## 9975 

# Proposed Rules Federal Register
Vol. 63, No. 39

Friday, February 27, 1998

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER DEPARTMENTOF ENERGY contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations.The Office of Energy Efficiency and purpose of these notices is to give interested Renewable Energy persons an opportunityto participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final 10 

### CFR Part430

~II~AS [Docket NumbersEE-RM-93-201 and EERM-S-97-7001

RIN 1904-AA84
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Cooking Products (Kitchen Rangesand Ovens) Energy Conservation Standards

AGENCY: 

### Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, DOE. ACTION: 

### Notice of limited reopening of the record and opportunityforpublic
comment.

SUMMARY: 

### The Department of Energy
reopens the record of itsrulemaking to revise energy conservation standardsfor cookingproducts under the Energy Policy and ConservationAct forthe following classes: Gas cooktops, gas ovens, and electric non-self-cleaning

ovens. This noticeprovides an opportunity for public comment regarding supplemental analyses on the potential impact of alternative efficiency levels, written comments on these analyses, new factual information, and the principal policy options now under consideration.

DATES: 

### Comments must be received on or before March 30. 1998.
ADDRESSES: 

### A copy ofthe 1996Draft Report on the Potential Impact of Alternative Energy Efficiency Levels for Residential CookingProducts (Draft Report),supplemental analysis,and other post comment period correspondence is available for public inspection and copying at the Freedom of Information ReadingRoom, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,DC 20585, (202) 586-7574, between the hours of 9 a.m.and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Written comments are welcome. Please submit 10copies (nofaxes) to: Kathi Epping, U. S.Department of Energy, Office of EnergyEfficiencyand Renewable Energy, "Energy Conservation Programfor Consumer Products: CookingProducts, Docket No. EE-RM-S-97-700", EE-43, 1000 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-012 1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT: 

### Kathi Epping. U.S. Department of Energy,Officeof Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Energy,EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-012 1,(202)586- 7425, or Eugene Margolis. Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-72,1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### P~I'suant to section 325 of the Energy Policy and ConservationAct (EPCA)

,

### 42 U.S.C. 6295,the Department of Energy (DOE) proposed to revise the energy conservation standardsapplicable to cookingproducts, aswell as a variety of other consumer products. 59 FR 10464 (March4, 1994).Cookingproducts include conventional ranges, cooktops, and ovens and microwave ovens. Section 325(0)(2) requires that any amended standard be designedto achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiencythat is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(0)(2). DOE proposed performance standardsfor all conventional ovens and cooktops and microwave ovens.

DOE held public hearings and received 59 comments on itsproposed revisions to the cookingproducts energy conservation standards. After reviewing the comments,DOE concluded that a number of significant issues had been raised that required additional analysis. DOE also decided to separatethe rulemaking on cookingproducts from the rulemakings forthe other consumer products covered by the notice of proposed rulemaking.

The Department, inresponse to commentsonthe proposed rule, prepared a Draft Report containing DOE'Srevised analysis examining five alternativeefficiency levels. The Draft Report indicated that standardsbased on the described venting and insulating improvements to non-self-cleaning conventional electric ovens and eliminating standing pilot lights for non-self-cleaning conventional gas

ovens and conventional gas cooktops could be determined to be technologically feasible and economically justified andto save significant energy.The analysis did not support any new or more stringent 

# Proposed Rules

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Numbers EE-RM-93-201 and EERM-S-97-7001

RIN 1904-AA84
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Cooking Products (Kitchen Ranges and Ovens) Energy Conservation Standards

AGENCY: Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice oflimited reopening of the record and opportunityfor public
comment.

SUMMARY: The Department ofEnergy
reopens the record ofits rulemaking to revise energy conservation standards for cooking products under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act for the following classes: Gas cooktops, gas ovens, and electric non-self-cleaning

ovens. This notice provides an opportunityfor public comment regarding supplemental analyses on the potential impact ofalternative efficiency levels, written comments on these analyses, new factual information, and the principal policy options now under consideration.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: A copy ofthe 1996 Draft Report on the Potential Impact of Alternative Energy Efficiency Levels for Residential Cooking Products (Draft Report), supplemental analYSiS, and other post comment period correspondence is available for public inspection and copying at the Freedom ofInformation Reading Room, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7574, between the hours of9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Written comments are welcome. Please submit 10 copies (no faxes) to: Kathi Epping, U. S. Department of Energy, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Cooking Products, Docket No. EE-RM-S-97-700", EE-43, 1000 Federal Register

Vol. 63, No. 39

Friday, February 27, 1998

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. 

### 9975

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathi Epping, U.S. Department of Energy, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586- 7425, or Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office ofGeneral Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to section 325 ofthe Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.c. 6295, the Department ofEnergy (DOE) proposed to revise the energy conservation standards applicable to cooking products, as well as a variety of other consumer products. 59 FR 10464 (March 4, 1994). Cooking products include conventional ranges, cooktops, and ovens and microwave ovens. Section 325(0)(2) reqUires that any amended standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified. 42 USc. 6295(0)(2). DOE proposed performance standards for all conventional ovens and cooktops and microwave ovens.

DOE held public hearings and received 59 comments on its proposed revisions to the cooking products energy conservation standards. After reviewing the comments, DOE concludedthat a number ofsignificant issues had been raised that required additional analysis. DOE also decided to separate the rulemaking on cooking products from the rulemakings for the other consumer products covered by the notice of proposed rulemaking.

The Department, in response to comments on the proposed rule, prepared a Draft Report containing DOE's revised analysis examining five alternative efficiency levels. The Draft Report indicated that standards based

on the described venting and insulating improvements to non-self-cleaning conventional electric ovens and eliminating standing pilot lights for non-self-cleaning conventional gas

ovens and conventional gas cooktops could be determined to be technologically feasible and economicallyjustified and to save significant energy. The analysis did not support any new or more stringent

### Federal Register/

### VI

efficiency standard for any other cooking products.

On May 5, 1996,DOE distributed a copy of the Draft Report to interested parties including all of the commenters

on the proposed rule on cooking products. (EE-RM-S-97-700, No. 1and No. 2.)TheDepartment invited
comment onthe Draft Reportby nolater than July 1, 1996. A copy ofthe cover letter and the Draft Reporthas been added to the record on file for inspection inthe DOE Freedom of Information ReadingRoom.

In commenting on the 1994proposed rule, AHAM argued that standardsare not warranted for any product, though AHAM proposed that,if a standard is set,DOE should adopt a prescriptive design standard prohibiting standing pilot lights on conventional gasranges in lieu of allperformance standards proposed for cookingproducts. Significant energy savings, consistency with current standards,minimal design change,andnocompliance program

were cited asbenefits. AHAM also commented that eliminating standing pilot lights could disproportionately affect low-income and rural consumers. (EE-RM-93-20 1,

### NO. 1.)



### On April 23, 1996,the American Council for anEnergy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sent

a letter to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) stating their support for a prescriptive design standardbanningpilot lights from all conventional gas ranges. (EERM-S-97-700, NO.3.)

DOE received three comments on the Draft Report. NRDC recommended banning all standing pilot lights. In additionto cost effective energy savings, NRDC emphasized the health and safety benefits which would result from banning pilot lights. (EE-RM-S-97-700, No. 4.)



### Betty Crockerexpressed concern over the im~act of standardsfor consumers. Betty drocker expressed concern about the maintenance required for electric coil cooktop reflective pans and commented that an oven separator would have low consumer acceptance. (EE-RM-S-97-700, No. 5.)The results of the Draft Report indicated that neither of these design options were economically justified.

Whirlpool stated that none of the proposed design options are economically justified, several ofthe design options lessen consumer utility, and the energy use by ranges and ovens has declined significantly overthe past two years. In addition,Whirlpool stated that the cost of compliance testing for
any performance standard would offset 31. 

### 63, No. 39/Friday, February 27, 1998/Proposed Rules

the potential energy savings. Whirlpool Department believes that thispercentage did not discuss prescriptive design would be small. In those homes where standards such asthe elimination of an electrical outlet is available, the pilot lights for gasproducts. (EE-RM-S- estimated first-cost increase to 97-700, No. 6.) consumers for conventional gas ranges

Based onthe analysis in the Draft is $37,with life-cycle cost savings of Report and the comments received, the $91-$104 andpaybacks of 2.9-3.2 years. Department is inclined to believe the In those homes where an outlet needs to record iscomplete with respect to be added, the additional $90 cost of microwave ovens,electric self-cleaning installing a new outlet 1 

### almost negates
ovens,and electric cooktops. The the savings. In homes where an electric analysis in the Draft Report indicates outlet isnot available, the total cost that establishing new or revised increase of $127,for conventional gas standards for these types of cooking ranges,would result in life-cycle cost products is not economically justified. savings of $1-$14 with paybacks of 10- For example, the analysis for microwave I I years.

ovens indicated paybacks exceedingthe The impacts are more substantial for 10-yearproduct life, increased life-cycle separate conventional gas cooktops and costs, and a negative net present value. ovens. For separate conventionalgas Based onthe consideration of this cooktops, the cost increase is $116, analysis, the Department doesnot resulting in a life-cycle cost increase of expect to establish new or revised $41-48 and paybacks of 17- 19 years. standardsforthese products inthis For separate conventional gas ovens, the rulemaking. cost increase of $11 3results in a lifeIn addition,the analysis in the Draft cycle cost increase of $68-$75 and Report and the comments received paybacks of 27-32 years. Thus,the prompted further examination ofgas Department believes extendingthe ban cooktops, gas ovens, and electric non- to these separate products is not self-cleaning ovens. DOE prepared an economically justified. Based onAHAM analysis to supplement the DraftReport shipment data, the Department that focuses exclusively on the possible estimates the percent of separate elimination ofstandingpilot lights for conventional gas cooktops and separate gasproducts and improving non-self- conventional gas ovenswith standing cleaning conventional electric ovens by pilot lights to be approximately 

### 3 and 0 venting and insulating them like self- percent, respectively, by the year 2000. cleaning electric ovens. The Therefore, a standardextendingthe supplemental analysis uses the latest prohibition of standing pilot lights to available data fromAHAM regardingthe include separate gas cooktops and ovens trends over time of shares of salesof in addition to ranges results in very non-self-cleaning conventional ovens little incremental energy savings. and gas products with pilot lights. It Permitting separate conventionalgas also uses the latest utility price forecasts cooktops and ovens to use pilot lights fromthe Annual Energy Outlook ofthe could also accommodate special Energy Information Administration, circumstances where electrical service AEO 97, and the Gas ResearchInstitute, is not practically available. Based on GRI 97. A copy ofthe supplemental AHAM's comments regarding the analysis has been added to the record on elimination ofpilot lights and the fact file for inspection in the DOE Freedom that no testing programwould be of Information ReadingRoom, and DOE required to implement such a is sending a copyto all cornenterson prescriptive design standard, the the proposed rule for cooking products. Department believes that there would (EE-RM-S-97-700, No. 7.) not be any significant adverse impacts

The Department's supplemental on manufacturers. Giventhe analysis analysis indicates that extending the and public commentsto date,the statutoryprescriptive design standard Department expects to extend the banning standingpilot lights to cover all prescriptive design standard prohibiting conventionalgas ranges would be standingpilot lights to all conventional technically feasible and economically gasranges but not to includethe justified and would result in significant extension to separate conventional gas energy savings. The current statutory cooktops and ovens without an standardbans pilot lights forgas kitchen electrical cord. ranges and ovens equipped with an The Department's supplemental electric cord. Someconsumerswould analysis indicates that establishing need to add an electrical outlet to accommodate electrical service to a 1The $90 estimate for adding anelectrical outlet 

### conventionalgas range. While it is comesfrom a GRIreport subGttedby AHAM as a 

### unknown what 

### percent of

### homes do

### not comment.Itwas derived froman informal survey ofelectricians to install an outlet accessibletoa gas 

### have electrical outlets available, based water heater and is comprised of $50parts and 

### on the limited data available,the laborand $40 for a servicecall 

### 9976 

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 39/Friday, February 27, 1998/Proposed Rules

efficiency standard for any other cookingproducts.

On May 5, 1996, DOE distributed a copy ofthe Draft Report to interested parties including all ofthe commenters

on the proposed rule on cooking products. (EE-RM-S-97-700, No.1 and No.2.) The Department invited
comment on the Draft Report by no later thanJuly 1, 1996. A copy ofthe cover letter and the Draft Report has been added to the record on file for inspection inthe DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room.

In commenting on the 1994 proposed rule, AHAM argued that standards are not warranted for any product, though AHAM proposed that, ifa standard is set, DOE should adopt a prescriptive design standard prohibiting standing pilot lights on conventional gas ranges in lieu ofall performance standards proposed for cooking products. Significant energy savings, consistency with current standards, minimal design change, and no compliance program

were cited as benefits. AHAM also commented that eliminating standing pilot lights could disproportionately affect low-income and rural consumers. (EE-RM-93-201, No.!.)

On April 23, 1996, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sent

a letterto the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) stating their support for a prescriptive design standard banningpilot lights from all conventional gas ranges. (EERM-S-97-700, No.3.)

DOE received three comments on the Draft Report. NRDC recommended banning all standing pilot lights. In addition to cost effective energy savings, NRDC emphasized the health and safety benefits which would result from banning pilot lights. (EE-RM-S-97-700, No.4.)

Betty Crocker expressed concern over the impact ofstandards for consumers. Betty Crocker expressed concern about the maintenance reqUired for electric coil cooktop reflective pans and commented that an oven separator would have low consumer acceptance. (EE-RM-S-97-700, No.5.) The results ofthe Draft Report indicated that neither ofthese design options were economicallyjustified.

Whirlpool stated that none ofthe proposed design options are economicallyjustified, several ofthe design options lessen consumer utility, and the energy use by ranges and ovens has declined significantly over the past two years. In addition, Whirlpool stated that the cost ofcompliance testing for
any performance standard would offset the potential energy savings. Whirlpool did not discuss prescriptive design standards such as the elimination of pilot lights for gas products. (EE-RM-S97-700, No.6.)

Based onthe analysis in the Draft Report and the comments received, the Department is inclined to believe the record is complete with respect to microwave ovens, electric self-cleaning

ovens, and electric cooktops. The analysis in the Draft Report indicates that establishing new orrevised standards for these types ofcooking products is not economicallyjustified. For example, the analysis for microwave

ovens indicated paybacks exceeding the lO-year product life, increased life-cycle costs, and a negative net present value. Based onthe consideration ofthis analysis, the Department does not expect to establish new or revised standards for these products inthis rulemaking.

In addition, the analysis in the Draft Report and the comments received prompted further examination ofgas cooktops, gas ovens, and electric nonself-cleaning ovens. DOE prepared an analysis to supplementthe Draft Report that focuses exclusively on the pOSSible elimination ofstanding pilot lights for
gas products and improving non-selfcleaning conventional electric ovens by venting and insulating them like selfcleaning electric ovens. The supplemental analysis uses the latest available data from AHAM regarding the trends over time ofshares ofsales of non-self-cleaning conventionalovens and gas products with pilot lights. It also uses the latest utility price forecasts from the Annual Energy Outlook ofthe Energy Information Administration, AEO 97, and the Gas Research Institute, GRI 97. A copy ofthe supplemental analysis has been addedto the record on file for inspection in the DOE Freedom ofInformation Reading Room, and DOE is sending a copyto all commenters on the proposed rule for cooking products. (EE-RM-S-97-700, No.7.)

The Department's supplemental analysis indicates that extendingthe statutory prescriptive design standard banning standing pilot lights to cover all conventional gas ranges would be technically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant
energy saVings. The current statutory standard bans pilot lights for gas kitchen
ranges and ovens equipped with an electric cord. Some consumers would need to add an electrical outletto accommodate electrical service to a conventional gas range. While it is unknown what percent ofhomes do not have electrical outlets available, based

onthe limited data available, the Department believes that this percentage would be small. In those homes where

an electrical outlet is available, the estimated first-cost increase to

consumers for conventional gas ranges is $37, with life-cycle cost savings of $91-$104 and paybacks of 2.9-3.2 years. In those homes where an outlet needs to be added, the additional $90 cost of installing a new outlet 1 almost negates the savings. In homes where an electric outlet is not available, the total cost increase of$127, for conventional gas ranges, would result in life-cycle cost savings of $1-$14 with paybacks of lOII years.

The impacts are more substantial for separate conventional gas cooktops and

ovens. For separate conventional gas cooktops, the cost increase is $116, resulting in a life-cycle cost increase of $41-48 and paybacks of 17-19years. For separate conventional gas ovens, the
cost increase of $113 results in a lifecycle cost increase of $68-$75 and paybacks of 27-32 years. Thus, the Department believes extendingthe ban
to these separate products is not economicallyjustified. Based on AHAM shipment data, the Department estimates the percent ofseparate conventional gas cooktops and separate conventional gas ovens with standing pilot lights to be approximately 3 and

# °

percent, respectively, by the year 2000. Therefore, a standard extendingthe prohibition ofstandingpilot lights to include separate gas cooktops and ovens in addition to ranges results in very little incremental energy saVings. Permitting separate conventional gas cooktops and ovens to use pilot lights could also accommodate special circumstances where electrical service is not practically available. Based on AHAM's comments regarding the elimination ofpilot lights and the fact that no testing program would be reqUired to implement such a prescriptive design standard, the Department believes that there would
not be any significant adverse impacts

on manufacturers. Given the analysis and public comments to date, the Department expects to extend the prescriptive design standard prohibiting standing pilot lights to all conventional
gas ranges but not to include the extension to separate conventional gas cooktops and ovens without an electrical cord.

The Department's supplemental analysis indicates that establishing

1The $90 estimate for adding an electrical outlet

comes from a GRI report submitted by AHAM as a comment. It was derived from an informal survey ofelectricians to install an outlet accessible to a gas water heater and is comprised of $50 parts and labor and $40 for a service call.

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 39/Friday, February 

### 27, 1998 /Proposed Rules 

## 9977

standards for electric non-self-cleaning

ovens could be technically feasibleand could save significant energy. However, because ovens are not tested currently and therefore performance data on specific ovens does not exist, it is unknown whether allnon-self-cleaning electric ovens, if insulated and vented

as their self-cleaningcounterparts, would meet a specific performance standard. Consequently, there is a risk that in order to bring some electric non- self-cleaning ovens into compliance with a performance standard, manufacturers would need to use additional design options. The analysis found no other design optionsfor either
gas or electric ovens to be cost effective. Thus,the Department does not expect to establish performance standardsfor any cookingproducts including non-selfcleaning electric ovens.

The Department is changingthe name for this rulemaking from "kitchen
ranges and ovens" to "cooking products." This change is made because the term "kitchen ranges and ovens" does not accurately describe the products considered which include conventional ranges, cooktops and

ovens and microwave ovens. To be consistent with this change,the Department expects to add aregulatory definition of "cooking products" that is the same as the existing definition of "kitchen ranges and ovens."

The Department solicitspublic
comment on the supplemental analysis and its implicationsfor this rulemaking, specifically with regard to the extension of the prohibition on standingpilot lights.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 26, 1998. Dan W.Reicher,
AssistantSecretary forEnergyEfficiency and RenewableEnergy. [FRDoc. 98-5084 Filed 2-26-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P 

### Federal 

### Register/Vol. 63, No. 39/Friday, February 27, 1998/Proposed Rules

standards for electric non-self-cleaning

ovens could betechnically feasible and could save significant energy. However, because ovens are not tested currently and therefore performance data on specific ovens does not exist, it is unknown whether all non-self-cleaning electric ovens, ifinsulated and vented

as their self-cleaningcounterparts, would meet a specific performance standard. Consequently, there is a risk that in orderto bring some electric nonself-cleaning ovens into compliance with a performance standard, manufacturers would need to use additional design options. The analysis found no other design options for either
gas or electric ovens to be cost effective. Thus, the Department does not expectto establish performance standards for any cookingproducts including non-selfcleaningelectric ovens.

The Department is changingthe name for this rulemaking from "kitchen
ranges and ovens" to "cooking products." This change is made because the term "kitchen ranges and ovens" does not accurately describe the products considered which include conventional ranges, cooktops and

ovens and microwave ovens. To be consistent with this change, the Department expects to add a regulatory definition of "cooking products" that is the same as the existing definition of "kitchenranges and ovens."

The Department solicits public
comment on the supplemental analysis and its implications for this rulemaking, specifically with regard to the extension ofthe prohibition on standingpilot lights.

Issued in Washington. DC. on January 26. 1998.
DanW. Reicher,
AssistantSecretary forEnergyEfficiencyand RenewableEnergy. [FR Doc. 98-5084 Filed 2-26-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 645G-01-P 

### 9977