessening of competition is likely to result 

from the imposition of the 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's judgement based 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 if sufficient time is not 

permitted firms to develop. produce and 

market products complying with the new 

standard. For microwave ovens. oil-fired 

water heaters. room air conditioners, and 

direct heating equipment the evidence 

indicates that anticompetitive effects could 

result; the Department is unable on the basis 

of the available evidence to determine 

whether such effects are likely. Finally. the 

evidence indicates that the cumulative effects 

of these and other regulatory standards could 

be to lessen competition in certain markets 

for household appliances. 

In preparing these 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 of compulsory process. 

Discussion 

Adoption of standards requiring greater 

energy efficiency in household appliances 

could affect competition in a number of 

ways. First. by raising the cost of appliances 

and reducing design and feature choices, 

standards may lower demand. If standards 

impose costs on manufacturers 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 market with the 

effect of lessening competition and raising 

prices. Second. imposition of standards may 

lessen or discourage competition in the 

design and development of new 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 of certain standards, 

their economic impact on manufacturers and 

consumers and consumer reaction 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 of these contested issues on 

the basis of the available record. Accordingly. 

in some instances. the Department is unable 

to reach a conclusion about the impact of the 

proposed standards on competition. 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

One technical issue that has been raised is 

whether the proposed standards for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts 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 of the standards are 

serious and affect a substantial number of 

ballast classes. Thus, if the proposed 

standards were adopted some or all 

manufacturers would likely have to cease the 

production of many products and 

competition in the sale of those products 

would cease or diminish. 

Television Sets and Related Technologies 

1. The weight of available evidence is that 

adoption ofthe proposed standard for 

television sets could force all or many 

manufacturers to revise their products to 

lessen the number and quality of their 

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 

presently being developed. Development and 

marketing of product improvements and new 

features has been an important factor driving 

competition in the market for television sets. 

Reducing or retarding the development of 

such features could substantially reduce 

demand for sets. retard development and 

refinement of technology, and reduce utility 

of the product. 

Manufacturers might attempt to 

circumvent the proposed standard by 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 

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 sets could 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, already located in virtually 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 contention but does 

conclude that. given the 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 

compete with computer manufacturers and 

other in the development of new 

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 category of home range 

cannot be manufactured to meet these 

proposed standards without losing so much 

of its distinct characteristics that it is no 

longer marketable. Professional-style or 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 

consumption than do standard ranges: the 

special uses and appeal of these products, 

and their premium in price, depends in good 

measure on these features. Representatives of 

the range industry assert that high-end ranges 

cannot be modified to comply with the 

proposed standards without giving up so 

much of the special features of the product 

that they are no longer marketable. The 

Department concludes that it is likely that 

competition in the manufacture and sale of 

these products will be eliminated if the 

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' long run rates of return on 

equity. The Association of Home 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 of equipment and 

technology necessary to comply may not be 

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 

compliance with the standard cold seriously 

weaken it and its ability to compete. There 

is also 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 

retooling by manufacturers and will have 

little impact on their long run 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, a manufacturer of microwaves, 

make large investments in retooling, and 

would threaten its viability. The Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers contends 

that the standard will in all likelihood 

eliminate all U.S. Production of microwaves 

and concentrate U.S. sales in the hands of 

one or two companies. The Department is not 

in a position to resolve all of the contested 

technical and financial issues but concludes 

that this proposed standard could force some 

significant producers from this concentrated 

market and substantially lessen competition 

in it. 

Room Air Conditioners 

The Notice and TSD conclude that this 

proposed standard will not involve 

substantial redesign or retooling 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 has been challenged by firms 

in the industry. There is evidence that some 

of the 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 of some 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 to be manufactured if the standard is 

adopted. There are also unresolved issues 

about such matters as the availability and 

efficacy of some design options suggested in 

the TSD. The Department is not able to 

resolve these issues but concludes that the 

standard could have a substantia1 negative 

impact on demand and rates of return, and 

cause one or more firms to cease the 

manufacture and sale of some of these 

products, thus lessening competition. 

Direct Heating Equipment 

Manufacturers of direct 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. 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 

Manufacturers of 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, 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, account for most 

of the sales of this product in the 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 or more of 

these competitors to exist the 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 such firm could result in a 

substantial lessening of competition. 

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 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 

if consumers were required to purchase heat 

pumps with them. It seems clear that the 

price of such units 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 

degree of consumer acceptance of a product 

that has not been 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 of consumers, such 

as households with relatively little demand 

for hot water, will derive a benefit from the 

product. 

Even if the heat pump 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 of time if adequate time is 

not permitted for the phasing in of the 

standard. Three millions units or more of 

electric resistance units are now sold 

annually in the 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 pump water 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 effectively in the 

electric water heater business than there are 

now, and competition in this concentrated 

market could be substantially lessened. 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

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 of home range 

cannot be manufactured to meet these 

proposed standards without losing so much 

of its distinct characteristics that it is no 

longer marketable. Professional-style or highend ranges are products designed to provide 

some of the 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 

consumption than do standard ranges; the 

special uses and appeal of these products, 

and their premium in price. depends in good 

measure on these features. Representatives of 

the range industry assert that high-end ranges 

cannot be modified to comply with the 

proposed standards without giving up so 

much of the special features of the product 

that they are no longer marketable. The 

Department concludes that it is likely that 

competition in the manufacture and sale of 

these products will be eliminated if the 

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' long run rates of return on 

equity. The Association of Home 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 of equipment and 

technology necessary to comply may not be 

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 

compliance with the standard cold seriously 

weaken it and its ability to compete. There 

is also 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 

retooling by manufacturers and will have 

little impact on their long run returns on 

equity. Representatives of the 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 of microwaves, 

make large investments in retooling, and 

would threaten its viability. The Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers contends 

that the standard will in all likelihood 

eliminate all U.S. Production of microwaves 

and concentrate U.S. sales in the hands of 

one or two companies. The Department is not 

in a position to resolve all of the contested 

technical and financial issues but concludes 

that this proposed standard could force some 

significant producers from this concentrated 

market and substantially lessen competition 

in it. 

Room Air Conditioners 

The Notice and TSD conclude that this 

proposed standard will not involve 

substantial redesign or retooling 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 has been challenged by firms 

in the industry. There is evidence that some 

of the 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 of some 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 to be manufactured if the standard is 

adopted. There are also unresolved issues 

about such matters as the availability and 

efficacy of some 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 of return. and 

cause one or more firms to cease the 

manufacture and sale of some of these 

products. thus lessening competition. 

Direct Heating Equipment 

Manufacturers of direct 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. 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 

Manufacturers of 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 

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. 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. account for most 

of the sales of this product in the 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 or more of 

these competitors to exist the 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 such firm could result in a 

substantial lessening of competition. 

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 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 

if consumers were required to purchase heat 

pumps with them. It seems clear that the 

price of such units 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 

degree of consumer acceptance of a product 

that has not been 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 of consumers, such 

as households with relatively little demand 

for hot water, will derive a benefit from the 

product. 

Even if the heat pump 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 of time if adequate time is 

not permitted for the phasing in of the 

standard. Three millions units or more of 

electric resistance units are now sold 

annually in the 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 pump water 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 effectively in the 

electric water heater business 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 

Cumulative Effects of Regulation Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 22, consist of a horizontal cooking top 

Many of the manufacturers of appliances lgg8. containing one or more surface units 

subject to the ~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 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 pass redesign and retooling 

costs on to consumers. And the impact of a 

single product redesign may fall more heavily on firms 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, facing the prospect of repeated 

redesigns involving several different 

products, may be induced to cease 

manufacturing one or more of such product 

lines. Thus to 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, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble Part 430 of Chapter I1 of Title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations, is 

amended as set forth below. 

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authority citation for Part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

2. Section 430.2 of Subpart A is 

amended by removing the definitions 

for "kitchen ranges and ovens" and 

"other kitchen 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 

5 430.2 Definitions. 

***** 

Cooking products means consumer 

" 

compartments. They must be one of the 

following classes: conventional ranges, 

conventional cooking tops, conventional 

ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/ 

conventional ranges and other cooking 

products. 

***** 

Other cooking products means any 

cla.ss of cooking products other than the 

conventional range, conventional 

cooking top, conventional oven, 

microwave oven, and microwave/ 

conventional range classes. 

3. Section 430.32 of Subpart C is 

amended by revising paragraph (j) to 

read as follows: 

5 430.32 Energy conservation standards 

and effective dates. 

(j) Cooking Products. Gas cooking 

products with an electrical supply cord 

shall not be equipped with a constant 

burning pilot light. This standard is 

effective on January 1, 1990. 

***** " 

Assistant Attorney General. products That are used as the major 

household cooking appliances. They are [FR Doc. 98-23886 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am] 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 designed to cook or heat different types 'ODE 645*1-P 

Administrative practice and of food by one or more of the following 

procedure, Energy Conservation, sources of heat: gas, electricity, or Household appliances. microwave energy. Each product may 

 EE-RM-S-97-700_EERE-1997-STD-0087 COMMENT 53

Federal Register IVo!. 63, No. 173 I Tuesday, September 8, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48051 

Cumulative Effects of Regulation 

Many of the manufacturers of appliances 

subject to the proposed standards 

manufacture 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 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 pass redesign and retooling 

costs on to consumers. And the impact of a 

single product redesign may fall more 

heavily on firms 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. facing the prospect of repeated 

redesigns involving several different 

products. may be induced to cease 

manufacturing one or more of such product 

lines. Thus to 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. Bingaman. 

Assistant Attorney General. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy Conservation, 

Household appliances. 

Issued in Washington. D.C .. on July 22. 

1998. 

Dan W. Reicher. 

Assistant Secretary. Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble Part 430 of Chapter II of Title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations, is 

amended as set forth below. 

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authority citation for Part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309: 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

2. Section 430.2 of Subpart A is 

amended by removing the definitions 

for "kitchen ranges and ovens" and 

"other kitchen 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. 

* * * * * 

Cooking products means consumer 

products that are used as the major 

household cooking appliances. They are 

designed to cook or heat different types 

of food by one or more of the following 

sources of heat: gas, electricity, or 

microwave energy. Each product may 

consist of a horizontal cooking top 

containing one or more surface units 

and/or one or more heating 

compartments. They must be one of the 

follOWing classes: conventional ranges, 

conventional cooking tops, conventional 

ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/ 

conventional ranges and other cooking 

products. 

* * * * * 

Other cooking products means any 

class of cooking products other than the 

conventional range, conventional 

cooking top, conventional oven, 

microwave oven, and microwave/ 

conventional range classes. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 430.32 of Subpart 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 on January 1, 1990. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 98-23886 Filed 9-4-98: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 645Q-01-P