Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8337 

newly designated paragraph (b)(28), 

(b)(31) as newly designated paragraph 

(b)(29), (b)(32) as newly designated 

paragraph (b)(30; 

■ 41. Amend § 1755.902 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(8) by 

removing the word ‘‘Agency’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘RUS borrower’s 

engineer’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(9): 

■ c. Revising paragraph (h)(3) by 

removing the word ‘‘Agency’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘RUS borrower’s 

engineer’’; 

■ d. Revising paragraph (i)(3) by 

removing the word ‘‘Agency’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘RUS borrower’s 

engineer’’; 

■ e. Revising paragraph (s)(2), 

■ f. Removing paragraph (t); 

■ g. Removing paragraph (u); and 

■ h. Removing Appendix to § 1755.902 

. 

The revisions read as follows: 

* * * * * 

§ 1755.902 Minimum performance 

specification for fiber optic cable 

(a) * * * 

(9) All cables sold to RUS 

telecommunications borrowers for 

projects involving RUS loan funds must 

be accepted by the RUS borrower’s 

engineer. 

* * * * * 

(s) * * * 

(2) All connectors must be accepted 

by the RUS borrower’s engineer prior to 

their use. 

* * * * * 

■ 42. Amend § 1755.903 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) and 

(a)(9); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (g)(3) by 

removing the word ‘‘Agency’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘RUS borrower’s 

engineer’’; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (q)(2), 

■ d. Removing paragraph (r); and 

■ e. Removing paragraph (s). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 1755.903 Fiber optic service entrance 

cables 

(a) * * * 

(4) Optical cable designs not 

specifically addressed by this section 

may be allowed. Justification for 

acceptance of a modified design must be 

provided to substantiate product utility 

and long term stability and endurance. 

* * * * * 

(9) All cables sold to RUS 

Telecommunications borrowers must be 

RUS compliant for projects involving 

RUS loan funds. All design changes to 

Agency compliant designs must be 

submitted to the RUS borrower’s 

engineer for compliance. Optical cable 

designs not specifically addressed by 

this section may be allowed, if accepted 

by the RUS borrower’s engineer. 

Justification for acceptance of a 

modified design must be provided to 

substantiate product utility and long 

term stability and endurance. 

* * * * * 

(q) * * * 

(2) All connectors must be accepted 

by the RUS borrower’s engineer prior to 

their use. 

* * * * * 

■ 43. Amend § 1755.910 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(3); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (c)(3); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and 

(d)(2)(vi); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(xx) and 

(d)(3)(xxvii) by removing the word 

‘‘accepted’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘compliant’’, 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (d)(4)(iv), 

(d)(5)(iii) and (d)(5)(x) by removing the 

word ‘‘RUS’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘the RUS borrower’s engineer’’, 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (d)(6)(v) by 

removing the word ‘‘acceptance’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘compliance’’; and 

■ g. Revising paragraphs 

(e)(3)(xii)(A)(1), (e)(3)(xii)(B)(1), 

(e)(4)((viii)(A) and (e)(6)(v). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 1755.910 RUS specification for outside 

plant housings and serving area interface 

system. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The test procedures described in 

this section are required by RUS to 

demonstrate the functional reliability of 

the product. However, other standard or 

unique test procedures may serve the 

same function. In such cases, the RUS 

borrower’s engineer shall evaluate the 

test procedures and results on an 

individual basis. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Housings shall be of sufficient size 

to permit easily managed installation, 

operational, testing, and maintenance 

operations. The general shape of outside 

plant housings is usually comparable to 

that of a rectangular column or cylinder, 

with the shape of any particular housing 

being left to the manufacturer’s 

discretion. 

(2) * * * 

(vi) Note 1: Additional sizes of splice 

cabinets shall be considered by the RUS 

borrower on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(xii)(A)(1) Note: The procedures for 

housings with larger surface area will be 

evaluated by the RUS borrower’s 

engineer on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

(B)(1) Note: The procedures for 

housings with larger surface areas will 

be evaluated by the RUS borrower’s 

engineer on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(A) Note: Test procedures for 

housings with larger doors will be 

evaluated by the RUS borrower’s 

engineer on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(v) Secondary finish evaluation. 

Evidence of secondary protection shall 

be required for RUS compliance. 

Typical secondary protection is 

galvanizing per ASTM A 526/A 526M– 

90 for steel surfaces. 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 21, 2013. 

John Charles Padalino, 

Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01340 Filed 2–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005] 

RIN 1904–AD15 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Conventional Cooking 

Products 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI) 

and notice of document availability. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is initiating an effort to 

determine whether to amend the current 

energy conservation standards for 

residential conventional cooking 

products. According to the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act’s 6-year 

review requirement, DOE must publish 

a notice of proposed rulemaking to 

propose new standards for conventional 

electric cooking products or amended 

standards for conventional gas cooking 

products or a notice of determination 

that the existing standards do not need 

to be amended by February 26, 2015. 

This RFI seeks to solicit information 

from the public to help DOE determine 

whether new or amended standards for 

residential conventional cooking 

products would result in a significant 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8338 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE 

decided not to adopt energy conservation standards 

pertaining to the cooking efficiency of microwave 

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

2013 adopting energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off mode. 78 FR 

36316. DOE is not considering energy conservation 

standards for microwave ovens as part of this 

rulemaking. 

amount of additional energy savings and 

whether those standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

March 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

encouraged to submit comments 

electronically. However, comments may 

be submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email to the following address: 

ConventionalCookingProducts

2014STD0005@ee.doe.gov. Include 

docket number EERE–2014–BT–STD– 

0005 and/or RIN 1904–AD15 in the 

subject line of the message. All 

comments should clearly identify the 

name, address, and, if appropriate, 

organization of the commenter. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

Request for Information for Residential 

Conventional Cooking Products, Docket 

No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005 and/or 

RIN 1904–AD15, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Please submit one signed paper 

original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, Sixth 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number and/or RIN for this 

rulemaking. No telefacsimiles (faxes) 

will be accepted. 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendees’ lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

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

#!docketDetail;D=EERE–2014–BT–STD– 

0005. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this notice on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For information on how to submit a 

comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct requests for additional 

information may be sent to John 

Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1692. Email: 

kitchen_ranges_and_ovens@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email: 

ari.altman@hq.doe.gov. 

For information on how to submit or 

review public comments, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority and Background 

B. Rulemaking Process 

II. Request for Information and Comments 

A. Products Covered by This RFI 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Market Assessment 

D. Engineering Analysis 

E. Markups Analysis 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

H. Shipments Analysis 

I. National Impact Analysis 

J. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority and Background 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163, (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency and 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles, a program covering 

major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’), including residential 

conventional cooking products. EPCA 

authorizes DOE to establish 

technologically feasible, economically 

justified energy conservation standards 

for covered products that would be 

likely to result in significant national 

energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

The National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 

Public Law 100–12, amended EPCA to 

establish prescriptive standards for gas 

cooking products, requiring gas ranges 

and ovens with an electrical supply 

cord that are manufactured on or after 

January 1, 1990, not to be equipped with 

a constant burning pilot light. NAECA 

also directed DOE to conduct two cycles 

of rulemakings to determine if more 

stringent or additional standards were 

justified for kitchen ranges and ovens. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)–(2)) 

DOE undertook the first cycle of these 

rulemakings and published a final rule 

on September 8, 1998, which found that 

no standards were justified for 

conventional electric cooking products 

at that time. In addition, partially due to 

the difficulty of conclusively 

demonstrating that elimination of 

standing pilots for conventional gas 

cooking products without an electrical 

supply cord was economically justified, 

DOE did not include amended 

standards for conventional gas cooking 

products in the final rule. 63 FR 48038. 

For the second cycle of rulemakings, 

DOE published a final rule on April 8, 

2009 (hereafter the April 2009 Final 

Rule), amending the energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

cooking products to prohibit constant 

burning pilots for all gas cooking 

products (i.e., gas cooking products both 

with or without an electrical supply 

cord) manufactured on or after April 9, 

2012. DOE decided to not adopt energy 

conservation standards pertaining to the 

cooking efficiency of conventional 

electric cooking products because it 

determined that such standards would 

not be technologically feasible and 

economically justified at that time. 74 

FR 16040, 16041–16044.1

EPCA also requires that, not later than 

6 years after the issuance of a final rule 

establishing or amending a standard, 

DOE publish a NOPR proposing new 

standards or a notice of determination 

that the existing standards do not need 

to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

Based on this provision, DOE must 

publish by March 31, 2015 either a 

NOPR proposing new standards for 

conventional electric cooking products 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8339 

2As discussed in section 0.0, DOE is also 

tentatively planning to consider new energy 

conservation standards for commercial-style gas 

cooking products and residential-scale units with 

higher burner input rates, which were previously 

excluded from standards. 

3As discussed in section 0.0, DOE is also 

tentatively planning to consider new energy 

conservation standards for commercial-style gas 

cooking products and residential-scale units with 

higher burner input rates, which were previously 

excluded from standards. 

or amended standards for conventional 

gas cooking products 2 or a notice of 

determination that the existing 

standards do not need to be amended. 

Today’s notice represents the initiation 

of the mandatory review process 

imposed by EPCA and seeks input from 

the public to assist DOE with its 

determination on whether new or 

amended standards pertaining to 

conventional cooking products are 

warranted. In making this 

determination, DOE must evaluate 

whether more new or amended 

standards would (1) yield a significant 

savings in energy use and (2) be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

B. Rulemaking Process 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products. EPCA 

requires that any new or amended 

energy conservation standard be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy or water 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. To 

determine whether a standard is 

economically justified, EPCA requires 

that DOE determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on the manufacturers and 

consumers of the affected products; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the product compared to any increases 

in the initial cost, or maintenance 

expense; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy and water (if applicable) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the 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 and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

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

DOE fulfills these and other 

applicable requirements by conducting 

a series of analyses throughout the 

rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the 

individual analyses that are performed 

to satisfy each of the requirements 

within EPCA. 

TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS

EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis 

Technological Feasibility .......................................................................... • Market and Technology Assessment. 

• Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

Economic Justification 

1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers ........................... • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis. 

• Shipments Analysis. 

2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for the 

product.

• Markups for Product Price Determination. 

• Energy and Water Use Determination. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

3. Total projected energy savings ............................................................ • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

4. Impact on utility or performance .......................................................... • Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

5. Impact of any lessening of competition ............................................... • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

6. Need for national energy and water conservation ............................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ................................... • Emissions Analysis. 

• Utility Impact Analysis. 

• Employment Impact Analysis. 

• Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits. 

• Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE 

is specifically publishing this notice as 

the first step in the analysis process and 

is specifically requesting input and data 

from interested parties to aid in the 

development of the technical analyses. 

II. Request for Information and 

Comments 

In the next section, DOE has 

identified a variety of questions that 

DOE would like to receive input on to 

aid in the development of the technical 

and economic analyses regarding 

whether new standards for conventional 

electric cooking products or amended 

standards for conventional gas cooking 

products 3 may be warranted. In 

addition, DOE welcomes comments on 

other issues relevant to the conduct of 

this RFI that may not specifically be 

identified in this notice. 

A. Products Covered by This RFI 

DOE defines ‘‘cooking products’’ as 

consumer products that are used as the 

major household cooking appliances. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8340 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4 DOE noted one manufacturer offers electric 

cooking products advertised as professional-style. 

However, the cooking elements have similar 

wattages and diameters to other residential cooking 

products not advertised as commercial-style. As a 

result, DOE is not considering a separate 

classification for conventional electric cooking tops 

or ovens. DOE considers commercial-style products 

to be commercial-style gas cooking products or the 

gas component of a dual-fuel-range. 

5The annual useful cooking energy is the energy 

input to a cooking product that is transferred to the 

load being cooked and is used to relate the 

efficiency (energy factor) of the cooking product to 

the annual energy consumption. 

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. (10 CFR 430.2) As part of this 

RFI, DOE intends to address energy 

conservation standards for all 

conventional cooking products. 

As part of the most recent standards 

rulemaking for conventional cooking 

products, DOE decided to exclude 

commercial-style residential gas cooking 

products from consideration of energy 

conservation standards due to a lack of 

available data for determining efficiency 

characteristics of those products. DOE 

considered commercial-style gas 

cooking tops to be those products that 

incorporate cooking tops with higher 

input rate burners (i.e., greater than 

14,000 British thermal units (Btu)/hour 

(h)) and heavy-duty grates that provide 

faster cooking and the ability to cook 

larger quantities of food in larger 

cooking vessels. DOE also stated that the 

burners are optimized for the largerscale cookware to maintain high 

cooking performance. Similarly, DOE 

considered commercial-style gas ovens 

to have higher input rates (i.e., greater 

than 22,500 Btu/h) and dimensions to 

accommodate larger cooking utensils or 

greater quantity of food items, as well as 

features to optimize cooking 

performance. 74 FR 16040, 16054 (Apr. 

8, 2009); 72 FR 64432, 64444, 64445 

(Nov. 15, 2007). As discussed in section 

II.B, DOE also stated in the previous 

standards rulemaking that the current 

DOE cooking products test procedures 

may not adequately measure 

performance of commercial-style gas 

cooking tops and ovens. 72 FR 64432, 

64444, 64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). 

Based on DOE’s review of residential 

gas cooking products available on the 

market, DOE noted that there are a 

significant number of models advertised 

as commercial-style (or in some cases 

‘‘professional-style’’) with the features 

described above.4 In particular, DOE 

noted that commercial-style gas cooking 

tops and ranges have multiple surface 

burners rated above 14,000 Btu/h and 

the ‘‘heavy-duty’’ grates are consistently 

made of cast iron. DOE also noted that 

the number of burners ranged from four 

to eight for commercial-style gas 

cooking tops and ranges versus four to 

five burners for residential-scale 

products. Additionally, these 

commercial-style gas cooking tops and 

ranges may be reconfigurable, for 

example with the option to replace 

burners with griddles or grills. 

DOE does note that a number of 

residential gas cooking products that 

manufacturers do not advertise as 

commercial-style have a single surface 

burner rated above 14,000 Btu/h, which 

may be labeled in product literature as 

specifically intended for rapid boiling. 

Products with only one high-Btu/h 

burner also have cast-iron grates, 

suggesting that ‘‘heavy-duty grates’’ are 

related to the input rate of the burner 

but are not a feature unique to products 

advertised as commercial-style. 

DOE also observed differences in oven 

capacity during a review of residential 

cooking products. According to DOE’s 

research, the oven capacity in typical 

residential ovens and ranges varies from 

2.5 cubic feet to 5.0 cubic feet, while 

commercial-style gas ovens and ranges 

typically have oven capacities ranging 

from 3.0 cubic feet to 6.0 cubic feet. Of 

the reviewed commercial-style ranges, 

most had gas oven capacities between 

5.0 and 6.0 cubic feet. 

As part of this RFI, DOE tentatively 

plans to consider energy conservation 

standards for all residential 

conventional cooking products, 

including commercial-style gas cooking 

products and residential-scale units 

with higher burner input rates. As 

discussed in the sections below, DOE 

may consider developing test 

procedures for these products and 

determine whether separate product 

classes are warranted. 

DOE notes that the test procedures for 

conventional ranges, cooking tops, and 

ovens found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix I, do not address all 

possible types of combined cooking 

products (i.e., products that combine a 

conventional cooking product with 

other appliance functionality, which 

may or may not include another cooking 

product), such as microwave/

conventional ovens or any other 

products that may combine a 

conventional cooking product with 

other appliance functionality that is not 

a conventional cooking product. 

Because test procedures are not 

available addressing products that 

combine a conventional cooking 

product with other appliance 

functionality that is not a conventional 

cooking product (e.g., microwave/

conventional ovens), DOE is not 

considering energy conservation 

standards for such products at this time. 

Issue A.1 DOE requests comment on 

the consideration of energy conservation 

standards for all residential 

conventional cooking products, 

including gas cooking products with 

higher input rates. DOE requests 

comment on a potential definition of 

commercial-style gas cooking products, 

in particular with respect to burner 

input rates, cooking top grate materials, 

cavity volume, or any other 

characteristics that may be specific to 

commercial-style gas cooking products. 

DOE also requests comment on the 

tentative determination to not consider 

energy conservation standards for 

combined cooking products that may 

combine a conventional cooking 

product with other appliance 

functionality that is not a conventional 

cooking product. 

B. Test Procedure 

DOE’s test procedures for 

conventional ranges, cooking tops, and 

ovens are found at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix I. DOE first 

established the test procedures included 

in appendix I in a final rule published 

in the Federal Register on May 10, 

1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120–20128. DOE 

revised its test procedure for cooking 

products to more accurately measure 

their efficiency and energy use, and 

published the revisions as a final rule in 

1997. 62 FR 51976 (Oct. 3, 1997). These 

test procedure amendments included: 

(1) A reduction in the annual useful 

cooking energy; 5 (2) a reduction in the 

number of self-cleaning oven cycles per 

year; and (3) incorporation of portions 

of the International Electrotechnical 

Commission’s (IEC) Standard 705–1988, 

‘‘Methods for measuring the 

performance of microwave ovens for 

household and similar purposes,’’ and 

Amendment 2–1993 (IEC Standard 705) 

for the testing of microwave ovens. Id. 

The test procedure for conventional 

cooking products establishes provisions 

for determining estimated annual energy 

use, cooking efficiency (defined as the 

ratio of cooking energy output to 

cooking energy input), and energy factor 

(EF) (defined as the ratio of annual 

useful cooking energy output to total 

annual energy input). 10 CFR 430.23(i); 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8341 

DOE published a final rule on October 

31, 2012, amending the test procedures 

for conventional cooking products 

(hereafter referred to as the October 

2012 TP Final Rule), to incorporate by 

reference provisions from IEC Standard 

62301 ‘‘Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power’’ (Second Edition) for the 

measurement of energy use in standby 

mode and off mode, and methodology 

for the measurement of fan-only mode 

energy use in the energy efficiency 

metrics. 77 FR 65942. 

DOE also published a NOPR on 

January 30, 2013 (hereafter referred to as 

the January 2013 Induction TP NOPR), 

in which it proposed amendments to the 

cooking products test procedure to 

allow for testing the active mode energy 

consumption of induction cooking 

products; i.e., conventional cooking tops 

and ranges equipped with induction 

heating technology for one or more 

surface units on the cooking top. The 

proposed test procedure would replace 

the aluminum test blocks currently 

specified for conventional cooking top 

testing with hybrid test blocks 

comprising two separate stacked pieces: 

A stainless steel alloy 430 base, which 

is compatible with the induction 

technology, and an aluminum body. The 

proposed hybrid test blocks would have 

the same outer diameters and heat 

capacities as the existing aluminum test 

blocks and would be used for testing all 

cooking tops being considered in this 

standards rulemaking, including both 

conventional and induction cooking 

tops. 78 FR 6232. This test procedure 

rulemaking is still in progress. 

As discussed in section II., DOE 

tentatively plans to consider energy 

conservation standards for all 

residential conventional cooking 

products, including commercial-style 

gas cooking products and residentialscale gas cooking products with higher 

burner input rates. As part of the 

previous energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE noted that the test 

procedure for gas cooking tops is 

currently based on measuring 

temperature rise in an aluminum block 

with a single diameter for all burner 

input rates. DOE stated that the 

diameter of the test block is sufficient to 

measure higher-output residential-scale 

burners. For commercial-style burners 

that may have larger diameter burner 

rings to accomplish complete 

combustion, however, DOE noted that 

this test block diameter may be too 

small to achieve proper heat transfer 

and may not be representative of the 

dimensions of suitable cookware. DOE 

further stated that it was not aware of 

any data to determine the measurement 

of energy efficiency or energy efficiency 

characteristics for those products. 72 FR 

64432, 64444 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE also 

noted that the test procedure may not 

adequately measure performance of 

commercial-style gas ovens. DOE stated 

that the single test block may not 

adequately measure the temperature 

distribution that is inherent with the 

larger cavity volumes and higher input 

rates typically found in these products. 

DOE stated that it was not aware of any 

data upon which to determine the 

measurement of energy efficiency or 

energy efficiency characteristics for 

commercial-style gas ovens, so it 

therefore decided to exclude 

commercial-style gas cooking products 

from consideration of energy 

conservation standards. 72 FR 64432, 

64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). Because DOE is 

tentatively planning to consider energy 

conservation standards for commercialstyle gas cooking products and 

residential-scale units with higher 

burner input rates for this rulemaking, 

DOE may consider amending the 

cooking products test procedure in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I to 

include methods for measuring the 

energy use of commercial-style gas 

cooking products and residential-scale 

gas cooking products with higher burner 

input rates. 

DOE plans to consider the test 

procedure amendments adopted in the 

October 2012 TP Final Rule and the 

proposed amendments in the January 

2013 Induction TP NOPR as part of this 

rulemaking. DOE also plans to consider 

any additional test procedure 

amendments developed for commercialstyle gas cooking products and 

residential-scale gas cooking products 

with higher burner input rates. 

Issue B.1 DOE requests comment on 

appropriate test methods for measuring 

the energy consumption of commercialstyle gas cooking products and 

residential-scale gas cooking products 

with higher burner input rates. In 

particular, DOE requests comment and 

data on the size of test blocks that 

would be representative of typical 

consumer use for these products. 

C. Market Assessment 

The market and technology 

assessment provides information about 

the residential conventional cooking 

products industry that will be used 

throughout the rulemaking process. For 

example, this information will be used 

to determine whether the existing 

product class structure requires 

modification based on the statutory 

criteria for setting such classes and to 

explore the potential for technological 

improvements in the design and 

manufacturing of such products. The 

Department uses qualitative and 

quantitative information to characterize 

the structure of the residential cooking 

products industry and market. DOE will 

identify and characterize the 

manufacturers of cooking products, 

estimate market shares and trends, 

address regulatory and non-regulatory 

initiatives intended to improve energy 

efficiency or reduce energy 

consumption, and explore the potential 

for technological improvements in the 

design and manufacturing of cooking 

products. DOE will also review product 

literature, industry publications, and 

company Web sites. Additionally, DOE 

will consider conducting interviews 

with manufacturers to assess the overall 

market for residential conventional 

cooking products. 

Product Classes 

The general criteria for separation into 

different classes include (1) type of 

energy used; (2) capacity; or (3) other 

performance-related features that justify 

the establishment of a separate energy 

conservation standard, considering the 

utility of the feature to the consumer 

and other factors deemed appropriate by 

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

During the previous energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

cooking products, DOE evaluated 

product classes for conventional 

cooking products based on energy 

source (i.e., gas or electric) and the type 

of cooking (i.e., cooking tops and 

ovens). These distinctions initially 

yielded four conventional cooking 

product classes: (1) Gas cooking tops; (2) 

electric cooking tops; (3) gas ovens; and 

(4) electric ovens. For electric cooking 

tops, DOE determined that the ease of 

cleaning smooth elements provides 

enhanced consumer utility over coil 

elements. Because smooth elements 

typically use more energy than coil 

elements, DOE defined two separate 

product classes for electric cooking tops. 

For both electric and gas ovens, DOE 

determined that the type of ovencleaning system is a utility feature that 

affects performance. DOE found that 

standard ovens and ovens using a 

catalytic continuous-cleaning process 

use roughly the same amount of energy. 

On the other hand, self-cleaning ovens 

use a pyrolytic process that provides 

enhanced consumer utility with lower 

overall energy consumption as 

compared to either standard or 

catalytically lined ovens. DOE defined 

the following product classes in the 

technical support document (TSD) for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8342 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6Technical support document from the previous 

residential cooking products standards rulemaking 

is available at: http://www.regulations.gov/

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

the April 2009 Final Rule (2009 TSD) 6

for the previous cooking products 

standards rulemaking: 

• Gas cooking tops—conventional 

burners; 

• Electric cooking tops—low or high 

wattage open (coil) elements; 

• Electric cooking tops—smooth 

elements; 

• Electric ovens—standard oven with 

or without a catalytic line; 

• Electric ovens—self-clean oven; 

• Gas ovens—standard oven with or 

without a catalytic line; and 

• Gas ovens—self-clean oven. 

For this rulemaking, DOE tentatively 

plans to maintain the product classes for 

conventional cooking products from the 

previous standards rulemaking, as 

presented above. As discussed below, 

DOE tentatively plans to consider 

induction heating as a technology 

option for electric smooth cooking tops 

rather than as a separate product class. 

DOE notes that induction heating 

provides the same basic function of 

cooking or heating food as heating by 

gas flame or electric resistance, and that 

the installation options available to 

consumers are also the same for both 

cooking products with induction and 

electric resistance heating. As discussed 

in section II.A, DOE is also planning to 

consider commercial-style gas cooking 

products and residential-scale gas 

cooking products with higher burner 

input rates as part of this rulemaking. 

As a result, DOE may consider whether 

separate product classes are warranted 

for these latter products. 

Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on 

the proposed product classes and seeks 

information regarding other product 

classes it should consider for inclusion 

in its analysis. In particular, DOE 

requests comment on the determination 

to consider induction heating as a 

technology option rather than as a 

separate product class. In addition, DOE 

requests comment and data on whether 

commercial-style gas cooking products 

or residential-scale gas cooking products 

with higher burner input rates warrant 

product classes separate from 

residential-scale gas cooking products 

with lower burner input rates. If 

commenters believe that separate 

product classes are warranted, DOE 

requests comment as to how those 

classes should be configured, i.e., gas 

burner input rates, number of high input 

rate burners, cooking top grate 

materials, oven cavity volume, or some 

other criteria. 

Technology Assessment 

DOE uses information about existing 

and past technology options and 

prototype designs to help identify 

technologies that manufacturers could 

use to meet and/or exceed energy 

conservation standards. In consultation 

with interested parties, DOE intends to 

develop a list of technologies to 

consider in its analysis. Initially, this 

list will include a subset of the 

technology options considered during 

the most recent residential cooking 

products standards rulemaking that are 

considered to be technologically 

feasible. Based on a preliminary review 

of the cooking products market and 

information published in recent trade 

publications, technical reports, and 

manufacturer literature, DOE has 

observed that the results of the 

technology screening analysis 

performed during the previous 

rulemaking remain largely relevant for 

this rulemaking. 

Based on the technologies identified 

in the previous standards rulemaking, 

DOE considered the technologies listed 

in Table II.1 for gas cooking tops. As 

part of the previous standards 

rulemaking, DOE considered electronic 

ignition as a technology option. 

However, because the previous 

standards rulemaking adopted standards 

to prohibit constant burning pilots for 

all gas cooking products manufactured 

on or after April 9, 2012 (74 FR 16040, 

16041–44 (Apr. 8, 2009)), DOE 

considers electronic ignition part of the 

baseline design. As a result, DOE is not 

considering electronic ignition as a 

technology option for improving 

efficiency for this rulemaking. In 

addition, DOE’s review of gas cooking 

tops suggests that all such products 

currently use electromechanical 

controls that do not consume power in 

a standby mode or off mode. As a result, 

DOE did not consider technology 

options for reducing standby mode or 

off mode energy consumption. 

TABLE II.1—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR GAS COOKING TOPS

1. Catalytic burners. 

2. Insulation. 

3. Radiant gas burners. 

4. Reduced excess air at burner. 

5. Reflective surfaces. 

6. Sealed burners. 

7. Thermostatically controlled burners. 

For open (coil) element electric 

cooking tops, DOE considered the 

technologies listed in Table II.2. DOE 

noted in the 2009 TSD that reflective 

surfaces and insulation yield very low 

energy savings. As with gas cooking 

tops, DOE’s review of open (coil) 

element electric cooking tops suggests 

that all such products use 

electromechanical controls. As a result, 

DOE did not consider technology 

options for reducing standby mode or 

off mode energy consumption for 

electric cooking tops with open coils. 

TABLE II.2—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR OPEN (COIL) ELEMENT ELECTRIC COOKING TOPS

1. Electronic controls. 

2. Improved contact conductance. 

3. Insulation. 

4. Reflective surfaces. 

For smooth element electric cooking 

tops, DOE considered the technologies 

listed in Table II.3. In the 2009 TSD, 

DOE noted that it did not evaluate 

induction elements because the existing 

DOE test procedure cannot measure the 

possible energy savings from this 

technology. As discussed in section II.B, 

DOE published the January 2013 

Induction TP NOPR to propose 

amendments to the cooking products 

test procedure to provide test methods 

for induction cooking products. As a 

result, DOE tentatively plans to consider 

induction elements as a technology 

option for smooth element electric 

cooking tops for this rulemaking. 

TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR SMOOTH ELEMENT ELECTRIC

COOKING TOPS

1. Electronic controls. 

2. Halogen elements. 

3. Induction elements. 

4. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 

For gas and electric ovens, DOE 

considered the technologies listed in 

Table II.4 based on the previous 

standards rulemaking analysis. Because 

DOE’s current energy conservation 

standards prohibit standing pilot lights 

for all gas cooking products, DOE did 

not consider pilotless ignition as a 

technology option. In the previous 

rulemaking, DOE considered electronic 

spark ignition as a technology option to 

replace electric glo-bar ignition for 

conventional gas standard ovens, but 

not for conventional gas self-clean 

ovens. For this RFI, DOE reviewed 

products available on the market, but 

did not observe any conventional gas 

self-clean ovens with electronic spark 

ignition. However, DOE is unaware of 

any design constraints that would 

prohibit the use of electronic spark 

ignition in conventional gas self-clean 

ovens. As a result, DOE is tentatively 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8343 

7As part of the induction cooking products test 

procedure rulemaking, DOE conducted testing with 

both the current and proposed test blocks for 3 

different cooking tops with a total of 6 different 

surface heating elements. 

8 In the May 2012 microwave oven test procedure 

SNOPR, DOE considered test procedure 

amendments for measuring the standby mode and 

off mode energy consumption of combined cooking 

products and, as a result, presented standby power 

data for microwave ovens, conventional cooking 

tops, and conventional ovens. 

planning to consider electronic spark 

ignition for all conventional gas ovens. 

TABLE II.4—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR GAS AND ELECTRIC OVENS

1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only). 

2. Electronic Spark Ignition (gas only). 

3. Forced convection. 

4. Halogen lamp oven (electric only). 

5. Improved and added insulation. 

6. Improved door seals. 

7. No oven-door window. 

8. Oven separator. 

9. Radiant burner (gas only). 

10. Reduced conduction losses. 

11. Reduced thermal mass. 

12. Reduced vent rate. 

13. Reflective surfaces. 

14. Steam cooking. 

15. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 

Issue C.2 DOE seeks information 

related to the efficiency improving 

technologies listed in Table II.4 or other 

unlisted technologies as to their 

applicability to the current market and 

how these technologies improve 

efficiency of residential conventional 

cooking products as measured according 

to the DOE test procedure. Additionally, 

DOE requests comment on the effects of 

the gas cooking products technology 

options on efficiency for commercialstyle gas cooking products and gas 

cooking products with higher burner 

input rates. 

D. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis estimates 

the cost-efficiency relationship of 

products at different levels of increased 

energy efficiency. This relationship 

serves as the basis for the cost-benefit 

calculations for consumers, 

manufacturers, and the nation. In 

determining the cost-efficiency 

relationship, DOE estimates the increase 

in manufacturer cost associated with 

increasing the efficiency of products 

above the baseline to the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

efficiency level for each product class. 

The baseline model is used as a 

reference point for each product class in 

the engineering analysis and the lifecycle cost and payback-period analyses. 

Baseline Models 

For each established product class, 

DOE selects a baseline model as a 

reference point against which any 

changes resulting from energy 

conservation standards can be 

measured. The baseline model in each 

product class represents the 

characteristics of common or typical 

products in that class. Typically, a 

baseline model is one that meets the 

current minimum energy conservation 

standards. 

In developing the baseline efficiency 

levels, DOE initially considered the 

current standards for conventional gas 

cooking products and the baseline 

efficiency levels for conventional 

electric cooking products from the 

previous standards rulemaking analysis. 

Since the last standards rulemaking, as 

discussed in section II.B, DOE amended 

the cooking products test procedures as 

part of the October 2012 TP Final Rule 

to include methods for measuring 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption and fan-only mode energy 

consumption for conventional cooking 

products. In addition, as part of the 

January 2013 Induction TP NOPR, DOE 

is proposing to amend the active mode 

test procedures for conventional 

cooking tops. DOE has developed 

tentative baseline efficiency levels 

considering these proposed and 

amended test procedures based on the 

integrated annual energy use metric 

combining active mode, standby mode, 

and off mode energy use. 

For this RFI, DOE developed tentative 

baseline efficiency levels for gas and 

electric cooking tops considering energy 

use in different operating modes (i.e., 

active mode, standby mode, and off 

mode) using the following methodology. 

DOE first considered the baseline active 

mode efficiency levels from the 

previous standards rulemaking analysis 

in the 2009 TSD. For gas cooking tops, 

DOE notes that the previous standards 

rulemaking adopted standards to 

prohibit constant burning pilots for 

products manufactured on or after April 

9, 2012. 74 FR 16040, 16041–44 (Apr. 8, 

2009). As a result, DOE considered the 

baseline efficiency level for gas cooking 

tops as the efficiency level 

corresponding to electronic ignition. 

Because DOE is proposing to amend the 

cooking products test procedure to 

replace the aluminum test blocks 

currently specified for conventional 

cooking top testing with hybrid test 

blocks (a stainless steel alloy 430 base 

and an aluminum body), DOE also 

considered the effects of these proposed 

test procedure amendments on the 

baseline active mode efficiency levels. 

Based on testing conducted for the 

January 2013 Induction TP NOPR,7 the 

measured cooking efficiency using the 

proposed test block was on average 8.5 

percent lower than the cooking 

efficiency using the current test block. 

78 FR 6232, 6236, 6239 (Jan. 30, 2013). 

Based on this data, DOE scaled the 

active mode cooking efficiency in this 

rulemaking for all three cooking top 

product classes to account for the 

proposed test procedure amendments in 

the January 2013 Induction TP NOPR. 

As discussed in section II.B, the 

October 2012 TP Final Rule amended 

the cooking products test procedure to 

provide methods for measuring 

conventional cooking product standby 

mode and off mode energy use, and 

created an integrated annual energy 

consumption (IAEC) metric combining 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption with the active mode 

energy consumption. 77 FR 65942. As a 

result, DOE considered the baseline 

energy use associated with standby 

mode and off mode for this RFI. DOE 

reviewed the gas cooking tops and 

electric open (coil) element cooking tops 

available on the market, noting that all 

of these products used 

electromechanical controls. As a result, 

DOE did not consider any additional 

energy consumption in standby mode or 

off mode for these two product classes. 

DOE observed that a large number of 

electric smooth element cooking tops on 

the market were equipped with 

electronic controls. DOE reviewed the 

cooking top standby test data presented 

in the microwave oven test procedure 

supplemental NOPR (SNOPR) that 

published on May 16, 2012 (77 FR 

28805, 28811),8 noting that the standby 

power for 4 models tested ranged from 

0.6 watts (W) to 3.0 W, with an average 

of 1.9 W. DOE is considering the 

baseline standby power that was the 

highest standby power that DOE 

observed while providing full consumer 

utility, in this case 3.0 W, as part of the 

IAEC. 

DOE is tentatively considering that it 

analyze the baseline IAEC levels for gas 

and electric cooking tops presented in 

Table II.5. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8344 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9 DOE notes that the previous conventional 

cooking products test procedure in appendix I 

included the clock energy consumption. As a result, 

DOE subtracted the clock energy consumption 

before adding the standby and off mode energy 

consumption when considering integrated 

efficiency levels for this standards rulemaking. 

TABLE II.5—CONVENTIONAL COOKING TOPS BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Product class 

2009 standards rulemaking Proposed test 

procedure 

cooking efficiency 

Proposed IAEC 

Cooking efficiency EF 

Gas Cooking Tops .......................................................................... 0.399 0.399 0.365 1445.0 kBtu 

Electric Cooking Tops—Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements.0.737 0.737 0.674 256.7 kilowatt-hours (kWh). 

Electric Cooking Tops—Smooth Elements ..................................... 0.742 0.742 0.679 280.6 kWh. 

For this RFI, DOE developed tentative 

baseline efficiency levels for gas and 

electric ovens considering energy use in 

different operating modes (i.e., active 

mode, standby/off mode, and fan-only 

mode) using the following methodology. 

DOE first considered the baseline active 

mode efficiency from the previous 

standards rulemaking analysis in the 

2009 TSD. As discussed above, the 

previous standards rulemaking adopted 

standards to prohibit constant burning 

pilots for all gas standard (i.e., non-selfcleaning) ovens manufactured on or 

after April 9, 2012. As a result, DOE 

considered the baseline active mode 

efficiency level for gas standard ovens 

as the efficiency level corresponding to 

electronic ignition. 

As discussed in section II.B, DOE 

amended the cooking products test 

procedure to include provisions for 

measuring standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption for conventional 

ovens. As a result, DOE considered the 

baseline energy use associated with 

standby mode and off mode for this RFI. 

Based on DOE’s review of products 

available on the market, DOE observed 

a large number of ovens in all product 

classes that were equipped with 

electronic controls. DOE also notes that 

the units equipped with only 

electromechanical controls likely 

consume little to no energy in standby 

mode or off mode. For standby mode, 

DOE reviewed the test data presented in 

the May 2012 microwave oven test 

procedure SNOPR, noting that the 

standby power for 11 conventional oven 

models tested ranged from 1.1 W to 10.7 

W, with an average of 3.4 W. 77 FR 

28805, 28811 (May 16, 2012). DOE is 

tentatively considering the baseline 

standby power that was the highest 

standby power that DOE observed while 

providing full consumer utility, in this 

case 10.7 W. 

In addition, as discussed in section 

II.B, DOE amended the cooking 

products test procedure to include 

provisions for measuring fan-only mode 

energy consumption for conventional 

ovens. Based on DOE’s testing for the 

October 2012 TP Final Rule, DOE 

observed that ovens are normally 

capable of operating in fan-only mode. 

As a result, DOE considered the 

additional annual energy consumption 

in fan-only mode to develop the 

baseline efficiency levels. For fan-only 

mode, DOE presented data in a separate 

SNOPR for the conventional cooking 

products test procedure published on 

May 25, 2012 showing that the fan 

power ranged from 16 W to 50 W and 

that the duration of fan-only mode 

ranged from 10 minutes to 3.5 hours. 77 

FR 31444, 31448. Using the highest fanonly mode power and duration that 

DOE observed, DOE estimated for this 

rulemaking a baseline per-cycle fan-only 

mode energy consumption of 0.175 

kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cycle. DOE 

accounted for the fan-only mode energy 

consumption in the IAEC for each 

product class based on the per-cycle 

energy consumption and the number of 

annual cooking cycles. 

DOE is tentatively considering that it 

analyze the baseline IAEC levels for 

conventional gas and electric ovens 

presented in Table II.6. 

TABLE II.6—CONVENTIONAL OVENS BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Product class 

2009 Standards rulemaking 

Proposed IAEC 

EF Annual energy 

consumption 9

Gas Oven—Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ....... 0.0536 1656.7 kBtu .............................. 2076.5 kBtu. 

Gas Oven—Self-Clean Oven ........................................................ 0.0540 1644.4 kBtu .............................. 1965.0 kBtu. 

Electric Oven—Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line .. 0.1066 274.9 kWh ................................ 370.0 kWh. 

Electric Oven—Self-Clean Oven ................................................... 0.1099 266.6 kWh ................................ 360.0 kWh. 

Issue D.1 DOE requests comment on 

approaches that it should consider 

when determining the baseline 

efficiency levels for each product class, 

including information regarding the 

merits and/or limitations of such 

approaches. 

Issue D.2 DOE also requests 

additional test data to characterize the 

baseline efficiency levels for each 

product class. In particular, DOE 

requests additional standby mode and 

off mode data for each product class to 

characterize the baseline standby/off 

mode power levels. DOE also requests 

additional test data for conventional 

ovens regarding the energy use in fanonly mode. DOE requests additional test 

data for conventional cooking tops 

showing the difference in measured 

efficiency using the current test 

procedure and the test procedure 

proposed in the January 2013 Induction 

TP NOPR. 

Higher Efficiency Levels 

DOE will analyze each product class 

to determine the relevant trial standard 

levels (TSLs) and to develop 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8345 

incremental manufacturing cost data at 

each higher efficiency level. DOE 

tentatively plans to analyze the 

proposed efficiency levels based on the 

IAEC metric that accounts for the test 

procedure amendments adopted in the 

October 2012 TP Final Rule and the 

amendments proposed in the January 

2013 Induction TP NOPR. 

For gas and electric cooking tops, 

DOE plans to use the efficiency levels 

presented in the 2009 TSD, adjusted to 

account for the proposed and amended 

test procedures. DOE plans to consider 

an additional efficiency level for electric 

smooth cooking tops associated with 

changing conventional linear power 

supplies to switch-mode power 

supplies. DOE also notes that the 

Commission of the European 

Communities published Commission 

Regulation 1275/2008 on December 17, 

2008 implementing Ecodesign 

requirements for standby and off mode 

electric power consumption for a 

specified list of energy using products, 

which includes the cooking products 

covered by this rulemaking. The 

Ecodesign regulation requires that any 

of these products manufactured after 

December 17, 2012, have a maximum 

standby power of 1 W. As a result, DOE 

considered an additional efficiency 

levels for electric smooth cooking tops 

associated with a 1–W standby power 

level. In addition, DOE considered an 

efficiency level for electric smooth 

cooking tops associated with induction 

technology. DOE based this efficiency 

level on the testing results presented in 

the January 2013 Induction TP NOPR 

that showed a 9.8 percent increase in 

cooking efficiency for induction cooking 

tops compared to conventional electric 

smooth cooking tops. 78 FR 6232, 6239 

(Jan. 30, 2013). DOE ordered the 

efficiency levels based on the costeffectiveness of the design options using 

data from the 2009 TSD and preliminary 

estimates for standby power design 

options. Table II.7 through Table II.9 

present the proposed efficiency levels 

for gas and electric cooking tops. DOE 

may consider revisions to the order of 

efficiency levels as additional costefficiency data is made available. 

TABLE II.7—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR GAS COOKING TOPS

Level Efficiency level source 

2009 standards rulemaking Proposed 

test procedure 

cooking 

efficiency 

Proposed IAEC 

(kBtu) Cooking 

efficiency EF 

Baseline ... 2009 TSD (Electronic Ignition) ...................................................... 0.399 0.399 0.365 1445.0 

1 ............... 2009 TSD Max-Tech (Sealed Burners) ......................................... 0.420 0.420 0.384 1372.7 

TABLE II.8—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR OPEN (COIL) ELEMENT ELECTRIC COOKING TOPS

Level Efficiency level source 

2009 standards rulemaking Proposed test 

procedure 

cooking 

efficiency 

Proposed IAEC 

(kBtu) Cooking 

efficiency EF 

Baseline ... 2009 TSD (Baseline) ..................................................................... 0.737 0.737 0.674 256.7 

1 ............... 2009 TSD (Improved Contact Conductance) ................................ 0.769 0.769 0.704 246.0 

TABLE II.9—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR SMOOTH ELEMENT ELECTRIC COOKING TOPS

Level Efficiency level source 

2009 standards rulemaking Proposed 

test procedure 

cooking 

efficiency 

Proposed IAEC 

(kBtu) Cooking 

efficiency EF 

Baseline ... 2009 TSD (Baseline) ..................................................................... 0.742 0.742 0.679 280.6 

1 ............... Baseline + Switch-Mode Power Supply (SMPS) .......................... 0.742 0.742 0.679 268.6 

2 ............... Baseline + 1 W Standby ................................................................ 0.742 0.742 0.679 263.5 

3 ............... 2009 TSD (Halogen Lamp Element) + 1 W Standby ................... 0.753 0.753 0.689 259.8 

4 ............... Induction + SMPS .......................................................................... ........................ ............ 0.746 245.9 

5 ............... Induction + 1 W Standby ............................................................... ........................ ............ 0.746 240.7 

For gas and electric ovens, DOE again 

plans to use the efficiency levels 

presented in the 2009 TSD, adjusted to 

account for the proposed and amended 

test procedures. DOE plans to consider 

an additional efficiency level for all 

conventional oven product classes 

associated with changing the 

conventional linear power supplies to 

switch-mode power supplies. DOE also 

plans to consider an additional 

efficiency level for all conventional 

oven product classes based on the 1–W 

Ecodesign standby requirement 

discussed above. For gas self-clean 

ovens, DOE is also considering an 

additional efficiency level associated 

with changing the baseline electric globar ignition to electronic spark ignition. 

DOE ordered the efficiency levels based 

on the cost-effectiveness of the design 

options using data from the 2009 TSD 

and preliminary estimates for standby 

power design options. Table II.10 

through Table II.13 present the 

proposed efficiency levels for gas and 

electric ovens. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8346 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.10—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR GAS OVENS—STANDARD OVENS WITH OR WITHOUT A

CATALYTIC LINE

Level Efficiency level source 

2009 standards rulemaking 

Proposed IAEC 

(kBtu) EF 

Annual energy 

consumption 

(kBtu) 

Baseline ... 2009 TSD (Electric Glo-bar Ignition) ..................................................................... 0.0536 1656.7 2076.5 

1 ............... 2009 TSD (Electric Glo-bar Ignition) + SMPS ...................................................... 0.0536 1656.7 1932.0 

2 ............... 2009 TSD (Improved Insulation) + SMPS ............................................................ 0.0566 1568.9 1844.2 

3 ............... 2009 TSD (2 + Electronic Spark Ignition) + SMPS .............................................. 0.0616 1442.4 1717.7 

4 ............... 2009 TSD (3 + Improved Door Seals) + SMPS ................................................... 0.0622 1427.3 1702.6 

5 ............... 2009 TSD (4 + Reduced Vent Rate) + SMPS ...................................................... 0.0625 1420.1 1695.4 

6 ............... 2009 TSD (5 + Reduced Conduction Losses) + SMPS ....................................... 0.0630 1410.6 1685.9 

7 ............... 2009 TSD (6 + Forced Convection) + SMPS ....................................................... 0.0653 1360.7 1636.0 

8 ............... 2009 TSD (7) + 1W Standby ................................................................................ 0.0653 1360.7 1499.1 

TABLE II.11—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR GAS OVENS—SELF-CLEAN OVENS

Level Efficiency level source 

2009 standards rulemaking 

Proposed IAEC 

(kBtu) EF 

Annual energy 

consumption 

(kBtu) 

Baseline ... 2009 TSD (Baseline) ............................................................................................. 0.0540 1644.4 1965.0 

1 ............... 2009 TSD (Baseline) + SMPS .............................................................................. 0.0540 1644.4 1820.5 

2 ............... 2009 TSD (Forced Convection) + SMPS .............................................................. 0.0625 1420.8 1596.9 

3 ............... 2009 TSD (2) + Electronic Spark Ignition + SMPS .............................................. 0.0680 1306.3 1482.3 

4 ............... 2009 TSD (3 + Improved Door Seals) + SMPS ................................................... 0.0685 1295.9 1472.0 

5 ............... 2009 TSD (4 + Reduced Conduction Losses) + SMPS ....................................... 0.0687 1291.8 1467.8 

6 ............... 2009 TSD (5) + 1 W Standby ............................................................................... 0.0687 1291.8 1330.9 

TABLE II.12—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ELECTRIC OVENS—STANDARDS OVENS WITH OR

WITHOUT A CATALYTIC LINE

Level Efficiency level source 

2009 standards rulemaking 

Proposed IAEC 

(kWh) EF 

Annual energy 

consumption 

(kWh) 

Baseline ... 2009 TSD (Baseline) ............................................................................................. 0.1066 274.9 370.0 

1 ............... 2009 TSD (Baseline) + SMPS .............................................................................. 0.1066 274.9 327.7 

2 ............... 2009 TSD (Reduced Vent Rate) + SMPS ............................................................ 0.1113 263.3 316.1 

3 ............... 2009 TSD (2 + Improved Insulation) + SMPS ...................................................... 0.1163 251.9 304.8 

4 ............... 2009 TSD (3 + Improved Door Seals) + SMPS ................................................... 0.1181 248.1 300.9 

5 ............... 2009 TSD (4 + Reduced Conduction Losses) + SMPS ....................................... 0.1184 247.5 300.3 

6 ............... 2009 TSD (5 + Forced Convection) + SMPS ....................................................... 0.1209 242.3 295.2 

7 ............... 2009 TSD (6) + 1 W Standby ............................................................................... 0.1209 242.3 255.0 

TABLE II.13—EFFICIENCY LEVELS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ELECTRIC OVENS—SELF-CLEAN OVENS

Level Efficiency level source 

2009 standards rulemaking 

Proposed IAEC 

(kWh) EF 

Annual energy 

consumption 

(kWh) 

Baseline ... 2009 TSD (Baseline) ............................................................................................. 0.1099 266.6 360.0 

1 ............... 2009 TSD (Baseline) + SMPS .............................................................................. 0.1099 266.6 317.7 

2 ............... 2009 TSD (Reduced Conduction Losses) + SMPS .............................................. 0.1102 265.9 317.0 

3 ............... 2009 TSD (2 + Forced Convection) + SMPS ....................................................... 0.1123 260.9 312.0 

4 ............... 2009 TSD (3) + 1 W Standby ............................................................................... 0.1123 260.9 271.9 

Issue D.3 DOE seeks input concerning 

the efficiency levels it tentatively plans 

to use for each product class for 

collecting incremental cost data from 

manufacturers of residential cooking 

products. DOE also seeks input on 

appropriate maximum technologically 

feasible efficiency levels and the basis 

for why those levels should be selected. 

Issue D.4 DOE requests data on how 

the relative changes in efficiencies 

presented above for residential-scale gas 

cooking products would differ for 

commercial-style gas cooking products 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8347 

and gas cooking products with higher 

burner input rates. 

Approach for Determining the CostEfficiency Relationship 

In order to create the cost-efficiency 

relationship, DOE intends to use a 

design-option approach, using reverse 

engineering (physical teardowns and 

testing of existing products in the 

market) to identify the incremental cost 

and efficiency improvement associated 

with each design option or design 

option combination. 

DOE will analyze technologies and 

associated costs representative of 

baseline units as part of the reverseengineering process. DOE intends to 

perform reverse engineering for each 

product class being analyzed. Whenever 

possible, DOE will attempt to reverse 

engineer test units that share similar 

platforms to better identify the 

efficiency benefits and costs of design 

options. As units are torn down, all 

design options used in them are noted 

and reviewed. Prior to tear down, DOE 

also plans to conduct limited testing to 

establish what control strategies are 

being used by manufacturers in 

conjunction with design options and 

platform design. Unit testing may 

include the measurement of 

disaggregated energy consumption to 

identify the relationship between 

particular components and control 

strategies taken by manufacturers to 

achieve higher efficiency levels. As part 

of the reverse-engineering process, DOE 

will attempt to generate a cost-efficiency 

relationship for each design option 

identified. In support of this designoption approach, DOE will consider 

cost-efficiency data from the 2009 TSD. 

DOE also requests incremental cost data 

for each cooking product design option. 

DOE intends the data to represent the 

average industry-wide incremental 

production cost for each technology. 

To be useful in the manufacturer 

impact analysis, manufacturer cost 

information should reflect the 

variability in baseline models, design 

strategies, and cost structures that can 

exist among manufacturers. This 

information allows DOE to better 

understand the industry and its 

associated cost structure, and, thus, it 

helps predict the most likely impact that 

new energy efficiency regulations would 

have. For example, the reverseengineering methodology allows DOE to 

estimate the ‘‘green-field’’ costs of 

building new facilities, yet the majority 

of plants in any given industry are 

comprised of a mix of assets in different 

stages of depreciation. Interviews with 

manufacturers not only help DOE refine 

its capital expenditure estimates, but 

they also allow DOE to refine 

depreciation and other financial 

parameters. 

DOE will refine the cost-efficiency 

data it generates through the reverseengineering activities with information 

obtained through follow-up 

manufacturer interviews and, as 

necessary, information contained in the 

market and technology assessment and 

further review of publicly available cost 

and performance information. 

Issue D.5 DOE requests feedback on 

using a design option approach 

supplemented with reverse engineering 

to determine the relationship between 

manufacturer cost and energy efficiency 

for residential cooking products. 

Issue D.6 DOE also requests 

incremental cost data for each cooking 

product design option. DOE intends the 

data to represent the average industrywide incremental production cost for 

each technology. DOE also welcomes 

comment and data on how the 

incremental costs for residential-scale 

gas cooking products compare to those 

for commercial-style gas cooking 

products and gas cooking products with 

higher burner input rates. 

EPCA also requires DOE to consider 

any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of a covered product likely 

to result from the imposition of a new 

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

As part of its analysis of higher 

efficiency levels, DOE will consider 

whether new standards may impact the 

utility of residential cooking products. 

Issue D.7 DOE seeks comment on 

whether any new standards may impact 

the utility of cooking products. If such 

impacts exist, can the effects be 

quantified? If so, how? 

E. Markups Analysis 

To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC) 

and payback period (PBP) calculations, 

DOE needs to determine the cost to the 

residential consumer of baseline 

products that satisfies the currently 

applicable standards, and the cost of the 

more-efficient unit the consumer would 

purchase under potential amended 

standards. By applying a multiplier 

called a ‘‘markup’’ to the manufacturer’s 

selling price, DOE is able to estimate the 

residential consumer’s price. 

For the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE 

based the distribution channels on data 

from the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). The 

2005 Fact Book (the latest available 

version from AHAM) shows that more 

than 93 percent of residential cooking 

products are sold through retail outlets. 

Because an overwhelming majority of 

products are sold through retail outlets, 

DOE assumed that all of the residential 

products are purchased by consumers 

from retail outlets. Thus, DOE analyzed 

a manufacturer-to-consumer 

distribution channel consisting of three 

parties: (1) The manufacturers 

producing the products; (2) the retailers 

purchasing the products from 

manufacturers and selling them to 

consumers; and (3) the consumers who 

purchase the products. DOE plans to use 

the same approach in the current 

rulemaking. 

As was done in the last rulemaking 

and consistent with the approach 

followed for other energy consuming 

products, DOE will determine an 

average manufacturer markup by 

examining the annual Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) 10–K 

reports filed by publicly traded 

manufacturers of appliances whose 

product range includes cooking 

products. DOE will determine an 

average retailer markup by analyzing 

both economic census data from the 

U.S. Census Bureau and the annual SEC 

10–K reports filed by publicly traded 

retailers. 

In addition to developing 

manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE 

will develop and include sales taxes to 

calculate appliance retail prices. DOE 

will use an Internet source, the Sales 

Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate 

applicable sales taxes. 

Issue E.1 DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the 

distribution channels described above 

are still relevant for kitchen ranges and 

ovens being considered in this 

rulemaking. DOE also welcomes 

comments concerning its proposed 

approach to developing estimates of 

markups reflecting future residential 

cooking products retail prices. 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy analysis is 

to assess the energy-savings potential of 

different product efficiencies. DOE uses 

the annual energy consumption and 

energy-savings potential in the LCC and 

PBP analyses to establish the savings in 

consumer operating costs at various 

product efficiency levels. As part of the 

energy use analysis, certain assumptions 

may be required regarding product 

application, including how the product 

is operated and under what conditions. 

DOE’s energy use analysis estimates 

the range of energy use of cooking 

products in the field, i.e., as they are 

actually used by consumers. Because 

energy use by residential cooking 

products varies greatly based on 

consumer usage patterns, the 

Department will establish a range of 

energy use. The Energy Information 

Administration (EIA)’s Residential 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8348 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10RECS 2009 is based on a sample of 12,083 

households statistically selected to represent 113.6 

million housing units in the United States. RECS 

2009 data are available for 27 geographical areas 

(including 16 large States) (Available at: 

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/). 11California Energy Commission. California 

Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study, 

June 2004. Prepared for the California Energy 

Commission by KEMA–XENERGY, Itron, and 

RoperASW. Contract No. 400–04–009. 12Parker, D. S. ‘‘Research Highlights from a Large 

Scale Residential Monitoring Study in a Hot 

Climate.’’ Proceeding of International Symposium 

on Highly Efficient Use of Energy and Reduction of 

its Environmental Impact, January 2002. Japan 

Society for the Promotion of Science Research for 

the Future Program, Osaka, Japan. JPS– 

RFTF97P01002: pp. 108–116. Also published as 

FSEC–PF369–02, Florida Solar Energy Center, 

Cocoa, FL. 

Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) is 

one source for estimating the range of 

energy use for cooking products. DOE 

will use data from RECS 2009 for the 

current rulemaking.10 From RECS, DOE 

will develop household samples for 

each product class. Although RECS does 

not provide the annual energy 

consumption of the cooking product, it 

does provide the frequency of cooking 

use. Thus, DOE can utilize the range in 

frequency of use to define the variability 

of the annual energy consumption. 

For the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE 

utilized the 2004 California Residential 

Appliance Saturation Study (CA 

RASS) 11 and a Florida Solar Energy 

Center (FSEC) study 12 to establish 

representative annual energy use values 

for cooking products. The CA RASS and 

FSEC studies confirmed that annual 

cooking energy use has been 

consistently declining since the late 

1970s. In the last rulemaking, DOE 

determined the average annual energy 

consumption for the various product 

classes as shown in Table II.14. DOE 

plans to update these values on the 

basis of most recent studies. 

TABLE II.14—AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY PRODUCT CLASS

Product class EF Annual energy consumption (kWh/yr) 

Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops ..................................................................... 0.737 128.2. 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops ........................................................................... 0.742 128.2. 

Gas Cooking Tops ............................................................................................................. 0.399 0.72 (MMBtu/yr). 

Electric Ovens—Standard Ovens with or without a Catalytic Line ................................... 0.1066 166.5. 

Electric Ovens—Self-Clean ............................................................................................... 0.1099 171.0. 

Gas Ovens—Standard Ovens with or without a Catalytic Line ........................................ 0.0536 21.1* (and 0.84 MMBtu/yr). 

Gas Ovens—Self-Clean .................................................................................................... 0.0625 55.1* (and 0.73 MMBtu/yr). 

* Represents electrical energy use associated primarily with the ignition system. 

DOE requests comment or seeks input 

from stakeholders on the following 

issues pertaining to the energy use 

analysis: 

Issue F.1 Approaches for specifying 

the typical annual energy consumption; 

Issue F.2 Data sources that DOE can 

use to characterize the variability in 

annual energy consumption for cooking 

products. 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

The purpose of the LCC and PBP 

analysis is to analyze the effects of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers of cooking 

products by determining how a 

potential amended standard affects their 

operating expenses (usually decreased) 

and their total installed costs (usually 

increased). 

DOE intends to analyze the potential 

for variability and uncertainty by 

performing the LCC and PBP 

calculations on a representative sample 

of households from RECS for the 

considered product classes using Monte 

Carlo simulation and probability 

distributions. The analysis results are a 

distribution of 10,000 data points 

showing the range of LCC savings and 

PBPs for a given efficiency level relative 

to the baseline level. DOE intends to 

conduct the analysis for all seven 

product classes of residential cooking 

products—Gas Cooking tops with 

conventional burners, Electric Cooking 

tops (Open coil and Smooth elements), 

Electric Ovens (Standard with or 

without a catalytic line and self-clean), 

and Gas Ovens (Standard with or 

without a catalytic line and self-clean). 

DOE expects to use single point 

values to characterize most components 

of the total installed cost, including the 

manufacturer markup and retailer 

markup. If, however, the manufacturer 

cost estimates developed in the 

engineering analysis are characterized 

using uncertainty or variability, DOE 

will use probability distributions to 

capture this uncertainty and variability. 

DOE measures savings of potential 

standards relative to a base case that 

reflects conditions without new or 

amended standards. DOE will use 

efficiency market shares to characterize 

the base-case product mix. By 

accounting for consumers who already 

purchase more efficient products, DOE 

avoids overstating the potential benefits 

from potential standards. 

Issue G.1 DOE seeks stakeholder input 

on its proposed approach of using 

probability distributions and Monte 

Carlo simulation to conduct the LCC 

and PBP analysis. 

Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis 

are categorized as: (1) Inputs for 

establishing the purchase expense, 

otherwise known as the total installed 

cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the 

operating expense. 

The primary inputs for establishing 

the total installed cost are the baseline 

consumer price, standard-level 

consumer price increases, and 

installation costs. Baseline consumer 

prices and standard-level consumer 

price increases will be determined by 

applying markups to manufacturer price 

estimates. The installation cost is added 

to the consumer price to arrive at a total 

installed cost. With regard to 

installation costs, unless the increased 

efficiency levels considered for this 

rulemaking result in significantly larger, 

heavier or functionally different 

products, DOE expects that more 

efficient cooking products will incur no 

increased installation costs. 

Issue G.2 DOE seeks input on whether 

it is correct to assume that changes in 

installation costs will be negligible for 

more-efficient products. 

The primary inputs for calculating the 

operating costs are product energy 

consumption, product efficiency, 

electricity and gas prices and forecasts, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates. Both 

product lifetime and discount rates are 

used to calculate the present value of 

future operating expenses. 

Electricity and gas prices are used to 

calculate the annual cost savings at 

different efficiency levels. DOE plans to 

derive average monthly natural gas, and 

electricity prices for the 27 geographic 

areas used in RECS 2009 by using the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8349 

13Lutz, et al. ‘‘Using National Survey Data to 

Estimate Lifetimes of Residential Appliances.’’ 

October 2011. HVAC&R Research. 

(www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/

10789669.2011.558166#preview) 

14Available at www.federalreserve.gov/

econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm. 

15Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 

AHAM 2000 Fact Book, 2000. Washington, DC. 

16Available for purchase at: 

www.appliancemagazine.com. 

latest data from EIA and monthly energy 

price factors. DOE will develop the 27 

regional energy prices based on the 

household population in each region. 

DOE will assign an appropriate price to 

each household in the RECS sample, 

depending on its location. To calculate 

annual electricity prices for residential 

consumers in each of the geographic 

areas, DOE will use information 

provided by electric utilities as 

summarized in the most recent EIA 

Form 861 data. To calculate annual 

natural gas prices, DOE will use data 

from EIA’s Natural Gas Navigator, 

which includes monthly natural gas 

prices by State for residential 

consumers. 

DOE will use projections of national 

average energy prices to residential 

consumers to estimate future energy 

prices. DOE will use the most recent 

available edition of EIA’s Annual 

Energy Outlook (AEO) as the default 

source of projections for future energy 

prices. 

Issue G.3 DOE seeks stakeholder input 

on the proposed approaches for 

estimating current and future energy 

prices. 

Maintenance costs are costs 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the product. DOE will 

consider any expected changes to 

maintenance and repair costs for 

cooking products subject to new 

standards. Typically, small incremental 

changes in product efficiency incur 

little or no change in repair and 

maintenance costs over baseline 

products. Products having efficiencies 

that are significantly higher than the 

baseline are more likely to incur 

increased repair and maintenance costs, 

because such products are more likely 

to incorporate technologies that are not 

widely available. DOE will use input 

from manufacturers and other 

stakeholders to develop appropriate 

repair and maintenance cost estimates. 

DOE’s current understanding is that 

changes in maintenance and repair costs 

will be negligible for more-efficient 

products. 

Issue G.4 DOE seeks stakeholder input 

on whether it is correct to assume that 

changes in maintenance and repair costs 

will be negligible for more-efficient 

products. 

The product lifetime is the age at 

which a product is retired from service. 

In the past, DOE used information from 

various literature sources, such as 

Appliance Magazine, and input from 

manufacturers and other stakeholders to 

determine a range for the lifetime of 

residential cooking products. In the last 

rulemaking, DOE estimated an average 

product lifetime of 19 years for 

conventional gas and electric cooking 

products. DOE characterized the 

cooking top, and oven lifetimes with 

Weibull distributions. 

For this rulemaking, DOE plans to use 

an approach that more accurately 

accounts for cooking product lifetimes 

in the field. It is based on an analysis 

of lifetime in the field using a 

combination of shipments data, the 

stock of appliances, and RECS data on 

the age of the appliances in the homes.13

The method will allow DOE to estimate 

a survival function, which also provides 

an average and a median appliance 

lifetime. DOE plans to use recent data 

from RECS 2009, American Housing 

Survey for 2009 and 2011, and updated 

historical shipment data to develop 

product lifetimes. 

Issue G.5 DOE seeks stakeholder 

comments on the methodology 

proposed to determine product lifetimes 

for cooking products. 

DOE uses a discount rate to determine 

the present value of lifetime operating 

expenses. For residential consumers of 

cooking products, DOE plans to estimate 

discount rates as the ‘‘finance cost’’ to 

purchase residential products. The 

finance cost of raising funds to purchase 

products can be interpreted as (1) the 

financial cost of any debt incurred to 

purchase products (principally interest 

charges on debt), or (2) the opportunity 

cost of funds used to purchase products 

(principally interest earnings on 

household equity). Much of the data 

required for determining the cost of debt 

and equity comes from the Federal 

Reserve Board’s triennial Survey of 

Consumer Finances.14

DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts 

of potential standard levels relative to a 

base case that reflects the likely market 

in the absence of amended standards. 

DOE plans to develop market-share 

efficiency data (i.e., the distribution of 

product shipments by efficiency) for the 

product classes DOE is considering, for 

the year in which compliance with any 

amended or new standards would be 

required. 

Issue G.6 DOE requests data on 

current efficiency market shares (of 

shipments) by product class, and also 

similar historic data, and expected 

trends in cooking products efficiency. 

H. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses shipment projections by 

product class in its analysis of national 

impacts of potential standards as well as 

in the manufacturer impact analysis. 

For the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE 

developed a shipments model for 

cooking products driven by historical 

shipments data. The historical 

shipments data are used not only to 

build up a product stock but also to 

calibrate the shipments model. 

In the last rulemaking DOE utilized 

historical shipments information for 

cooking tops and ovens from three 

sources: (1) Data provided by AHAM for 

the period 2003–2005, (2) data from the 

AHAM 2000 Fact Book for the period 

1989–2002,15 and (3) data from 

Appliance Magazine.16 For this 

rulemaking, DOE requests data on 

shipments from manufacturers. 

Additionally, DOE will also consider 

using other public sources of data, such 

as data from the NPD Group. 

Issue H.1 DOE seeks historical 

shipments data broken down by product 

class for cooking tops and ovens. 

DOE plans to determine annual 

shipments in the base case by 

accounting for: (1) Replacements due to 

failure; and (2) cooking products 

purchases due to new home 

construction. In the last rulemaking, 

DOE included a third market segment 

for early replacements in order to 

calibrate the model. DOE will examine 

the applicability of this market segment 

in the shipments model for the current 

rulemaking. DOE plans to use new 

housing starts from the latest available 

edition of EIA’s AEO in conjunction 

with appliance saturations to determine 

shipments to new construction. To 

determine replacement shipments, DOE 

will use the same product lifetimes and 

retirement functions that it generates for 

the LCC and PBP analyses. 

Issue H.2 DOE requests comment on 

the approach it intends on using to 

develop the shipments model and 

shipments forecasts for this rulemaking. 

I. National Impact Analysis 

The purpose of the national impact 

analysis (NIA) is to estimate aggregate 

impacts of potential efficiency standards 

at the national level. Impacts that DOE 

reports include the national energy 

savings (NES) from potential standards 

and the national NPV of the total 

consumer benefits. The NIA considers 

lifetime impacts of potential standards 

on products shipped in a 30-year period 

that begins with the expected 

compliance date for new or amended 

standards. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8350 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

To develop the NES, DOE calculates 

annual energy consumption for the base 

case and each standards case. DOE 

calculates the annual energy 

consumption in each year using per-unit 

average annual energy use data 

multiplied by projected shipments. 

To develop the national NPV of 

consumer benefits from potential 

standards, DOE calculates annual 

energy expenditures and annual product 

expenditures for the base case and the 

standards cases. DOE calculates total 

annual energy expenditures using data 

on annual energy consumption in each 

case, forecasted average annual energy 

prices, and shipment projections. The 

difference each year between energy bill 

savings and increased product 

expenditures is the net savings or net 

costs. 

A key component of DOE’s estimates 

of NES and NPV is the product energy 

efficiency forecasted over time for the 

base case and for each of the standards 

cases. To project a base-case shipmentweighted efficiency (SWEF) trend for 

each product class, DOE will consider 

recent trends in efficiency and input 

from stakeholders. To estimate the 

impact that standards have in the year 

compliance becomes required, in the 

April 2009 Final Rule, DOE used a ‘‘rollup’’ scenario which assumes that 

product efficiencies in the base case that 

do not meet the standard level under 

consideration would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet 

the new standard level and product 

shipments at efficiencies above the 

standard level under consideration are 

not affected. DOE intends to use the 

same method for conducting the NIA for 

this rulemaking. 

Issue I.1 DOE seeks historical SWEF 

data for cooking products by product 

class. DOE also seeks historical market 

share data showing the percentages of 

product shipments by efficiency level. 

J. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by March 14, 2014, 

comments and information on matters 

addressed in this notice and on other 

matters relevant to DOE’s consideration 

of new or amended energy 

conservations standards for residential 

conventional cooking products. After 

the close of the comment period, DOE 

will begin collecting data, conducting 

the analyses, and reviewing the public 

comments, as needed. These actions 

will be taken to aid in the development 

of a NOPR for residential conventional 

cooking products if DOE decides to 

amend the standards for such products. 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of the 

rulemaking process. Interactions with 

and between members of the public 

provide a balanced discussion of the 

issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking 

process. Anyone who wishes to be 

added to the DOE mailing list to receive 

future notices and information about 

this rulemaking should contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945, or 

via email at Brenda.Edwards@

ee.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–03086 Filed 2–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0077; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–CE–021–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, 

Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010–17– 

18 R1, which applies to certain Air 

Tractor, Inc. Models AT–802 and AT– 

802A airplanes. AD 2010–17–18 R1 

currently requires repetitively 

inspecting (using the eddy current 

method) the two outboard fastener holes 

in both of the wing main spar lower 

caps at the center splice joint for cracks; 

repairing or replacing any cracked spar; 

changing the safe life for certain serial 

number ranges; and sending the 

inspection results, only if cracks are 

found, to the FAA. Since we issued AD 

2010–17–18 R1, we have determined 

that the safe life for the wing main spar 

lower caps should apply to all AT–802 

and AT–802A airplanes regardless of 

configuration or operational use. This 

proposed AD would retain all actions of 

AD 2010–17–18 R1 and expand the 

applicability to include all serial 

numbers regardless of configuration or 

operational use. We are proposing this 

AD to correct the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by March 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Air Tractor, 

Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; 

telephone: (940) 564–5616; fax: (940) 

564–5612; email: 

airmail@airtractor.com; Internet: 

www.airtractor.com. You may review 

copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (816) 329–4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating it in Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0077; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, 

ASW–150 (c/o MIDO–43), 10100 

Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, 

Texas 78216; phone: (210) 308–3365; 

fax: (210) 308–3370; email: 

andrew.mcanaul@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0077; Directorate Identifier 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS