16040 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number: EERE–2006–STD–0127] 

RIN 1904–AB49 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Certain 

Consumer Products (Dishwashers, 

Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and 

Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and 

Ovens) and for Certain Commercial 

and Industrial Equipment (Commercial 

Clothes Washers) 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is announcing that it is amending 

energy conservation standards 

pertaining to the cooking efficiency of 

residential gas kitchen ranges and 

ovens, because it has determined that 

such standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and would result 

in significant conservation of energy, 

the three primary statutory criteria for 

adoption of standards under the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). 

DOE is not adopting energy 

conservation standards pertaining to the 

cooking efficiency of residential electric 

kitchen ranges and ovens and 

microwave ovens, because it has 

determined that such standards would 

not be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. At this point, 

DOE has decided to defer its decision 

regarding adoption of amended energy 

conservation standards for the energy 

efficiency of commercial clothes 

washers and standby mode and off 

mode power consumption by 

microwave ovens, pending further 

rulemaking. Finally, DOE is not 

adopting amended standards for 

dishwashers and dehumidifiers in this 

rulemaking, because recent amendments 

to EPCA have already set standards for 

those products. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

June 8, 2009. Compliance with the 

standards set by today’s final rule is 

required on April 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, the 

technical support document, transcripts 

of the public meetings in this 

proceeding, or comments received, visit 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource 

Room of the Building Technologies 

Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 

586–2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at the above telephone number 

for additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. You may 

also obtain copies of certain previous 

rulemaking documents in this 

proceeding (i.e., framework document, 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 

notice of proposed rulemaking), draft 

analyses, public meeting materials, and 

related test procedure documents from 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy’s Web site at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

cooking_products.html 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Stephen Witkowski, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7463. E-mail: 

Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas or Mr. Michael Kido, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–72, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov or 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. The Standard Levels 

1. Statutorily Set Standard Levels for 

Dehumidifiers and Dishwashers 

2. The Standard Levels for the Energy 

Efficiency of Residential Cooking 

Products 

3. Further Rulemaking for Commercial 

Clothes Washers and Microwave Ovens 

B. Current Federal Standards 

C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of 

Cooking Products 

D. Impact on Manufacturers 

E. National Benefits 

F. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for the 

Two Appliance Products 

3. Further Rulemaking To Consider Energy 

Conservation Standards for Microwave 

Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Power Use and for Commercial Clothes 

Washers 

III. General Discussion 

A. Standby Power for Cooking Products 

B. Test Procedures 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Gas Cooking Products—Alternatives to 

Line-Powered Electronic Ignition 

Systems 

3. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Consumers and 

Manufacturers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments on Methodology 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Product Classes 

2. Technology Options 

3. Excluded Product Classes and 

Technologies 

B. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Levels 

2. Manufacturing Costs 

C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Product Prices 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

6. Product Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Effective Date of the Amended Standards 

9. Product Energy Efficiency in the Base 

Case 

10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

11. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

Period 

D. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

1. General 

2. Shipments 

a. New Construction Shipments 

b. Replacements 

c. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and 

Household Income Impacts 

d. Fuel Switching 

3. Other Inputs 

a. Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies 

b. Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies 

c. Annual Energy Consumption 

d. Site-to-Source Conversion 

e. Total Installed Costs and Operating Costs 

f. Discount Rates 

g. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices 

E. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

G. Employment Impact Analysis 

H. Utility Impact Analysis 

I. Environmental Assessment 

V. Discussion of Other Comments 

A. Burdens and Benefits 

1. Consideration of the Value of Avoided 

Environmental Impacts 

B. Other Comments 

1. Proposed Standards for Conventional 

Cooking Products 

VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Significance of Energy Savings 

C. Economic Justification 

1. Economic Impact on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16041 

1The term ‘‘cooking products’’ as used in this 

notice refers to residential electric and gas kitchen 

ranges and ovens, including microwave ovens. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Manufacturer Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are 

Small Businesses 

d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. Net Present Value of Consumer Impacts 

and National Employment Impacts 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

D. Conclusion 

1. Overview 

2. Conventional Cooking Products 

3. Microwave Ovens 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Reasons for the Final Rule 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Rule 

3. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

5. Significant Issues Raised by Public 

Comments 

6. Steps DOE Has Taken To Minimize the 

Economic Impact on Small 

Manufacturers 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

M. Congressional Notification 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. The Standard Levels 

DOE notes that this rulemaking 

originally bundled four separate 

residential and commercial products 

(dishwashers, dehumidifiers, electric 

and gas kitchen ranges and ovens and 

microwave ovens, and commercial 

clothes washers). However, as explained 

in further detail below, various events 

occurred during the course of the 

rulemaking which resulted in the 

consideration of a number of these 

products separately. For example, 

Congress set efficiency levels by statute 

for dishwashers and dehumidifiers, 

which DOE codified in its regulations 

through a separate rulemaking (along 

with numerous other statutory changes). 

At the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) stage, public commenters made 

DOE aware of problems with the 

efficiency data for certain commercial 

clothes washer models upon which DOE 

had relied in its analyses. For 

microwave ovens, public commenters 

urged DOE to await the impending 

finalization of the industry standard for 

measurement of microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption before adopting a 

corresponding DOE test procedure (a 

prerequisite for an energy conservation 

standard addressing standby power). 

DOE believes that both of these 

developments warrant further 

rulemaking action. For these reasons, 

today’s final rule is limited to 

addressing energy conservation 

standards for the cooking efficiency of 

electric and gas kitchen ranges and 

ovens and microwave ovens. 

1. Statutorily Set Standard Levels for 

Dehumidifiers and Dishwashers 

As explained in detail in the NOPR in 

this proceeding, the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; EPCA or the Act), 

initially contained energy conservation 

standards for dehumidifiers and 

residential dishwashers, as well as 

requirements for DOE to amend those 

standards, and DOE announced it would 

consider such amendments to those 

standards in this rulemaking. 73 FR 

62034, 62036–40 (Oct. 17, 2008) (the 

October 2008 NOPR). However, the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law No. 

110–40, subsequently amended these 

EPCA provisions in two ways pertinent 

here. First, EISA 2007 prescribed 

efficiency standards for dehumidifiers 

manufactured on or after October 1, 

2012 and removed the requirement for 

a rulemaking to amend the EPCA 

standards for this product. Second, 

EISA 2007 prescribed maximum energy 

and water use levels for residential 

dishwashers manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2010, and required 

completion of a final rule no later than 

January 1, 2015 to consider amendment 

of these dishwasher standards. 73 FR 

62034, 62038–40 (Oct. 17, 2008). (EISA 

2007, section 311(a)(1)–(2); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(10) and (cc)) DOE notes that 

although EISA 2007 did not formally 

remove the requirement to conduct the 

current rulemaking, the statutory 

standards for dishwashers are to become 

effective well before the effective date of 

any amended standards that would have 

arisen from the present rulemaking. 

Consequently, DOE has not conducted 

further analysis in this rulemaking of 

standards for dehumidifiers and 

residential dishwashers. 73 FR 62034, 

62040 (Oct. 17, 2008). Instead, DOE has 

incorporated into its regulations all of 

the energy conservation standards 

prescribed by EISA 2007 for various 

products and equipment, including 

those for dehumidifiers and residential 

dishwashers, in a separate rulemaking 

notice. 74 FR 12058 (March 23, 2009). 

2. The Standard Levels for the Energy 

Efficiency of Residential Cooking 

Products 

Pursuant to EPCA, any amended 

energy conservation standard that DOE 

prescribes for cooking products 1 or 

commercial clothes washers 

(collectively referred to in this final rule 

as ‘‘the two appliance products’’) must 

be designed to ‘‘achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency * * * 

which the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, 

the new standard must ‘‘result in 

significant conservation of energy.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)) In 

today’s final rule, DOE has decided to 

adopt amended energy conservation 

standards pertaining to the cooking 

efficiency of residential gas kitchen 

ranges and ovens pursuant to these 

criteria. Today’s final rule requires that 

residential gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

without an electrical supply cord 

manufactured after April 9, 2012 must 

not be equipped with a constant burning 

pilot light. DOE has decided not to 

adopt energy conservation standards 

pertaining to the cooking efficiency of 

residential electric kitchen ranges and 

ovens and microwave ovens. As 

explained in further detail below, no 

cooking efficiency standards for these 

products were found to be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

3. Further Rulemaking for Commercial 

Clothes Washers and Microwave Ovens 

DOE has decided to defer its decision 

regarding whether to adopt amended 

energy conservation standards for the 

energy efficiency of commercial clothes 

washers (CCWs) and for the standby 

mode and off mode power consumption 

of microwave ovens, pending further 

rulemaking. The reasons for DOE’s 

decision are summarized below. 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively concluded for CCWs that a 

standard of 1.76 modified energy factor 

(MEF) and 8.3 water consumption factor 

(WF) for top-loading CCWs and a 

standard of 2.0 MEF and 5.5 WF for 

front-loading CCWs are technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 73 

FR 62034, 62036 (Oct. 17, 2008). As 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16042 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

discussed in more detail in section 

II.B.3, DOE received comments on the 

October 2008 NOPR that questioned the 

validity of the maximum 

technologically feasible (max-tech) level 

that was used in the analysis of toploading CCWs. DOE has concluded that 

additional information is required to 

verify whether the max-tech level 

specified in the NOPR is appropriate. 

Likewise, the October 2008 NOPR 

tentatively concluded that a standard for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Therefore, 

concurrent with the standards NOPR, 

DOE published in the Federal Register 

a test procedure NOPR for microwave 

ovens to provide for the measurement of 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption by these products. 73 FR 

61134 (Oct. 17, 2008). As discussed in 

section II.B.3, DOE received comments 

on the October 2008 NOPR that objected 

to certain definitions that were included 

in the proposed microwave oven test 

procedure amendments. The 

commenters supported the 

incorporation of definitions provided in 

a revision of an industry standard for 

measuring standby power consumption 

expected to be completed later this year. 

DOE has concluded that it should defer 

consideration of microwave oven energy 

conservation standards until the revised 

industry standard becomes available for 

consideration in the microwave oven 

test procedure amendments. 

DOE intends to complete the 

rulemaking process for these products 

and equipment as expected once 

additional key data and information 

become available, keeping in mind the 

relevant statutory deadlines. As 

discussed in the October 2008 NOPR, 73 

FR 62034, 62041 (Oct. 17, 2008), the 

EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA require 

DOE to amend the ranges and ovens and 

microwave oven test procedure to 

incorporate standby and off mode 

energy consumption no later than 

March 31, 2011. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(B)(vi)) For CCWs, EPCA 

requires that DOE issue a final rule by 

January 1, 2010, to determine whether 

the existing energy conservation 

standards should be amended. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(e)(2)(A)) 

B. Current Federal Standards 

DOE established the current energy 

conservation standards for dishwashers 

manufactured on or after May 14, 1994, 

in a final rule published in the Federal 

Register on May 14, 1991 (56 FR 22250). 

These standards include a requirement 

that the energy factor (EF) of a standardsize dishwasher must not be less than 

0.46 cycles per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and 

that the EF of a compact-size 

dishwasher must not be less than 0.62 

cycles per kWh. (10 CFR 430.32(f)) 

Section 311(a)(2) of EISA 2007 

established maximum energy and water 

use levels for dishwashers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)) Under the 

amended statute, a standard-size 

dishwasher shall not exceed 355 kWh/ 

year and 6.5 gallons of water per cycle, 

and a compact-size dishwasher shall not 

exceed 260 kWh/year and 4.5 gallons of 

water per cycle. 

EPCA, as amended by the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), 

Public Law 109–58, prescribes the 

current energy conservation standard for 

dehumidifiers, shown in Table I.1. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(cc)(1); 10 CFR 430.32(v)) 

Section 311(a)(1) of EISA 2007 amended 

EPCA to prescribe minimum efficiency 

levels for dehumidifiers manufactured 

on or after October 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(cc)(2)) 

TABLE I.1—FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS

EPACT 2005 standards effective October 1, 2007 EISA 2007 standards effective October 1, 2012 

Dehumidifier capacity 

pints/day 

EF 

liters/kWh 

Dehumidifier capacity 

pints/day 

EF 

liters/kWh 

25.00 or less ................................................................. 1.00 Up to 35.00 ................................................................... 1.35 

25.01–35.00 .................................................................. 1.20 35.01–45.00 .................................................................. 1.50 

35.01–54.00 .................................................................. 1.30 45.01–54.00 .................................................................. 1.60 

54.01–74.99 .................................................................. 1.50 54.01–75.00 .................................................................. 1.70 

75.00 or more ............................................................... 2.25 Greater than 75.00 ....................................................... 2.5 

EPCA prescribes the current energy 

conservation standard for cooking 

products, which includes a requirement 

that gas ranges and ovens with an 

electrical supply cord that are 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

1990, not be equipped with a constant 

burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(1); 10 CFR 430.32(j)) Currently, 

no mandatory Federal energy 

conservation standards exist for 

conventional electric ranges and ovens 

or for microwave ovens. 

EPCA also prescribes standards for 

CCWs manufactured on or after January 

1, 2007, requiring that CCWs have an 

MEF of at least 1.26 and a WF of not 

more than 9.5. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(1); 10 

CFR 431.156) 

C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers 

of Cooking Products 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

considered the impacts on consumers of 

several trial standard levels (TSLs) 

related to the cooking efficiency of 

conventional cooking products and 

microwave ovens. 73 FR 62034, 62037, 

62084–90 (Oct. 17, 2008). In the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded 

that none of the TSLs for microwave 

oven cooking efficiency were 

economically justified. 73 FR 62034, 

62119 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE has reached 

the same conclusion in today’s final 

rule. Therefore, at this time, DOE is not 

adopting standards for microwave oven 

cooking efficiency (EF), so there will be 

no positive or negative impacts on 

purchasers of these products. 

Also in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

determined that at TSL 1, the economic 

impacts (i.e., the average life-cycle cost 

(LCC) savings) on consumers of the 

proposed standards for conventional 

cooking products would be positive. 

(TSL 1 prohibits constant burning pilots 

for gas appliances but does not change 

standards for the other product classes.) 

DOE has reached the same conclusion 

in today’s final rule. Table I.2 presents 

the impacts on consumers of the energy 

conservation standards adopted in 

today’s final rule. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16043 

2Because the amended standards affect solely 

residential gas consumption, the installed power 

plant generating capacity change represents only 

0.005 percent of the total installed generating 

capacity forecasted for the year 2030. Therefore, 

both the installed capacity change and its 

associated emission reductions are negligible. 

Although effectively negligible, installed generation 

capacity and emission impacts are still reported in 

section VI of today’s final rule for TSL 1 (the 

amended standards). 

TABLE I.2—IMPLICATIONS OF AMENDED STANDARDS FOR CONSUMERS

Gas cooktops Gas standard 

ovens 

New average installed cost ............................................................................................................................... $332 ................. $464. 

Estimated installed cost increase ...................................................................................................................... $22 ................... $34. 

Lifetime operating cost savings ......................................................................................................................... $37 ................... $43. 

Average payback period .................................................................................................................................... 3.3 years ........... 7.0 years. 

The typical baseline gas cooktop has 

an installed price of $310 and an 

average lifetime operating cost of $561, 

resulting in a total life-cycle cost of 

$871. To meet the new standards, DOE 

estimates that the installed price of this 

product will be $332, an increase of $22. 

This price increase will be offset by 

lifetime operating cost savings of $37, 

resulting in life-cycle cost savings of 

$15. For gas standard ovens, the typical 

baseline product has an installed price 

of $430 and an annual average lifetime 

operating cost of $406, resulting in a 

total life-cycle cost of $836. To meet the 

new standards, DOE estimates that the 

installed price of this product will be 

$464, an increase of $34. This price 

increase will be offset by lifetime 

operating cost savings of $43, resulting 

in life-cycle cost savings of $9. 

For the subgroup of consumers who 

do not have access to the electrical grid 

or whose religious and cultural 

practices prohibit the use of grid 

electricity, the amended standards 

would require use of technologies (e.g., 

a battery-powered spark-ignition device) 

that have not yet been certified to meet 

applicable safety standards. See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

sections 4(a)(4)(i) and (iv), and 5(b)(1) 

and (4). (See sections III.C.2 and VI.D.2 

of this notice for further discussion.) 

Based on its research, DOE expects that 

certification of such technologies under 

applicable safety standards will likely 

be completed when these standards 

become effective. 

D. Impact on Manufacturers 

Using a real corporate discount rate of 

7.2 percent, DOE estimates the industry 

net present value (INPV) in 2006$ of the 

gas cooktop, gas oven, and microwave 

oven industries to be $288 million, $469 

million, and $1.46 billion, respectively, 

in the absence of new or amended 

standards. DOE estimates the impact of 

the cooking efficiency standards 

adopted in today’s final rule on the 

INPV of manufacturers of these products 

to be between a 1.73-percent loss and a 

4.11-percent loss (¥$5 million to ¥$12 

million) for gas cooktop manufacturers 

and between a 1.56-percent loss and a 

2.10-percent loss (¥$7 million to ¥$10 

million) for gas oven manufacturers. 

Because DOE is not adopting standards 

for cooking efficiency of conventional 

electric cooking products or microwave 

ovens (and because consideration of a 

standby mode and off mode standard for 

microwave ovens has been deferred), 

this final rule will have no net impact 

on manufacturers of these products. 

Based on DOE’s interviews with 

manufacturers of cooking products and 

on comments received on the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE determined that two 

small businesses that manufacture gas 

cooking products could be 

disproportionately affected by 

standards. (See section VII.B of this 

notice for further discussion.) 

E. National Benefits 

DOE estimates the standards will save 

approximately 0.14 quads (quadrillion 

(1015) British thermal units (BTU)) of 

energy over 30 years (2012–2042). This 

is equivalent to 2.9 days of U.S. gasoline 

use. 

By 2042, DOE expects the energy 

savings from the standards to eliminate 

the need for approximately 62 

megawatts (MW) of generating 

capacity.2 These energy savings will 

result in cumulative (undiscounted) 

greenhouse gas emission reductions of 

approximately 13.7 million tons (Mt) of 

carbon dioxide (CO2). Based on a 

methodology developed during 2008, 

these emission reductions were 

estimated to represent domestic benefits 

of $0 to $109 million using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $0 to $241 million 

using a 3-percent discount rate, 

cumulative from 2012 to 2042 in 2007$. 

The methodology used to develop these 

estimates is now under review. 

Additionally, the standards will help 

alleviate air pollution by resulting in 

approximately 6.1 kilotons (kt)) of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) cumulative 

emission reductions at the sites where 

appliances are used from 2012 through 

2042. In addition, the standards would 

result in power plant NOX emissions 

reductions of 0.6 kt from 2012 to 2042. 

The total NOX emissions reductions at 

these locations would be an amount 

equal to $0.7 to $7.3 million using a 7- 

percent discount rate and $1.5 to $15.4 

million using a 3-percent discount rate, 

in 2006$. The standards would also 

possibly result in power plant mercury 

(Hg) emissions reductions of up to 0.15 

tons (t) from 2012 to 2042, or an amount 

equal to $0 to $1.3 million using a 7- 

percent discount rate and $0 to $2.6 

million using a 3-percent discount rate, 

in 2006$. 

The national NPV of the standards is 

$254 million using a 7-percent discount 

rate and $706 million using a 3-percent 

discount rate, cumulative from 2012 to 

2042 in 2006$. This is the estimated 

total value of future savings minus the 

estimated increased equipment costs, 

discounted to 2007. 

The benefits and costs of today’s final 

rule to the Nation can also be expressed 

in terms of annualized [2006$] values 

over the forecast period (2012 through 

2042). Using a 7-percent discount rate 

for the annualized cost analysis, the cost 

of the standards established in today’s 

final rule is $17 million per year in 

increased product and installation costs, 

while the annualized benefits are $37 

million per year in reduced product 

operating costs. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate, the cost of the standards 

established in today’s final rule is $28 

million per year and the benefits are $85 

million per year. 

F. Conclusion 

DOE has evaluated the benefits 

(energy savings, consumer LCC savings, 

positive national NPV, and emissions 

reductions) to the Nation of amended 

energy conservation standards for gas 

cooking products and of new cooking 

efficiency standards for conventional 

electric cooking products and 

microwave ovens, as well as the costs of 

such standards (loss of manufacturer 

INPV and consumer LCC increases for 

some users of the cooking products). 

Based on all available information, DOE 

has determined that the benefits to the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16044 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

3This part was originally titled Part B. It was 

redesignated Part A in the United States Code for 

editorial reasons. 

4This part was originally titled Part C. It was 

redesignated Part A–1 in the United States Code for 

editorial reasons. 

Nation of the standards for gas cooking 

products outweigh their costs. Today’s 

standards also represent the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant energy savings. At present, 

gas cooking products that meet the 

amended standard levels are 

commercially available or, for the 

subgroup of consumers without access 

to the electrical grid or whose religious 

or cultural practices prohibit the use of 

grid electricity, are likely to be 

commercially available at the time the 

standards become effective. 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part A 3 of Title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ The program covers 

consumer products and certain 

commercial products (all of which are 

referred to hereafter as ‘‘covered 

products’’), including electric and gas 

kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(10), 6295(h)) Part A–1 4 of Title III 

(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) establishes a 

similar program for ‘‘Certain Industrial 

Equipment’’ (referred to hereafter as 

‘‘covered equipment’’), including 

commercial clothes washers. (42 U.S.C. 

6312, 6313(e)) Part A of Title III 

provides for test procedures, labeling, 

and energy conservation standards for 

residential cooking products and certain 

other types of products, and it 

authorizes DOE to require information 

and reports from manufacturers. 

The National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 

Pub. L. 100–12, amended EPCA to 

establish prescriptive standards for 

cooking products. NAECA requires 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, and 

requires DOE to conduct two cycles of 

rulemakings for ranges and ovens to 

determine if the standards established 

should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(1)–(2)) The test procedures for 

cooking products appear at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix I. 

DOE is conducting the present 

rulemaking for cooking products 

pursuant to the authority set forth 

above. The following paragraphs discuss 

some of the key provisions of EPCA 

relevant to the standards-setting 

rulemaking. 

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing 

new or amended standards for covered 

products. As indicated above, any new 

or amended standard for cooking 

products must be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Additionally, DOE 

may not prescribe an amended or new 

standard if DOE determines by rule that 

such a standard would not result in 

‘‘significant conservation of energy,’’ or 

‘‘is not technologically feasible or 

economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)) 

EPCA also provides that in deciding 

whether such a standard is 

economically justified for covered 

products, DOE must, after receiving 

comments on the proposed standard, 

determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

products in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for 

the covered products that are likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy savings likely to result directly 

from the imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the products likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy 

conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) 

In addition, EPCA, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)), 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that any standard for covered products 

is economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that ‘‘the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy (and as 

applicable, water) savings during the 

first year that the consumer will receive 

as a result of the standard,’’ as 

calculated under the test procedure in 

place for that standard. 

EPCA also contains what is 

commonly known as an ‘‘antibacksliding’’ provision. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1) and 6316(a)) This provision 

mandates that the Secretary not 

prescribe any amended standard that 

either increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. EPCA further provides that the 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard if interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the standard is ‘‘likely 

to result in the unavailability in the 

United States of any product type (or 

class) of performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States at the time 

of the Secretary’s finding.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4) and 6316(a)) 

Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA is 

applicable to promulgating standards for 

any type or class of covered product that 

has two or more subcategories. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) Under 

this provision, DOE must specify a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to such type or class 

of product for any group of products 

‘‘which have the same function or 

intended use, if * * * products within 

such group—(A) consume a different 

kind of energy from that consumed by 

other covered products within such type 

(or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard’’ than applies 

or will apply to the other products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In 

determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies such a different 

standard for a group of products, DOE 

must consider ‘‘such factors as the 

utility to the consumer of such a 

feature’’ and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any 

rule prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which DOE established such higher or 

lower level. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)). 

Federal energy conservation standards 

for covered products generally 

supersede State laws or regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

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

6297(a)–(c) and 6316(a)) DOE can, 

however, grant waivers of preemption 

for particular State laws or regulations, 

in accordance with the procedures and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16045 

5Available online at DOE’s Web site: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

home_appl_analysis.html. 

other provisions of section 327(d) of the 

Act. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(a)) 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

As described in greater detail in the 

October 2008 NOPR, 73 FR 62034, 

62039–40 (Oct. 17, 2008), the current 

energy conservation standards in EPCA 

for dishwashers apply to all products 

manufactured on or after May 14, 1994 

(10 CFR 430.32(f)); for dehumidifiers, to 

all products manufactured on or after 

October 1, 2007 (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(1); 

10 CFR 430.32(v)); for cooking products, 

to all products manufactured on or after 

January 1, 1990, (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1); 

10 CFR 430.32(j)); and for CCWs to all 

equipment manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2007 (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(1); 10 

CFR 431.156). In addition, EISA 2007 

established standards for dishwashers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010 (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)) and for 

dehumidifiers manufactured on or after 

October 1, 2012 (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(2)). 

These standards are discussed in section 

I.B. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

the Two Appliance Products 

As noted above, this rulemaking 

originally bundled four products 

(dishwashers, dehumidifiers, residential 

cooking products, and commercial 

clothes washers). However, during the 

course of this rulemaking, Congress set 

energy conservation standard levels by 

statute for dishwashers and 

dehumidifiers as part of EISA 2007. 

Accordingly, the regulatory history 

provided below focuses on the two 

remaining appliance products— 

residential cooking products and 

commercial clothes washers. 

NAECA amended EPCA to establish 

the current prescriptive standard 

requiring gas ranges and ovens with an 

electrical supply cord not to be 

equipped with a constant burning pilot 

light. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)) In a 

rulemaking undertaken pursuant to 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)), DOE 

issued a final rule in which it found that 

standards were not justified for electric 

cooking products and, partially due to 

the difficulty of conclusively 

demonstrating the economic impacts of 

standards for gas-fired ranges and ovens, 

did not include amended standards for 

gas-fired ranges and ovens in the final 

rule. 63 FR 48038 (Sept. 8, 1998). 

Section 136(a) and (e) of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), 

Public Law 109–58, amended EPCA to 

add CCWs as covered equipment, 

establish the current standards for such 

equipment, and require that DOE do two 

cycles of rulemakings to determine 

whether these standards should be 

amended. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1) and 

6313(e)) DOE has incorporated these 

standards into its regulations. 70 FR 

60407, 60416 (Oct. 18, 2005); 10 CFR 

431.156. 

DOE commenced this rulemaking on 

March 15, 2006, by publishing its 

framework document for the 

rulemaking, and then gave notice of a 

public meeting and of the availability of 

the document. 71 FR 15059 (March 27, 

2006). The framework document 

described the approaches DOE 

anticipated using and issues to be 

resolved in the rulemaking. DOE held 

the public meeting on April 27, 2006, to 

present the contents of the framework 

document, describe the analyses DOE 

planned to conduct during the 

rulemaking, obtain public comment on 

these subjects, and facilitate the public’s 

involvement in the rulemaking. DOE 

also allowed the submission of written 

statements after the public meeting. In 

response, DOE received 11 written 

statements. 

On December 4, 2006, DOE posted 

two spreadsheet tools for this 

rulemaking on its Web site. The tools 

included calculation of the impacts of 

the candidate standard levels developed 

for the two appliance products. One tool 

calculates LCC and payback periods 

(PBPs); the other—the National Impact 

Analysis (NIA) Spreadsheet—calculates 

shipments, national energy savings 

(NES), and NPV. 

On November 15, 2007, DOE 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) in this 

proceeding. 72 FR 64432 (November 

2007 ANOPR). In the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE described and sought 

comment on the analytical framework, 

models, and tools that DOE was using 

to analyze the impacts of energy 

conservation standards for the relevant 

appliance products. In addition, DOE 

published on its Web site the complete 

ANOPR technical support document 

(TSD), which included the results of 

DOE’s preliminary analyses in this 

rulemaking. In the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE requested oral and written 

comments on these preliminary results 

and on a range of other issues, including 

the measurement of microwave oven 

standby power consumption and 

potential CCW product classes. DOE 

held a public meeting in Washington, 

DC, on December 13, 2007, to present 

the methodology and results of the 

ANOPR analyses, and to receive oral 

comments from those who attended. 

The oral and written comments DOE 

received focused on DOE’s assumptions, 

approach, and analytical results, and 

were addressed in detail in the October 

2008 NOPR. 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

proposed new energy conservation 

standards for the two appliance 

products. 73 FR 62034, 62134 (Oct. 17, 

2008). It also provided additional 

background information on the history 

of this rulemaking. Id. at 62040–41. In 

conjunction with the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE also published on its Web 

site the complete TSD for the proposed 

rule, which incorporated the analyses 

DOE conducted and technical 

documentation for each analysis. The 

LCC spreadsheets, national impact 

analysis spreadsheets, Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) 

spreadsheets, and regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) spreadsheets are also 

available on DOE’s Web site.5 The 

standards proposed for the two 

appliance products are presented in 

Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—OCTOBER 2008 PROPOSED ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

Product class Proposed energy conservation standards 

Kitchen ranges and ovens: 

Gas cooktops/conventional burners .................................................................................... No constant burning pilot lights. 

Electric cooktops/low or high wattage open (coil) elements ............................................... No standard. 

Electric cooktops/smooth elements ..................................................................................... No standard. 

Gas ovens/standard oven ................................................................................................... No constant burning pilot lights. 

Gas ovens/self-clean oven .................................................................................................. No change to existing standard. 

Electric ovens ...................................................................................................................... No standard. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16046 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

6A notation in the form ‘‘AHAM, No. 47 at pp. 

3 and 5’’ identifies a written comment (1) made by 

AHAM; (2) recorded in document number 47 that 

is filed in the docket of this rulemaking (Docket No. 

EE–2006–STD–0127) and maintained in the 

Resource Room of the Building Technologies 

Program; and (3) which appears on pages 3 and 5 

of document number 47. 

TABLE II.1—OCTOBER 2008 PROPOSED ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS—Continued 

Product class Proposed energy conservation standards 

Microwave ovens ................................................................................................................. Maximum standby power = 1.0 watt. 

Commercial clothes washers: 

Top-loading commercial clothes washers ........................................................................... 1.76 Modified Energy Factor/8.3 Water Factor. 

Front-loading commercial clothes washers ......................................................................... 2.00 Modified Energy Factor/5.5 Water Factor. 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

discussed and invited comment 

specifically on the following topics: (1) 

The proposed standards for residential 

gas kitchen ranges and ovens, 

microwave ovens, and CCWs, as well as 

DOE’s tentative conclusion that 

standards for residential electric kitchen 

ranges and ovens other than microwave 

ovens and gas self-cleaning ovens are 

not technologically feasible and 

economically justified; (2) whether 

battery-powered spark ignition modules 

are a viable alternative to standing pilots 

for manufacturers of gas ranges, ovens, 

and cooktops; (3) the technical 

feasibility of incorporating microwave 

oven cooking efficiency with standby 

mode and off mode power into a single 

metric for the purpose of developing 

energy conservation standards; (4) input 

and data regarding off mode power for 

microwave ovens; (5) input and data on 

the utility provided by specific features 

that contribute to microwave oven 

standby power, particularly display 

technologies and cooking sensors that 

do not require standby power; (6) input 

and data on control strategies available 

to allow manufacturers to make design 

tradeoffs between incorporating 

standby-power-consuming features such 

as displays or cooking sensors and 

including a function to turn power off 

to these components during standby 

mode, as well as on the viability and 

cost of microwave oven control board 

circuitry that could accommodate 

transistors to switch off cooking sensors 

and displays; (7) whether switching or 

similar modern power supplies can 

operate successfully inside a microwave 

oven and the associated efficiency 

impacts on standby power; (8) the 

selection of microwave oven standby 

standard levels for the engineering 

analysis; (9) input and data on the 

estimated incremental manufacturing 

costs, the assumed approaches to 

achieve each standby level for 

microwave ovens, and whether any 

intellectual property or patent 

infringement issues are associated with 

the design options presented in the TSD 

to achieve each standby level; (10) input 

and data on the estimated market share 

of microwave ovens at different standby 

power consumption levels; (11) the 

appropriateness of using other discount 

rates in addition to 7 percent and 3 

percent real to discount future 

emissions reductions; and (12) the 

determination of the anticipated 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

rule, particularly with respect to the 

methods for valuing the expected 

carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) emissions savings due to 

the proposed standards. 73 FR 62034, 

62133 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

In addition to these topics on which 

it requested comment specifically, DOE 

addressed four topics in the October 

2008 NOPR: (1) The determination of 

product classes for both cooking 

products and CCWs; (2) the adequacy of 

the residential clothes washer test 

procedure for CCWs; (3) small business 

impacts of the proposed cooking 

products standards; and (4) impacts of 

the proposed CCW standards on the 

competitive landscape. 

DOE held a public meeting in 

Washington, DC, on November 13, 2008, 

to hear oral comments on and solicit 

information relevant to the proposed 

rule. 

3. Further Rulemaking To Consider 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off 

Mode Power Use and for Commercial 

Clothes Washers 

Among the responses to the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE received a number of 

comments from interested parties that 

presented information and arguments 

for continuing the rulemaking process to 

consider standards for microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption, as well as standards for 

CCWs. These comments and DOE’s 

response are discussed below. 

Regarding microwave oven standby 

mode and off mode power consumption, 

interested parties raised concerns over 

issues associated with the concurrent 

microwave oven test procedure 

rulemaking. As mentioned above and 

discussed in detail in section III.B of 

today’s notice, DOE proposed to amend 

the microwave oven (MWO) test 

procedure to incorporate by reference 

specific clauses of International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

Standard 62301, Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power. DOE would have adopted 

definitions for ‘‘standby mode’’ and ‘‘off 

mode’’ in accordance with the EISA 

2007 amendments to EPCA. 73 FR 

62134 (Oct. 17, 2008) (MWO test 

procedure NOPR). 

The Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) raised concerns 

about the ‘‘robustness’’ of these 

proposed microwave oven test 

procedure amendments, and supported 

continuing the microwave oven energy 

conservation standards rulemaking to 

allow additional time for DOE to collect 

data and to clarify the test procedure. 

(AHAM, No. 47 at pp. 3 and 5) 6

Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) 

stated that DOE could perform better 

data gathering and analysis for a 

microwave oven standby power 

standard if DOE used the entire time 

until the EISA 2007 deadline of March 

31, 2011 for a test procedure 

amendment to incorporate measurement 

of standby mode and off mode power 

consumption. Whirlpool and GE 

Consumer & Industrial (GE) requested 

that DOE halt the current microwave 

oven energy conservation standards 

rulemaking and work with industry to 

gather and analyze more comprehensive 

energy performance data. (Whirlpool, 

No. 50 at pp. 1–2; GE, No. 48 at p. 2) 

GE further stated that DOE’s approach to 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption for microwave ovens 

could have important implications for 

other covered products, and that the 

microwave oven energy conservation 

standards rulemaking should be 

postponed to allow DOE to address 

standby power issues for covered 

products either through negotiation or 

through a rulemaking that considers 

how the definition of ‘‘standby power’’ 

will affect all appliances, not just 

microwave ovens. (GE, No. 48 at p. 4) 

AHAM raised four other concerns 

about the proposed microwave oven test 

procedure amendments: (1) Which 

microwave ovens are covered products; 

(2) the incorporation of the EPCA 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16047 

7A notation in the form ‘‘Whirlpool, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 29’’ identifies an 

oral comment that DOE received during the 

November 13, 2008, NOPR public meeting, was 

recorded in the public meeting transcript in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EE–2006– 

STD–0127), and is maintained in the Resource 

Room of the Building Technologies Program. This 

particular notation refers to a comment (1) made by 

Whirlpool during the public meeting; (2) recorded 

in document number 40.5, which is the public 

meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of this 

rulemaking; and (3) which appears on page 29 of 

document number 40.5. 

definitions for ‘‘standby mode’’ and ‘‘off 

mode,’’ which AHAM claims are 

outdated; (3) the conditions for standby 

power testing; and (4) the test period for 

measuring standby power. AHAM stated 

that there is considerable confusion 

regarding the definition of microwave 

ovens as covered products. DOE stated 

in the microwave oven test procedure 

NOPR that the test procedure 

amendments would apply to microwave 

ovens for which the primary source of 

heating energy is electromagnetic 

(microwave) energy, including 

microwave ovens with or without 

browning thermal elements designed for 

surface browning of food. The proposed 

test procedure amendments would not 

cover combination ovens (i.e., ovens 

consisting of a single compartment in 

which microwave energy and one or 

more other technologies, such as 

thermal or halogen cooking elements or 

convection systems, contribute to 

cooking the food). 73 FR 62134, 62137 

(Oct. 17, 2008). AHAM stated that it had 

been working to set up negotiations on 

a microwave oven standby power 

standard, but that confusion caused by 

DOE’s definition of microwave ovens 

required AHAM to cancel its efforts 

until the definition is clarified. (AHAM, 

No. 47 at p. 3) Whirlpool concurred that 

the definition of microwave ovens needs 

to be clarified. It claimed that DOE 

appears to be creating a new product 

definition without properly engaging 

interested parties. (Whirlpool, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 29; 

Whirlpool, No. 50, at pp. 1–2) 7

The Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP) commented that it 

appreciates DOE accelerating 

development of the microwave oven test 

procedure ahead of the EISA 2007 

deadline of 2011 so that standby power 

savings can be captured in this round of 

rulemaking for cooking products. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at p. 32) 

Regarding definitions of ‘‘standby 

mode’’ and ‘‘off mode,’’ AHAM and 

Whirlpool recognize that DOE is using 

the definitions provided under the EISA 

2007 amendments to EPCA, but stated 

that DOE should consider IEC’s recent 

work in developing the second edition 

of IEC Standard 62301, particularly the 

clarifications of the definitions of 

‘‘standby mode’’ and ‘‘off mode.’’ 

AHAM cited the case in which a 

microwave oven would be plugged in 

and only energize a light-emitting diode 

(LED) or some other indication that the 

unit is in ‘‘off mode.’’ AHAM 

commented that this would represent a 

different way for the product to 

communicate with the consumer that 

might not be covered under the 

proposed mode definitions. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 

pp. 58–60; Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 60–61) In 

contrast, ASAP stated that the EISA 

2007 language defining ‘‘standby mode’’ 

and ‘‘off mode’’ was reviewed and 

agreed to by AHAM, and jointly 

recommended by AHAM and efficiency 

advocates to Congress. Therefore, ASAP 

asserted that DOE has definitions that 

were recommended by interested 

parties. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 64) 

In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

proposed considering a single product 

class for microwave ovens, 

encompassing microwave ovens with 

and without browning (thermal) 

elements. This product class did not 

include microwave ovens that 

incorporate convection systems. DOE 

stated that it was unaware of any data 

evaluating the efficiency characteristics 

of microwave ovens incorporating 

convection systems, and sought 

comments and information that would 

help it evaluate the performance of such 

products. 72 FR 64432, 64445, 64513 

(Nov. 15, 2007). AHAM commented in 

response that the single product class 

should be broken up into subcategories 

according to features that may be 

different than when the standard was 

first put into effect. 73 FR 62034, 62049 

(Oct. 17, 2008). However, in the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE concluded, based on 

data supplied by AHAM and its own 

testing, that no features or utilities were 

uniquely correlated with efficiency that 

would warrant defining multiple 

product classes for microwave ovens. Id. 

Therefore, for the purposes of the NOPR 

analyses, DOE retained a single product 

class for microwave ovens. No 

additional data or information was 

submitted in response to the October 

2008 NOPR that would justify amending 

the definition of the microwave oven 

product class. 

DOE agrees with commenters that it is 

beneficial to harmonize, where possible, 

its standards and test procedures with 

those of other countries and 

international agencies, particularly in 

the area of standby power. DOE 

recognizes that IEC Standard 62301 is 

an internationally accepted test 

standard for the measurement of 

standby power in residential appliances, 

and that it would be beneficial to many 

manufacturers to be required to meet 

only a single standby power standard 

because they produce microwave ovens 

for markets in multiple countries. In 

considering a standby power standard 

for microwave ovens, along with 

associated amendments to the 

microwave oven test procedure, DOE 

proposed to incorporate language for 

definitions of ‘‘active mode,’’ ‘‘standby 

mode,’’ and ‘‘off mode’’ as provided by 

the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)) However, in 

directing DOE to amend its test 

procedures to address standby and off 

mode power consumption, the EISA 

2007 amendments to EPCA allow DOE 

to amend the EPCA definitions of these 

modes, while requiring that DOE take 

‘‘into consideration the most current 

versions’’ of IEC Standard 62301 and 

IEC Standard 62087. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(1)(B) and (2)(A)) In light of 

these statutory provisions and 

recognizing the benefits of 

harmonization, DOE has decided to 

continue this rulemaking, as to 

microwave oven standby power 

standards, until the second edition of 

IEC Standard 62301 is finalized, which 

is expected to occur by July 2009. At 

such time, DOE will consider further 

modifications to DOE’s microwave oven 

test procedure, particularly the ‘‘standby 

mode’’ and ‘‘off mode’’ definitions, and, 

on the basis of such amended test 

procedures, DOE will analyze potential 

energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption. DOE invites 

data and information that will allow it 

to further conduct the analysis for 

standby and off mode power 

consumption of microwave ovens. DOE 

anticipates issuing supplemental notices 

of proposed rulemaking (SNOPRs) for 

microwave oven energy conservation 

standards and the microwave oven test 

procedure in order to obtain public 

input on DOE’s updated proposals. As 

part of such SNOPRs, DOE will 

carefully consider and address any 

microwave oven-related comments on 

the October 2008 NOPR that remain 

relevant. 

For CCWs, interested parties raised 

questions at the November 13, 2008, 

NOPR public meeting and in written 

comments on the max-tech level that 

DOE had identified in the October 2008 

NOPR for top-loading units. (See section 

III.C.3 of this notice for additional 

discussion of max-tech levels.) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16048 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

8This segment refers to commercial clothes 

washers that are installed in multi-family housing. 9 73 FR 62034, 62041 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

Specifically, at the public meeting, 

Alliance Laundry Systems (Alliance) 

questioned the validity of the 

certification data for the CCW model on 

which DOE based the max-tech level for 

top-loading machines. Alliance 

recommended that DOE, at a minimum, 

test and confirm the performance of the 

max-tech model before using it as the 

basis for assessing technical feasibility 

for the proposed standards. (Alliance, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 

pp. 90–92) GE responded that it 

produces the model in question, and its 

internal testing confirms that the model 

meets the max-tech level. (GE, No. 48 at 

pp. 4–5) GE and Alliance agreed that 

there would not be consumer 

acceptance of the technology required to 

achieve the max-tech level (i.e., whether 

CCWs incorporating advanced controls 

in a lightweight, non-rugged platform 

would be able to withstand the harsher 

usage in a laundromat or multi-family 

housing setting compared to a 

residential installation). (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 173– 

174; Alliance, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 23; Alliance, 

No. 45 at p. 1; Alliance, No. 45.1 at pp. 

3, 7, 13) GE stated that it had received 

anecdotal consumer questions on the 

water levels and clothing turnover (i.e., 

rotation of the clothing from top to 

bottom in the wash basket) during the 

cycle utilized by its CCW that meets the 

top-loading max-tech level. According 

to GE, while this CCW has achieved the 

max-tech level during actual use in the 

on-premises laundry segment,8 it has 

not yet been justified as sustainable in 

commercial laundromats where the 

units are subject to much tougher 

conditions, such as overloading. (GE, 

No. 48 at p. 4) 

The Multi-Housing Laundry 

Association (MLA) commented that 

there is no acceptable CCW currently 

that can meet the top-loading max-tech 

level presented in the October 2008 

NOPR. According to MLA, previous 

non-agitator CCWs that could achieve 

max-tech performance have had poor 

load capacity, poor wash results, and 

high maintenance costs. MLA believes 

that the only way to meet the max-tech 

requirements would be to have either a 

cold water wash or such limited 

amounts of hot water that the clothes 

would not be effectively cleaned. 

According to MLA, to meet the maxtech requirements, water in the rinse 

cycle would be so limited that some 

soils, detergents, and sand would not be 

removed. (MLA, No. 49 at p. 4) ASAP 

stated that DOE’s conclusion in the TSD 

on the max-tech model (i.e., that all 

higher-efficiency residential clothes 

washers are impeller-type or do not 

have traditional agitators) is erroneous, 

commenting that there are agitator-type 

residential clothes washers on the 

market today that perform at higher 

levels than the CCW max-tech level that 

DOE has presented in the October 2008 

NOPR. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 203) 

Whirlpool commented that the max-tech 

level cannot be achieved with the 

technologies implemented on current 

CCW models, but it believes that 

technology exists to develop such 

products by the time standards would 

become effective. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at 

p. 3) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

max-tech level in the analysis of 

efficiency levels for CCW energy 

conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) In the NOPR 

analysis, DOE determined that the maxtech level for top-loading CCWs, which 

was analyzed as part of TSL 3, is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 73 FR 62034, 

62122 (Oct. 17, 2008). However, the 

comments submitted by Alliance in 

response to the October 2008 NOPR 

raised questions on the validity of the 

max-tech level. (Alliance, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 90– 

92; Alliance, No. 45 at p. 1; Alliance, 

No. 45.1 at pp. 4–5) In light of this 

uncertainty surrounding the 

performance of the CCW model upon 

which the top-loading max-tech level 

was based, DOE tested several units of 

that model. Preliminary results indicate 

that the MEF and WF of these units are 

below and above, respectively, the maxtech levels. Therefore, DOE has decided 

that it will continue the CCW 

rulemaking to further evaluate what an 

appropriate max-tech level should be for 

top-loading CCWs, and it will revise its 

analyses for this product class as 

necessary. DOE anticipates issuing an 

SNOPR to obtain public input on DOE’s 

updated proposal regarding CCW 

standards. As part of such SNOPR, DOE 

will carefully consider and address any 

CCW-related comments on the October 

2008 NOPR that remain relevant. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Standby Power for Cooking Products 

An issue in this rulemaking has been 

whether DOE should consider power 

use in the standby and off modes in 

adopting energy conservation standards 

for cooking products. As discussed in 

greater detail in the October 2008 

NOPR,9 EISA 2007 amended EPCA to 

require that DOE address standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption both 

in adopting standards for all covered 

products (for final rules for new or 

amended standards adopted after July 1, 

2010), including residential ranges and 

ovens and microwave ovens, and in test 

procedures for covered products (by 

March 31, 2011, for cooking products). 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)) As noted above, 

these provisions are not yet operative as 

requirements for residential cooking 

products. Id. 

Nonetheless, DOE has examined in 

this rulemaking whether to incorporate 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption in its energy conservation 

standards for residential cooking 

products. 73 FR 62034, 62041 (Oct. 17, 

2008). Specifically, in the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE stated that it does not 

intend to pursue revision of its 

standards and test procedures to include 

standby power use by conventional 

cooking products at this time, because it 

lacks data indicating the potential for 

significant energy savings with respect 

to such power use. Id. at 62041, 62044. 

Accordingly, DOE tentatively decided to 

consider test procedure amendments for 

conventional cooking products in a later 

rulemaking that meets the March 31, 

2011, deadline set by EISA 2007 under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B). 73 FR 62034, 

62041, 62044 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

However, DOE did state its intention 

in the October 2008 NOPR to amend its 

test procedure for microwave ovens to 

incorporate a measurement of standby 

power and to consider inclusion of such 

power as part of the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for the following 

reasons: (1) Energy use in this mode is 

a significant proportion of microwave 

oven energy consumption; and (2) 

currently, the range of standby power 

use among microwave ovens suggests 

that a standard would result in 

significant energy savings. Id. at 62041– 

42. As already discussed in sections 

II.B.2 and II.B.3, DOE proposed 

standards for microwave oven standby 

power use. Id. at 62120, 62134. 

In response to the October 2008 

NOPR, Whirlpool stated that no test 

procedure has yet been proposed for 

conventional cooking product standby 

power, and that Whirlpool does not 

have experience with or data available 

on standby power in these products. It 

further stated that DOE should request 

such data promptly to allow adequate 

time to develop it, noting that display 

technologies will be an issue. 

(Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at p. 30) DOE expects to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16049 

evaluate standby power for 

conventional cooking products in a 

future test procedure rulemaking that 

will meet the EPCA deadline of March 

31, 2011, set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(B). 73 FR 62034, 62041 (Oct. 

17, 2008). DOE welcomes relevant data 

to support this rulemaking activity. 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

commented that standby power could 

effectively be addressed in gas cooking 

products with constant burning pilots 

by a performance standard for the 

energy consumption of the pilot, rather 

than by a prescriptive standard that 

would eliminate constant burning pilots 

altogether. EEI argued that even though 

energy savings would be reduced using 

this approach, such savings could still 

be fairly significant, and manufacturers 

would have more flexibility in meeting 

the energy conservation standards. (EEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 

pp. 19–20 and 50–51; EEI, No. 56 at p. 

2) 

In response, DOE notes as a 

preliminary matter that it considered 

EEI’s suggestion of reduced input rate 

pilots as a technology option separately 

in section IV.A.2. The following 

responds to EEI’s suggestion to consider 

an energy conservation standard for 

standby power consumption of ranges 

and ovens by regulating the 

performance of constant burning pilots. 

For standby power in conventional 

cooking products, the current DOE test 

procedures already provide a means for 

measurement of certain standby energy 

use (i.e., pilot gas consumption in gas 

cooking products and clock energy 

consumption in ovens), which is 

included in the relevant EF metric. 

However, as explained above, to 

measure additional standby mode and 

off mode energy use as directed by EISA 

2007, DOE would need to amend the 

test procedure to provide for more 

comprehensive measurement of standby 

mode and off mode power consumption. 

As discussed above, DOE is not 

contemplating revision of its standards 

and test procedures to address standby 

power use for conventional cooking 

products at this time. DOE plans to 

consider such revisions to the test 

procedure in a later rulemaking which 

meets the EPCA deadline of March 31, 

2011. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B)(vi)). DOE 

will also consider standby mode and off 

mode energy use in its next energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, as 

required by the EISA 2007 amendments 

to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)). 

Further, even if DOE were to 

implement in this rulemaking the 

requirements of the EISA 2007 

amendments to EPCA regarding standby 

mode and off mode energy use to 

conventional cooking products, DOE 

would be unable to prescribe a separate 

standard for pilot energy consumption 

in gas cooking products. The EISA 2007 

amendments require that any final rule 

establishing or revising a standard for a 

covered product, adopted after July 1, 

2010, shall incorporate standby mode 

and off mode energy use into a single 

amended or new standard, if feasible. If 

not feasible, the final rule shall establish 

a separate standard for standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption, if 

justified under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Because gas cooking 

product EF already incorporates gas 

consumption of the pilot by means of 

the calculation of annual energy 

consumption (10 CFR 430.23(i) and 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I, 

sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2), the feasibility 

of a single metric integrating both active 

mode and standby mode energy use has 

clearly been demonstrated. AHAM 

stated that it strongly advocates, for 

products other than microwave ovens, 

that standby power be incorporated in 

active energy standards as directed by 

EISA 2007. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4) DOE 

expects to address standby mode and off 

mode power consumption in future test 

procedure and standards rulemakings 

for products other than microwave 

ovens in accordance with the 

requirements of the EISA 2007 

amendments to EPCA. At such time, 

DOE will determine whether standby 

mode and off mode energy use can be 

incorporated into a new or amended 

energy conservation standard as 

directed by 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3). 

For microwave ovens, DOE separately 

considered whether it is feasible to 

incorporate standby mode and off mode 

energy use into a single metric. DOE 

tentatively concluded in the October 

2008 NOPR that although it may be 

mathematically possible to combine 

energy consumption into a single metric 

encompassing active (cooking), standby, 

and off modes, it is not technically 

feasible to do so at this time because of 

the high variability in the current 

cooking efficiency measurement from 

which the active mode EF and annual 

energy consumption are derived, and 

because of the significant contribution 

of standby power to overall microwave 

oven energy use. 73 FR 62034, 62042– 

43 (Oct. 17, 2008). AHAM, Whirlpool, 

ASAP, and EEI individually, as well as 

ASAP, American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), American 

Rivers (AR), Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPCC), Southern California 

Gas Company (SCG), San Diego Gas and 

Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern 

California Edison (SCE), and 

Earthjustice (EJ) jointly (hereafter ‘‘Joint 

Comment’’) supported the 

determination that a combined energy 

metric for microwave ovens is 

technically infeasible. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 27 

and 54–55; Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 29; ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 

53; EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at p. 55; Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4; 

AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4; Joint Comment, 

No. 44 at p. 10) 

Giving consideration to its previous 

findings and this general support from 

interested parties, DOE expects to 

maintain the approach, consistent with 

its preliminary determination, that a 

separate standby mode and off mode 

energy use metric should be developed 

in the continuation of the microwave 

oven energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, as discussed in section 

II.B.3 of this notice. 

B. Test Procedures 

For the reasons set forth in the 

October 2008 NOPR, DOE is not 

pursuing modification of its test 

procedures for cooking products in 

conjunction with this rulemaking, other 

than an amendment to address the 

standby power consumption of 

microwave ovens. 73 FR 62034, 62043– 

44 (Oct. 17, 2008). As to the latter, DOE 

published an MWO test procedure 

NOPR in which it proposed (1) to 

incorporate by reference into its 

microwave oven test procedure specific 

clauses from IEC Standard 62301 as to 

methods for measuring average standby 

mode and average off mode power 

consumption; (2) to incorporate into 

that test procedure pertinent definitions 

that are set forth in EISA 2007 

amendments to EPCA; and (3) to adopt 

language to clarify the application of 

certain of the clauses that DOE proposes 

to incorporate by reference from IEC 

Standard 62301. 73 FR 62134 (Oct. 17, 

2008). In the MWO test procedure 

NOPR, DOE also proposed a technical 

correction to an equation in the existing 

microwave oven test procedure, which 

concerns energy use in the active mode. 

Id. at 62137, 62141–42. 

Largely because of the issues 

surrounding the MWO test procedure, 

DOE is continuing the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode power consumption. Therefore, 

DOE is also continuing to consider 

microwave oven test procedure 

amendments that would reflect clarified 

and expanded definitions of ‘‘standby 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16050 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

mode’’ and ‘‘off mode’’ power, which 

are expected to be incorporated in the 

second edition of IEC Standard 62301. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

As stated above, any standards that 

DOE establishes for cooking products 

must be technologically feasible. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B)) DOE 

considers a design option to be 

technologically feasible if it is in use by 

the respective industry or if research has 

progressed to the development of a 

working prototype. ‘‘Technologies 

incorporated in commercial products or 

in working prototypes will be 

considered technologically feasible.’’ 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

section 4(a)(4)(i). 

This final rule considers the same 

design options as those evaluated in the 

October 2008 NOPR. (See the final rule 

TSD accompanying this notice, chapters 

3 and 4.) All the evaluated technologies 

have been used (or are being used) in 

commercially available products or 

working prototypes. DOE also has 

determined that there are products 

either on the market or in working 

prototypes at all of the efficiency levels 

analyzed in this notice. Therefore, DOE 

has determined that all of the efficiency 

levels evaluated in this notice are 

technologically feasible. 

2. Gas Cooking Products—Alternatives 

to Line-Powered Electronic Ignition 

Systems 

For gas cooking products, TSL 1 

corresponds to the replacement of 

baseline constant burning (standing) 

pilots with electronic ignition systems. 

Line-powered electronic ignition 

systems are incorporated into many gas 

cooking products currently on the 

market, and, thus, this prescriptive 

standard is clearly technologically 

feasible. For the consumer subgroup 

consisting of households without access 

to electricity, however, TSL 1 would 

require a battery-powered ignition 

system. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

stated that DOE research suggests that 

battery-powered ignition systems could 

be incorporated by manufacturers at a 

modest cost if manufacturers’ market 

research suggested that a substantial 

number of consumers found such a 

product attribute to be important. DOE 

noted that such systems have been 

incorporated successfully in a range of 

related appliances, such as 

instantaneous water heaters. Further, 

DOE stated it believed that there is 

nothing in the applicable safety 

standards that would prohibit such 

ignition systems from being 

implemented on gas cooking products. 

Therefore, DOE stated in the October 

2008 NOPR that households that use gas 

for cooking and are without electricity 

would likely have technological options 

that would enable them to continue to 

use gas cooking if standing pilot ignition 

systems were eliminated. 73 FR 62034, 

62048, 62075, 62130 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

Numerous interested parties objected to 

DOE’s tentative conclusion for the 

following reasons. 

Safety. AHAM, Whirlpool, and GE 

commented that DOE did not address 

potential safety concerns of eliminating 

standing pilots, and expressed concern 

that battery-powered ignition systems 

would not meet the applicable safety 

standard, American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Standard Z21.1, 

‘‘American National Standard for 

Household Cooking Gas Appliances’’ 

(ANSI Z21.1). (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 15–16, 48– 

49; AHAM, No. 47 at p. 2; Whirlpool, 

No. 50 at p. 4; GE, No. 48 at p. 2) AHAM 

believes that ANSI Z21.1 would need to 

be revised to incorporate batterypowered ignition systems for 

unattended units (i.e., gas ovens), and 

this would not likely take place before 

the proposed 2012 effective date of 

potential standards. (AHAM, No. 47 at 

p. 2 and p. 4) 

The American Gas Association (AGA) 

and AHAM commented that batterypowered ignition systems are not viable 

on a residential range because of cost 

and safety, particularly regarding the 

need for battery replacement. If a battery 

is not readily available, these 

commenters argued that consumers may 

attempt to light the range with a match 

or use an extension cord. Furthermore, 

these commenters suggested that if 

battery-powered ignition systems are 

not on the market, the reason may be 

economics. AGA recommended that 

DOE use caution before determining 

viability of such systems. (AGA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 44– 

45; AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4) Whirlpool 

noted that battery-powered ignition 

systems are subject to failure when the 

battery is weak or dead, and that the 

consumer cannot determine battery 

status. According to Whirlpool, using 

matches as a backup for ignition is 

unsafe and would also lead to making 

matches more accessible to small 

children. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4) 

U.S. Representatives Joseph Pitts and 

Bill Shuster (Pitts and Shuster) also 

commented that a safety concern exists 

if a consumer tries to light a range with 

matches when the batteries in the 

ignition system are dead. (Pitts and 

Shuster, No. 57 at p. 2) Whirlpool, 

AHAM, and GE expressed concern 

about the viability of using ignition 

systems typically designed for outdoor 

grills in an indoor application, primarily 

for reasons of potential gas leakage and 

reliability. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4; 

AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4; AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 49; 

GE, No. 48 at p. 2) Whirlpool stated that, 

in outdoor applications such as grills, 

air movement would likely disperse gas 

if the unit failed to ignite. However, in 

indoor applications, dispersion is 

unlikely, thereby resulting in an 

elevated threat of explosion or 

suffocation. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4) 

Sempra Utilities (Sempra) agreed with 

AGA about potential safety issues, 

particularly for low-income consumers. 

(Sempra, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at p. 46) Pacific Gas and Electric 

(PG&E) responded to Sempra’s comment 

by stating that although DOE cannot 

compromise safety in considering 

battery-powered ignition systems, 

frequently initial cost is weighted too 

much relative to operating cost. (PG&E, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 

47) DOE understands PG&E’s comment 

to mean that, even for low-income 

consumers, a higher cost for a safe, 

reliable battery-powered ignition system 

may be economically justified. GE stated 

there are currently no proven safe, 

reliable alternative to standing pilots, 

and until such time as a proven 

alternative exists, standing pilots should 

be retained. (GE, No. 48 at pp. 1–2) 

Commercial Availability. AGA and 

Sempra questioned whether batterypowered ignition systems have been 

applied to other residential products, 

such as instantaneous water heaters or 

furnaces. AGA, Pitts and Shuster, and 

the National Propane Gas Association 

(NPGA) recognized that there are 

recreational vehicle (RV) water heaters 

and furnaces which use a 12-volt (V) 

battery ignition system, but they believe 

this specialty application would be 

difficult to apply to a domestic range 

due to cost, safety certification, and 

other issues. (AGA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 18, 44, and 

93; Sempra, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at p. 46; NPGA, No. 52 at p. 

2; AGA, No. 46 at p. 2; Pitts and 

Shuster, No. 57 at p. 2) 

EEI asked if there are battery-powered 

ignition systems in any commercially 

available indoor gas cooking products 

on the market. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 43) AGA and 

NPGA stated that there are currently no 

design-certified and listed household 

products available that incorporate 

battery-powered ignition systems. 

According to AGA and NPGA, any 

presumption that such systems could be 

incorporated into covered products 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16051 

10 In addition to its comments submitted to DOE, 

entered into the docket as comment number 42, 

Peerless-Premier Appliance Co. submitted a letter 

(Peerless Letter) to Congressman Whitfield of 

Kentucky regarding the October 2008 NOPR. A 

copy of the letter was entered into the docket as 

comment number 55 for this rulemaking in addition 

to comments that Peerless-Premier submitted 

directly to DOE. 

raises a host of uncertainties regarding 

safety, certification, and other issues, 

and, therefore, goes beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking. (AGA, No. 46 at p. 2; 

NPGA, No. 52 at p. 2) Pitts and Shuster 

commented that battery-powered 

ignitions systems are not currently on 

the market because they are not cost 

effective. (Pitts and Shuster, No. 57 at p. 

2) AHAM and GE do not see that there 

are any other viable technologies to 

eliminate standing pilots. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 

48; GE, No. 48 at p. 2) LG Electronics 

(LG) asked whether DOE considered 

technologies and products available in 

other parts of the world. (LG, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 47) 

Households Without Electricity. GE 

and Peerless-Premier Appliance 

Company (Peerless-Premier) stated that 

standing pilots provide consumer utility 

for customers without line power for 

economic, religious, or other reasons. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 

at p. 31; GE, No. 48 at p. 2; Peerless 

Letter, No. 57 10 at pp. 1–2) AGA and 

NPGA also questioned DOE’s assertion 

that consumer subgroups that are 

prohibited from using electricity would 

be allowed to use battery-powered 

ignition. (AGA, No. 46 at p. 2; NPGA, 

No. 52 at p. 2) 

DOE Response to Comments. In 

response to these comments, DOE 

conducted additional research on 

battery-powered ignition systems for 

residential gas cooking products. As an 

initial matter, DOE could not identify 

any indoor ranges incorporating such 

ignition systems that are on the market 

in the United States. DOE was able to 

identify a single gas range for sale in the 

United Kingdom (U.K.) that 

incorporates a battery-powered ignition 

system that appeared to meet the 

functional safety requirements of ANSI 

Z21.1 (i.e., that the oven main burner is 

lit by an intermittent gas pilot that is in 

turn lit by a battery-powered spark 

igniter.) This ignition system does not 

require the user to push a separate 

‘‘light’’ button at the same time as the 

control knob is turned to allow pilot gas 

flow. Such a separate operation would 

be prohibited under ANSI Z21.1. 

However, further DOE research 

determined that the ignition system 

does not include a safety device to shut 

off the main gas valve in the event that 

no flame is detected, which is required 

by the ANSI standard. 

However, as noted from interested 

parties’ comments, there are gas cooking 

products with battery-powered ignition 

for RV applications that are available in 

the United States. DOE determined that 

the sections in the ANSI safety 

standards for RV gas cooking products 

and residential gas cooking products 

that relate to the ignition system are 

equivalent. Thus, it could be inferred 

that a battery-powered ignition system 

designed for an RV gas range could be 

integrated into a residential gas range 

that could meet ANSI Z21.1 

requirements. Such certification, 

though, does not appear to have been 

obtained thus far. In addition, these 

ignition systems are powered by 12 V 

automotive-type batteries and consume 

enough energy during operation to 

preclude the use of typical householdscale batteries, such a 1.5 V ‘‘AA’’ or 9 

V batteries. Since 12 V batteries must be 

periodically recharged, this approach 

would likely not be viable for 

consumers without household 

electricity. 

DOE next investigated the possibility 

that battery-powered ignition systems 

used in other indoor residential 

appliances in the United States could 

meet the requirements of ANSI Z21.1, 

even though they are not currently being 

incorporated in gas cooking products. 

DOE identified several such appliances, 

including a remote-controlled gas 

fireplace and instantaneous gas water 

heaters. For these products, the batterypowered ignition systems are required 

to meet the same or equivalent 

component-level ANSI safety standards 

as are required for automatic ignition 

systems in gas cooking products. DOE 

contacted several manufacturers of gas 

cooking products, fireplaces, and 

instantaneous water heaters, as well as 

ignition component suppliers, to 

investigate the technological feasibility 

of integrating these existing batterypowered ignition systems into gas 

cooking products that would meet ANSI 

Z21.1. None of these manufacturers 

could identify insurmountable 

technological impediments to the 

development of such a product. Based 

on its research, DOE determined that the 

primary barrier to commercialization of 

battery-powered ignition systems in gas 

cooking products has been lack of 

market demand and economic 

justification rather than technological 

feasibility. Therefore, DOE concludes 

that a gas range incorporating one of 

these ignition systems could meet ANSI 

Z21.1. In addition, DOE research 

suggests that the market niche for gas 

cooking products equipped with 

battery-powered ignition systems, 

which would be created by the 

proposed gas cooking product 

standards, would likely attract entrants 

among ignition component suppliers. 

After considering issues regarding 

safety and commercial availability, DOE 

concludes that technologically feasible 

alternative ignition systems to standing 

pilots in gas cooking products for the 

small subgroup of households without 

electricity will likely be available at the 

time these energy conservation 

standards are effective. For more 

information, see chapter 3 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice. 

3. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

As required by EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(2), in developing the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE identified the design 

options that would increase the energy 

efficiency of cooking products. 73 FR 

62034, 62045 (Oct. 17, 2008). (See 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.) DOE did 

not receive any comments on the 

maximum technologically feasible 

levels in the October 2008 proposed rule 

that would lead DOE to consider 

changes to these levels. Therefore, for 

today’s final rule, the max-tech levels 

for all cooking product classes are the 

max-tech levels identified in the 

October 2008 NOPR. These levels are 

provided in Table III.1 below. 

TABLE III.1—OCTOBER 2008 PROPOSED MAX-TECH LEVELS FOR

COOKING PRODUCTS

Product Max-Tech EF 

Gas Cooktops ......................... 0 .42 

Electric Open (Coil) Cooktops 0 .769 

Electric Smooth Cooktops ...... 0 .753 

Gas Standard Ovens .............. 0 .0583 

Gas Self-Clean Ovens ............ 0 .0632 

Electric Standard Ovens ......... 0 .1209 

Electric Self-Clean Ovens ...... 0 .1123 

Microwave Ovens ................... 0 .602 

D. Energy Savings 

DOE forecasted energy savings in its 

NES analysis through the use of an NES 

spreadsheet tool, as discussed in the 

October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 

62045–46, 62068–74, 62104–05 (Oct. 17, 

2008). 

One criterion that governs DOE’s 

adoption of standards for cooking 

products is that the standard must result 

in ‘‘significant conservation of energy.’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) While EPCA 

does not define the term ‘‘significant,’’ 

a U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16052 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in 

this context to be savings that were not 

‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ DOE’s estimates of 

the energy savings for energy 

conservation standards at each of the 

TSLs considered for cooking products 

for today’s rule indicate that the energy 

savings each would achieve are 

nontrivial. Therefore, DOE considers 

these savings ‘‘significant’’ within the 

meaning of section 325 of EPCA. 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted earlier, EPCA provides 

seven factors to evaluate in determining 

whether an energy conservation 

standard for covered products is 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) The following sections 

discuss how DOE has addressed these 

factors in evaluating efficiency 

standards for cooking products. 

a. Economic Impact on Consumers and 

Manufacturers 

DOE considered the economic impact 

of potential standards on consumers and 

manufacturers of cooking products. For 

consumers, DOE measured the 

economic impact as the change in 

installed cost and life-cycle operating 

costs (i.e., the LCC.) (See sections IV.C 

of this notice and chapter 8 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice.) DOE 

investigated the impacts on 

manufacturers through the manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA). (See sections 

IV.F and VI.C.2 of this notice and 

chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice.) This factor is discussed in 

detail in the October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 

62034, 62046, 62057–68, 62075–81, 

62085–104, 62128–30 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

DOE considered life-cycle costs of 

cooking products, as discussed in the 

October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 

62046, 62057–68, 62085–91 (Oct. 17, 

2008). DOE calculated the sum of the 

purchase price and the operating 

expense—discounted over the lifetime 

of the product—to estimate the range in 

LCC benefits that consumers would 

expect to achieve due to standards. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA also 

requires DOE to consider the total 

projected energy savings that are 

expected to result directly from a 

proposed standard in determining the 

economic justification of that standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As in the 

October 2008 NOPR (73 FR 62034, 

62045–46, 62068–74, 62104–05 (Oct. 17, 

2008)), DOE used the NES spreadsheet 

results for today’s final rule in its 

consideration of total projected savings 

that are directly attributable to the 

standard levels DOE considered. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In considering standard levels, DOE 

sought to avoid new standards for 

cooking products that would lessen the 

utility or performance of such products. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 73 FR 

62034, 62046–47, 62107 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considers any lessening of 

competition that is likely to result from 

standards. Accordingly, as discussed in 

the October 2008 NOPR (73 FR 62034, 

62047, 62107 (Oct. 17, 2008)), DOE 

requested that the Attorney General 

transmit to the Secretary a written 

determination of the impact, if any, of 

any lessening of competition likely to 

result from the standards proposed in 

the October 2008 NOPR, including those 

for cooking products, together with an 

analysis of the nature and extent of such 

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

and (B)(ii)) 

To assist the Attorney General in 

making such a determination, DOE 

provided the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) with copies of the October 2008 

proposed rule and the TSD for review. 

The Attorney General’s response is 

discussed in section VI.C.5 and is 

reprinted at the end of this rule. (DOJ, 

No. 53 at pp. 1–2) 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

In considering standards for cooking 

products, the Secretary must consider 

the need of the Nation to conserve 

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

The Secretary recognizes that energy 

conservation benefits the Nation in 

several important ways. The nonmonetary benefits of standards are likely 

to be reflected in improvements to the 

security and reliability of the Nation’s 

energy system. Standards generally are 

also likely to result in environmental 

benefits. As discussed in the proposed 

rule, DOE has considered these factors 

in considering whether to adopt 

standards for cooking products. 73 FR 

62034, 62047, 62081–84, 62107–62113, 

62130–31 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA 

states that there is a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard level is less than three times 

the value of the first-year energy (and, 

as applicable, water) savings resulting 

from the standard, as calculated under 

the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE’s LCC and 

PBP analyses generate values that 

calculate the payback period for 

consumers of a product meeting 

potential energy conservation standards, 

which includes, but is not limited to, 

the 3-year payback period contemplated 

under the rebuttable presumption test 

discussed above. (See chapter 8 of the 

TSD that accompanies this notice.) 

However, DOE routinely conducts a full 

economic analysis that considers the 

full range of impacts, including those to 

the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, 

and environment, as required under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of 

this analysis serve as the basis for DOE 

to definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments on Methodology 

DOE used several analytical tools that 

it developed previously and adapted for 

use in this rulemaking. One is a 

spreadsheet that calculates LCC and 

PBP. Another tool calculates national 

energy savings and national NPV. DOE 

also used the GRIM, along with other 

methods, in its MIA. Finally, DOE 

developed an approach using the 

National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) to estimate impacts of energy 

efficiency standards for residential 

cooking products on electric utilities 

and the environment. The TSD 

appendices discuss each of these 

analytical tools in detail. As a basis for 

this final rule, DOE has continued to use 

the spreadsheets and approaches 

explained in the October 2008 NOPR. 

DOE used the same general 

methodology as applied in the October 

2008 NOPR, but revised some of the 

assumptions and inputs for the final 

rule in response to interested parties’ 

comments. The following paragraphs 

discuss these revisions. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

When beginning an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE develops information that provides 

an overall picture of the market for the 

products concerned, including the 

purpose of the products, the industry 

structure, and market characteristics. 

This activity includes both quantitative 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16053 

and qualitative assessments based 

primarily on publicly available 

information. DOE presented various 

subjects in the market and technology 

assessment for this rulemaking. (See the 

October 2008 NOPR and chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD.) These include product 

definitions, product classes, 

manufacturers, quantities and types of 

products sold and offered for sale, retail 

market trends, and regulatory and 

nonregulatory programs. 

1. Product Classes 

In general, when evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides covered 

products into classes by the type of 

energy used, capacity, or other 

performance-related features that affect 

consumer utility and efficiency. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)) Different energy 

conservation standards may apply to 

different product classes. Id. 

For cooking products, DOE based its 

product classes on energy source (e.g., 

gas or electric) and cooking method 

(e.g., cooktops, ovens, and microwave 

ovens). DOE identified five categories of 

cooking products: gas cooktops, electric 

cooktops, gas ovens, electric ovens, and 

microwave ovens. The following 

discussion provides clarification 

regarding DOE’s selection of product 

classes for residential cooking products. 

In its regulations implementing EPCA, 

DOE defines a ‘‘conventional range’’ as 

‘‘a class of kitchen ranges and ovens 

which is a household cooking appliance 

consisting of a conventional cooking top 

and one or more conventional ovens.’’ 

10 CFR 430.2. The November 2007 

ANOPR presented DOE’s reasons for not 

treating gas and electric ranges as a 

distinct product category and for not 

basing its product classes on that 

category, primarily based upon DOE’s 

determination that, because ranges 

consist of both a cooktop and oven, any 

potential cooktop and oven standards 

would apply to the individual 

components of the range. 72 FR 64432, 

64443 (Nov. 15, 2007). In the November 

2007 ANOPR, DOE defined a single 

product class for gas cooktops as gas 

cooktops with conventional burners. 72 

FR 64432, 64443–44 (Nov. 15, 2007) For 

gas ovens, DOE defined two product 

classes—gas standard ovens with or 

without a catalytic line and gas selfcleaning ovens. 72 FR 64432, 64445 

(Nov. 15, 2007) These product class 

definitions were maintained in the 

October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 

62048 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

DOE tentatively concluded in the 

November 2007 ANOPR that standing 

pilot ignition systems are not 

performance-related features that 

provide unique utility and would, 

therefore, not warrant a separate 

product class. 72 FR 64432, 64463 (Nov. 

15, 2007). In response to interested 

parties’ comments on this proposed 

determination, DOE noted in the 

October 2008 NOPR that the purpose of 

ignition systems is to ignite the gas 

when burner operation is needed for 

cooking, and either standing pilot or 

electronic ignition provides this 

function. In addition, DOE concluded 

from previous analysis that the ability to 

operate in the event of an electric power 

outage is not a utility feature that affects 

performance of gas cooking products. 73 

FR 62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

DOE notes that the EISA 2007 

amendments to EPCA provide an 

exception from the residential boiler 

energy conservation standards for ‘‘[a] 

boiler that is manufactured to operate 

without any need for electricity or any 

electric connection, electric gauges, 

electric pumps, electric wires, or 

electric devices. * * *’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(f)(3)(C)) Such units are typically 

equipped with a standing pilot. The 

October 2008 NOPR referred indirectly 

to this exception by stating that DOE 

addressed it in its residential furnace 

and boiler rulemaking. 73 FR 62034, 

62048 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE is clarifying 

this statement in today’s final rule as 

follows. DOE’s full rulemaking analysis 

(conducted prior to passage of EISA 

2007) did not result in such an 

exception in its most recent energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

residential furnaces and boilers. 72 FR 

65136 (Nov. 19, 2007). However, DOE 

subsequently published a final rule in 

the form of a technical amendment 

whose sole purpose was to codify the 

EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA 

pertaining to residential furnace and 

boiler standards set by statute, including 

the exception above. 73 FR 43611, 

43613 (July 28, 2008). Because the July 

28, 2008, rule implemented statutory 

provisions over which the Department 

had no rulemaking discretion, DOE did 

not conduct any supporting analysis or 

provide any input on this boiler 

exclusion. Congress incorporated this 

exclusion in the energy conservation 

standards for boilers, but Congress 

chose not to include a similar provision 

for gas cooking products with standing 

pilots. Accordingly, DOE used the 

applicable EPCA provisions for 

determining whether performancerelated features warrant separate energy 

conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)), and DOE determined in the 

October 2008 NOPR that it would be 

unable to create a similar exception for 

gas cooking products because there is no 

unique utility associated with gas 

cooking products equipped with 

standing pilot ignition, compared to 

those with electronic ignition. 73 FR 

62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE based 

this understanding on its tentative 

conclusion that there is not expected to 

be any appreciable difference in cooking 

performance between gas cooking 

products with or without a standing 

pilot and that battery-powered 

electronic ignitions systems could 

provide ignition in the absence of line 

power (i.e., electricity from the utility 

grid). Id. 

Through market research for the 

October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined 

that battery-powered electronic ignition 

systems have been implemented in 

other products, such as instantaneous 

gas water heaters, barbeques, furnaces, 

and other appliances, and the use of 

such ignition systems appeared 

acceptable under ANSI Z21.1. 

Therefore, subgroups that prohibit the 

use of line electricity, or that do not 

have line electricity available, could 

still use gas cooking products without 

standing pilots, assuming gas cooking 

products would be made available with 

battery-powered ignition. Thus, DOE 

concluded that standing pilot ignition 

systems do not provide a distinct utility 

and that a separate class for standing 

pilot ignition systems would not be 

warranted under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 73 

FR 62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

In response to the October 2008 

NOPR, AGA commented that DOE 

should assign a separate product class to 

gas cooking products with standing 

pilots. According to AGA, NPGA, and 

Pitts and Shuster, DOE acknowledged in 

the October 2008 NOPR that some 

religious groups do not allow electricity 

or adopt it in their area, and that DOE 

made an exception in EISA 2007 to 

allow standing pilots for gravity-fed gas 

boilers for such consumers. These 

commenters believe that gas ranges with 

standing pilots should remain available 

due to their unique utility. (AGA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 16– 

18; AGA, No. 46 at p. 2; NPGA, No. 52 

at p. 2; Pitts and Shuster, No. 57 at p. 

1) NPGA also objected to DOE’s 

determination in the October 2008 

NOPR that gas ranges incorporating 

pilot ignition systems do not provide a 

unique utility to gas customers, as well 

as DOE’s determination that power 

outages are not frequent or long enough 

for residential electricity customers to 

be affected by the inability to cook food. 

NPGA and AGA stated that the utility of 

having an appliance with a standing 

pilot is important, especially for that 

segment of the population that cannot 

use electricity due to religious or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16054 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

11Available online at DOE’s Web site: http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

cooking_products_0998_r.html. 

cultural practices or current economic 

status, or for whom electrical service is 

unavailable (such as for hunting cabins). 

(NPGA, No. 52 at p. 2; AGA, No. 46 at 

p. 2) AGA also stated that the unique 

consumer utility of an ignition system is 

conveyed by the installed environment 

(i.e., whether line electricity is present) 

rather than by the ignition technology 

itself. According to AGA, EPCA 

addresses consumer utility associated 

with the covered product, not with a 

specific system or technology used in 

the product. (AGA, No. 46 at p. 2) 

As discussed above, Congress created 

the exception to the standards in EPCA 

for residential boilers which operate 

without the need for electricity (i.e., 

‘‘gravity-fed gas boilers’’). Such an 

exception was not based on analysis in 

DOE’s most recent energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for residential 

furnaces and boilers. Congress did not 

provide a similar exclusion for gas 

cooking products with standing pilots. 

Certain consumer subgroups currently 

use such gas cooking products due to 

religious or cultural practices or a lack 

of access to electrical service. However, 

DOE continues to believe that the 

consumer utility that would need to be 

maintained for these subgroups is the 

same as for all consumers (i.e., the 

ability to ignite the cooking product 

under the nominal conditions of 

installation, which for these consumer 

subgroups includes the absence of 

electrical service.) DOE also considered 

whether additional utility is conferred 

by the ability to provide ignition during 

an atypical event such as a loss of line 

power for those consumers who have 

electrical service, but DOE did not 

receive additional information regarding 

duration and frequency of power 

outages that would lead it to conclude 

that the ability to operate during such 

an event represents significant utility. 

Therefore, DOE maintains that there is 

no unique utility provided by standing 

pilot ignition systems, and that a 

separate product class for gas cooking 

products incorporating standing pilots 

is not warranted under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q). In making this determination, 

however, DOE recognizes that achieving 

safe ignition in gas cooking products for 

consumer subgroups without electricity 

in the home in the absence of standing 

pilot ignition requires an alternative 

ignition technology that does not rely on 

line power. As discussed in section 

III.C.2 of today’s notice and chapter 3 of 

the TSD accompanying it, DOE 

identified battery-powered ignition 

systems as a potential alternative to 

standing pilots, and believes that such 

systems will likely be commercially 

available to these consumer subgroups 

by the time the energy conservation 

standards are effective. 

2. Technology Options 

As discussed above in section III.A, 

EEI suggested that DOE consider 

methods to reduce the input rate of 

standing pilot ignition systems in gas 

cooking products, thereby lowering the 

product’s overall energy consumption, 

rather than strictly considering a ban on 

the use of standing pilots. EEI stated 

that DOE should create a performance 

standard for standing pilot lights, 

similar to what was proposed in the 

October 2008 NOPR for microwave 

ovens. EEI claimed a performance 

standard restricting the input rate of 

standing pilots could save a large 

fraction of standby energy usage in gas 

cooking products, while still providing 

flexibility to manufacturers. (EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 19– 

20 and 50–51; EEI, No. 56 at p. 2) 

In the framework document for this 

rulemaking, DOE requested comment on 

a list of technologies, based on its 1996 

analysis in the ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for Residential Cooking 

Products’’ 11 (1996 TSD), that it would 

consider for improving the efficiency of 

cooking products. These technologies 

did not include the one EEI now 

suggests (i.e., one reducing the input 

rate of standing pilot ignition systems.) 

In response, several interested parties 

submitted comments on the framework 

document that indicated the list of 

technology options was still relevant 

because there have been no major 

technological breakthroughs in 

conventional cooking products since 

1996. 72 FR 64432, 64452 (Nov. 15, 

2007) No interested parties suggested 

any additional technologies for DOE to 

consider. DOE presented this list again 

in the November 2007 ANOPR, along 

with the analyses based on efficiency 

levels derived from the same technology 

options. 72 FR 64432, 64451–52, 64463– 

64 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE did not receive 

any comments in response to the 

November 2007 ANOPR which 

suggested analyzing additional 

technology options for conventional 

cooking products. Furthermore, EEI’s 

comments in response to the October 

2008 NOPR provided no supporting 

information to validate the 

technological feasibility of reduced pilot 

input rate for improving the energy 

usage of gas cooking products equipped 

with standing pilots. DOE research did 

not identify any commercially available 

pilots suitable for gas range applications 

that operate at input rates substantially 

lower than that assumed for the baseline 

efficiency levels (117 British thermal 

units per hour (Btu/h) for gas cooktops 

and 175 Btu/h for gas ovens.) These 

baseline pilot input rates are based upon 

data DOE received as inputs to its 

analyses presented in the 1996 TSD, and 

the baseline values are intended to 

represent average input rates for the 

distribution of pilots incorporated in 

baseline ovens and cooktops. DOE does 

not have information on the distribution 

of pilot input rates that are associated 

with the range of ovens and cooktops 

currently on the market, but DOE 

believes that pilot capacities are closely 

related to the specific burner system(s) 

in each cooking product. DOE 

concluded that specifying a maximum 

pilot input rate without consideration of 

the diversity of such systems would 

likely raise utility issues, wherein the 

pilot could potentially fail to perform its 

required ignition function in some 

cooking products. For these reasons, 

DOE is not considering reduced pilot 

input rates in this rulemaking. 

3. Excluded Product Classes and 

Technologies 

DOE stated in the November 2007 

ANOPR that it lacks efficiency data to 

determine whether certain designs (e.g., 

commercial-style cooking products) and 

certain technologies (e.g., induction 

cooktops) should be excluded from the 

rulemaking. 72 FR 64432, 64444–45, 

64460 (Nov. 15, 2007). Due to a lack of 

public comments or other information 

that would counter DOE’s tentative 

decision to exclude these products and 

technologies, DOE maintained these 

proposed exclusions in the October 

2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 62048 (Oct. 

17, 2008). 

AHAM and Whirlpool agree with the 

proposal to exclude commercial-style 

cooking products and induction 

technology. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 3; 

Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 1) In light of 

these comments in support of the 

proposal and in the absence of any new 

information, DOE has decided not to 

include commercial-style cooking 

products and induction technology in 

today’s final rule. 

B. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Levels 

In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

reviewed and updated the design 

options and efficiency levels published 

in the 1996 TSD analysis, an approach 

generally supported by interested 

parties. DOE did not receive any 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16055 

12Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.bls.gov/pPI. 

comments on the November 2007 

ANOPR regarding omitted cooking 

technologies and retained all the 

cooking technologies, design options, 

and efficiency levels for cooking 

product energy factor as part of the 

October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 

62052 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

AGA commented in response to the 

October 2008 NOPR that DOE did not 

consider alternative technologies to 

banning standing pilots, which places a 

great burden on the justification of pilot 

ignition products as the baseline 

technology. AGA stated that DOE had 

difficulty in defining reasonable design 

options for these gas products, but that 

does not justify defining standing pilots 

as the baseline product. (AGA, No. 46 at 

p. 3) 

In response, DOE notes that baseline 

products refer to a model or models that 

have features and technologies typically 

found in products currently offered for 

sale. The baseline model in each 

product class represents the 

characteristics of products in that class, 

and typically achieves minimum energy 

efficiency performance. In the case of 

gas cooking products that are not 

equipped with an electrical cord (i.e., 

gas cooktops and gas standard ovens), 

minimum energy efficiency 

performance is associated with products 

equipped with standing pilot ignition 

systems. DOE research has not revealed 

any other design options that would 

support the definition of different 

baseline efficiency levels for gas 

cooktops and gas standard ovens, and 

DOE did not receive any information on 

alternative technologies or design 

options. Therefore, DOE is maintaining 

the baseline efficiency levels associated 

with standing pilots for gas cooktops 

and gas standard ovens in today’s final 

rule. 

2. Manufacturing Costs 

In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

estimated a manufacturing cost at each 

efficiency level in this rulemaking by 

scaling the manufacturing costs that 

were provided in the 1996 TSD by the 

producer price index (PPI).12 72 FR 

64432, 64467–69 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE 

retained these same manufacturing costs 

in the October 2008 NOPR and is also 

retaining them in today’s final rule 

because it has determined that there has 

been no significant change in the PPI 

since the analysis for the November 

2007 ANOPR, which used the PPI from 

2006. For electric cooking products 

(including microwave ovens), the PPI 

increased 1.4 percent between 2006 and 

2007, the most recent year for which 

final PPI values are available from the 

U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of 

Labor and Statistics. The PPI for gas 

cooking products increased 2.9 percent 

in that same time period. 

As discussed in the October 2008 

NOPR, AGA had commented that DOE 

underestimated the incremental 

manufacturing cost of electronic 

ignition, which for gas cooking products 

corresponds to efficiency level 1. 

According to AGA, the Harper-Wyman 

Co., in 1998 comments to DOE, 

provided an incremental retail price of 

$150 for a gas range with electronic 

ignition relative to a gas range with 

standing pilot ignition system. AGA 

argued that this retail price increment 

stands in sharp contrast to the $37 

incremental manufacturing cost 

estimated by DOE. 73 FR 62034, 62054 

(Oct. 17, 2008). 

In response to AGA’s comments on 

the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

contacted component suppliers of gas 

cooking product ignition systems to 

validate DOE’s manufacturing cost 

estimates. DOE believes that the 

information collected verified that the 

costs in the November 2007 ANOPR 

represented current costs and, therefore, 

continued in the October 2008 NOPR to 

characterize the incremental 

manufacturing costs for the nonstanding pilot ignition systems with the 

estimates developed for the November 

2007 ANOPR. Id. 

In response to the October 2008 

NOPR, AGA stated it disagrees with 

DOE’s approach for estimating 

incremental manufacturing costs for 

electronic ignition. AGA commented 

that DOE’s use of survey data on 

appliance prices is a poor proxy for 

manufacturing cost because pricing 

policy is based on a host of factors 

(including marginal product demand), 

not strictly on manufactured cost. 

Therefore, the commenter stated that it 

disagrees with DOE’s estimate of $37 in 

incremental cost for electronic ignition. 

Instead, AGA believes that DOE should 

use a figure closer to the estimate of 

$150 previously provided by AGA, 

which was based on manufacturer 

estimates for redesign of pilot ignition 

products. AGA also stated that DOE 

should examine the impact on 

consumers, not on the manufacturer’s 

costs. (AGA, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at pp. 17–18; AGA, No. 46 at 

p. 4) 

For this final rule, DOE conducted 

further research regarding retail prices 

for comparable gas ranges with standing 

pilot and electronic ignition systems. A 

comparison of manufacturer suggested 

retail prices for four brands showed a 

price differential ranging from $0 to $50 

for a consumer to purchase a gas range 

with an electronic ignition system, 

rather than a standing pilot, from the 

same manufacturer. (See chapter 3 of 

the TSD accompanying this notice.) 

DOE recognizes that manufacturer 

pricing takes many factors into account, 

but the consistency of the price 

increments among four different 

manufacturers suggests that DOE’s 

estimate of $37 for a manufacturing cost 

increment to eliminate standing pilots 

in a gas range has greater validity than 

an increment of $150. DOE further notes 

that, according to AGA’s comments on 

the November 2007 ANOPR, the $150 

estimate was provided by HarperWyman Co. in 1998. DOE believes that 

its own discussions with ignition 

component suppliers during the ANOPR 

phase of this rulemaking may represent 

more current technologies and costs. 

Therefore, DOE has decided to retain 

the proposed incremental 

manufacturing costs in today’s final 

rule. 

C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

The purpose of the LCC and PBP 

analyses is to evaluate the economic 

impacts of possible new energy 

conservation standards for cooking 

products on individual consumers. The 

LCC is the total consumer expense over 

the life of the product, including 

purchase and installation expense and 

operating costs (energy expenditures, 

repair costs, and maintenance costs). 

The PBP is the number of years it would 

take for the consumer to recover the 

increased costs of purchasing a higher 

efficiency product through energy 

savings. To calculate LCC, DOE 

discounted future operating costs to the 

time of purchase and summed them 

over the lifetime of the product. DOE 

measured the change in LCC and the 

change in PBP associated with a given 

efficiency level relative to a base-case 

forecast of product efficiency. The basecase forecast reflects the market in the 

absence of amended mandatory energy 

conservation standards. 

As part of the LCC and PBP analyses, 

DOE developed data that it used to 

establish product prices, installation 

costs, annual household energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates. 

DOE calculated the LCC and payback 

periods for cooking products for a 

nationally representative set of housing 

units, which was selected from the 

Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) Residential Energy Consumption 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16056 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

13U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration, Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey, 2001 Public Use Data Files (2001). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ 

recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html. 

Survey (RECS).13 Similar to the October 

2008 NOPR, the analysis for today’s 

final rule used the 2001 RECS. (EIA had 

not yet released the 2005 RECS when 

the analysis was performed. Although 

DOE was unable to use the most recent 

RECS, the 2001 version still offers a 

relatively recent national representation 

of how consumers utilize cooking 

products. Also, no other public survey 

provides a representative national 

household sample indicating how 

frequently consumers use their cooking 

appliances.) By using a representative 

sample of households, the analysis 

captured the variability in energy 

consumption and energy prices 

associated with cooking product use. 

For each sample household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

the cooking product and the energy 

price. DOE calculated the LCC 

associated with a baseline cooking 

product for each household. To 

calculate the LCC savings and PBP 

associated with products meeting higher 

efficiency standards, DOE substituted 

the baseline unit with a more efficient 

design. 

Table IV.1 summarizes the 

approaches and data DOE used to derive 

the inputs to the LCC and PBP 

calculations for the October 2008 NOPR, 

and the changes it made for today’s final 

rule. For this final rule, DOE did not 

introduce changes to the LCC and PBP 

analyses methodology described in the 

October 2008 NOPR. However, DOE 

revised its energy prices and energy 

price forecasts based upon the most 

recently available data from EIA. 

Chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice contains detailed discussion of 

the methodology utilized for the LCC 

and PBP analyses, as well as the inputs 

developed for the analyses. 

TABLE IV.1—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES

Inputs October 2008 NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Affecting Installed Costs 

Product Price ....................... Derived by multiplying manufacturer cost by manufacturer, retailer markups and sales tax.No change. 

Installation Cost ................... Baseline cost based on RS Means Mechanical Cost 

Data, 2008.14 Based the percentage of households 

with gas cooking products that would need to install 

an electrical outlet on requirements in the National 

Electrical Code (NEC). Determined that only households built before 1960 would require the installation 

of an outlet. Overall, estimated that 10 percent of 

households with gas standard ovens and 4 percent 

of households with gas cooktops would need to install an electrical outlet to accommodate designs that 

require electricity. Based electrical outlet installation 

costs on requirements in the NEC.

No change. 

Affecting Operating Costs 

Annual Energy Use .............. Based on recent estimates from the 2004 ‘‘California 

Residential Appliance Saturation Survey’’ 15 (RASS) 

and the Florida Solar Energy Center 16 (FSEC). Used 

2001 RECS data to establish the variability of annual 

cooking energy consumption. Included standby 

power consumption for microwave ovens.

No change. 

Energy Prices ....................... Electricity: Based on EIA’s 2006 Form 861 data.17 ........

Natural Gas: Based on EIA’s 2006 Natural Gas Monthly 18.

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 13 

regions.

Electricity: Updated using EIA’s 2007 Form 861 data. 

Natural Gas: Updated using EIA’s 2007 Natural Gas 

Monthly. 

Variability: No change. 

Energy Price Trends ............ Forecasted with EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 

2008.

Reference Case forecasts updated with EIA’s AEO2009 

Early Release.19 AEO2009 Early Release does not 

provide High-Growth and Low-Growth forecasts, 

Scaled AEO2008 High-Growth and Low-Growth forecasts by the ratio of AEO2009 and AEO2008 Reference Case forecasts to estimate high-growth and 

low-growth price trends. 

Repair and Maintenance 

Costs.

For gas cooktops and standard ovens, accounted for 

increased costs associated with glo-bar or electronic 

spark ignition systems relative to standing pilot ignition systems. For all standard levels for all other 

product classes, estimated no change in costs between products more efficient than baseline products.

No change. 

Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings 

Product Lifetime ................... Based on data from Appliance Magazine,20 past DOE 

TSDs, and the California Measurement Advisory 

Committee (CALMAC).21 Variability and uncertainty 

characterized with Weibull probability distributions.

No change. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16057 

14RS Means, Mechanical Cost Data (30th Annual 

Edition) (2008). Available for purchase at http:// 

www.rsmeans.com/bookstore/. 

15Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/ 

rass/. 

16Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/. 

17Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.eia.doe.gov. 

18Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.eia.doe.gov. 

19Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/ 

index.html?featureclicked=1&. 

20Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.appliancemagazine.com. 

21Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.calmac.org. 

22Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.federalreserve.gov. 

TABLE IV.1—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES—Continued 

Inputs October 2008 NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Discount Rates ..................... Approach based on the finance cost of raising funds to 

purchase appliances either through the financial cost 

of any debt incurred to purchase products, or the opportunity cost of any equity used to purchase products. Primary data source is the Federal Reserve 

Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 

1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004 22.

No change. 

Affecting Installed and Operating Costs 

Effective Date of New or 

Amended Standards.

2012 ................................................................................ No change. 

Base-Case Efficiency Distributions.Gas cooktops: 7% at baseline; 93% with electronic 

spark ignition.

No change. 

Gas standard ovens: 18% at baseline; 74% with glo-bar 

ignition; 8% with electronic spark ignition.

No change. 

Microwave ovens: 100% at baseline EF ........................ No change. 

All other cooking products: 100% at baseline ................ No change. 

1. Product Prices 

To calculate the product prices faced 

by consumers, DOE multiplied the 

manufacturing costs developed from the 

engineering analysis by the supply 

chain markups it developed (along with 

sales taxes). To calculate the final 

installed prices, DOE added installation 

costs to the consumer product prices. In 

response to the October 2008 NOPR, 

interested parties provided no 

additional comment on DOE’s methods 

for establishing consumer product 

prices. As a result, DOE used the same 

supply chain markups for the final rule 

that were developed for the October 

2008 NOPR. See chapter 7 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice for additional 

information. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation costs include labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts. For the October 

2008 NOPR and today’s final rule, DOE 

used data from the ‘‘RS Means 

Mechanical Cost Data, (2008),’’ on labor 

requirements to estimate installation 

costs for cooking products. 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE did 

not include an installation cost for 

microwave ovens. Electrolux stated that 

over-the-range (OTR) microwave ovens 

do have an installation cost. (Electrolux, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 

123) DOE acknowledges that OTR 

microwave ovens incur installation 

costs. However, as noted below, because 

DOE estimated that the installation cost 

does not change with product 

efficiency, the omission of this cost for 

microwave ovens has no effect on the 

LCC saving and PBP results. 

For many cooking products, DOE 

estimated that installation costs would 

be the same for different efficiency 

levels. For gas cooktops and gas 

standard ovens, DOE evaluated the 

impact that eliminating standing pilot 

ignition systems would have on the 

installation cost. Peerless-Premier stated 

that eliminating pilots would affect 

customers who live in older houses, 

apartments, and manufactured homes 

without a power receptacle located at 

the range site. (Peerless-Premier, No. 42 

at pp. 1–2) For the October 2008 NOPR 

and today’s final rule, DOE considered 

the percentage of households with gas 

ranges, cooktops, and ovens that would 

require the installation of an electrical 

outlet in the kitchen to accommodate a 

gas cooking product without standing 

pilot ignition, as well as the cost of 

installing an electrical outlet. 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

reviewed the gas oven and gas cooktop 

household samples to establish which 

houses may require installation of an 

outlet. DOE was able to determine the 

composition of the household sample of 

particular vintage (year built) groupings 

by conducting an assessment of 

National Electrical Code (NEC) 

requirements over time to help 

determine which homes may need an 

electrical outlet to accommodate a gas 

cooking product that requires 

electricity. Because the NEC requires 

spacing electrical outlets every 6 feet for 

homes built since 1960, DOE concluded 

that homes built after 1959 would not 

need an additional outlet. Pre-1960 

homes represent 57 percent of the 

standard gas oven sample and 54 

percent of the gas cooktop sample. 

Based on shipments data of gas cooking 

products indicating that fewer than 7 

percent and 18 percent of gas cooktops 

and standard ovens, respectively, came 

equipped with standing pilots, DOE also 

concluded that many pre-1960 homes 

already have a gas cooking product 

without standing pilot ignition, which 

implies that they would not need to 

install an additional outlet. 

The Joint Comment asserted that DOE 

erroneously assumed that 100 percent of 

pre-1960 homes with gas cooktops and 

ovens do not have adequate electrical 

outlets, without regard to the extensive 

number of kitchens that have been 

remodeled since 1960. (Joint Comment, 

No. 44 at p. 11) EEI made a similar 

point. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at pp. 111–112) In response, 

DOE did not assume that all pre-1960 

homes with gas cooktops and gas ovens 

would require an electrical outlet. 

Rather, it concluded that only those 

households that currently have a gas 

cooking product with standing pilot 

ignition would need to install an 

electrical outlet to accommodate a gas 

cooking product without standing pilot 

ignition. Based on the percentage of 

recent shipments of gas cooking 

products with standing pilots and the 

fraction of the household sample built 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16058 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

before 1960, DOE estimated that 10 

percent of the overall gas standard oven 

household sample would need to install 

an electrical outlet to accommodate a 

gas standard oven that requires 

electricity to operate. It is worth noting 

that some portion of gas cooking 

products with standing pilot ignition is 

evidently purchased by consumers in 

post-1959 homes, even though they 

have an electrical outlet adequate to 

accommodate a gas cooking product 

without standing pilot ignition. 

AGA and AHAM stated that DOE’s 

approach should not consider all gas 

cooking product consumers, but only 

the market for gas cooking products that 

utilize standing pilot ignition systems. 

They believe the resulting weightedaverage installation cost for all gas 

cooking products would be greater than 

DOE’s estimate. (AGA, No. 46 at pp. 3– 

4; AHAM, No. 47 at p. 2) As described 

above, DOE did estimate the share of the 

gas oven and gas cooktop household 

samples that still use standing pilot 

ignition systems, and further estimated 

the fraction of those homes that may 

require installation of an outlet to 

accommodate a gas cooking product that 

requires electricity to operate. DOE 

correctly calculated the respective 

weighted-average installation costs for 

all homes with either gas cooktops or 

ovens, although the weighted averages 

are reported for informational purposes 

only and do not directly figure into the 

LCC calculations. For further details on 

the development of the electrical outlet 

installation cost and the percentage of 

households requiring an outlet, see 

chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

based its estimates of annual energy use 

for cooking products (except microwave 

ovens) on results from the 2004 

California Residential Appliance 

Saturation Survey (RASS) and the 

Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC.). For 

today’s final rule, DOE continued to rely 

on these sources, because they are the 

latest available public sources 

describing the field consumption of 

cooking products. In addition, DOE 

continued to use the 2001 RECS data to 

establish the variability of annual 

energy consumption for cooktops and 

ovens. The 2001 RECS is the most 

recently available public data source 

that indicates the variability of cooking 

product usage in U.S. households. 

For microwave ovens, DOE used the 

2004 RASS to estimate the product’s 

annual energy consumption, and it used 

the 2001 RECS data to establish the 

variability of annual cooking energy 

consumption. For today’s final rule, 

DOE continued to use the above 

approaches. As noted above, the 2004 

RASS is the latest available public data 

source describing the average field 

consumption of microwave ovens, and 

the 2001 RECS is the most recently 

available public data source that 

indicates the variability of microwave 

oven usage in U.S. households. See 

chapter 6 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice for further details. 

4. Energy Prices 

DOE derived average electricity and 

natural gas prices for 13 geographic 

areas consisting of the nine U.S. Census 

divisions, with four large States (New 

York, Florida, Texas, and California) 

treated separately. For Census divisions 

containing one of these large States, 

DOE calculated the regional average 

values minus the data for the large State. 

DOE estimated residential electricity 

prices for each of the 13 geographic 

areas based on data from EIA Form 861, 

Annual Electric Power Industry Report. 

DOE calculated an average residential 

electricity price by first estimating an 

average residential price for each utility 

by dividing the residential revenues by 

residential kilowatt-hour sales and then 

calculating a regional average price by 

weighting each utility with customers in 

a region by the number of residential 

consumers served in that region. The 

calculations for today’s final rule used 

the most recent available data from 

2007. 

DOE estimated residential natural gas 

prices in each of the 13 geographic areas 

based on data from the EIA publication 

Natural Gas Monthly. For the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE used the data for 2006 

to calculate an average summer and 

winter price for each area. For today’s 

final rule, DOE used 2007 data from the 

same source. DOE calculated an average 

natural gas price by first calculating the 

average prices for each State, and then 

calculating a regional price by weighting 

each State in a region by its population. 

This method differs from the method 

used to calculate electricity prices, 

because EIA does not provide 

consumer-level or utility-level data on 

gas consumption and prices. 

To estimate the trends in electricity 

and natural gas prices for the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE used the price 

forecasts in EIA’s Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO) 2008. To arrive at prices 

in future years, DOE multiplied the 

average prices described above by the 

forecast of annual average price changes 

in AEO2008. For today’s final rule, DOE 

updated its energy price forecasts to 

those in the AEO2009 Early Release. 

Because the AEO forecasts prices only to 

2030, DOE followed past guidelines 

provided to the Federal Energy 

Management Program by EIA and used 

the average rate of change during 2020– 

2030 to estimate the price trends after 

2030. 

The spreadsheet tools used to conduct 

the LCC and PBP analyses allow users 

to select either the AEO’s high-growth 

case or low-growth case price forecasts 

to estimate the sensitivity of the LCC 

and PBP to different energy price 

forecasts. The AEO2009 Early Release 

provides only forecasts for the reference 

case. Therefore, for the final rule, DOE 

scaled the AEO2008 high-growth case or 

low-growth forecasts by the ratio of 

AEO2009 and AEO2008 reference case 

forecasts to estimate high-growth and 

low-growth price trends. 

The Joint Comment recommended 

that DOE conduct a sensitivity analysis 

using other forecasts in addition to the 

AEO, as they believe that the AEO has 

estimated lower electricity prices than 

most other forecasts. (Joint Comment, 

No. 44 at p. 11) As mentioned above, 

DOE included the AEO’s high-growth 

case and low-growth case price forecasts 

in its spreadsheet tools to estimate the 

sensitivity of the LCC and PBP results 

to different energy price forecasts. 

AEO’s high-economic-growth and loweconomic-growth cases show the effects 

of alternative economic growth 

assumptions on the energy market 

projections. In the high-growth case, 

real gross domestic product (GDP) 

growth averages 3.0 percent per year, as 

a result of higher assumed growth rates 

for the labor force, non-farm 

employment, and non-farm labor 

productivity. With higher productivity 

gains and employment growth, inflation 

and interest rates are lower than in the 

reference case. In the low-growth case, 

growth in real GDP is 1.8 percent per 

year, as a result of lower assumed 

growth rates for the labor force, nonfarm employment, and labor 

productivity. Consequently, the lowgrowth case shows higher inflation and 

interest rates and slower growth in 

industrial output and employment than 

are projected in the reference case. DOE 

believes the AEO alternative forecasts 

provide a suitable range that brackets 

the forecasts resulting from other 

energy-economy models. In addition, 

the Joint Comment provides no specific 

information on any other forecasts or on 

why AEO’s high-growth and low-growth 

cases do not provide a reasonable range 

of forecasts. As a result, DOE has 

concluded that AEO’s high-growth and 

low-growth cases provide an adequate 

basis to examine the sensitivity of LCC 

and PBP results to other price forecasts. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16059 

The Joint Comment stated that to 

realistically depict energy prices in the 

future, DOE must consider the impact of 

carbon control legislation, since such 

legislation is very likely. The Joint 

Comment also noted that there are 

regional cap-and-trade programs in 

effect in the Northeast (Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)) and 

the West (Western Climate Initiative 

(WCI)) that will affect the price of 

electricity but are not reflected in the 

AEO energy price forecasts. (Joint 

Comment, No. 44 at p. 12) Earthjustice 

stated that Federal caps will likely be in 

place by the time new standards become 

effective, so DOE should increase its 

electricity prices to reflect the cost of 

complying with emission caps. 

(Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5 at pp. 195–196) In response, 

DOE notes that the shape of Federal 

carbon control legislation, and the 

ensuing cost of carbon mitigation to 

electricity generators, is as yet too 

uncertain to incorporate into the energy 

price forecasts that DOE uses. The costs 

of carbon mitigation to electricity 

generators resulting from the regional 

programs are also very uncertain over 

the forecast period for this rulemaking. 

Even so, EIA did include the effect of 

the RGGI in its AEO2009 Early Release 

energy price forecasts, but WCI did not 

provide sufficient detail for EIA to 

model the impact of the WCI on energy 

price forecasts. Therefore, the energy 

price forecasts used in today’s final rule 

do include the impact of one of the two 

regional cap-and-trade programs to the 

extent possible. 

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in the appliance, whereas 

maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the operation of the 

product. 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

contacted six contractors in different 

States to estimate whether repair and 

maintenance costs differ between 

standing pilot and non-standing pilot 

ignition systems. Based on the 

contractors’ input, DOE determined that 

standing pilots are less costly to repair 

and maintain than either electric globar/hot surface ignition systems (used in 

most gas ovens) or electronic spark 

ignition systems (used in gas cooktops 

and a small percentage of gas ovens); 

that standing pilot ignition systems 

require repair and maintenance every 10 

years to clean valves; and that electric 

glo-bar/hot surface ignition systems 

require glo-bar replacement 

approximately every 5 years. 73 FR 

62034, 62064 (Oct. 17, 2008). Electrolux 

stated that its testing indicates that globar ignition systems tend to hold their 

life, but it did not provide data to 

support this point. (Electrolux, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 112) 

In the absence of new data from 

Electrolux, DOE decided to continue to 

use the information provided by the 

contractors from which it collected data. 

In the case of electronic ignition 

systems, control modules tend to last 

about 10 years. The electrodes/igniters 

can fail because of hard contact from 

pots or pans, although failures are rare. 

Based on the above findings, DOE 

estimated an average cost comprised of 

a mix of maintenance and repair costs. 

For standing pilot ignition systems, DOE 

estimated a cost of $126 occurring in the 

tenth year of the product’s life. For 

electric glo-bar/hot surface ignition 

systems, DOE estimated an average cost 

of $147 occurring every fifth year during 

the product’s lifetime. For electronic 

spark ignition systems, DOE estimated 

an average cost of $178 occurring in the 

tenth year of the product’s life. AGA 

generally agreed with DOE’s approach 

for consideration of maintenance of 

standing pilots and electronic ignition 

systems. However, AGA suggested that 

DOE use the incremental manufacturing 

cost for electronic ignition systems as a 

basis for developing the maintenance 

costs for these systems. Using this 

approach, AGA reasoned that the 

resultant maintenance costs would be 

higher than DOE estimated. (AGA, No. 

46 at p. 4) DOE’s approach resulted in 

a combined maintenance and repair cost 

that is well above the incremental 

manufacturing cost for electronic 

ignition systems. Therefore, DOE 

retained its approach for estimating 

electronic ignition maintenance costs 

for today’s final rule as it captures more 

costs than solely the manufacturing 

costs of the electronic ignition 

components. See chapter 8 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice for further 

information regarding these estimates. 

6. Product Lifetime 

For the October 2008 NOPR and 

today’s final rule, DOE used a variety of 

sources to establish low, average, and 

high estimates for product lifetime. DOE 

established average product lifetimes of 

19 years for conventional electric and 

gas cooking products and 9 years for 

microwave ovens. DOE characterized 

residential cooking product lifetimes 

with Weibull probability distributions. 

See chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice for further details on the 

sources used to develop product 

lifetimes, as well as the use of Weibull 

distributions. 

7. Discount Rates 

To establish discount rates for 

cooking products for the October 2008 

NOPR and today’s final rule, DOE 

derived estimates of the finance cost of 

purchasing these appliances. Because 

the purchase of products for new homes 

entails different finance costs for 

consumers than the purchase of 

replacement products, DOE used 

different discount rates for new 

construction and replacement 

installations. 

DOE estimated discount rates for newhousing purchases using the effective 

real (after inflation) mortgage rate for 

homebuyers. This rate corresponds to 

the interest rate after deduction of 

mortgage interest for income tax 

purposes and after adjusting for 

inflation. DOE used the Federal Reserve 

Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances 

(SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, and 

2001 mortgage interest rates. After 

adjusting for inflation and interest tax 

deduction, effective real interest rates 

on mortgages across the six surveys 

averaged 3.2 percent. 

For replacement purchases, DOE’s 

approach for deriving discount rates 

involved identifying all possible debt or 

asset classes that might be used to 

purchase replacement products, 

including household assets that might 

be affected indirectly. DOE estimated 

the average shares of the various debt 

and equity classes in the average U.S. 

household equity and debt portfolios 

using data from the SCFs from 1989 to 

2004. DOE used the mean share of each 

class across the six sample years (1989, 

1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004) as a basis 

for estimating the effective financing 

rate for replacement products. DOE 

estimated interest or return rates 

associated with each type of equity and 

debt using SCF data and other sources. 

The mean real effective rate across the 

classes of household debt and equity, 

weighted by the shares of each class, is 

5.6 percent. 

See chapter 8 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice for further 

details on the development of discount 

rates for cooking products. 

8. Effective Date of the Amended 

Standards 

The effective date is the future date 

when parties subject to the requirements 

of a new standard must begin 

compliance. DOE assumes that any new 

energy conservation standards adopted 

in this rulemaking would become 

effective 3 years after the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Therefore, for the purpose of the 

analysis, the amended standard is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16060 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

23Appliance Recycling Information Center, 

INFOBulletin #8, ‘‘Applications in Appliances’’ 

(March 2005). Please see the following Web site for further information: http://www.aham.org/industry/ 

ht/action/GetDocumentAction/id/5370. 

assumed to be effective March 2012. 

DOE calculated the LCC for the 

appliance consumers as if they would 

purchase a new product in the year the 

standard takes effect. 

9. Product Energy Efficiency in the Base 

Case 

For the LCC and PBP analyses, DOE 

analyzes candidate standard levels 

relative to a baseline efficiency level. 

However, some consumers may already 

purchase products with efficiencies 

greater than the baseline product levels. 

Thus, to accurately estimate the 

percentage of consumers that would be 

affected by a particular standard level, 

DOE considered the distribution of 

product efficiencies that consumers are 

expected to purchase under the base 

case (i.e., the case without new energy 

conservation standards). DOE refers to 

this distribution of product of 

efficiencies as a base-case efficiency 

distribution. 

Using the base-case efficiency 

distributions, DOE assigned a specific 

product efficiency to each sample 

household. If a household were assigned 

a product efficiency greater than or 

equal to the efficiency of a specific 

standard level under consideration, the 

LCC calculation would show that this 

household would not be affected by that 

standard level. 

Unfortunately, little is known about 

the distribution of cooking product 

efficiencies that consumers currently 

purchase. Whirlpool stated that it is not 

aware of data on the number of 

consumers purchasing electric cooking 

products that are more efficient than the 

baseline products in the analysis. 

(Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4) In the 

absence of any additional data for 

electric cooking products and gas selfcleaning ovens, DOE continued to 

estimate that 100 percent of the market 

will be at the baseline efficiency levels 

in 2012. 

For gas cooktops and gas standard 

ovens, available data allowed DOE to 

estimate the percentage of units sold 

that have standing pilot lights. DOE 

developed the market share of gas 

standard ovens with standing pilots 

based on actual shipments data, the 

most recent being data from the 

Appliance Recycling Information Center 

(ARIC) for 1997, 2000, and 2004.23

Based on the ARIC data, the entire 

market share of products without 

standing pilots should be allocated to 

standard level 1 (products with glo-bar 

ignition). But based on information 

collected from contractors, DOE 

estimated that 10 percent of products 

without standing pilots use spark 

ignition systems. As a result, DOE 

allocated 90 percent of the market share 

of products without standing pilots to 

standard level 1 (with glo-bar ignition) 

and the remaining 10 percent to 

standard level 1a (with spark ignition). 

Table IV.2 shows the market shares of 

the efficiency levels in the base case for 

gas cooktops and gas standard ovens. 

Standard level 1 represents products 

without standing pilot light ignition 

systems. 

TABLE IV.2—GAS COOKTOPS AND GAS STANDARD OVENS: BASE CASE MARKET SHARES

Gas cooktops Gas standard ovens 

Standard level EF Market share 

% Standard level EF Market share % 

Baseline .......................................... 0.156 6 .8 Baseline ......................................... 0.0298 17 .6 

1 ...................................................... 0.399 93 .2 1* .................................................... 0.0536 74 .2 

2 ...................................................... 0.420 0 2 ..................................................... 0.0566 0 

3 ..................................................... 0.0572 0 

4 ..................................................... 0.0593 0 

5 ..................................................... 0.0596 0 

6 ..................................................... 0.0600 0 

1a* .................................................. 0.0583 8 .2 

* For gas standard ovens, candidate standard levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are used for the same purpose—to eliminate the 

need for a standing pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Candidate standard level 1 is a hot surface ignition device, whereas 

candidate standard level 1a is a spark ignition device. 

For microwave ovens, very little is 

known about the distribution of product 

efficiencies that consumers currently 

purchase. For the October 2008 NOPR 

and the final rule, DOE estimated that 

100 percent of the microwave oven 

market is at the baseline efficiency level 

(EF = 0.557). 

10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time (expressed in years) it takes the 

consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of more efficient products 

through operating cost savings 

compared to baseline products. The 

simple payback period does not account 

for changes in operating expense over 

time or the time value of money. 

Payback periods greater than the life of 

the product mean that the increased 

total installed costs are not recovered in 

reduced operating expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation are 

the total installed cost of the product to 

the customer for each efficiency level 

and the annual (first-year) operating 

expenditures for each efficiency level. 

The PBP calculation uses the same 

inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 

energy price trends and discount rates 

are not needed. 

11. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

Period 

As noted above, EPCA, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 

6316(a)), establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that ‘‘the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy (and as 

applicable, water) savings during the 

first year that the consumer will receive 

as a result of the standard,’’ as 

calculated under the test procedure in 

place for that standard. For each TSL, 

DOE determined the value of the first 

year’s energy savings by calculating the 

quantity of those savings in accordance 

with DOE’s test procedure, and 

multiplying that amount by the average 

energy price forecast for the year in 

which a new standard would be 

expected to take effect—in this case, 

2012. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16061 

DOE also received comments 

addressing the topic of using a 

rebuttable presumption payback period 

to establish the economic justification of 

an energy conservation standard level. 

The Joint Comment and Earthjustice 

stated that DOE’s view that 

consideration of a full range of impacts 

is necessary because the rebuttable 

presumption payback period criterion is 

not sufficient for determining economic 

justification does not reflect the extent 

to which the rebuttable presumption 

analysis constrains DOE’s authority to 

reject standards based on economic 

impacts. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at 

appendix B, p. 1; Earthjustice, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 130) 

The Joint Comment claimed that in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), Congress 

erected a significant barrier to DOE’s 

rejection, on the basis of economic 

justifiability, of standard levels to which 

the rebuttable presumption applies. 

These commenters also claimed that the 

fact that DOE seems to prefer to proceed 

under the seven-factor test contained in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) is not 

pertinent. The Joint Comment agreed 

with DOE that analysis under the seven 

factor test is necessary and has typically 

supported standards with paybacks 

longer than 3 years. However, the Joint 

Comment stated that DOE’s decisionmaking must reflect the expressed intent 

of Congress that the highest standard 

level resulting in cost recovery within 3 

years constitutes the presumptive 

lowest standard level that DOE must 

adopt (Joint Comment, No. 44 at 

appendix B, pp. 1–2) 

DOE does consider both the rebuttable 

presumption payback criteria, as well as 

a full analysis including all seven 

relevant statutory criteria under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) when examining 

potential standard levels. However, DOE 

believes that the commenters are 

misinterpreting the statutory provision 

in question. The Joint Comment and 

Earthjustice present one possible 

reading of an ambiguous provision (i.e., 

that DOE need not look beyond the 

results of the rebuttable presumption 

inquiry), but DOE believes that such an 

approach is neither required nor 

appropriate, because it would ask the 

agency to potentially ignore other 

relevant information that would bear on 

the selection of the most stringent 

standard level that meets all applicable 

statutory criteria. The commenters’ 

interpretation would essentially restrict 

DOE from being able to rebut the 

findings of the preliminary presumptive 

analysis. However, the statute contains 

no such restriction, and such an 

approach would hinder DOE’s efforts to 

base its regulations on the best available 

information. 

Similarly, DOE believes that the Joint 

Comment misreads the statute in calling 

for a level that meets the rebuttable 

presumption test to serve as a minimum 

level when setting the final energy 

conservation standard. To do so would 

not only eliminate the ‘‘rebuttable’’ 

aspect of the presumption but would 

also lock in place a level that may not 

be economically justified based upon 

the full complement of statutory criteria. 

DOE is already obligated under EPCA to 

select the most stringent standard level 

that meets the applicable statutory 

criteria, so there is no need to tie the 

same requirement to the rebuttable 

presumption. 

D. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

1. General 

DOE’s NIA assesses the national 

energy savings, as well as the national 

NPV of total consumer costs and 

savings, expected to result from new 

standards at specific efficiency levels. 

DOE applied the NIA spreadsheet to 

perform calculations of energy savings 

and NPV using the annual energy 

consumption and total installed cost 

data from the LCC analysis. DOE 

forecasted the energy savings, energy 

cost savings, product costs, and NPV for 

each product class from 2012 through 

2042. The forecasts provide annual and 

cumulative values for all four 

parameters. In addition, DOE 

incorporated into its NIA spreadsheet 

the ability to analyze sensitivity of the 

results to forecasted energy prices and 

product efficiency trends. 

Table IV.3 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the NES and NPV analyses for the 

October 2008 NOPR and the changes 

made in the analyses for today’s final 

rule. A discussion of the inputs and the 

changes follows. (See chapter 11 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice for 

further details.) 

TABLE IV.3—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NPV 

ANALYSES

Inputs October 2008 NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Shipments ............................ Annual shipments from Shipments Model ...................... See Table IV.4. 

Effective Date of Standard ... 2012 ................................................................................ No change. 

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies.Shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) determined in 

the year 2005. SWEF held constant over forecast period of 2005–2042.

No change. 

Standards-Case Forecasted 

Efficiencies.

‘‘Roll-up’’ scenario used for determining SWEF in the 

year 2012 for each standards case. SWEF held constant over forecast period of 2012–2042.

No change. 

Annual Energy Consumption 

per Unit.

Annual weighted-average values as a function of 

SWEF.

No change. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values as a function of 

SWEF.

No change. 

Energy Cost per Unit ........... Annual weighted-average values a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and energy prices.No change. 

Repair Cost and Maintenance Cost per Unit.Incorporated changes in repair costs for non-standing 

pilot ignition systems.

No change. 

Escalation of Energy Prices AEO2008 forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolation to 2042 Updated to AEO2009 Early Release forecasts for the 

Reference Case. AEO2009 Early Release does not 

provide High-Growth and Low-Growth forecasts; 

scaled AEO2008 High-Growth and Low-Growth forecasts by the ratio of AEO2009 and AEO2008 Reference Case forecasts to estimate high-growth and 

low-growth price trends. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16062 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

24Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 

2005 Major Appliance Fact Book. Available for 

purchase at http://www.aham.org/ht/d/Product

Details/sku/40471101603. 

TABLE IV.3—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NPV 

ANALYSES—Continued 

Inputs October 2008 NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion.Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE/ 

EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) program (a time-series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses).

No change. 

Effect of Standards on Energy Prices.Determined but found not to be significant ..................... No change. 

Discount Rate ...................... 3 and 7 percent real ........................................................ No change. 

Present Year ........................ Future expenses are discounted to year 2007 ............... No change. 

2. Shipments 

The shipments portion of the NIA 

spreadsheet is a model that uses 

historical data as a basis for projecting 

future shipments of the appliance 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. In projecting shipments, 

DOE accounted for three market 

segments: (1) New construction, (2) 

existing buildings (i.e., replacing failed 

products), and (3) early replacements. 

DOE used the early replacement market 

segment to calibrate the shipments 

model to historical shipments data. For 

purposes of estimating the impacts of 

prospective standards on product 

shipments (i.e., forecasting standardscase shipments), DOE considered the 

combined effects of changes in purchase 

price, annual operating cost, and 

household income on the magnitude of 

shipments. 

Table IV.4 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the shipments analysis for the 

October 2008 NOPR and the changes it 

made for today’s final rule. A discussion 

of the inputs and the changes follows. 

TABLE IV.4—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs October 2008 NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Number of Product Classes Seven classes for conventional cooking products; one 

class for microwave ovens.

No change. 

New Construction Shipments Determined by multiplying housing forecasts by forecasted saturation of cooking products for new housing. Housing forecasts based on AEO2008 projections. New housing product saturations based on 

EIA’s 2001 RECS. Forecasted saturations maintained 

at 2001 levels.

No change in approach. Housing forecasts updated 

with EIA AEO2009 Early Release forecasts for the 

Reference Case. AEO2009 Early Release does not 

provide High-Growth and Low-Growth forecasts, 

Scaled AEO2008 High-Growth and Low-Growth forecasts by the ratio of AEO2009 and AEO2008 Reference Case forecasts to estimate high-growth and 

low-growth housing trends. 

Replacements ...................... Determined by tracking total product stock by vintage 

and establishing the failure of the stock using retirement functions from the LCC and PBP analysis. Retirement functions revised to be based on Weibull 

lifetime distributions.

No change. 

Early Replacements ............. Used to calibrate Shipments Model to historical shipments data; 2 percent of the surviving stock per year 

is retired early.

No change. 

Historical Shipments ............ Data sources include AHAM data submittal, AHAM Fact 

Book,24 and Appliance Magazine.

No change. 

Purchase Price, Operating 

Cost, and Household Income Impacts Due to Efficiency Standards.

For microwave ovens only, used purchase price and efficiency data specific to residential refrigerators, 

clothes washers, and dishwashers between 1980 and 

2002 to determine a ‘‘relative price’’ elasticity of demand.

No change. 

Fuel Switching ...................... Not considered ................................................................ No change. 

a. New Construction Shipments 

To determine new construction 

shipments, DOE used a forecast of 

housing starts coupled with product 

market saturation data for new housing. 

For new housing completions and 

mobile home placements, DOE adopted 

the projections from EIA’s AEO2008 

through 2030 for the October 2008 

NOPR. For today’s final rule, DOE used 

the projections from EIA’s AEO2009 

Early Release Reference Case. Because 

EIA had not yet released the 2005 RECS 

when the analysis was performed, DOE 

continued to use the 2001 RECS to 

establish cooking product market 

saturations for new housing. 

b. Replacements 

DOE estimated replacements using 

product retirement functions developed 

from product lifetimes. For the October 

2008 NOPR and today’s final rule, DOE 

used retirement functions based on 

Weibull distributions. 

To calibrate each shipments model 

against historical shipments, DOE 

established an early replacement market 

segment. For the October 2008 NOPR 

and today’s final rule, DOE determined 

that 2 percent of the surviving stock per 

year was replaced early. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16063 

25 DOE used average purchase price and 

efficiency data provided in the 1987, 1988, 1993, 

1995, 2000, and 2003 Fact Books. 

c. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and 

Household Income Impacts 

To estimate the combined effects on 

microwave oven shipments of increases 

in product purchase price and decreases 

in product operating costs due to new 

efficiency standards, DOE conducted a 

literature review and a statistical 

analysis on appliance price, efficiency, 

and shipments data for the October 2008 

NOPR. DOE used purchase price and 

efficiency data specific to residential 

refrigerators, clothes washers, and 

dishwashers between 1980 and 2002 

from AHAM Fact Books 25 to conduct 

regression analyses. DOE chose this 

particular set of appliances because of 

the availability of data to determine a 

price elasticity. These data indicate that 

there has been a rise in appliance 

shipments and a decline in appliance 

purchase price and operating costs over 

the time period. Household income has 

also risen during this time. To simplify 

the analysis, DOE combined the 

available economic information into one 

variable, termed the ‘‘relative price,’’ 

and used this variable in an analysis of 

market trends and to conduct a 

regression analysis. DOE’s regression 

analysis suggests that the relative shortrun price elasticity of demand, averaged 

over the three appliances, is ¥0.34. For 

example, a relative price increase of 10 

percent results in a shipments decrease 

of 3.4 percent. Because the relative price 

elasticity incorporates the impacts from 

three effects (i.e., purchase price, 

operating cost, and household income), 

the impact from any single effect is 

mitigated by changes in the other two 

effects. 

Because DOE’s forecast of shipments 

and national impacts due to standards 

spans 30 years, DOE also considered 

how the relative price elasticity is 

affected once a new standard takes 

effect. After the purchase price change, 

price elasticity becomes more inelastic 

over the years until it reaches a terminal 

value. For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

incorporated a relative price elasticity 

change that resulted in a terminal value 

of approximately one-third of the shortrun elasticity. In other words, DOE 

determined that consumer purchase 

decisions become less sensitive over 

time to the initial change in the 

product’s relative price. As 

implemented in the modeling of 

shipments forecasts, DOE estimates that 

the initial increase in purchase price 

due to a standard will have a more 

significant impact on product shipments 

in the short term than over the long term 

(i.e., fewer consumers will forego 

appliance purchases years after the 

standards have been in place than when 

the standards initially take effect.) DOE 

received no comments on its analysis to 

estimate the combined effects of 

increases in product purchase price and 

decreases in operating costs on 

microwave oven shipments and, 

therefore, retained the approach for the 

final rule. 

In contrast, DOE determined that the 

combined market of conventional 

electric and gas cooking products (i.e., 

other than microwave ovens) is 

completely saturated. Thus, DOE 

assumed for the October 2008 NOPR 

that the considered standard levels 

would neither affect shipments nor 

cause shifts in electric and gas 

conventional cooking product market 

shares. 73 FR 62034, 62071 (Oct. 17, 

2008). Because DOE received no 

comments on its approach, it continued 

to use it for today’s final rule. 

d. Fuel Switching 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

concluded that the probability that the 

considered standard levels would cause 

shifts in electric and gas conventional 

cooking product market shares was 

sufficiently low that it was not 

necessary to consider it. 73 FR 62034, 

62071–72 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE received 

no comments on this issue and, 

therefore, retained the approach for 

today’s final rule. 

3. Other Inputs 

a. Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies 

A key input to the calculations of NES 

and NPV are the energy efficiencies that 

DOE forecasts for the base case (without 

new standards). The forecasted 

efficiencies represent the annual 

shipment-weighted energy efficiency 

(SWEF) of the products under 

consideration over the forecast period 

(i.e., from the estimated effective date of 

a new standard to 30 years after that 

date). 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE first 

determined the distribution of product 

efficiencies currently in the marketplace 

to develop a SWEF for each product 

class for 2005. Using the SWEF as a 

starting point, DOE developed base-case 

efficiencies based on estimates of future 

efficiency increase. From 2005 to 2012 

(2012 being the estimated effective date 

of a new standard), DOE estimated that 

there would be no change in the SWEF 

(i.e., no change in the distribution of 

product efficiencies). Because there are 

no historical data to indicate how 

product efficiencies have changed over 

time, DOE estimated that forecasted 

efficiencies would remain at the 2012 

level until the end of the forecast 

period, with one exception. Because 

historical data indicates a declining 

trend in the percentage of gas standard 

ranges equipped with standing pilot 

lights, DOE did forecast a decline in the 

market share of gas standard ranges 

equipped with standing pilot lights both 

to 2012 and after 2012. DOE recognizes 

the possibility that product efficiencies 

may change over time (e.g., due to 

voluntary efficiency programs such as 

ENERGY STAR), but without historical 

information, DOE had no basis for 

estimating how much the product 

efficiencies may change. Thus, for the 

final rule, DOE maintained its forecast 

that efficiencies remain at the level 

estimated for 2012 for residential 

cooking products. 

b. Standards-Case Forecasted 

Efficiencies 

For its determination of each of the 

cases with alternative standard levels 

(‘‘standards cases’’), DOE used a ‘‘rollup’’ scenario to establish the SWEF for 

2012. DOE assumed 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. Also, DOE assumed 

that all product efficiencies in the base 

case that were above the standard level 

under consideration would not be 

affected by the standard. DOE made the 

same assumption regarding forecasted 

standards-case efficiencies as for the 

base case, namely, that forecasted 

efficiencies remained at the 2012 

efficiency level until the end of the 

forecast period. 

Again, DOE had no data to reasonably 

estimate how such efficiency levels 

might change over the next 30 years. By 

maintaining the same rate of increase for 

forecasted efficiencies in the standards 

case as in the base case (i.e., no change), 

DOE retained a constant efficiency 

difference between the two cases over 

the forecast period. Although the 

assumed no-change trends may not 

reflect what would happen to base-case 

and standards-case product efficiencies 

in the future, DOE believes that 

maintaining a constant efficiency 

difference between the base case and 

standards case provides a reasonable 

estimate of the impact that standards 

have on product efficiency. It is more 

important to accurately estimate the 

efficiency difference between the 

standards case and base case than to 

accurately estimate the actual product 

efficiencies in the standards and base 

cases. Therefore, DOE retained the 

approach used in the October 2008 

NOPR for the final rule. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16064 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

26OMB Circular A–4, ‘‘Regulatory Analysis,’’ 

Sept. 17, 2003, p. 33. Please see the following Web 

site for further information: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html. 

27OMB Circular A–4, ‘‘Regulatory Analysis,’’ 

Sept. 17, 2003, p. 34. Please see the following Web 

site for further information: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html. 

c. Annual Energy Consumption 

The annual energy consumption per 

unit depends directly on product 

efficiency. DOE used the SWEFs 

associated with the base case and each 

standards case, in combination with the 

annual energy data, to estimate the 

shipment-weighted average annual perunit energy consumption under the base 

case and standards cases. The national 

energy consumption is the product of 

the annual energy consumption per unit 

and the number of units of each vintage, 

which depends on shipments. 

As noted in section IV.D.2.c, DOE 

used a relative price elasticity to 

estimate standards-case shipments for 

microwave ovens, but not for 

conventional cooking products. As a 

result, shipments of microwave ovens 

forecasted under the standards cases are 

lower than under the base case. To 

avoid the inclusion of energy savings 

from reduced shipments of microwave 

ovens, DOE used the standards-case 

shipments projection and the standardscase stock to calculate the annual energy 

consumption for the standards cases. 

d. Site-to-Source Conversion 

To estimate the national energy 

savings expected from appliance 

standards, DOE uses a multiplicative 

factor to convert site energy 

consumption (energy use at the location 

where the appliance is operated) into 

primary or source energy consumption 

(the energy required to deliver the site 

energy). In the case of electrical energy, 

primary consumption includes the 

energy required for generation, 

transmission, and distribution. For the 

October 2008 NOPR and today’s final 

rule, DOE used annual site-to-source 

conversion factors based on the version 

of NEMS that corresponds to AEO2008. 

These conversion factors account for 

natural gas losses from pipeline leakage 

and natural gas used for pumping 

energy and transportation fuel. For 

electricity, the conversion factors vary 

over time due to projected changes in 

generation sources (i.e., the power plant 

types projected to provide electricity to 

the country). Since the AEO does not 

provide energy forecasts beyond 2030, 

DOE used conversion factors that 

remain constant at the 2030 values 

throughout the remainder of the 

forecast. 

e. Total Installed Costs and Operating 

Costs 

The increase in total annual installed 

cost is equal to the difference in the perunit total installed cost between the 

base case and standards case, multiplied 

by the shipments forecasted in the 

standards case. 

The annual operating cost savings per 

unit includes changes in energy, repair, 

and maintenance costs. DOE forecasted 

energy prices for the October 2008 

NOPR based on AEO2008; it updated 

the forecasts for the final rule using data 

from AEO2009 Early Release. For the 

October 2008 NOPR and today’s final 

rule, DOE accounted for the repair and 

maintenance costs associated with the 

ignition systems in gas cooking 

products. 

f. Discount Rates 

DOE multiplies monetary values in 

future years by the discount factor to 

determine their present value. DOE 

estimated national impacts using 3- and 

7-percent real discount rates, in 

accordance with guidance provided by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to Federal agencies on the 

development of regulatory analysis 

(OMB Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 2003), 

section E, ‘‘Identifying and Measuring 

Benefits and Costs’’). 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE 

should use a 2- to 3-percent real 

discount rate for the national impact 

analyses. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 

11) It noted that societal discount rates 

are the subject of extensive academic 

research and the weight of academic 

opinion is that the appropriate societal 

discount rate is 3 percent or less. It 

urged DOE to give primary weight to 

results based on the lower of the 

discount rates recommended by OMB. 

On this point, DOE notes that OMB 

Circular A–4 references an earlier 

Circular A–94, which states that a real 

discount rate of 7 percent should be 

used as a base case for regulatory 

analysis. The 7-percent rate is an 

estimate of the average before-tax rate of 

return to private capital in the U.S. 

economy. It approximates the 

opportunity cost of capital and, 

according to Circular A–94, is the 

appropriate discount rate whenever the 

main effect of a regulation is to displace 

or alter the use of capital in the private 

sector. OMB revised Circular A–94 in 

1992 after extensive internal review and 

public comment. OMB found that the 

average rate of return to capital remains 

near the 7-percent rate estimated in 

1992. Circular A–4 also states that when 

regulation primarily and directly affects 

private consumption, a lower discount 

rate is appropriate. ‘‘The alternative 

most often used is sometimes called the 

social rate of time preference * * * the 

rate at which ‘society’ discounts future 

consumption flows to their present 

value.’’ 26 It suggests that the real rate of 

return on long-term government debt 

may provide a fair approximation of the 

social rate of time preference, and states 

that over the last 30 years, this rate has 

averaged around 3 percent in real terms 

on a pre-tax basis. It concludes that ‘‘for 

regulatory analysis, [agencies] should 

provide estimates of net benefits using 

both 3 percent and 7 percent.’’ 27 DOE 

finds that the guidance from OMB is 

reasonable, and thus it did not give 

primary weight to results derived using 

a 3-percent discount rate. 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE 

should not apply a discount rate to 

physical units of measure, such as tons 

of emissions or quads of energy. (Joint 

Comment, No. 44 at p. 11) Consistent 

with Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

FR 51735, 51737 (Oct. 4, 1993), DOE 

discounts the monetized value of these 

emissions reductions using 3-percent 

and 7-percent discount rates in order to 

determine their present value for 

rulemaking purposes. Similarly, DOE 

discounts energy savings using 3- 

percent and 7-percent discount rates 

since the timing of the energy savings, 

like money saved, have value to 

consumers and the Nation. DOE 

recognizes that while financial 

investments can grow with time, 

physical quantities such as energy do 

not, so there are costs and benefits to the 

Nation associated with the timing of 

when of consuming the energy. In doing 

so, DOE follows the guidance of OMB 

regarding methodologies and 

procedures for regulatory impact 

analysis that affect more than one 

agency. Thus, DOE has reported both 

discounted and undiscounted values for 

the energy and environmental benefits 

from energy conservation standards. 

g. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

conducted an analysis of the impact of 

reduced energy demand associated with 

possible standards on cooking products 

on natural gas and electricity prices. 

The analysis found that gas and electric 

demand reductions resulting from maxtech standards for residential cooking 

products would have no detectable 

change on the U.S. average wellhead 

natural gas price or the average user 

price of electricity. Therefore, DOE 

concluded that residential cooking 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16065 

28For more information, see http://www.sba.gov/ 

idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_

sstd_tablepdf.pdf. 

29Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, 

ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies 

(PNNL–15273 Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory) (2005). Available at http:// 

www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/ 

technical_reports/PNNL-15273.pdf. 

product standards will not provide 

additional economic benefits resulting 

from lower energy prices. 

E. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

individual consumers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard level. For the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE used RECS data to analyze 

the potential effect of standards for 

residential cooking products on two 

consumer subgroups: (1) Households 

with low income levels, and (2) 

households comprised of seniors. 

DOE also considered specific 

consumer subgroups that do not use or 

have access to electricity and could be 

affected by the elimination of standing 

pilot ignition systems, such as Amish 

and some Native American 

communities. DOE’s market research for 

the October 2008 NOPR found that 

battery-powered electronic ignition 

systems have been implemented in 

other products, such as instantaneous 

gas water heaters, barbeques, and 

furnaces, and the use of such products 

is not expressly prohibited by 

applicable safety standards such as 

ANSI Z21.1. As noted in section III.C.2, 

DOE’s research determined that, 

although there are currently no 

alternative ignition systems to standing 

pilots in gas cooking products that have 

been certified to ANSI Z21.1, DOE 

believes such certification could be 

attained and that gas cooking products 

suitable for households without 

electricity would likely be commercially 

available by the time these standards are 

in effect. 

More details on the consumer 

subgroup analysis can be found in 

chapter 12 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice. 

F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

In determining whether a standard for 

cooking products is economically 

justified, the Secretary of Energy is 

required to consider ‘‘the economic 

impact of the standard on the 

manufacturers and on the consumers of 

the products subject to such standard.’’ 

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

also calls for an assessment of the 

impact of any lessening of competition 

as determined by the Attorney General. 

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

conducted the MIA to estimate the 

financial impact of higher efficiency 

standards on manufacturers of cooking 

products, and to assess the impact of 

such standards on employment and 

manufacturing capacity. 

The MIA has both quantitative and 

qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA relies on the GRIM, an 

industry cash-flow model customized 

for this rulemaking. The GRIM inputs 

characterize the industry cost structure, 

shipments, and revenues. This includes 

information from many of the analyses 

described above, such as manufacturing 

costs and prices from the engineering 

analysis and shipments forecasts. The 

key GRIM output is the INPV, which 

estimates the value of the industry on 

the basis of cash flows, expenditures, 

and investment requirements as a 

function of TSLs. Different sets of 

assumptions (scenarios) will produce 

different results. The qualitative part of 

the MIA addresses factors such as 

product characteristics, characteristics 

of particular firms, and market and 

product trends, and it includes an 

assessment of the impacts of standards 

on subgroups of manufacturers that 

could be disproportionately affected by 

these standards. 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

identified three manufacturers of gasfired ovens, ranges, and cooktops with 

standing pilot lights. Two of the three 

are classified as small businesses under 

criteria prescribed by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA).28 The 

SBA classifies a residential cooking 

appliance manufacturer as a small 

business if it has fewer than 750 

employees. DOE categorized the two 

small businesses into their own 

subgroup as a result of their size and 

their concentration in the manufacture 

of residential cooking products. Each 

small manufacturer produces gas-fired 

cooking products with standing pilot 

ignition systems and derives over 25 

percent of its total revenue from these 

appliances. Both small manufacturers 

produce only residential cooking 

appliances and have annual sales of $50 

million to $60 million, whereas the 

third is a large, diversified appliance 

manufacturer. The two small cooking 

businesses are privately held and each 

company has fewer than 300 employees. 

73 FR 62034, 62076 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

DOE interviewed one of these 

manufacturers, and also obtained from 

larger manufacturers information about 

the impacts of standards on these small 

manufacturers of conventional cooking 

products. 73 FR 62034, 62128 (Oct. 17, 

2008). In addition, DOE received 

comments from one of the small 

manufacturers regarding the potential 

impacts of standards. (Peerless-Premier, 

No. 42 at pp. 1–2) See section VII.B for 

a discussion of DOE’s determination of 

the economic impacts of today’s final 

rule on small entities. 

For the final rule, DOE updated the 

MIA results based on the total 

shipments and efficiency distributions 

estimated in the final rule NIA. For 

details of the MIA, see chapter 13 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice. 

G. Employment Impact Analysis 

Employment impacts include direct 

and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are changes in the 

number of employees for manufacturers 

of the appliance products that are 

subject to standards, their suppliers, and 

related service firms. The MIA 

addresses these impacts. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the jobs created or eliminated 

in the national economy, other than in 

the manufacturing sector being 

regulated, due to (1) reduced spending 

by end users on energy, (2) reduced 

spending on new energy supply by the 

utility industry, (3) increased consumer 

spending on the purchase of new 

products, and (4) the effects of those 

three factors throughout the economy. 

In developing the October 2008 NOPR 

and today’s final rule, DOE estimated 

indirect national employment impacts 

using an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies (ImSET). ImSET29 is a 

spreadsheet model of the U.S. economy 

that focuses on 188 sectors most 

relevant to industrial, commercial, and 

residential building energy use. ImSET 

is a special-purpose version of the ‘‘U.S. 

Benchmark National Input-Output’’ 

(I–O) model designed to estimate the 

national employment and income 

effects of energy-saving technologies. 

The ImSET software includes a 

computer-based I–O model with 

structural coefficients to characterize 

economic flows among the 188 sectors. 

ImSET’s national economic I–O 

structure is based on a 1997 U.S. 

benchmark table, especially aggregated 

to those sectors. For further details, see 

chapter 15 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice. 

The Joint Comment stated that when 

weighing the economic costs and 

benefits of stronger efficiency standards, 

DOE must consider that adopting 

standards will increase employment. 

(Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 13) As 

described in section VI.C.3, DOE uses 

ImSet to consider indirect employment 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16066 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

30EIA approves the use of the name NEMS to 

describe only an official AEO version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

the present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

assumptions, the name NEMS–BT refers to the 

model as used here. (‘‘BT’’ stands for DOE’s 

Building Technologies Program.) For more 

information on NEMS, refer to ‘‘The National 

Energy Modeling System: An Overview,’’ DOE/EIA– 

0581 (98) (Feb. 1998). Available at http:// 

tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/058198.pdf. 

31See http://www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule/. 

32 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

33North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

34 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

35 517 F 3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

impacts when evaluating alternative 

standard levels. Direct employment 

impacts on the manufacturers that 

produce cooking products are analyzed 

in the manufacturer impact analysis, as 

discussed in section IV.F. 

H. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis 

determines the changes to energy 

supply and demand that result from the 

end-use energy savings due to 

standards. DOE calculated these 

changes using the NEMS–BT computer 

model.30 The analysis output includes a 

forecast of the total electricity 

generation capacity at each TSL. 

DOE obtained the energy savings 

inputs associated with electricity and 

natural gas consumption savings from 

the NIA. Chapter 14 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice presents 

details on the utility impact analysis. 

I. Environmental Assessment 

DOE prepared an environmental 

assessment (EA) pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) to determine the 

environmental impacts of standards for 

cooking products. Specifically, DOE 

estimated the reduction in total 

emissions of CO2 and NOX using the 

NEMS–BT computer model. DOE also 

calculated a range of estimates for 

reduction in mercury (Hg) emissions 

using power sector emission rates. DOE 

also calculated the possible monetary 

benefit of CO2, NOX, and Hg reductions. 

Cumulative monetary benefits were 

determined using discount rates of 3 

and 7 percent. The EA does not include 

the estimated reduction in power sector 

impacts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), because 

DOE has determined that any such 

reduction resulting from an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of SO2 emissions in the 

United States due to the presence of 

national caps on SO2 emissions. These 

topics are addressed further below; see 

chapter 16 of the TSD for additional 

detail. 

NEMS–BT is run similarly to the 

AEO2008 NEMS, except that cooking 

product energy use is reduced by the 

amount of energy saved (by fuel type) 

due to the trial standard levels. The 

inputs of national energy savings come 

from the NIA analysis. For the EA, the 

output is the forecasted physical 

emissions. The net benefit of a standard 

is the difference between emissions 

estimated by NEMS–BT and the 

AEO2008 Reference Case. The NEMS– 

BT tracks CO2 emissions using a 

detailed module that provides results 

with broad coverage of all sectors and 

inclusion of interactive effects. 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990 set an emissions cap on SO2 for all 

power generation. The attainment of the 

emissions cap is flexible among 

generators and is enforced through the 

use of emissions allowances and 

tradable permits. Because SO2 emissions 

allowances have value, they will almost 

certainly be used by generators, 

although not necessarily immediately or 

in the same year a standard is in place. 

In other words, with or without a 

standard, total cumulative SO2

emissions will always be at or near the 

ceiling, and there may be some timing 

differences among yearly forecasts. 

Thus, it is unlikely that there will be 

reduced overall SO2 emissions from 

standards as long as the emissions 

ceilings are enforced. Although there 

may be no actual reduction in SO2

emissions, there still may be an 

economic benefit from reduced demand 

for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity 

savings decrease the generation of SO2

emissions from power production, 

which can lessen the need to purchase 

SO2 emissions allowance credits, and 

thereby decrease the costs of complying 

with regulatory caps on emissions. 

Future emissions of NOX would have 

been subject to emissions caps under 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

issued by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency on March 10, 2005.31

70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR 

would have permanently capped 

emissions in 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia (D.C.). As with the 

SO2 emissions cap, a cap on NOX

emissions would have meant that 

energy conservation standards are not 

likely to have a physical effect on NOX

emissions in States covered by the CAIR 

caps. However, prior to the publication 

of the October 2008 NOPR, the CAIR 

was vacated by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (DC Circuit) in its July 11, 2008 

decision in North Carolina v. 

Environmental Protection Agency.32

Therefore, for the October 2008 NOPR, 

DOE established a range of NOX

reductions based on low and high 

emission rates (in metric kilotons of 

NOX emitted per terawatt-hour (TWh) of 

electricity generated) derived from the 

AEO2008. However, on December 23, 

2008, the DC Circuit decided to allow 

CAIR to remain in effect until it is 

replaced by a rule consistent with the 

court’s earlier opinion.33 As a result, 

DOE used the NEMS–BT model for 

today’s final rule to estimate the NOX

emissions reductions due to standards. 

For the 28 eastern States and DC where 

CAIR is in effect, no NOX emissions 

reductions will occur due to the 

permanent cap. Under caps, physical 

emissions reductions in those States 

would not result from the energy 

conservation standards under 

consideration by DOE, but standards 

might have produced an 

environmentally related economic 

impact in the form of lower prices for 

emissions allowance credits, if they 

were large enough. However, DOE 

determined that in the present case, 

such standards would not produce an 

environmentally related economic 

impact in the form of lower prices for 

emissions allowance credits, because 

the estimated reduction in NOX

emissions or the corresponding 

allowance credits in States covered by 

the CAIR cap would be too small to 

affect allowance prices for NOX under 

the CAIR. In contrast, new or amended 

energy conservation standards would 

reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States 

that are not affected by CAIR. As a 

result, the NEMS–BT does forecast 

emission reductions from the cooking 

product standards considered in today’s 

final rule. 

Similar to SO2 and NOX, future 

emissions of Hg would have been 

subject to emissions caps under the 

Clean Air Mercury Rule 34 (CAMR), 

which would have permanently capped 

emissions of mercury for new and 

existing coal-fired plants in all States by 

2010, but the CAMR was vacated by the 

D.C. Circuit in its decision in New Jersey 

v. Environmental Protection Agency 35

prior to publication of the October 2008 

NOPR. However, the NEMS–BT model 

DOE used to estimate the changes in 

emissions for the proposed rule 

assumed that Hg emissions would be 

subject to CAMR emission caps. 

Because the emissions caps specified by 

CAMR would have applied to the entire 

country, DOE was unable to use the 

NEMS–BT model to estimate any 

changes in the quantity of mercury 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16067 

emissions that would result from 

standard levels it considered for the 

proposed rule. Instead, DOE used an Hg 

emission rate (in metric tons of Hg per 

energy produced) based on the 

AEO2008. Because virtually all mercury 

emitted from electricity generation is 

from coal-fired power plants, DOE based 

the emission rate on the metric tons of 

mercury emitted per TWh of coalgenerated electricity. To estimate the 

reduction in mercury emissions, DOE 

multiplied the emission rate by the 

reduction in coal-generated electricity 

associated with the standards 

considered. Because the CAMR has been 

vacated, DOE continued to use the 

approach it used for the October 2008 

NOPR to estimate the Hg emission 

reductions due to standards for today’s 

final rule. 

In addition to electricity, the 

operation of gas cooking products 

requires use of fossil fuels and results in 

emissions of CO2 and NOX at the sites 

where the appliances are used. NEMS– 

BT provides no means for estimating 

such emissions. Therefore, DOE 

calculated separate estimates of the 

effect of the potential standards on site 

emissions of CO2 and NOX based on 

emissions factors derived from the 

literature. Natural gas was the only 

fossil fuel DOE accounted for in its 

analysis of standards for cooking 

products. Because natural gas 

combustion does not yield SO2

emissions, DOE did not report the effect 

of the proposed standards on site 

emissions of SO2. 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

monetized reductions in CO2 emissions 

due to standards based on a range of 

monetary values drawn from studies 

that attempt to estimate the present 

value of the marginal economic benefits 

likely to result from reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. Several 

parties provided comments regarding 

the economic valuation of CO2 for the 

October 2008 NOPR. Whirlpool did not 

support an attempt to value those 

emissions as part of this rulemaking. 

(Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 8) EEI 

commented that utilities have 

embedded the cost of complying with 

existing environmental legislation in 

their price for electricity, and a similar 

approach may be reasonable for valuing 

reduced CO2 emissions. (EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 194– 

195) The Joint Comment stated that 

DOE’s valuation of avoided CO2

emissions should use EIA’s analysis of 

the Climate Security Act; the core 

scenario of this analysis yields a $17 

price per ton of CO2, with an annual 7.4 

percent increase. (Joint Comment, No. 

44 at p. 12) As discussed in section 

VI.C.6, DOE has continued to use the 

approach described in the October 2008 

NOPR (73 FR 62034, 62107 (Oct. 17, 

2008)) for its monetization of 

environmental emissions reductions for 

today’s rule. 

Although this rulemaking does not 

affect SO2 emissions or NOX emissions 

in the 28 eastern States and D.C. where 

CAIR is in effect, there are markets for 

SO2 and NOX emissions allowances. 

The market clearing price of SO2 and 

NOX emissions allowances is roughly 

the marginal cost of meeting the 

regulatory cap, not the marginal value of 

the cap itself. Further, because national 

SO2 and NOX emissions are regulated by 

a cap-and-trade system, the cost of 

meeting these caps is included in the 

price of energy. Thus, the value of 

energy savings already includes the 

value of SO2 and NOX control for those 

consumers experiencing energy savings. 

The economic cost savings associated 

with SO2 and NOX emissions caps is 

approximately equal to the change in 

the price of traded allowances resulting 

from energy savings multiplied by the 

number of allowances that would be 

issued each year. That calculation is 

uncertain because the energy savings 

from new or amended standards for 

cooking products would be so small 

relative to the entire electricity 

generation market that the resulting 

emissions savings would have almost no 

impact on price formation in the 

allowances market. These savings 

would most likely be outweighed by 

uncertainties in the marginal costs of 

compliance with SO2 and NOX

emissions caps. 

V. Discussion of Other Comments 

Since DOE opened the docket for this 

rulemaking, it has received more than 

42 comments from a diverse set of 

parties, including manufacturers and 

their representatives, members of 

Congress, energy conservation 

advocates, private citizens, and electric 

and gas utilities. Comments on the 

analytic methodologies DOE used are 

discussed in section IV of this preamble. 

Other comments DOE received in 

response to the October 2008 NOPR, 

limited to those pertaining to standards 

for cooking products, are addressed in 

this section. 

A. Burdens and Benefits 

1. Consideration of the Value of 

Avoided Environmental Impacts 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE 

has not incorporated the value of CO2

emissions reductions into the LCC and 

NPV analyses. The Joint Comment 

argues that, because the value of CO2

emissions reductions affects the 

economic justification of standards, 

DOE must incorporate these effects into 

the LCC and NPV analyses. (Joint 

Comment, No. 44 at p. 12) 

After consideration of this comment, 

DOE decided to continue to report these 

benefits separately from the direct 

benefits of energy savings (i.e., the NPV 

of consumer net benefits). Neither EPCA 

nor the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) requires that the economic 

value of emissions reductions be 

incorporated in the net present value 

analysis of energy savings. However, 

DOE believes that considering the value 

of environmental emissions reductions 

separately from other impacts, when 

weighing the benefits and burdens of 

standards, provides the Department 

with a more robust understanding of the 

potential impacts of standards. 

Similarly, for other emissions 

currently not priced (Hg nationwide and 

NOX in those States not covered by 

CAIR), only ranges of estimated 

economic values based on 

environmental damage studies of 

varying quality and applicability are 

available. DOE has also weighed these 

values separately from the direct 

benefits of energy savings. 

B. Other Comments 

1. Proposed Standards for Conventional 

Cooking Products 

The Joint Comment stated that TSL 3 

should be adopted for conventional 

cooking products rather than TSL 1. The 

Joint Comment specifically calls 

attention to the standard level for 

electric standard ovens under TSL 3, 

and states that this standard level 

satisfies the rebuttable presumption 

payback period. As a result, the Joint 

Comment concluded that TSL 3 is 

presumptively economically justified. 

(Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 11) 

Earthjustice also stated that TSL 3 

should be adopted but on grounds that 

it provided consumers with an 

economic benefit greater than TSL 1. 

(Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 40.5, p. 200) 

As described in section VI.A, TSL 3 

for conventional cooking products 

consists of performance standards for 

electric standard ovens, gas selfcleaning ovens, and electric coil 

cooktops, in addition to the presciptive 

requirements in TSL 1 of eliminating 

standing pilots in gas cooktops and gas 

standard ovens. Although the 

performance standards for electric 

standard ovens and electric cooktops at 

TSL 3 satisfy the rebuttable 

presumption payback period, as noted 

in section IV.C.11, DOE considers the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16068 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

full range of criteria including impacts 

on consumers, manufacturers, and the 

environment, when determining 

whether these standards are 

economically justisfied. 

VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of a number of TSLs for the 

cooking products that are the subject of 

today’s final rule. For the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE based the TSLs on 

efficiency levels explored in the 

November 2007 ANOPR, and selected 

the TSLs on consideration of economic 

factors and current market conditions. 

DOE received no comments on the 

composition of the TSLs. Accordingly, 

for today’s final rule, DOE considered 

the same TSLs it considered for the 

October 2008 NOPR. 

Table VI.1 shows the TSLs and the 

corresponding product class efficiencies 

for conventional cooking products. As 

discussed in section III.C, DOE 

determined the design options that are 

technologically feasible and can be 

considered as measures to improve 

product efficiency. However, as 

discussed in chapters 3 and 4 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice, there are 

few design options available for 

improving the efficiency of these 

cooking products due to physical 

limitations on energy transfer to the 

food being cooked. This is particularly 

true for all cooktop and self-cleaning 

oven product classes. For electric 

cooktops, DOE was able to identify only 

a single design change for analysis. For 

gas cooktops and electric self-cleaning 

ovens, DOE was able to identify two 

design options for analysis. For gas selfcleaning ovens, DOE was able to 

identify three design options for 

analysis. Although DOE considered 

several design options for standard 

ovens, none significantly increased 

product efficiency with the exception of 

eliminating standing pilots for gas 

standard ovens. Eliminating standing 

pilots reduces an oven’s overall gas 

consumption by more than 50 percent, 

whereas all other design options reduce 

gas consumption by approximately 2 

percent. Therefore, DOE gave further 

consideration to only four TSLs for 

conventional cooking products, as 

described below. 

TSL 1 represents the elimination of 

standing pilot ignition systems from gas 

cooking products. All other product 

classes are unaffected by TSL 1, 

including gas self-cleaning ovens. EPCA 

does not allow gas self-cleaning ovens to 

use standing pilot ignition systems 

because they already use electricity and 

come equipped with power cords to 

enable the self-cleaning cycle. Under 

TSL 1, the current prescriptive standard 

that prohibits the use of standing pilot 

ignition systems in gas cooking pilots 

equipped with power cords would be 

extended to all gas cooking products, 

regardless of whether the appliance is 

equipped with a power cord. Under TSL 

1, DOE would not regulate the EF of any 

of the conventional cooking product 

classes and only standing pilot ignition 

systems would be affected. 

TSL 2 for conventional cooking 

products consists of the candidate 

standard levels from each of the product 

classes that provide an economic benefit 

to a majority of consumers who are 

affected by the standard. Based on this 

criterion, only electric coil cooktops and 

electric standard ovens have candidate 

standard levels that differ from those in 

TSL 1. For the remaining five product 

classes, the results indicate that no 

candidate standard level provides an 

economic benefit to a majority of 

consumers. 

TSL 3 for conventional cooking 

products consists of the same candidate 

standard levels as TSL 2, with one 

exception: the gas self-cleaning oven 

product class. For these ovens, the 

design option that provides, on average, 

a small level of economic benefit to 

consumers is included. 

TSL 4 is the maximum 

technologically feasible efficiency level. 

TABLE VI.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

Product class 

TSLs 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Electric Coil Cooktops .................................... No Standard ............... EF=0.769 ................... EF=0.769 ................... EF=0.769 

Electric Smooth Cooktops .............................. No Standard ............... No Standard ............... No Standard ............... EF=0.753 

Gas Cooktops ................................................ No Pilot ...................... No Pilot ...................... No Pilot ...................... EF=0.420 

Electric Standard Ovens ................................ No Standard ............... EF=0.1163 ................. EF=0.1163 ................. EF=0.1209 

Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens ......................... No Standard ............... No Standard ............... No Standard ............... EF=0.1123 

Gas Standard Ovens ..................................... No Pilot ...................... No Pilot ...................... No Pilot ...................... EF=0.0600 

Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens .............................. No Change to Existing 

Standard*.

No Change to Existing 

Standard*.

EF=0.0625 ................. EF=0.0632 

* Existing Standard = No Pilot. 

As discussed in section III.A, DOE has 

concluded that it is not technically 

feasible to combine cooking efficiency 

(or EF) into a new efficiency metric with 

standby power consumption in 

microwave ovens. For the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE considered two sets of 

TSLs—one set comprised solely of EF 

levels and a second set comprised solely 

of standby power levels. As discussed in 

section II.B.3, DOE has decided to 

continue this rulemaking to further 

consider microwave oven energy 

conservation standards pertaining to 

standby power consumption. Therefore, 

for today’s final rule, DOE is 

considering only EF standards for 

microwave ovens. 

Table VI.2 shows the TSLs for the 

regulation of microwave oven cooking 

efficiency, which is expressed in terms 

of EF. The TSLs refer only to the EF and 

specify no standard regarding standby 

power use. TSL 4 corresponds to the 

maximum technologically feasible EF 

level. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16069 

36Consistent with Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 

(Oct. 4, 1993), DOE follows OMB guidance 

regarding methodologies and procedures for 

regulatory impact analysis that affect more than one 

agency. In reporting energy and environmental 

benefits from energy conservation standards, DOE 

will report both discounted and undiscounted (i.e., 

zero discount rate) values. 

TABLE VI.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN ENERGY FACTOR

TSLs 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

EF .................................................................................................................... 0.586 0.588 0.597 0.602 

B. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

through 2042 attributable to potential 

standards, DOE compared the energy 

consumption of cooking products under 

the base case (no standards) to energy 

consumption of these products under 

each standards case (each TSL, or set of 

new standards, that DOE has 

considered). Tables VI.3 and VI.4 show 

DOE’s NES estimates for each TSL for 

conventional cooking products and 

microwave ovens, respectively. Chapter 

11 of the TSD accompanying this notice 

describes these estimates in more detail. 

In the TSD, DOE reports both 

undiscounted and discounted values of 

energy savings. Discounted energy 

savings represent a policy perspective in 

which energy savings farther in the 

future are less significant than energy 

savings closer to the present.36

TABLE VI.3—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

TSL 

National Energy Savings 

quads 

Electric 

coil 

cooktops 

Electric 

smooth 

cooktops 

Gas 

cooktops 

Electric 

standard 

ovens 

Electric 

self-clean 

ovens 

Gas standard ovens 

Gas selfclean 

ovens 

Total 

1 ....................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.14 

2 ....................................................... 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.23 

3 ....................................................... 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.32 

4 ....................................................... 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.50 

TABLE VI.4—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL

ENERGY SAVINGS FOR MICROWAVE

OVENS (ENERGY FACTOR) 

TSL 

National Energy 

Savings 

quads 

1 ........................................ 0.18 

2 ........................................ 0.19 

3 ........................................ 0.23 

4 ........................................ 0.25 

C. Economic Justification 

1. Economic Impact on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period 

Consumers affected by new or 

amended standards usually experience 

higher purchase prices and lower 

operating costs. Generally, these 

impacts are best captured by changes in 

life-cycle costs and payback period. 

Therefore, DOE calculated the LCC and 

PBP for the standard levels considered 

in this rulemaking. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses provided key outputs for each 

TSL, which are reported by product in 

Tables VI.5 through VI.12. In each table, 

the first three outputs are average LCC 

and its components (the average 

installed price and the average operating 

cost). The next four outputs are the 

average LCC savings along with the 

proportions of purchases of cooking 

products under three different scenarios 

in which purchasing a product that 

complies with the TSL would create (1) 

a net life-cycle cost, (2) no impact, or (3) 

a net life-cycle savings for the 

purchaser. 

The last two outputs are the median 

and average PBP for the consumer 

purchasing a design that complies with 

the TSL. The PBP is the number of years 

it would take for the purchaser to 

recover, as a result of energy savings, 

the increased costs of higher efficiency 

products based on the operating cost 

savings from the first year of ownership. 

DOE based its complete PBP analysis for 

cooking products on energy 

consumption under conditions of actual 

use of each type of product by 

purchasers. However, as required by 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)), DOE 

based the rebuttable presumption PBP 

test on consumption as determined 

under conditions prescribed by the DOE 

test procedure. While DOE examined 

the rebuttable presumption criterion 

(see TSD chapter 8), it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

for today’s rule are economically 

justified through a more detailed 

analysis of the economic impacts of 

these levels pursuant to section 

325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

Tables VI.5, VI.6, and VI.7 show the 

LCC and PBP results for cooktops. To 

illustrate the role of the base-case 

forecast in the case of gas cooktops 

(Table VI.7), TSL 1 shows an average 

LCC savings of $15. The average savings 

are relatively low because 93.5 percent 

of the households in the base case 

already purchase a gas cooktop at the 

TSL 1 level, and thus have zero savings 

due to the standard. In this example, the 

base case includes a significant number 

of households that would not be 

affected by a standard set at TSL 1. DOE 

determined the median and average 

values of the PBPs shown below by 

excluding the households not affected 

by the standard. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16070 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.5—ELECTRIC COIL COOKTOPS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

Baseline ..................................................... 0.737 $272 $183 $455 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 ................................................................ 0.737 272 183 455 No change from baseline 

2, 3, 4 ........................................................ 0.769 276 175 451 $4 27.1% 0.0% 72.9% 7.2 18.0 

TABLE VI.6—ELECTRIC SMOOTH COOKTOPS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

Baseline ..................................................... 0.742 $309 $183 $492 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1, 2, 3 ........................................................ 0.742 309 183 492 No change from baseline 

4 ................................................................ 0.753 550 180 730 ¥$238 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1,498 3,736 

TABLE VI.7—GAS COOKTOPS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period years 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average 

Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

Baseline ................................................. 0.106 $310 $561 $871 ................ ................ ................ ................ .................. ..................

1, 2, 3 .................................................... 0.399 332 240 572 $15 0.1% 93.5% 6.4% 4 .3 3 .3 

4 ............................................................ 0.420 361 234 595 ¥8 93.5% 0.0% 6.5% 73 258 

Tables VI.8 through VI.11 show the 

LCC and PBP results for ovens (other 

than microwave ovens). For gas 

standard ovens, the base case includes 

a significant number of households that 

would not be affected by a standard at 

TSLs 1 through 3. DOE determined the 

median and average values of the PBPs 

shown below by excluding the 

percentage of households not affected 

by the standard. The large difference in 

the average and median values for TSL 

4 for all ovens is due to households with 

excessively long PBPs in the 

distribution of results. The LCC analysis 

for TSL 4 yielded a few results with 

PBPs of thousands of years, leading to 

an average PBP that is very long. In 

these cases, the median PBP is a more 

representative value to gauge the length 

of the PBP. 

TABLE VI.8—ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period years 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average 

Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

Baseline ................................................... 0.1066 $414 $231 $645 ................ ................ ................ ................ .................. ................

1 .............................................................. 0.1066 414 231 645 No change from baseline 

2, 3 .......................................................... 0.1163 421 213 634 $11 42.7% 0.0% 57.3% 8 .0 309 

4 .............................................................. 0.1209 489 206 695 ¥59 94.4% 0.0% 5.6% 61 2,325 

TABLE VI.9—ELECTRIC SELF-CLEANING OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

Baseline ..................................................... 0.1099 $485 $243 $728 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1, 2, 3 ........................................................ 0.1099 485 243 728 No change from baseline 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16071 

37 ‘‘Gross margin’’ is defined as ‘‘revenues minus 

cost of goods sold.’’ On a unit basis, gross margin 

is selling price minus manufacturer production 

cost. In the GRIMs, markups determine the gross 

margin because various markups are applied to the 

manufacturer production costs to reach 

manufacturer selling price. 

TABLE VI.9—ELECTRIC SELF-CLEANING OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS—Continued 

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

4 ................................................................ 0.1123 548 239 787 ¥$143 78.5% 0.0% 21.5% 236 1256 

TABLE VI.10—GAS STANDARD OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period years 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average 

Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

Baseline ................................................. 0.0298 $430 $406 $837 ................ ................ ................ ................ .................. ..................

1, 2, 3 .................................................... 0.0583 464 266 730 $9 5.1% 82.3% 12.6% 9 .0 7 .0 

4 ............................................................ 0.0600 507 484 991 ¥81 93.2% 0.0% 6.8% 25 368 

TABLE VI.11—GAS SELF-CLEANING OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

Baseline ..................................................... 0.0540 $550 $614 $1,164 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1, 2 ............................................................ 0.0540 550 614 1,164 No change from baseline 

3 ................................................................ 0.0625 566 595 1,161 $3 56.1% 0.0% 43.9% 11 391 

4 ................................................................ 0.0632 574 593 1,168 ¥4 65.0% 0.0% 35.0% 16 461 

Table VI.12 shows the LCC and PBP 

results for microwave ovens. Results are 

presented for TSLs pertaining to EF. 

Because DOE estimated that the entire 

market is at the baseline level, the 

average LCC savings reported for each of 

the four TSLs are equal to the average 

LCC of the TSL minus the average LCC 

of the baseline. 

TABLE VI.12—MICROWAVE OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR EF 

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

years 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average Net cost No 

impact 

Net 

benefit 

Baseline ..................................................... 0.557 $220 $124 $344 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

1 ................................................................ 0.586 232 119 351 ¥$7 90.6% 0.0% 9.4% 30 76 

2 ................................................................ 0.588 246 119 364 ¥21 97.6% 0.0% 2.4% 58 147 

3 ................................................................ 0.597 267 117 384 ¥40 99.2% 0.0% 0.8% 83 210 

4 ................................................................ 0.602 294 116 410 ¥66 99.8% 0.0% 0.2% 117 296 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

DOE estimated consumer subgroup 

impacts by determining the LCC 

impacts of the TSLs on low-income and 

senior-only households. DOE found that 

the LCC impacts on these subgroups and 

the payback periods are similar to the 

LCC impacts and payback periods on 

the full sample of residential 

consumers. Thus, the proposed 

standards would have an impact on 

low-income and senior-only households 

that would be similar to the impact on 

the general population of residential 

consumers. Chapter 12 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice presents the 

detailed results of that analysis. 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

DOE determined the economic 

impacts on manufacturers of the TSLs 

considered for today’s rule, as described 

in the October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 

62034, 62075–81, 62091–62104, 62128– 

30 (Oct. 17, 2008). The results of these 

economic analyses are summarized 

below. For a more complete description 

of the anticipated economic impacts on 

manufacturers, see chapter 13 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

Using two different markup 

scenarios—a preservation of gross 

margin 37 (percentage) scenario and a 

preservation of gross margin (in absolute 

dollars) scenario—DOE estimated the 

impact of potential new standards for 

conventional cooking products and for 

the cooking efficiency of microwave 

ovens on the INPV of the industries that 

manufacture these products. 73 FR 

62034, 62077–78, 62092–99 (Oct. 17, 

2008). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16072 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Under the preservation of gross 

margin scenario, DOE applied a single 

uniform ‘‘gross margin percentage’’ 

markup across all efficiency levels. As 

production cost increases with 

efficiency, this scenario implies that the 

absolute dollar markup will increase. In 

their interviews, all manufacturers 

stated that it is optimistic to assume that 

they would be able to maintain the same 

gross margin percentage markup as their 

production costs increase in response to 

an energy conservation standard. 

Therefore, DOE believes that this 

scenario represents a high bound to 

industry profitability under an energy 

conservation standard. In the 

‘‘preservation of gross margin (absolute 

dollars)’’ scenario, gross margin is 

defined as ‘‘revenues less cost of goods 

sold.’’ The implicit assumption behind 

this markup scenario is that the industry 

will lower its markups in response to 

the standards to maintain only its gross 

margin (in absolute dollars). 

The impact of new standards on INPV 

consists of the difference between the 

INPV in the base case and the INPV in 

the standards case. INPV is the primary 

metric used in the MIA and it represents 

one measure of the fair value of an 

industry in today’s dollars. For each 

industry affected by today’s rule, DOE 

calculated INPV by summing all of the 

net cash flows, discounted at the 

industry’s cost of capital or discount 

rate. 

For each type of product under 

consideration in this rulemaking, Tables 

VI.13 through VI.22 show the changes in 

INPV under both markup scenarios that 

DOE estimates would result from the 

TSLs considered for this final rule. The 

tables also present the product 

conversion costs and capital conversion 

costs that the industry would incur at 

each TSL. Product conversion costs 

include engineering, prototyping, 

testing, and marketing expenses 

incurred by a manufacturer as it 

prepares to come into compliance with 

a standard. Capital investments are the 

one-time outlays for equipment and 

buildings required for the industry to 

comply (i.e., capital conversion costs). 

TABLE VI.13—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC COOKTOPS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

[Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... 2006$ millions .................... 359 359 357 357 437 

Change in INPV .................. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 (2) (2) 78 

% ........................................ ........................ 0 ¥0.55 ¥0.55 21.76 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 9.6 9.6 21.8 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Investments.2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 0 0 73.1 

Total Investment Required .. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 9.6 9.6 94.9 

Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. 

TABLE VI.14—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC COOKTOPS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

[Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... 2006$ millions .................... 359 359 348 348 (26) 

Change in INPV .................. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 (11) (11) (385) 

% ........................................ ........................ 0 ¥3.18 ¥3.18 ¥107.19 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 9.6 9.6 21.8 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Investments.2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 0 0 73.1 

Total Investment Required .. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 9.6 9.6 94.9 

Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. 

TABLE VI.15—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GAS COOKTOPS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

[Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... 2006$ millions .................... 288 283 283 283 316 

Change in INPV .................. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ (5) (5) (5) 28 

% ........................................ ........................ ¥1.73 ¥1.73 ¥1.73 9.88 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16073 

TABLE VI.15—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GAS COOKTOPS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO—Continued 

[Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

2006$ millions .................... ........................ 9.4 9.4 9.4 20.8 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Investments.2006$ millions .................... ........................ 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.3 

Total Investment Required .. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 11.5 11.5 11.5 24.1 

Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. 

TABLE VI.16—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GAS COOKTOPS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

[Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... 2006$ millions .................... 288 276 276 276 146 

Change in INPV .................. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ (12) (12) (12) (99) 

% ........................................ ........................ ¥4.11 ¥4.11 ¥4.11 ¥34.45 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

2006$ millions .................... ........................ 9.4 9.4 9.4 20.8 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Investments.2006$ millions .................... ........................ 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.3 

Total Investment Required .. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 11.5 11.5 11.5 24.1 

Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. 

TABLE VI.17—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

[Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... 2006$ millions .................... 797 797 789 789 788 

Change in INPV .................. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 (8) (8) (9) 

% ........................................ ........................ 0 ¥0.98 ¥0.98 ¥1.17 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 20.8 20.8 67.6 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Investments.2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 0.8 0.8 179.8 

Total Investment Required .. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 21.6 21.6 247.5 

Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. 

TABLE VI.18—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

[Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... 2006$ millions .................... 797 797 778 778 326 

Change in INPV .................. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0 (19) (19) (471) 

% ........................................ ........................ 0.00 ¥2.43 ¥2.43 ¥59.07 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0.0 20.8 20.8 67.6 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16074 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.18—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO—Continued 

[Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Investments.2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0.0 0.8 0.8 179.8 

Total Investment Required .. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0.0 21.6 21.6 247.5 

Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. 

TABLE VI.19—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GAS OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

[Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... 2006$ millions .................... 469 461 461 462 422 

Change in INPV .................. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ (7) (7) (6) (46) 

% ........................................ ........................ ¥1.56 ¥1.56 ¥1.36 ¥9.91 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

2006$ millions .................... ........................ 9.4 9.4 18.7 100.3 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Investments.2006$ millions .................... ........................ 1.8 1.8 7.6 72.0 

Total Investment Required .. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 11.1 11.1 26.4 172.3 

Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. 

TABLE VI.20—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GAS OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

[Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... 2006$ millions .................... 469 459 459 428 287 

Change in INPV .................. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ (10) (10) (41) (182) 

% ........................................ ........................ ¥2.10 ¥2.10 ¥8.68 ¥38.74 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

2006$ millions .................... ........................ 9.4 9.4 18.7 100.3 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Investments.2006$ millions .................... ........................ 1.8 1.8 7.6 72.0 

Total Investment Required .. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 11.1 11.1 26.4 172.3 

Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. 

TABLE VI.21—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO (ENERGY FACTOR) 

[Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1a 2a 3a 4a 

INPV .................................... 2006$ millions .................... 1,456 1,501 1,575 1,695 1,726 

Change in INPV .................. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 45 118 238 270 

% ........................................ ........................ 3.06 8.11 16.37 18.53 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

2006$ millions .................... ........................ 60.0 75.0 90.0 225.0 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Investments.2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16075 

TABLE VI.21—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO (ENERGY FACTOR)—Continued 

[Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1a 2a 3a 4a 

Total Investment Required .. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 60.0 75.0 90.0 300.0 

Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. 

TABLE VI.22—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO (ENERGY FACTOR) 

[Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario] 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1a 2a 3a 4a 

INPV .................................... 2006$ millions .................... 1,456 1,256 1,068 778 285 

Change in INPV .................. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ (200) (388) (679) (1,171) 

% ........................................ ........................ ¥13.75 ¥26.64 ¥46.60 ¥80.42 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

2006$ millions .................... ........................ 60.0 75.0 90.0 225.0 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Investments.2006$ millions .................... ........................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 

Total Investment Required .. 2006$ millions .................... ........................ 60.0 75.0 90.0 300.0 

Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values. 

As noted above, the October 2008 

NOPR provides a detailed discussion of 

the estimated impact of new standards 

for cooking products on INPV. 73 FR 

62034, 62091–99 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

b. Impacts on Manufacturer 

Employment 

As discussed in the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE expects that employment 

by manufacturers would increase under 

all of the TSLs considered for today’s 

rule, although this does not take into 

account any relocation of domestic jobs 

to countries with lower labor costs that 

might be influenced by the level of 

investment required by new standards. 

73 FR 62034, 62100–03 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

For today’s final rule, DOE estimates 

that the increase in the number of 

production employees in 2012 due to 

standards (depending on the TSL) could 

be 7 to 577 for conventional cooking 

product manufacturers and 16 to 97 for 

microwave oven manufacturers. Further 

support for these conclusions regarding 

direct employment impacts is provided 

in chapter 13 of the TSD. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards, 

consisting of the jobs created in or 

eliminated from the national economy 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, are discussed in section 

IV.G. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are 

Small Businesses 

As discussed in section IV.F and in 

the October 2008 NOPR, DOE identified 

two small manufacturers of residential, 

conventional cooking products. Both 

manufacture gas-fired ovens, ranges, 

and cooktops with standing pilot lights, 

and these products comprise 25 percent 

or more of their production. 73 FR 

62034, 62076, 62095, 62103 (Oct. 17, 

2008). Impacts of today’s standards on 

these two small businesses are 

discussed in section VII.B of this notice. 

As explained in the October 2008 

NOPR, there are no small businesses 

that manufacture microwave ovens. 73 

FR 62034, 62130 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

The October 2008 NOPR notes that 

one aspect of DOE’s assessment of 

manufacturer burden is the cumulative 

impact of multiple DOE standards and 

other regulatory actions that affect 

manufacture of the same covered 

products and other equipment produced 

by the same manufacturers or their 

parent companies. 73 FR 62034, 62104 

(Oct. 17, 2008). In addition to DOE’s 

energy conservation regulations for 

cooking products, DOE identified other 

regulations that manufacturers face for 

cooking and other products and 

equipment they manufacture within 3 

years before and 3 years after the 

anticipated effective date of the 

amended DOE regulations. Id. The most 

significant of these additional 

regulations include Federal standby 

power requirements, several additional 

Federal and State energy conservation 

standards, the Restriction of Hazardous 

Substance Directive (RoHS), State-byState restrictions on mercury (which 

affect gas cooking appliances), and 

international energy conservation 

standards and test procedures. Id. As 

noted in the October 2008 NOPR, the 

last three of these requirements do not 

affect the standards DOE considered for 

today’s final rule. Most manufacturers 

DOE interviewed stated that they 

already comply with the RoHS 

directive, and most gas cooking 

appliance manufacturers have already 

eliminated mercury switches or have 

plans to do so. In addition, although 

manufacturers may incur a substantial 

cost if there are overlapping testing and 

certification requirements in other 

markets besides the United States, DOE 

only accounts for domestic compliance 

costs in its calculation of product 

conversion expenses for products 

covered in this rulemaking. Id. 

EISA 2007 directs DOE to publish 

final rules to modify its test procedures 

to measure and account for standby 

mode and off mode energy consumption 

for various products (including kitchen 

ranges and ovens and microwave ovens) 

by statutorily prescribed dates. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B). In addition, EISA 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16076 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2007 provides that any final rule 

prescribing amended or new energy 

conservation standards adopted after 

July 1, 2010 must account for standby 

mode and off mode energy use. 42 U.S.C 

6295(gg)(3)(A). DOE has determined that 

some manufacturers of cooking products 

also produce other residential 

appliances that will be subject to EISA 

2007 regulations on standby and off 

mode power. In interviews that DOE 

conducted for the October 2008 NOPR, 

manufacturers stated that these 

requirements will impose a heavy 

burden on their testing facilities going 

forward. In addition, manufacturers 

expressed a concern that EISA 2007’s 

standby power requirements could 

create many overlapping regulatory 

compliance costs in the future. 

In the analyses conducted for the 

October 2008 NOPR, DOE also 

identified numerous Federal and State 

energy conservation standards 

regulations that could affect cooking 

product manufacturers that produce 

other residential and commercial 

equipment. (See chapter 13 of the NOPR 

TSD.) Additional investments necessary 

to meet these potential standards could 

have significant impacts on 

manufacturers of the covered products. 

Chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice addresses in greater detail 

the issue of cumulative regulatory 

burden. 

3. Net Present Value of Consumer 

Impacts and National Employment 

Impacts 

The NPV analysis estimates the 

cumulative NPV to the Nation of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

result from particular standard levels. 

Tables VI.23 and VI.24 provide an 

overview of the NPV results for each 

TSL considered for conventional 

cooking products and microwave ovens, 

respectively, using both a 7-percent and 

a 3-percent real discount rate. See 

chapter 11 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice for more detailed NPV 

results. 

TABLE VI.23—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

[Impacts for units sold from 2012 to 2042] 

TSL 

NPV 

billion 2006$ 

Electric coil 

cooktops 

Electric smooth 

cooktops Gas cooktops Electric standard ovens 

Electric selfclean ovens Gas standard 

ovens 

Gas self-clean 

ovens Total 

Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate 

7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 

1 .............................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.71 

2 .............................................. 0.09 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.56 0.13 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.48 1.43 

3 .............................................. 0.09 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.56 0.13 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.25 0.49 1.68 

4 .............................................. 0.09 0.30 ¥7.30 ¥13.95 ¥0.69 ¥1.01 ¥0.78 ¥1.26 ¥2.77 ¥5.18 ¥0.89 ¥1.72 ¥0.11 0.03 ¥12.46 ¥22.79 

TABLE VI.24—CUMULATIVE NET

PRESENT VALUE FOR MICROWAVE

OVEN ENERGY FACTOR

[Impacts for units sold from 2012 to 2042] 

TSL 

NPV 

billion 2006$ 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

1 ............ ¥1 .23 ¥2 .06 

2 ............ ¥3 .33 ¥6 .05 

3 ............ ¥6 .32 ¥11 .68 

4 ............ ¥10 .05 ¥18 .70 

DOE also estimated the national 

employment impacts that would result 

from each TSL. As Table VI.25 shows, 

DOE estimates that any net monetary 

savings from standards would be 

redirected to other forms of economic 

activity. DOE also expects these shifts in 

spending and economic activity would 

affect the demand for labor. DOE 

estimated that net indirect employment 

impacts from energy conservation 

standards for cooking products would 

be positive (see Table VI.25), but very 

small relative to total national 

employment. This increase would likely 

be sufficient to fully offset any adverse 

impacts on employment that might 

occur in the cooking products 

industries. For details on the 

employment impact analysis methods 

and results, see chapter 15 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice. 

TABLE VI.25—NET NATIONAL CHANGE IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT, THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN 2042 

Thousands of jobs in 2042 

Trial standard level Conventional cooking 

products Trial standard level Microwave oven EF 

1 ................................................................................................... 0.26 1 2.06 

2 ................................................................................................... 0.94 2 2.07 

3 ................................................................................................... 1.03 3 2.44 

4 ................................................................................................... 1.21 4 2.47 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As indicated in sections III.E.1.d and 

V.B.4 of the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

has concluded that the TSLs it has 

considered for cooking products would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

any cooking products. 73 FR 62034, 

62046–47, 62107 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

As discussed in the October 2008 

NOPR (73 FR 62034, 62047, 62107 (Oct. 

17, 2008)) and in section III.D.1.e of this 

preamble, DOE considers any lessening 

of competition likely to result from 

proposed energy conservation 

standards. The Attorney General also 

provides DOE with a written 

determination of the impact, if any, of 

any such lessening of competition. DOE 

considers the Attorney General’s 

determination when preparing the final 

rule for the standards rulemaking and 

publishes this written determination as 

an attachment to the final rule. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16077 

The DOJ concluded that the cooking 

products standards contained in the 

proposed rule could substantially limit 

consumer choice by eliminating the 

cooking appliance that most closely 

meets the needs of certain consumers, 

including those with religious and 

cultural practices that prohibit the use 

of line electricity, those without access 

to line electricity, and those whose 

kitchens do not have appropriate 

electrical outlets. The DOJ 

recommended that to maintain 

competition, DOE should consider 

setting a ‘‘no standard’’ standard for 

residential gas cooking products with 

constant burning pilots to address the 

potential for certain customers to be 

stranded without an economical 

product alternative. (DOJ, No. 53 at p. 2) 

As discussed in section VI.D.2 above, 

DOE conducted additional research on 

battery-powered ignition systems for 

residential gas cooking products. DOE 

was able to identify a gas range for sale 

in the United Kingdom (U.K.) that 

incorporates a battery-powered ignition 

system that appears to meet the 

functional safety requirements of ANSI 

Z21.1 (i.e., that the oven main burner is 

lit by an intermittent gas pilot that is in 

turn lit by a battery-powered spark 

igniter). This ignition system meets the 

requirements of ANSI Z21.1 in that it 

does not require the user to push a 

separate ‘‘light’’ button at the same time 

as the control knob is turned to allow 

pilot gas flow. However, this ignition 

system does not include a safety device 

to shut off the main gas valve in the 

event that no flame is detected, which 

is required by the ANSI standard. 

However, DOE found that there are 

gas cooking products with batterypowered ignition for RV applications 

available in the United States that meet 

similar ANSI safety standards for RV gas 

cooking products and as found in ANSI 

safety standards for residential gas 

cooking products. Thus, DOE believes, 

that a battery-powered ignition system 

designed for an RV gas range could be 

integrated into a residential gas range 

that could meet ANSI Z21.1 

requirements. 

DOE next investigated the possibility 

that battery-powered ignition systems 

used in other indoor residential 

appliances in the United States could 

meet the requirements of ANSI Z21.1, 

even though they are not currently being 

incorporated in gas cooking products. 

DOE identified several such appliances, 

including a remote-controlled gas 

fireplace and instantaneous gas water 

heaters. For these products, the batterypowered ignition systems are required 

to meet the same or equivalent 

component-level ANSI safety standards 

as are required for automatic ignition 

systems in gas cooking products. DOE 

contacted several manufacturers of gas 

cooking products, fireplaces, and 

instantaneous water heaters, as well as 

ignition component suppliers, to 

investigate the technological feasibility 

of integrating these existing batterypowered ignition systems into gas 

cooking products that would meet ANSI 

Z21.1. None of these manufacturers 

could identify insurmountable 

technological impediments to the 

development of such a product. Based 

on its research, DOE determined that the 

primary barrier to commercialization of 

battery-powered ignition systems in gas 

cooking products has been lack of 

market demand and economic 

justification rather than technological 

feasibility. Therefore, DOE concludes 

that a gas range incorporating one of 

these ignition systems could meet ANSI 

Z21.1. In addition, DOE research 

suggests that the market niche for gas 

cooking products equipped with 

battery-powered ignition systems, 

which would be created by the 

proposed gas cooking product 

standards, would likely attract entrants 

among ignition component suppliers. 

Therefore, in consideration of the above, 

DOE concludes that technologically 

feasible alternative ignition systems to 

standing pilots in gas cooking products 

exist and that consumer choice will not 

be limited by eliminating pilot lights of 

gas ranges and ovens without electrical 

supply cords. 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve 

Energy 

Improving the energy efficiency of 

cooking products, where economically 

justified, would likely improve the 

security of the Nation’s energy system 

by reducing overall demand for energy, 

thus reducing the Nation’s reliance on 

foreign sources of energy. Reduced 

demand would also likely improve the 

reliability of the electricity system, 

particularly during peak-load periods. 

Energy savings from higher standards 

for cooking products would also 

produce environmental benefits in the 

form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases 

associated with energy production, and 

with household and building use of 

fossil fuels at sites where gas cooking 

products are used. Table VI.26 provides 

DOE’s estimate of cumulative CO2, NOX, 

and Hg emissions reductions that would 

result from the TSLs considered in this 

rulemaking. The expected energy 

savings from new standards for cooking 

products may also reduce the cost of 

maintaining nationwide emissions 

standards and constraints. In the 

environmental assessment (chapter 16 

of the TSD accompanying this notice), 

DOE reports estimated annual changes 

in CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions 

attributable to each TSL. 

TABLE VI.26—CUMULATIVE CO2, AND OTHER EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (CUMULATIVE REDUCTIONS FOR PRODUCTS SOLD

FROM 2012 TO 2042) 

Emissions Reductions for Conventional Cooking Products 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................................................................................... 13.74 15.46 23.39 34.96 

NOX (kt) ........................................................................................................................................... 6.71 6.88 10.82 16.07 

Hg (t) ................................................................................................................................................ 0¥0.15 0¥0.19 0¥0.28 0¥0.41 

Emissions Reductions for Microwave Ovens Energy Factor 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................................................................................... 22.88 33.46 53.89 74.67 

NOX (kt) ........................................................................................................................................... 2.55 3.75 6.06 8.42 

Hg (t) ................................................................................................................................................ 0¥0.46 0¥0.68 0¥1.10 0¥1.52 

Mt = million metric tons. 

kt = thousand metric tons. 

t = metric tons. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16078 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

38 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

39 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

40 During the preparation of its most recent 

review of the state of climate science, the IPCC 

identified various estimates of the present value of 

reducing CO2 emissions by 1 ton over the life that 

these emissions would remain in the atmosphere. 

The estimates reviewed by the IPCC spanned a 

range of values. Absent a consensus on any single 

estimate of the monetary value of CO2 emissions, 

DOE used the estimates identified by the study 

cited in ‘‘Summary for Policymakers,’’ prepared by 

Working Group II of the IPCC’s ‘‘Fourth Assessment 

Report,’’ to estimate the potential monetary value of 

As discussed in section IV.I of this 

final rule, DOE does not report SO2

emissions reductions from power plants 

because reductions from an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of SO2 emissions in the 

United States due to the emissions caps 

for SO2. 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE’s 

NEMS–BT modeling assumed that NOX

would be subject to the CAIR, issued by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency on March 10, 2005. 70 FR 25162 

(May 12, 2005). On July 11, 2008, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued 

its decision in North Carolina v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, in 

which the court vacated CAIR. 531 F.3d 

896 (DC Cir. 2008). Because the NEMS– 

BT model could no longer be used to 

estimate NOX emissions, DOE estimated 

a range of NOX reductions that would 

result from the trial standard levels 

being considered for the October 2008 

NOPR based on low and high NOX

emission rates. DOE multiplied these 

emission rates by the reduction in 

electricity generation due to the 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards considered to calculate the 

expected reduction in NOX emissions. 

The October 2008 NOPR describes these 

calculations in greater detail. 73 FR 

62034, 62108–09 (Oct. 17, 2008). 

On December 23, 2008, after the 

publication of the October 2008 NOPR, 

the D.C. Circuit decided to allow CAIR 

to remain in effect until it is replaced by 

a rule consistent with the court’s earlier 

opinion. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remand of 

vacatur). As a result, for today’s final 

rule, DOE was able to use the NEMS– 

BT model to estimate the NOX

emissions reductions that standards 

would cause. CAIR permanently caps 

emissions of NOX for 28 eastern States 

and D.C. This means that any new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

for cooking products would be unlikely 

to result in any reduction of NOX

emissions in those States covered by the 

CAIR caps. Under caps, physical 

emissions reductions in those States 

would not result from the energy 

conservation standards under 

consideration by DOE, but standards 

might have produced an 

environmentally related economic 

impact in the form of lower prices for 

emissions allowance credits, if large 

enough. However, DOE determined that 

in the present case, such standards 

would not produce an environmentallyrelated economic impact in the form of 

lower prices for emissions allowance 

credits, because the estimated reduction 

in NOX emissions or the corresponding 

allowance credits in States covered by 

the CAIR cap would be too small to 

affect allowance prices for NOX under 

the CAIR. In contrast, new or amended 

energy conservation standards would 

reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States 

that are not affected by CAIR. As a 

result, the NEMS–BT does forecast NOX

emission reductions from energy 

sources in those 22 States from the 

cooking product standards considered 

in today’s final rule. 

As noted in section IV.I, DOE was 

able to estimate the changes in Hg 

emissions associated with an energy 

conservation standard as follows. DOE 

notes that the NEMS–BT model, used as 

an integral part of today’s rulemaking, 

does not estimate Hg emission 

reductions due to new energy 

conservation standards, as it assumed 

that Hg emissions would be subject to 

EPA’s CAMR.38 CAMR would have 

permanently capped emissions of 

mercury for new and existing coal-fired 

plants in all States by 2010. As with SO2

and NOX, DOE assumed that under such 

a system, energy conservation standards 

would have resulted in no physical 

effect on these emissions, but might 

have resulted in an environmentally 

related economic benefit in the form of 

a lower price for emissions allowance 

credits if those credits were large 

enough. DOE estimated that the change 

in the Hg emissions from energy 

conservation standards would not be 

large enough to influence allowance 

prices under CAMR. 

On February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit 

issued its decision in New Jersey v. 

Environmental Protection Agency 39 to 

vacate CAMR. In light of this 

development and because the NEMS– 

BT model could not be used to directly 

calculate Hg emission reductions, DOE 

used the Hg emission rates discussed 

above to calculate emissions reductions. 

Therefore, rather than using the 

NEMS–BT model, DOE established a 

range of Hg rates to estimate the Hg 

emissions that could be reduced 

through standards. DOE’s low estimate 

assumed that future standards would 

displace electrical generation only from 

natural gas-fired power plants, thereby 

resulting in an effective emission rate of 

zero. (Under this scenario, coal-fired 

power plant generation would remain 

unaffected.) The low-end emission rate 

is zero because natural gas-fired power 

plants have virtually zero Hg emissions 

associated with their operation. 

DOE’s high estimate, which assumed 

that standards would displace only coalfired power plants, was based on a 

nationwide mercury emission rate from 

AEO2008. (Under this scenario, gasfired power plant generation would 

remain unaffected.) Because power 

plant emission rates are a function of 

local regulation, scrubbers, and the 

mercury content of coal, it is extremely 

difficult to identify a precise high-end 

emission rate. Therefore, the most 

reasonable estimate is based on the 

assumption that all displaced coal 

generation would have been emitting at 

the average emission rate for coal 

generation as specified by AEO2008. As 

noted previously, because virtually all 

mercury emitted from electricity 

generation is from coal-fired power 

plants, DOE based the emission rate on 

the tons of mercury emitted per TWh of 

coal-generated electricity. Based on the 

emission rate for 2006, DOE derived a 

high-end emission rate of 0.0255 tons 

per TWh. To estimate the reduction in 

mercury emissions, DOE multiplied the 

emission rate by the reduction in coalgenerated electricity due to the 

standards considered in the utility 

impact analysis. These changes in Hg 

emissions are extremely small, ranging 

from 0.03 to 0.27 percent of the national 

base-case emissions forecast by NEMS– 

BT, depending on the TSL. 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

considered accounting for a monetary 

benefit of CO2 emission reductions 

associated with standards. To put the 

potential monetary benefits from 

reduced CO2 emissions into a form that 

would likely be most useful to 

decisionmakers and interested parties, 

DOE used the same methods it used to 

calculate the net present value of 

consumer cost savings. DOE converted 

the estimated yearly reductions in CO2

emissions into monetary values, which 

were then discounted over the life of the 

affected equipment to the present using 

both 3-percent and 7-percent discount 

rates. 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to use the range $0 to $20 per 

ton for the year 2007 in 2007$. 73 FR 

62034, 62110 (Oct. 17, 2008). These 

estimates were based on a previous 

analysis that used a range of no benefit 

to an average benefit value reported by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC).40 DOE derived the IPCC 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16079 

CO2 reductions likely to result from standards 

considered in this rulemaking. According to IPCC, 

the mean social cost of carbon (SCC) reported in 

studies published in peer-reviewed journals was 

$43 per ton of carbon. This translates into about $12 

per ton of CO2. The literature review (Tol 2005) 

from which this mean was derived did not report 

the year in which these dollars were denominated. 

However, DOE understands this estimate was for 

the year 1995 denominated in 1995$. Updating that 

estimate to 2007$ yields a SCC for the year 1995 

of $15 per ton of CO2. 

41 ‘‘Climate Change 2007—Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability.’’ Contribution of Working Group 

II to the ‘‘Fourth Assessment Report’’ of the IPCC, 

17. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4- 

wg2.htm (last accessed Aug. 7, 2008). 

estimate used as the upper bound value 

from an estimate of the mean value of 

worldwide impacts due to climate 

change and not just the effects likely to 

occur within the United States. This 

previous analysis assumed that the 

appropriate value should be restricted to 

a representation of those costs and 

benefits likely to be experienced in the 

United States. DOE explained in the 

October 2008 NOPR that it expects such 

domestic values would be lower than 

comparable global values; however, 

there currently are no consensus 

estimates for the U.S. benefits likely to 

result from CO2 emission reductions. 

Because U.S.-specific estimates were 

unavailable and DOE did not receive 

any additional information that would 

help narrow the proposed range of 

domestic benefits, DOE used the global 

mean value as an upper bound U.S. 

value. 

The Joint Comment asserted that DOE 

should use the EIA analysis of the 

Climate Security Act from April 2008, 

including future price escalation, to 

estimate the cost of avoiding CO2

emissions. The core scenario of this 

analysis specifies a $17 price per ton of 

CO2 with an annual 7.4 percent yearly 

increase forecast. (Joint Comment, No. 

44 at p. 12) Whirlpool stated that the 

regulation of CO2 should be restricted to 

the regulation of power plants and, 

therefore, does not support an attempt 

to value those emissions as part of this 

rulemaking. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 8) 

The Department of Energy, together 

with other Federal agencies, is currently 

reviewing various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse 

gas emissions. This review will consider 

the comments on this subject that are 

part of the public record for this and 

other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues, 

such as whether the appropriate values 

should represent domestic U.S. or global 

benefits (and costs). Given the 

complexity of the many issues involved, 

this review is ongoing. However, 

consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, 

and taking into account the uncertainty 

involved with this particular issue, DOE 

has included in this rulemaking the 

values and analyses previously 

conducted. 

Given the uncertainty surrounding 

estimates of the social cost of carbon, 

DOE previously concluded that relying 

on any single estimate may be 

inadvisable because that estimate will 

depend on many assumptions. Working 

Group II’s contribution to the ‘‘Fourth 

Assessment Report’’ of the IPCC notes 

the following: 

The large ranges of SCC are due in the large 

part to differences in assumptions regarding 

climate sensitivity, response lags, the 

treatment of risk and equity, economic and 

non-economic impacts, the inclusion of 

potentially catastrophic losses, and discount 

rates.41

Because of this uncertainty, DOE 

previously used the SCC value from Tol 

(2005), which was presented in the 

IPCC’s ‘‘Fourth Assessment Report’’ and 

provided a comprehensive metaanalysis of estimates for the value of 

SCC. Tol released an update of his 2005 

meta-analysis in September 2007 that 

reported an increase in the mean 

estimate of SCC from $43 to $71 per ton 

carbon. Although the Tol study was 

updated in 2007, the IPCC has not 

adopted the update. As a result, DOE 

previously decided to continue to rely 

on the study cited by the IPCC. DOE 

notes that the conclusions of Tol in 

2007 are similar to the conclusions of 

Tol in 2005. In 2007, Tol continues to 

indicate that there is no consensus 

regarding the monetary value of 

reducing CO2 emissions by 1 ton. The 

broad range of values in both Tol 

studies are the result of significant 

differences in the methodologies used in 

the studies Tol summarized. According 

to Tol, all of the studies have 

shortcomings, largely because the 

subject is inherently complex and 

uncertain and requires broad 

multidisciplinary knowledge. Thus, it 

was not certain that the values reported 

in Tol in 2007 are more accurate or 

representative than the values reported 

in Tol in 2005. 

For today’s final rule, DOE continues 

to use the range of values proposed in 

the October 2008 NOPR, which was 

based on the values presented in Tol 

(2005) as proposed. Additionally, DOE 

applied an annual growth rate of 2.4 

percent to the value of SCC, as 

suggested by the IPCC Working Group II 

(2007, p. 822). This growth rate is based 

on estimated increases in damage from 

future emissions that published studies 

have reported. Because the values in Tol 

(2005) were presented in 1995 dollars, 

DOE calculated more current values, 

assigning a range for SCC of $0 to $20 

(2007$) per ton of CO2 emissions. 

The upper bound of the range DOE 

used is based on Tol (2005), which 

reviewed 103 estimates of SCC from 28 

published studies. Tol concluded that 

when only peer-reviewed studies 

published in recognized journals are 

considered, ‘‘climate change impacts 

may be very uncertain but [it] is 

unlikely that the marginal damage costs 

of carbon dioxide emissions exceed $50 

per ton carbon [comparable to a 2007 

value of $20 per ton carbon dioxide 

when expressed in 2007 U.S. dollars 

with a 2.4 percent growth rate].’’ 

In setting a lower bound, DOE 

previous analysis agreed with the IPCC 

Working Group II (2007) report that 

‘‘significant warming across the globe 

and the locations of significant observed 

changes in many systems consistent 

with warming is very unlikely to be due 

solely to natural variability of 

temperatures or natural variability of the 

systems’’ (p. 9), and thus tentatively 

concluded that a global value of zero for 

the SCC cannot be justified. However, 

DOE previously concluded that it is 

reasonable to allow for the possibility 

that the SCC for the United States may 

be quite low. In fact, some of the studies 

examined by Tol (2005) reported 

negative values for the SCC. As stated in 

the October 2008 NOPR, DOE assumed 

that it was most appropriate to use U.S. 

benefit values rather than world benefit 

values in its analysis, and U.S. values 

will likely be lower than the global 

values. As indicated above, DOE, 

together with other Federal agencies, is 

now reviewing whether this previous 

analysis should be modified. However, 

it is very unlikely that possible changes 

in this methodology would affect the 

conclusions reached in this rulemaking. 

Table VI.27 presents the resulting 

estimates of the potential range of net 

present value benefits associated with 

reducing CO2 emissions. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16080 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

42Office of Management and Budget Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, ‘‘2006 Report to 

Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 

Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 

Local, and Tribal Entities,’’ Washington, DC (2006). 

43Trasande, L., et al., ‘‘Applying Cost Analyses to 

Drive Policy that Protects Children,’’ 1076 Ann. 

N.Y. Acad. Sci. 911 (2006). 

44Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, ‘‘Designing 

Environmental Policy: Lessons from the Regulation 

of Mercury Emissions,’’ Regulatory Analysis 05–01, 

AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 

Washington, DC (2004). A version of this paper was 

published in the Journal of Regulatory Economics 

in 2006. The estimate was derived by backcalculating the annual benefits per ton from the net 

present value of benefits reported in the study. 

TABLE VI.27—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT SEVENPERCENT AND THREE-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES

Conventional cooking product TSL 

Estimated 

cumulative CO2

emission reductions 

Mt 

Value at 7% 

discount rate 

million 2007$ 

Value at 3% 

discount rate 

million 2007$ 

1 ................................................................................................... 13.74 $0 to $109 $0 to $241. 

2 ................................................................................................... 15.46 $0 to $122 $0 to $270. 

3 ................................................................................................... 23.39 $0 to $182 $0 to $408. 

4 ................................................................................................... 34.96 $0 to $269 $0 to $610. 

Microwave oven energy factor TSL 

Estimated 

cumulative CO2

emission reductions 

Mt 

Value at 7% 

discount rate 

million 2007$ 

Value at 3% 

discount rate 

million 2007$ 

1 ................................................................................................... 22.88 $0 to $192 $0 to $404. 

2 ................................................................................................... 33.46 $0 to $277 $0 to $589. 

3 ................................................................................................... 53.89 $0 to $443 $0 to $948. 

4 ................................................................................................... 74.67 $0 to $612 $0 to $1313. 

DOE also investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced SO2, NOX, 

and Hg emissions from the TSLs it 

considered. As previously stated, DOE’s 

initial analysis assumed the presence of 

nationwide emission caps on SO2 and 

Hg, and caps on NOX emissions in the 

28 States covered by CAIR. In the 

presence of these caps, DOE concluded 

that no physical reductions in power 

sector emissions would occur, but that 

the standards could put downward 

pressure on the prices of emissions 

allowances in cap-and-trade markets. 

Estimating this effect is very difficult 

because of factors such as credit 

banking, which can change the 

trajectory of prices. DOE has concluded 

that the effect from energy conservation 

standards on SO2 allowance prices is 

likely to be negligible based on runs of 

the NEMS–BT model. See chapter 16 of 

the TSD accompanying this notice for 

further details. 

Because the courts have decided to 

allow the CAIR rule to remain in effect, 

projected annual NOX allowances from 

NEMS–BT are relevant. As noted above, 

standards would not produce an 

economic impact in the form of lower 

prices for emissions allowance credits 

in the 28 eastern States and DC covered 

by the CAIR cap. New or amended 

energy conservation standards would 

reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States 

that are not affected by CAIR. For the 

area of the United States not covered by 

CAIR, DOE estimated the monetized 

value of NOX emissions reductions 

resulting from each of the TSLs 

considered for today’s final rule based 

on environmental damage estimates 

from the literature. Available estimates 

suggest a very wide range of monetary 

values for NOX emissions, ranging from 

$370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX

from stationary sources, measured in 

2001$ (equivalent to a range of $421 per 

ton to $4,326 per ton in 2006$).42

For Hg emissions reductions, DOE 

estimated the national monetized values 

resulting from the TSLs considered for 

today’s rule based on environmental 

damage estimates from the literature. 

DOE conducted research for today’s 

final rule and determined that the 

impact of mercury emissions from 

power plants on humans is considered 

highly uncertain. However, DOE 

identified two estimates of the 

environmental damage of mercury based 

on two estimates of the adverse impact 

of childhood exposure to methyl 

mercury on IQ for American children, 

and subsequent loss of lifetime 

economic productivity resulting from 

these IQ losses. The high-end estimate 

is based on an estimate of the current 

aggregate cost of the loss of IQ in 

American children that results from 

exposure to mercury of U.S. power plant 

origin ($1.3 billion per year in year 

2000$), which works out to $31.7 

million per ton emitted per year 

(2006$).43 The low-end estimate is $0.66 

million per ton emitted (in 2004$) or 

$0.71 million per ton in 2006$. DOE 

derived this estimate from a published 

evaluation of mercury control using 

different methods and assumptions from 

the first study, but also based on the 

present value of the lifetime earnings of 

children exposed.44 Table VI.28 and 

Table VI.29 present the resulting 

estimates of the potential range of 

present value benefits associated with 

reduced national NOX and Hg emissions 

from the TSLs DOE considered. 

TABLE VI.28—ESTIMATES OF MONETARY VALUE OF REDUCTIONS OF HG AND NOX BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL AT A

SEVEN-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Conventional cooking product TSL 

Cumulative NOX

emission reductions 

kt 

Value of NOX

emission reductions 

million 2006$ 

Estimated cumulative 

Hg emission reductions 

t 

Value of estimated Hg 

emission reductions 

million 2006$ 

1 ....................................................... 6.71 0.7 to 7.3 0 to 0.15 0 to 1.3. 

2 ....................................................... 6.88 0.7 to 7.5 0 to 0.19 0 to 1.6. 

3 ....................................................... 10.82 1.1 to 11.5 0 to 0.28 0 to 2.2. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16081 

TABLE VI.28—ESTIMATES OF MONETARY VALUE OF REDUCTIONS OF HG AND NOX BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL AT A

SEVEN-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE—Continued 

Conventional cooking product TSL 

Cumulative NOX

emission reductions 

kt 

Value of NOX

emission reductions 

million 2006$ 

Estimated cumulative 

Hg emission reductions 

t 

Value of estimated Hg 

emission reductions 

million 2006$ 

4 ....................................................... 16.07 1.6 to 16.8 0 to 0.41 0 to 3.3. 

Microwave oven energy factor TSL 

Cumulative NOX

emission reductions 

kt 

Value of NOX

emission reductions 

million 2006$ 

Estimated cumulative 

Hg emission reductions 

t 

Value of estimated 

Hg emission reductions 

million 2006$ 

1 ....................................................... 2.55 0.3 to 3.2 0 to 0.46 0 to 3.7 

2 ....................................................... 3.75 0.4 to 4.6 0 to 0.68 0 to 5.4 

3 ....................................................... 6.06 0.7 to 7.3 0 to 1.10 0 to 8.6 

4 ....................................................... 8.42 1.0 to 10.2 0 to 1.52 0 to 11.8 

TABLE VI.29—ESTIMATES OF MONETARY VALUE OF REDUCTIONS OF HG AND NOX BY TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL AT A

THREE-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Conventional cooking product TSL 

Cumulative NOX

emission reductions 

kt 

Value of NOX

emission reductions 

million 2006$ 

Estimated cumulative 

Hg emission reductions 

t 

Value of estimated 

Hg emission reductions 

million 2006$ 

1 ....................................................... 6.71 1.5 to 15.4 0 to 0.15 0 to 2.6. 

2 ....................................................... 6.88 1.5 to 15.7 0 to 0.19 0 to 3.3. 

3 ....................................................... 10.82 2.4 to 24.5 0 to 0.28 0 to 4.6. 

4 ....................................................... 16.07 3.5 to 36.1 0 to 0.41 0 to 6.9. 

Microwave oven energy factor TSL 

Cumulative NOX emission reductions 

kt 

Value of NOX

emission reductions 

million 2006$ 

Estimated cumulative Hg 

emission reductions 

t 

Value of estimated 

Hg emission reductions 

million 2006$ 

1 ....................................................... 2.55 0.6 to 6.1 0 to 0.46 0 to 7.8. 

2 ....................................................... 3.75 0.9 to 8.9 0 to 0.68 0 to 11.3. 

3 ....................................................... 6.06 1.4 to 14.4 0 to 1.10 0 to 18.2. 

4 ....................................................... 8.42 1.9 to 19.9 0 to 1.52 0 to 25.2. 

D. Conclusion 

1. Overview 

EPCA contains criteria for prescribing 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. It provides that any such 

standard for a covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens, to the greatest extent 

practicable, considering the seven 

factors previously discussed in section 

II.A of today’s final rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) A determination of 

whether a standard level is 

economically justified is not made 

based on any one of these factors in 

isolation. The Secretary must weigh 

each of these seven factors in total in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified. Further, the 

Secretary may not establish a new or 

amended standard if such standard 

would not result in ‘‘significant 

conservation of energy,’’ or ‘‘is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

In deciding whether to adopt 

amended or new energy conservation 

standards for conventional cooking 

products, and for the cooking efficiency 

of microwave ovens, respectively, DOE 

started by examining the maximum 

technologically feasible levels to 

determine whether those levels were 

economically justified. Upon finding 

that the maximum technologically 

feasible levels were not economically 

justified, DOE analyzed the next lower 

TSL to determine whether that level was 

economically justified. DOE follows this 

procedure until it identifies a TSL that 

is economically justified, or determines 

that no TSL is economically justified. 

Below are tables that summarize the 

results of DOE’s quantitative analysis for 

each of the TSLs it considered for 

today’s final rule. These tables present 

the results for each TSL, and will aid 

the reader in the discussion of costs and 

benefits of each TSL. The range of 

values for industry impacts represents 

the results for the different markup 

scenarios that DOE used to estimate 

manufacturer impacts. 

In addition to the quantitative results, 

DOE also considered other burdens and 

benefits that affect economic 

justification. In the case of conventional 

cooking products, DOE considered the 

burden on the industry associated with 

complying with performance standards. 

Currently, conventional cooking 

products are not rated for efficiency 

because DOE has promulgated only 

prescriptive standards for gas cooking 

products. Therefore, any proposed 

performance standards would require 

the industry to test, rate, and label these 

cooking products, a significant burden 

that the industry currently does not 

bear. In the specific case of gas cooking 

products, DOE also considered the 

safety and commercial availability of 

battery-powered ignition devices as a 

replacement for standing pilot ignition 

systems. 

2. Conventional Cooking Products 

Table VI.30 summarizes the results of 

DOE’s quantitative analysis for the TSLs 

it considered for conventional cooking 

products for today’s final rule. The 

impacts at each TSL are measured 

relative to a no-standards base case. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16082 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.30—SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE RESULTS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS * 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Primary Energy Saved (quads): 

0% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 0.14 0.23 0.32 0.50 

7% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.12 

3% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 0.08 0.12 0.17 0.26 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** ......................................................................... 0.062 0.081 0.120 0.184 

NPV of Consumer Impacts (2006$ billion): 

7% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 0.254 0.475 0.486 (12.456) 

3% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 0.706 1.432 1.684 (22.787) 

Industry Impacts: 

Gas Cooktops 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ............................................................................ (5)–(12) (5)–(12) (5)–(12) 28–(99) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ................................................................................. (2)–(4) (2)–(4) (2)–(4) 10–(34) 

Electric Cooktops 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ............................................................................ 0 (2)–(11) (2)–(11) 78–(385) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ................................................................................. 0 (1)–(3) (1)–(3) 22–(107) 

Gas Ovens 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ............................................................................ (7)–(10) (7)–(10) (6)–(41) (46)–(182) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ................................................................................. (2) (2) (1)–(9) (10)–(39) 

Electric Ovens 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ............................................................................ 0 (8)–(19) (8)–(19) (9)–(471) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ................................................................................. 0 (1)–(2) (1)–(2) (1)–(59) 

Cumulative Emissions Reductions: † 

CO2 (Mt) ................................................................................................................... 13.74 15.46 23.39 34.96 

NOX (kt) .................................................................................................................... 6.71 6.88 10.82 16.07 

Hg (t) ......................................................................................................................... 0–0.15 0–0.19 0–0.28 0–0.41 

Value of Emissions Reductions: 

CO2 (2007$ million) 

7% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0–109 0–122 0–182 0–269 

3% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0–241 0–270 0–408 0–610 

NOX (2006$ million) 

7% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0.7–7.3 0.7–7.5 1.1–11.5 1.6–16.8 

3% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 1.5–15.4 1.5–15.7 2.4–24.5 3.5–36.1 

Hg (2006$ million) 

7% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0–1.3 0–1.6 0–2.2 0–3.3 

3% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0–2.6 0–3.3 0–4.6 0–6.9 

Mean LCC Savings * (2006$): 

Gas Cooktop/Conventional Burners ......................................................................... 15 15 15 (8) 

Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements ................................ .................... 4 4 4 

Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements .......................................................................... .................... .................... .................... (238) 

Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line ........................................... 9 9 9 (81) 

Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven ...................................................................................... .................... .................... 3 (4) 

Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line ...................................... .................... 11 11 (50) 

Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... (143) 

Median PBP (years): 

Gas Cooktop/Conventional Burners ......................................................................... 4.3 4.3 4.3 73.0 

Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements ................................ .................... 7.2 7.2 7.2 

Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements .......................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,498 

Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line ........................................... 9.0 9.0 9.0 25.3 

Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven ...................................................................................... .................... .................... 11.0 15.6 

Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line ...................................... .................... 8.0 8.0 60.7 

Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... 236 

LCC Consumer Impacts: 

Gas Cooktop/Conventional Burners 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 93.5 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................................... 93.5 93.5 93.5 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................................................. 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.5 

Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................................................... .................... 27.1 27.1 27.1 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................................... .................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................................................. .................... 72.9 72.9 *72.9 

Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 100.0 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... 0.0 

Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................................................... 5.1 5.1 5.1 93.2 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................................... 82.3 82.3 82.3 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................................................. 12.6 12.6 12.6 6.8 

Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... 56.1 65.0 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................................... .................... .................... 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................................................. .................... .................... 43.9 35.0 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16083 

TABLE VI.30—SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE RESULTS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS *—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................................................... .................... 42.7 42.7 94.4 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................................... .................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................................................. .................... 57.3 57.3 5.6 

Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 78.5 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... 21.5 

* Parentheses indicate negative values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

** Changes in installed generation capacity in gigawatts (GW) by 2042 based on the AEO2008 Reference Case. 

† CO2 emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants and at households. NOX emissions impacts include physical reductions at 

power plants and at households. 

First, DOE considered TSL 4, the maxtech level. TSL 4 would likely save 0.50 

quads of energy through 2042, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at 7 percent, the projected 

energy savings through 2042 would be 

0.12 quads. TSL 4 would result in a 

decrease of $12.5 billion in the NPV of 

consumer benefits, using a discount rate 

of 7 percent. The emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 34.96 Mt of CO2, 16.07 kt 

of NOX, and 0 t to 0.41 t of Hg with a 

corresponding value of $0 to $269 

million for CO2, $1.6 to $16.8 million 

for NOX, and $0 to $3.3 million for Hg, 

using a discount rate of 7 percent. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 is estimated 

to decrease by 0.184 gigawatts (GW) 

under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, DOE projects that the 

average conventional cooking product 

consumer would experience an increase 

in LCC, with the exception of 

consumers of electric coil cooktops. In 

the case of the latter, the average 

consumer would save $4 in LCC. With 

the exception of electric coil cooktop 

consumers, DOE estimated LCC 

increases at TSL 4 for at least 65 percent 

of consumers in the Nation that 

purchase conventional cooking 

products. The median payback period of 

each product class, with the exception 

of electric coil cooktops and gas selfcleaning ovens, is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the product. 

DOE estimates that the technology 

needed to attain TSL 4 for electric 

cooktops (improved contact 

conductance) may not provide energy 

savings under field conditions. 73 FR 

62034, 62115 (Oct. 17, 2008). Measured 

efficiency gains from improved contact 

conductance have been obtained under 

DOE test procedure conditions using an 

aluminum test block. To ensure 

consistent and repeatable testing, the 

aluminum test block is used to establish 

cooktop efficiency by measuring the 

increased heat content of the block 

during a test measurement. Because the 

test block is much flatter than actual 

cooking vessels and, thus, allows for a 

higher degree of thermal contact 

between the block and coil element, the 

efficiency gains with an actual cooking 

vessel likely may not be as large or may 

not even be achievable. Therefore, DOE 

doubts that electric cooktop consumers 

may actually realize savings with 

products at TSL 4. 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV at TSL 4 for each of the 

following four general categories of 

conventional cooking products: Gas 

cooktops, electric cooktops, gas ovens, 

and electric ovens. The projected 

change in INPV ranges from an increase 

of $28 million to a decrease of $99 

million for gas cooktops, an increase of 

$78 million to a decrease of $385 

million for electric cooktops, a decrease 

of $46 million to a decrease of $182 

million for gas ovens, and a decrease of 

$9 million to a decrease of $471 million 

for electric ovens. At TSL 4, DOE 

recognizes the risk of very large negative 

impacts if manufacturers’ expectations 

about reduced profit margins are 

realized. In particular, if the high end of 

the range of negative impacts is reached 

as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in 

a net loss of 34 percent in INPV to gas 

cooktop manufacturers, a net loss of 107 

percent in INPV to electric cooktop 

manufacturers, a net loss of 39 percent 

to gas oven manufacturers, and a net 

loss of 59 percent to electric oven 

manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes that 

the potential benefits of energy savings 

and emissions reductions are 

outweighed by the potential multimillion dollar negative net economic 

cost to the Nation’s consumers, the 

economic burden on many individual 

consumers, and the large capital 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. In 

addition, because conventional cooking 

products are not rated for efficiency, 

TSL 4 would significantly impact the 

industry in terms of the added cost of 

testing, rating, and labeling these 

products. Consequently, DOE concludes 

that TSL 4 is not economically justified. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 3, which 

yielded primary energy savings 

estimated at 0.32 quads of energy 

through 2042, an amount which DOE 

considers to be significant. Discounted 

at 7 percent, the energy savings through 

2042 would be 0.08 quads. TSL 3 would 

result in an increase of $486 million in 

the NPV of consumer benefit, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent. The 

emissions reductions are projected to be 

23.39 Mt of CO2, 10.82 kt of NOX, and 

0 t to 0.28 t of Hg with a corresponding 

value of $0 to $182 million for CO2, $1.1 

to $11.5 million for NOX, and $0 to $2.2 

million for Hg, using a discount rate of 

7 percent. Total generating capacity in 

2042 under TSL 3 is estimated to 

decrease by 0.120 GW. 

For electric smooth cooktops and 

electric self-cleaning ovens, TSL 3 does 

not alter the current absence of a 

standard because none of the candidate 

standard levels for these products 

provide economic savings to consumers. 

However, average gas and electric coil 

cooktop consumers would save $15 and 

$4 in LCC, respectively, at TSL 3. 

Average consumers of gas standard 

ovens, gas self-cleaning ovens, and 

electric standard ovens would realize 

LCC savings of $9, $3, and $11, 

respectively, at TSL 3. The median 

payback period of each product class 

impacted by TSL 3 is projected to be 

shorter than the mean lifetime of the 

products (19 years). For example, at TSL 

3 the projected payback period is 4.3 

years for average consumers of gas 

cooktops, whereas the projected 

payback period is 11.0 years for average 

consumers of gas self-cleaning ovens. 

Although TSL 3 provides LCC savings 

to the average consumer, DOE estimates 

a significant percentage of consumers of 

gas self-cleaning ovens and electric 

standard ovens would be burdened by 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16084 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

the standard (i.e., experience increases 

in their LCC). DOE estimates that 56 

percent of consumers of gas selfcleaning ovens and 43 percent of 

consumers of electric standard ovens 

would be burdened by TSL 3. In the 

case of electric standard ovens, almost 

50 percent of consumers would be 

burdened. In the case of gas cooktops, 

94 percent of consumers are not 

impacted by TSL 3 (they already 

purchase cooktops at TSL 3). Of the 

remaining 6 percent of gas cooktop 

consumers who are impacted by TSL 3, 

nearly all would realize LCC savings. 

For gas standard ovens, 82 percent 

consumers are not impacted by TSL 3. 

Of the remaining 18 percent of gas 

standard oven consumers who are 

affected by TSL 3, two-thirds realize 

LCC savings. In the case of electric coil 

cooktops, more than 70 percent of 

consumers have a decrease in their LCC. 

However, the efficiency gain achieved at 

TSL 3 would be achieved through the 

same technological change as TSL 4 

(improved contact conductance). As 

noted for TSL 4, DOE has significant 

doubt that electric cooktop consumers 

would actually realize economic savings 

at TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV for each of the four general 

categories of conventional cooking 

products range from a decrease of $5 

million to a decrease of $12 million for 

gas cooktops, a decrease of $2 million to 

a decrease of $11 million for electric 

cooktops, a decrease of $6 million to a 

decrease of $41 million for gas ovens, 

and a decrease of $8 million to a 

decrease of $19 million for electric 

ovens. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the 

risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 3 could result in maximum net 

losses of up to 4 percent in INPV for gas 

cooktop manufacturers, 3 percent for 

electric cooktop manufacturers, 9 

percent for gas oven manufacturers, and 

2 percent for electric oven 

manufacturers. 

Although DOE recognizes the 

economic benefits to the Nation’s 

consumers that could result from TSL 3, 

DOE concludes that the benefits of a 

standard at TSL 3 would be outweighed 

by the economic burden on 

conventional cooking product 

consumers. The economic savings 

realized by average consumers are 

outweighed by the significant 

percentage of gas self-cleaning oven and 

electric standard oven consumers who 

are burdened by the standard. 

Considering that TSL 3 also adversely 

impacts manufacturers’ INPV and 

would place a significant burden on 

manufacturers to comply with the 

standards, the benefits of energy savings 

and emissions reductions are not 

significant enough to outweigh the 

burdens of the standard. Consequently, 

DOE concludes that TSL 3 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 0.23 quads of energy 

through 2042, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Discounted at 7 percent, the 

projected energy savings through 2042 

would be 0.06 quads. DOE projects TSL 

2 to yield an NPV of consumer benefit 

of $475 million, using a discount rate of 

7 percent. The estimated emissions 

reductions are 15.46 Mt of CO2, 6.88 kt 

to of NOX, and 0 t to 0.19 t of Hg with 

a corresponding value of $0 to $122 

million for CO2, $0.7 to $7.5 million for 

NOX, and $0 to $1.6 million for Hg, 

using a discount rate of 7 percent. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 

2 would likely decrease by 0.081 GW. 

The candidate standard levels for 

each of the product classes that 

comprise TSL 2 are the same as TSL 3 

except for gas self-cleaning ovens. DOE 

did not alter the current standard and 

establish an efficiency level for gas selfcleaning ovens for TSL 2 because, as 

described for TSL 3, efficiency levels 

that go beyond the baseline level do not 

yield LCC savings to a majority of gas 

self-cleaning consumers. For all other 

product classes, the impacts to 

consumers at TSL 3 are identical to 

those at TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV for each of the four general 

categories of conventional cooking 

products range from a decrease of $5 

million to a decrease of $12 million for 

gas cooktops, a decrease of $2 million to 

a decrease of $11 million for electric 

cooktops, a decrease of $7 million to a 

decrease of $10 million for gas ovens, 

and a decrease of $8 million to a 

decrease of $19 million for electric 

ovens. At TSL 2, DOE recognizes the 

risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 2 could result in a net loss of 4 

percent in INPV to gas cooktop 

manufacturers, a net loss of 3 percent in 

INPV to electric cooktop manufacturers, 

a net loss of 2 percent to gas oven 

manufacturers, and a net loss of 2 

percent to electric oven manufacturers. 

Although DOE recognizes the 

economic benefits to the Nation’s 

consumers that could result from TSL 2, 

DOE concludes that the benefits of a 

standard at TSL 2 would be outweighed 

by the economic burden that would be 

placed upon conventional cooking 

product consumers. The potential 

economic savings realized by average 

consumers are outweighed by the 

significant percentage of electric 

standard oven consumers who are 

burdened by the standard and by the 

significant risk that consumers of 

electric coil cooktops would not realize 

the savings projected for that product. 

TSL 2 would also adversely impact 

manufacturer INPV and would place a 

significant burden on manufacturers to 

comply with the standards. 

Consequently, the benefits of energy 

savings and emissions impacts of TSL 2 

are not significant enough to outweigh 

the burdens that would be created by 

the standard. Consequently, DOE 

concludes that TSL 2 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 1. With 

TSL 1, only amended energy 

conservation standards consisting of 

prescriptive requirements to eliminate 

standing pilots for gas cooktops and gas 

standard ovens would be promulgated. 

DOE projects that TSL 1 would save 

0.14 quads of energy through 2042, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at 7 percent, the projected 

energy savings through 2042 would be 

0.04 quads. DOE projects TSL 1 to yield 

an NPV of consumer benefit of $254 

million, using a discount rate of 7 

percent. The estimated emissions 

reductions are 13.74 Mt of CO2, 6.71 kt 

of NOX, and 0 t to 0.15 t of Hg with a 

corresponding value of $0 to $109 

million for CO2, $0.7 to $7.3 million for 

NOX, and $0 to $1.3 million for Hg, 

using a discount rate of 7 percent. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 

1 would decrease by 0.062 GW. 

At TSL 1, average gas cooktop and gas 

standard oven consumers would save 

$13 and $6 in LCC, respectively. DOE 

estimates that 94 percent of gas cooktop 

consumers and 82 percent of gas 

standard oven consumers would not be 

affected at TSL 1. Of the remaining 

impacted consumers, DOE estimates 

that nearly all gas cooktop consumers 

and over 70 percent of gas standard 

oven consumers would realize LCC 

savings due to the elimination of 

standing pilots. The median payback 

period for the impacted consumers is 

4.3 years for gas cooktop consumers and 

9.0 years for gas standard oven 

consumers. 

At TSL 1, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $5 

million to a decrease of $12 million for 

gas cooktops and a decrease of $7 

million to a decrease of $10 million for 

gas ovens. At TSL 1, DOE recognizes the 

risk of negative impacts if 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16085 

manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 1 could result in a net loss of 4 

percent in INPV to gas cooktop 

manufacturers and a net loss of 2 

percent to gas oven manufacturers. 

Although DOE estimates that TSL 1 

would lead to some net loss in INPV to 

gas cooktop and gas oven 

manufacturers, because TSL 1 is 

comprised of prescriptive requirements, 

the industry would not face the 

additional costs associated with 

complying with performance 

requirements. Currently, only 

prescriptive standards for conventional 

cooking products are in effect requiring 

that gas cooking products with an 

electrical supply cord not be equipped 

with a constant burning pilot. As a 

result, conventional cooking product 

manufacturers are not currently subject 

to the costs of testing the rated 

performance of their products to label 

and comply with performance-based 

energy conservation standards. Because 

TSL 1 effectively extends the existing 

prescriptive requirement to all gas 

cooking products regardless of whether 

the products have an electrical supply 

cord, DOE avoids burdening 

manufacturers with testing, labeling, 

and compliance costs that they 

currently do not bear. 

As stated in the October 2008 NOPR, 

DOE recognizes that there is a small 

subgroup of consumers that use gas 

cooking products but are without 

household electricity. 73 FR 62034, 

62116 (Oct. 17, 2008). Under TSL 1, 

these consumers are likely to be affected 

because they would be required to use 

an electrical source for cooking products 

to operate the ignition system. For the 

October 2008 NOPR, DOE market 

research demonstrated that batterypowered electronic ignition systems 

have been implemented in other 

products, such as instantaneous gas 

water heaters, barbeques, and furnaces, 

and the use of such products is not 

expressly prohibited by applicable 

safety standards for gas cooking 

products. Id. Therefore, DOE tentatively 

concluded for the October 2008 NOPR 

that households that use gas for cooking 

and are without electricity would likely 

have technological options that would 

enable them to continue to use gas 

cooking if standing pilot ignition 

systems are eliminated. Id. 

However, as detailed in section III.C.2 

of today’s final rule, numerous 

interested parties objected to the above 

conclusion, and in particular, 

commenters argued that there are 

currently no commercially available gas 

cooking products with battery-powered 

electronic ignition systems that have 

been certified to applicable U.S. safety 

standards. In response to these 

comments, DOE conducted additional 

research on battery-powered ignition 

systems for residential gas cooking 

products, which confirmed commenters’ 

statements regarding the absence of any 

gas cooking products with batterypowered electronic ignition systems 

currently certified to applicable U.S. 

safety standards. However, DOE 

concludes that the primary barrier to 

commercialization of battery-powered 

ignition systems in gas cooking products 

has been lack of market demand and 

economic justification rather than 

technological feasibility. DOE further 

concludes that a gas range incorporating 

one of these ignition systems could meet 

the requirements of ANSI Z21.1. In 

addition, DOE research suggests that the 

market niche for gas cooking products 

equipped with battery-powered ignition 

systems, which would be created by a 

standard at TSL 1, would likely attract 

entrants among ignition component 

suppliers and, therefore, that 

technologically feasible alternative 

ignition systems to standing pilots in 

gas cooking products for households 

without electricity will likely be 

available by the time these energy 

conservation standards are effective. 

Although DOE recognizes the 

economic impact that a standard at TSL 

1 would have upon a small subgroup of 

consumers of gas cooking products, 

DOE concludes that the benefits to the 

significant majority of the Nation’s 

consumers that could result from TSL 1 

would outweigh the economic burden 

that would be placed upon this 

subgroup. Although TSL 1 would 

adversely impact manufacturer INPV, 

DOE has concluded that it would not 

place a significant burden on 

manufacturers to comply with the 

standards in terms of changes to existing 

manufacturing processes and 

certification testing. Therefore, the 

benefits of energy savings and emissions 

impacts of TSL 1 are significant enough 

to outweigh the burdens that would be 

created by the standard. Consequently, 

DOE concludes that TSL 1 is 

economically justified. 

In sum, after carefully considering the 

analysis, the comments on the October 

2008 NOPR, and the benefits and 

burdens of each of the TSLs DOE 

considered, the Secretary concludes that 

amended standards for cooking 

efficiency of conventional cooking 

products, consisting of a prohibition of 

constant burning pilots for all gas 

kitchen ranges and ovens, will save a 

significant amount of energy and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. In addition, the 

Secretary also concludes that no 

amended cooking efficiency standard is 

both technologically feasible and 

economically justified for residential 

electric kitchen ranges and ovens. 

Therefore, DOE is not adopting any 

energy conservation standards for 

residential electric kitchen ranges and 

ovens. 

3. Microwave Ovens 

Table VI.31 presents a summary of the 

quantitative results for the microwave 

oven TSLs pertaining to cooking 

efficiency. The impacts at each TSL are 

measured relative to a no-standards base 

case. 

TABLE VI.31—SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE RESULTS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN ENERGY FACTOR

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Primary Energy Saved (quads): 

0% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 0.18 0.19 0.23 0.25 

7% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 

3% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.14 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** ......................................................................... 0.137 0.207 0.340 0.477 

NPV of Consumer Impacts (2006$ billion): 

7% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... (1.23) (3.33) (6.32) (10.05) 

3% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... (2.06) (6.05) (11.68) (18.70) 

Industry Impacts: 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ................................................................................... 45–(200) 118–(388) 238–(679) 270–(1171) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ........................................................................................ 3–(14) 8–(27) 16–(47) 19–(80) 

Cumulative Emissions Impacts: † 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16086 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.31—SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE RESULTS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN ENERGY FACTOR—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

CO2 (Mt) ................................................................................................................... 22.88 33.46 53.89 74.67 

NOX (kt) .................................................................................................................... 2.55 3.75 6.06 8.42 

Hg (t) ......................................................................................................................... 0–0.46 0–0.68 0–1.10 0–1.52 

Value of Emissions Reductions: 

CO2 (2007$ million) 

7% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0–192 0–277 0–443 0–612 

3% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0–404 0–589 0–948 0–1313 

NOX (2006$ million) 

7% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0.3–3.2 0.4–4.6 0.7–7.3 1.0–10.2 

3% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0.6–6.1 0.9–8.9 1.4–14.4 1.9–19.9 

Hg (2006$ million) 

7% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0–3.7 0–5.4 0–8.6 0–11.8 

3% Discount Rate ............................................................................................. 0–7.8 0–11.3 0–18.2 0–25.2 

Mean LCC Savings * (2006$) .......................................................................................... (7) (21) (40) (66) 

Median PBP (years) ........................................................................................................ 29.9 58.1 82.8 116.6 

LCC Consumer Impacts: 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 90.6 97.6 99.2 99.8 

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 9.4 2.4 0.8 0.2 

* Parentheses indicate negative values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on the AEO2008 Reference Case. 

† CO2 emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NOX emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. 

First, DOE considered TSL 4, the maxtech level for microwave oven cooking 

efficiency. TSL 4 would save 0.25 quads 

of energy through 2042, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Discounted at 7 

percent, the projected energy savings 

through 2042 would be 0.07 quads. TSL 

4 would result in a decrease of $10.05 

billion in the NPV of consumer impacts, 

using a discount rate of 7 percent. The 

emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 74.67 

Mt of CO2, 8.42 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 

1.52 t of Hg with a corresponding value 

of $0 to $612 million for CO2, $1.0 to 

$10.2 million for NOX, and $0 to $11.8 

million for Hg, using a discount rate of 

7 percent. Total generating capacity in 

2042 is estimated to decrease compared 

to the reference case by 0.477 GW. 

At TSL 4, DOE projects that the 

average microwave oven consumer 

would experience an increase in LCC. 

The median payback period for the 

average consumer is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the product. 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV ranges at TSL 4 from an 

increase of $270 million to a decrease of 

$1.171 billion. At TSL 4, DOE 

recognizes the risk of very large negative 

impacts if manufacturers’ expectations 

about reduced profit margins are 

realized. In particular, if the high end of 

the range of negative impacts is reached, 

as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in 

a net loss of 80 percent in INPV to 

microwave oven manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes that 

the benefits of energy savings and 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by a large decrease in the 

NPV of consumer impacts, the economic 

burden on many consumers, and the 

large capital conversion costs that could 

result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. Consequently, DOE 

concludes that TSL 4 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 3. Primary 

energy savings are estimated at 0.23 

quads of energy through 2042, which 

DOE considers significant. Discounted 

at 7 percent, the energy savings through 

2042 would be 0.07 quads. TSL 3 would 

result in a decrease of $6.32 billion in 

the NPV of consumer benefit, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent. The 

emissions reductions are projected to be 

53.89 Mt of CO2, 6.06 kt of NOX, and 

0 t to 1.10 t of Hg with a corresponding 

value of $0 to $443 million for CO2, $0.7 

to $7.3 million for NOX, and $0 to $8.6 

million for Hg, using a discount rate of 

7 percent. Total generating capacity in 

2042 under TSL 3 is estimated to 

decrease by 0.340 GW. 

At TSL 3, DOE projects that the 

average microwave oven consumer 

would experience an increase in LCC. 

The median payback period of the 

average consumer is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the product. 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV ranges from an increase of $238 

million to a decrease of $679 million. At 

TSL 3, DOE recognizes the risk of very 

large negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of negative 

impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 

3 could result in a net loss of 47 percent 

in INPV to microwave oven 

manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 3, DOE concludes that 

the benefits of energy savings and 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the large decrease in the 

NPV of consumer impacts, the economic 

burden on many consumers, and the 

large capital conversion costs that could 

result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. Consequently, DOE 

concludes that TSL 3 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 2. DOE 

projects that TSL 2 would save 0.19 

quads of energy through 2042, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at 7 percent, the projected 

energy savings through 2042 would be 

0.05 quads. DOE projects TSL 2 to result 

in a decrease in the NPV of consumer 

impacts of $3.33 billion. The estimated 

emissions reductions are 33.46 Mt of 

CO2, 3.75 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 0.68 t 

of Hg with a corresponding value of $0 

to $227 million for CO2, $0.4 to $4.6 

million for NOX, and $0 to $5.4 million 

for Hg, using a discount rate of 7 

percent. Total generating capacity in 

2042 under TSL 2 would likely decrease 

by 0.207 GW. 

At TSL 2, DOE projects that the 

average microwave oven consumer 

would experience an increase in LCC. 

The median payback period of the 

average consumer is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the product. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from an increase of $118 

million to a decrease of $388 million. At 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16087 

TSL 2, DOE recognizes the risk of 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of negative 

impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 

2 could result in a net loss of 27 percent 

in INPV to microwave oven 

manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 2, DOE concludes that 

the benefits of energy savings and 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the large decrease in the 

NPV of consumer impacts, the economic 

burden on many consumers, and the 

large capital conversion costs that could 

result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. Consequently, DOE 

concludes that TSL 2 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 1. DOE 

projects that TSL 1 would save 0.18 

quads of energy through 2042, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at 7 percent, the projected 

energy savings through 2042 would be 

0.05 quads. For the Nation as a whole, 

DOE projects TSL 1 to result in a 

decrease in the NPV of consumer 

impacts of $1.23 billion. The estimated 

emissions reductions are 22.88 Mt of 

CO2, 2.55 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 0.46 t 

of Hg with a corresponding value of $0 

to $192 million for CO2, $0.3 to $3.2 

million for NOX, and $0 to $3.7 million 

for Hg, using a discount rate of 7 

percent. Total generating capacity in 

2042 under TSL 1 would likely decrease 

by 0.137 GW. 

At TSL 1, DOE projects that the 

average microwave oven consumer 

would experience an increase in LCC. 

The median payback period of the 

average consumer is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the product. 

At TSL 1, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $45 

million to a decrease of $200 million. At 

TSL 1, DOE recognizes the risk of 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of impacts is 

reached, as DOE expects, TSL 1 could 

result in a net loss of 14 percent in INPV 

to microwave oven manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 1, DOE concludes that 

the benefits of energy savings and 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the large decrease in the 

NPV of consumer impacts, the economic 

burden on many consumers, and the 

large capital conversion costs that could 

result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. Consequently, DOE 

concludes that TSL 1 is not 

economically justified. 

In sum, after carefully considering the 

analysis, the comments on the October 

2008 NOPR, and the benefits and 

burdens of each of the TSLs DOE 

considered, the Secretary concludes that 

no amended standard is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified for microwave 

oven EF. Therefore, DOE is not adopting 

any energy conservation standard for 

microwave oven EF. 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

Today’s regulatory action has been 

determined to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f)(1) 

of Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review.’’ 58 FR 51735 

(Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action 

was subject to review under the 

Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

The Executive Order requires each 

agency to identify in writing the specific 

market failure or other specific problem 

that it intends to address that warrants 

agency action, as well as to assess the 

significance of that problem in 

evaluating whether any new regulation 

is warranted. Executive Order 12866, 

section 1(b)(1). 

The October 2008 NOPR evaluated 

the market failure that the proposed rule 

would address. 73 FR 62034, 62122–23 

(Oct. 17, 2008). DOE’s analysis for some 

residential gas cooking products 

explicitly quantifies and accounts for 

the percentage of consumers that 

already purchase more efficient 

equipment and takes these consumers 

into account when determining the 

national energy savings associated with 

various TSLs. The analysis suggests that 

accounting for the market value of 

energy savings alone (i.e., excluding any 

possible additional ‘‘externality’’ 

benefits such as those noted below) 

would produce enough benefits to yield 

net benefits across a wide array of 

products and circumstances. In the 

October 2008 NOPR, DOE requested 

additional data (including the 

percentage of consumers purchasing 

more efficient cooking products and the 

extent to which consumers of all 

product types will continue to purchase 

more efficient equipment), in order to 

test the existence and extent of these 

consumer actions. 73 FR 62034, 62123 

(Oct. 17, 2008). DOE received no such 

data from interested parties in response 

to the October 2008 NOPR. 

DOE believes that there is a lack of 

consumer information and/or 

information processing capability about 

energy efficiency opportunities in the 

home appliance market. If this is the 

case, DOE would expect the energy 

efficiency for cooking products to be 

randomly distributed across key 

variables such as energy prices and 

usage levels. DOE has already identified 

the percentage of consumers that 

already purchase more efficient gas 

cooktops and gas standard ovens. 

However, DOE does not correlate the 

consumer’s usage pattern and energy 

price with the efficiency of the 

purchased product. In the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE sought data on the 

efficiency levels of existing cooking 

products by how often they are used 

(e.g., how many times or hours the 

product is used) and their associated 

energy prices (and/or geographic regions 

of the country). Id. DOE received no 

such data from interested parties in 

response to the October 2008 NOPR. 

Therefore, DOE was unable to test for 

today’s final rule the extent to which 

purchasers of cooking products behave 

as if they are unaware of the costs 

associated with their energy 

consumption. 

A related issue is asymmetric 

information (one party to a transaction 

has more and better information than 

the other) and/or high transactions costs 

(costs of gathering information and 

effecting exchanges of goods and 

services). In many instances, the party 

responsible for an appliance purchase 

may not be the one who pays the cost 

to operate it. For example, home 

builders in large-scale developments 

often make decisions about appliances 

without input from home buyers and do 

not offer options to upgrade those 

appliances. Also, apartment owners 

normally make decisions about 

appliances, but renters often pay the 

utility bills. If there were no 

transactions costs, it would be in the 

home builders’ and apartment owners’ 

interest to install appliances that buyers 

and renters would choose. For example, 

one would expect that a renter who 

knowingly faces higher utility bills from 

low-efficiency appliances would be 

willing to pay less in rent, and the 

apartment owner would indirectly bear 

the higher utility cost. However, this 

information is not readily available, and 

it may not be in the renter’s interest to 

take the time to develop it, or, in the 

case of the landlord who installs a highefficiency appliance, to convey that 

information to the renter. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16088 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

To the extent that asymmetric 

information and/or high transactions 

costs are problems, one would expect to 

find certain outcomes for appliance 

energy efficiency. For example, all 

things being equal, one would not 

expect to see higher rents for apartments 

with high-efficiency appliances. 

Conversely, if there were symmetric 

information, one would expect 

appliances with higher energy efficiency 

in rental units where the rent includes 

utilities compared to those where the 

renter pays the utility bills separately. 

Similarly, for single-family homes, one 

would expect higher energy efficiency 

levels for replacement units than for 

appliances installed in new 

construction. Within the new 

construction market, one would expect 

to see appliances with higher energy 

efficiency levels in custom-built homes 

(where the buyer has more say in 

appliance choices) than in comparable 

homes built in large-scale 

developments. 

DOE received no data from interested 

parties in response to the October 2008 

NOPR on the issue of asymmetric 

information and/or high transactions 

costs. Therefore, DOE was unable to 

determine for today’s final rule the 

extent to which asymmetric information 

and/or high transaction costs are a 

market failure. 

In addition, this rulemaking is likely 

to yield certain external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of cooking products that are 

not captured by the users of such 

equipment. These benefits include 

externalities related to environmental 

protection and energy security that are 

not reflected in energy prices, such as 

reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. 

The TSLs which DOE evaluated resulted 

in CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions 

reductions. DOE also determined a 

range of possible monetary benefits 

associated with the emissions 

reductions. DOE considered both the 

emissions reductions and their possible 

monetary benefit in determining the 

economic feasibility of the TSLs. 

DOE conducted an RIA and, under the 

Executive Order, was subject to review 

by the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB. 

DOE presented to OIRA the draft final 

rule and other documents prepared for 

this rulemaking, including the RIA, and 

has included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. They are available 

for public review in the Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The RIA is contained as chapter 17 in 

the TSD prepared for the rulemaking. 

The RIA consists of (1) a statement of 

the problem addressed by this 

regulation, and the mandate for 

government action; (2) a description and 

analysis of the feasible policy 

alternatives to this regulation; (3) a 

quantitative comparison of the impacts 

of the alternatives; and (4) the national 

economic impacts of today’s standards. 

In today’s final rule DOE is not adopting 

any standards for microwave ovens. 

Therefore, DOE performed an RIA solely 

for conventional cooking products for 

today’s final rule. 

The RIA calculates the effects of 

feasible policy alternatives to energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

cooking products and provides a 

quantitative comparison of the impacts 

of the alternatives. DOE evaluated each 

alternative in terms of its ability to 

achieve significant energy savings at 

reasonable costs, and compared it to the 

effectiveness of the proposed rule. DOE 

analyzed these alternatives using a 

series of regulatory scenarios as input to 

the NIA Spreadsheets for the two 

appliance products, which it modified 

to allow inputs for voluntary measures. 

For more details on how DOE modified 

the NIA spreadsheets to determine the 

impacts due to the various nonregulatory alternatives to standards, 

refer to chapter 17 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice. 

As shown in Table VII.1 below, DOE 

identified the following major policy 

alternatives for achieving increased 

energy efficiency in conventional 

cooking products: 

• No new regulatory action; 

• Financial incentives; 

fl Consumer rebates; 

fl Consumer tax credits; 

fl Manufacturer tax credits; 

• Voluntary energy efficiency targets; 

• Bulk government purchases; 

• Early replacement; and 

• The proposed approach (national 

performance and prescriptive 

standards). 

TABLE VII.1—NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES TO STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

Policy alternatives 

Energy 

savings* 

quads 

Net present value** 

billion $ 

7% 

Discount rate 

3% 

Discount rate 

No New Regulatory Action .................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Consumer Rebates ................................................................................................................ 0 .12 0 .21 0 .60 

Consumer Tax Credits ........................................................................................................... 0 .05 0 .08 0 .27 

Manufacturer Tax Credits ...................................................................................................... 0.01 0 .02 0 .06 

Early Replacement ................................................................................................................ 0 .01 0 .07 0 .12 

Today’s Standards at TSL 1 .................................................................................................. 0 .14 0 .25 0 .71 

* Energy savings are in source quads. 

** Net present value is the value in the present of a time series of costs and savings. DOE determined the net present value from 2012 to 

2042 in billions of 2006 dollars. 

*** Voluntary energy efficiency target and bulk government purchase alternatives are not considered because the percentage of the market at 

TSL 1 (today’s standard) is well over the market adoption target level that each alternative strives to attain. 

The net present value amounts shown 

in Table VII.1 refer to the NPV for 

consumers. The costs to the government 

of each policy (such as rebates or tax 

credits) are not included in the costs for 

the NPV since, on balance, consumers 

would be both paying for (through 

taxes) and receiving the benefits of the 

payments. The following paragraphs 

discuss each of the policy alternatives 

listed in Table VII.1. (See the TSD 

accompanying this notice, chapter 17.) 

No New Regulatory Action. The case 

in which no regulatory action is taken 

with regard to conventional cooking 

products constitutes the ‘‘base case’’ (or 

‘‘No Action’’) scenario. In this case, 

between 2012 and 2042, conventional 

cooking products are expected to use 

10.3 quads of primary energy. Since this 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16089 

45Rufo, M. and F. Coito, California’s Secret 

Energy Surplus: The Potential for Energy Efficiency 

(prepared for The Energy Foundation and The 

Hewlett Foundation by Xenergy, Inc.) (2002). 

46Because DOE was not able to identify consumer 

rebate programs specific to conventional cooking 

products, rebate amounts for another kitchen 

appliance, dishwashers, were used to estimate the 

impact from a rebate program providing incentives 

for more efficient cooking products. 

47 Itron and KEMA, 2004/2005 Statewide 

Residential Retrofit Single-Family Energy Efficiency 

Rebate Evaluation (prepared for the California 

Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Gas And 

Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric 

Company, Southern California Edison, Southern 

California Gas Company, CPUC–ID# 1115–04) 

(2007). 

48 KEMA, Consumer Product Market Progress 

Evaluation Report 3 (prepared for Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance, Report #07–174) (2007). 

49Rufo, M., and F. Coito, op. cit. 

50Because DOE was not able to identify consumer 

tax credit programs specific to conventional 

cooking products, increased market penetrations for 

another kitchen appliance, dishwashers, were used 

to estimate the impact from a tax credit program 

providing incentives for more efficient conventional 

cooking products and microwave ovens. 

51 K. Train, Customer Decision Study: Analysis of 

Residential Customer Equipment Purchase 

Decisions (prepared for Southern California Edison 

by Cambridge Systematics, Pacific Consulting 

Services, The Technology Applications Group, and 

California Survey Research Services) (1994). 52Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, EndUse Forecasting Group. Analysis of Tax Credits for 

Efficient Equipment (1997). Available at http:// 

enduse.lbl.gov/Projects/TaxCredits.html. (Last 

accessed April 24, 2008.) 53 DOE assumed that the manufacturer tax credit 

program would affect only consumers of gas 

cooking products, who did not need electric outlets 

installed; therefore the increased percentage impact 

includes only those consumers. 

is the base case, energy savings and NPV 

are zero by definition. 

Consumer Rebates. Consumer rebates 

cover a portion of the incremental 

installed cost difference between 

products meeting baseline efficiency 

levels and those meeting higher 

efficiency levels, which generally result 

in a higher percentage of consumers 

purchasing more efficient models. DOE 

utilized market penetration curves from 

a study that analyzed the potential of 

energy efficiency in California.45 The 

penetration curves are a function of 

benefit-cost ratio (i.e., lifetime operating 

costs savings divided by increased total 

installed costs) to estimate the increased 

market share of more efficient products 

given incentives by a rebate program. 

Using specific rebate amounts, DOE 

calculated, for each of the considered 

products, the benefit-cost ratio of the 

more efficient appliance with and 

without the rebate to project the 

increased market penetration of the 

product due to a rebate program. 

For conventional cooking products 

meeting the efficiency levels in TSL 1 

(i.e., gas cooking products without 

constant burning pilot lights), DOE 

estimated that the annual increase in 

consumer purchases of these products 

due to consumer rebates would be 7.8 

percent. DOE selected the portion of the 

incremental costs covered by the rebate 

(i.e., 100 percent) using data from rebate 

programs conducted by 88 gas utilities, 

electric utilities, and other State 

government agencies.46 DOE estimated 

that the impact of this policy would be 

to permanently transform the market so 

that the increased market share seen in 

the first year of the program would be 

maintained throughout the forecast 

period. At the estimated participation 

rates, consumer rebates would be 

expected to provide 0.12 quads of 

national energy savings and an NPV of 

$0.21 billion (at a 7-percent discount 

rate). 

Although DOE estimated that 

consumer rebates would provide 

national benefits for conventional 

cooking products, these benefits would 

be smaller than the benefits resulting 

from national performance standards at 

the proposed levels. Thus, DOE rejected 

consumer rebates as a policy alternative 

to national performance standards. 

Consumer Tax Credits. Consumer tax 

credits cover a percentage of the 

incremental installed cost difference 

between products meeting baseline 

efficiency levels and those with higher 

efficiencies. Consumer tax credits are 

considered a viable non-regulatory 

market transformation program as 

evidenced by the inclusion of Federal 

consumer tax credits in EPACT 2005 for 

various residential appliances. (Section 

1333 of EPACT 2005; codified at 26 

U.S.C. 25C) DOE reviewed the market 

impact of tax credits offered by the 

Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) 

(ODOE, No. 35 at p. 1) and Montana 

Department of Revenue (MDR) (MDR, 

No. 36 at p. 1) to estimate the effect of 

a national tax credit program. To help 

estimate the impacts from such a 

program, DOE also reviewed analyses 

prepared for the California Public 

Utilities Commission,47 the Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance,48 and the 

Energy Foundation/Hewlett 

Foundation.49 For each of the appliance 

products considered for this 

rulemaking, DOE estimated that the 

market effect of a tax credit program 

would gradually increase over a time 

period until it reached its maximum 

impact. Once the tax credit program 

attained its maximum effect, DOE 

assumed the impact of the policy would 

be to permanently transform the market 

at this level. 

For conventional cooking products, 

DOE estimated that the market share of 

efficient products meeting TSL 1 would 

increase by 0.7 percent in 2012 and 

increase over a 6-year period to an 

annual maximum of 2.8 percent in 2020. 

At these estimated participation rates, 

consumer tax credits would be expected 

to provide 0.05 quads of national energy 

savings and an NPV of $0.08 billion (at 

a 7-percent discount rate).50

DOE estimated that while consumer 

tax credits would yield national benefits 

for conventional cooking products, 

these benefits would be much smaller 

than the benefits from the proposed 

national performance standards. Thus, 

DOE rejected consumer tax credits as a 

policy alternative to national 

performance standards. 

Manufacturer Tax Credits. 

Manufacturer tax credits are considered 

a viable non-regulatory market 

transformation program as evidenced by 

the inclusion of Federal tax credits in 

EPACT 2005 for manufacturers of 

residential appliances. (Section 1334 of 

EPACT 2005; codified at 26 U.S.C. 45M) 

Similar to consumer tax credits, 

manufacturer tax credits would 

effectively result in lower product 

prices to consumers by an amount that 

covered part of the incremental price 

difference between products meeting 

baseline efficiency levels and those 

meeting higher efficiency levels. 

Because these tax credits would go to 

manufacturers instead of consumers, 

research indicates that fewer consumers 

would be affected by a manufacturer tax 

credit program than by consumer tax 

credits.51 52 Although consumers would 

benefit from price reductions passed 

through to them by the manufacturers, 

research demonstrates that 

approximately half the consumers who 

would benefit from a consumer tax 

credit program would be aware of the 

economic benefits of more efficient 

technologies included in an appliance 

manufacturer tax credit program. In 

other words, research estimates that half 

of the effect from a consumer tax credit 

program is due to publicly available 

information or promotions announcing 

the benefits of the program. This effect, 

referred to as the ‘‘announcement 

effect,’’ is not part of a manufacturer tax 

credit program. Therefore, DOE 

estimated that the effect of a 

manufacturer tax credit program would 

be only half of the maximum impact of 

a consumer tax credit program. 

For conventional cooking products, 

the percentage of consumers purchasing 

products meeting TSL 1 would be 

expected to increase by 0.6 percent due 

to a manufacturer tax credit program.53

DOE assumed that the impact of the 

manufacturer tax credit policy would be 

to permanently transform the market so 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16090 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

54Sanchez, M. and A. Fanara, ‘‘New Product 

Development: The Pipeline for Future ENERGY 

STAR Growth,’’ Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE 

Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 

(2000) Vol. 6, pp. 343–354. 

55Nexus and RLW Analytics, Impact, Process, 

and Market Study of the Connecticut Appliance 

Retirement Program: Overall Report, Final. 

(Submitted to Northeast Utilities—Connecticut 

Light and Power and the United Illuminating 

Company by Nexus Market Research, Inc. and RLW 

Analytics, Inc.) (2005). 

that the increased market share seen in 

the first year of the program would be 

maintained throughout the forecast 

period. 

At the above estimated participation 

rates, manufacturer tax credits would 

provide 0.01 quads of national energy 

savings and an NPV of $0.02 billion (at 

a 7-percent discount rate) for 

conventional cooking products. 

DOE estimated that while 

manufacturer tax credits would yield 

national benefits for conventional 

cooking products, these benefits would 

be much smaller than the benefits from 

national performance standards. Thus, 

DOE rejected manufacturer tax credits 

as a policy alternative to the proposed 

national performance standards. 

Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets. 

DOE estimates the impact of voluntary 

energy efficiency targets by reviewing 

the historical and projected market 

transformation performance of past and 

current ENERGY STAR programs. 

However, DOE did not analyze the 

potential impacts of voluntary energy 

efficiency targets for conventional 

cooking products because over 85 

percent of the gas range market already 

meets TSL 1. The ENERGY STAR 

program typically targets products 

where a maximum of approximately 25 

percent of the existing market meets the 

target efficiency level.54 Since the 

market for gas ranges are well above the 

25-percent threshold, DOE did not 

consider this approach for conventional 

cooking products. 

Early Replacement. The early 

replacement policy alternative envisions 

a program to replace old, inefficient 

units with models meeting efficiency 

levels higher than baseline equipment. 

Under an early replacement program, 

State governments or electric and gas 

utilities would provide financial 

incentives to consumers to retire the 

appliance early in order to hasten the 

adoption of more efficient products. For 

all of the considered products, DOE 

modeled this policy by applying a 4- 

percent increase in the replacement rate 

above the natural rate of replacement for 

failed equipment. DOE based this 

percentage increase on program 

experience with the early replacement 

of appliances in the State of 

Connecticut.55 DOE assumed the 

program would continue for as long as 

it would take to ensure that the eligible 

existing stock in the year that the 

program began (2012) was completely 

replaced. 

For conventional cooking products, 

this policy alternative would replace 

old, inefficient units with models 

meeting the efficiency levels in TSL 1. 

DOE estimated that such an early 

replacement program would be 

expected to provide 0.01 quads of 

national energy savings and an NPV of 

$0.07 billion (at a 7-percent discount 

rate). 

Although DOE estimated that the 

above early replacement programs for 

each of the considered products would 

provide national benefits, they would be 

much smaller than the benefits resulting 

from national performance standards. 

Thus, DOE rejected early replacement 

incentives as a policy alternative to 

national performance standards. 

Bulk Government Purchases. Under 

this policy alternative, the government 

sector would be encouraged to shift 

their purchases to products that meet 

the target efficiency levels above 

baseline levels. Aggregating public 

sector demand could provide a market 

signal to manufacturers and vendors 

that some of their largest customers 

sought suppliers with products that met 

an efficiency target at favorable prices. 

This program also could induce ‘‘market 

pull’’ impacts through manufacturers 

and vendors achieving economies of 

scale for high-efficiency products. 

Under such a program, DOE would 

assume that Federal, State, and local 

government agencies would administer 

it. At the Federal level, such a program 

would add more efficient products for 

which the Federal Energy Management 

Program (FEMP) has energy efficient 

procurement specifications. 

However, DOE did not analyze the 

potential impacts of bulk government 

purchases for conventional cooking 

products because over 85 percent of the 

gas range market already meets TSL 1. 

FEMP procurement specifications 

typically promote products in the top 25 

percent of the existing product offerings 

in terms of efficiency. Since most of the 

gas ranges sold in the base case already 

comply with such specifications, DOE 

was not able to consider this program as 

a source of data for conventional 

cooking products. 

National Performance Standards (TSL 

1 for conventional cooking products). As 

indicated in the paragraphs above, none 

of the alternatives DOE examined would 

save as much energy as the amended 

energy conservation standards. 

Therefore, DOE will adopt the efficiency 

levels listed in section VI.D. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

and a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 

adopts as a final rule, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 

examines the impact of the rule on 

small entities and considers alternative 

ways of reducing negative impacts. 

Also, as required by Executive Order 

13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small 

Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 

53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 

published procedures and policies on 

February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 

potential impacts of its rules on small 

entities are properly considered during 

the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. 

DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s Web site: http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) classifies manufacturers of 

household cooking appliances as small 

businesses if they have 750 or fewer 

employees. DOE used these small 

business size standards, published at 61 

FR 3286 (Jan. 31, 1996) and codified at 

13 CFR part 121, to determine whether 

any small entities would be required to 

comply with today’s rule. The size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code and industry description. 

Household cooking appliance 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 335221. 

Bearing in mind the relevant NAICS 

classification above, DOE determined 

that none of the manufacturers of 

microwave ovens sold in the U.S. are 

small businesses under these SBA 

classifications. 73 FR 62034, 62130 (Oct. 

17, 2008). However, DOE identified two 

domestic manufacturers of conventional 

cooking appliances that meet the SBA 

small business definition and are 

affected by this rulemaking. Id. at 

62128. DOE interviewed one of these 

manufacturers, and also obtained from 

larger manufacturers information about 

the impacts of standards on these small 

manufacturers of conventional cooking 

products. Id. DOE reviewed the 

proposed rule under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16091 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. Id. On the basis of 

this review, DOE determined that it 

could not certify that its proposed 

standards for conventional cooking 

products (TSL 1), if promulgated, would 

have no significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Id. at 62128–29. DOE made this 

determination due to the potential 

impact on manufacturers of gas cooking 

products generally, including small 

businesses, of the proposed standard’s 

elimination of standing pilot lights. Id. 

Because of these potential impacts on 

small manufacturers, DOE prepared an 

IRFA during the NOPR stage of this 

rulemaking. DOE provided the IRFA in 

its entirety in the October 2008 NOPR 

(73 FR 62034, 62129–30 (Oct. 17, 2008)), 

and also transmitted a copy to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for 

review. Chapter 13 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice contains more 

information about the impact of this 

rulemaking on manufacturers. 

DOE has prepared a FRFA for this 

rulemaking, which is presented in the 

following discussion. DOE is 

transmitting a copy of this FRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. 

The FRFA below is written in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

1. Reasons for the Final Rule 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ The program covers 

consumer products and certain 

commercial products (all of which are 

referred to hereafter as ‘‘covered 

products’’), including residential 

cooking products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(10)) 

DOE publishes today’s final rule to 

amend energy conservation standards 

for conventional cooking appliances by 

eliminating standing pilot ignition 

systems. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Rule 

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing 

new or amended standards for covered 

products and equipment. As indicated 

above, any new or amended standard for 

conventional cooking products must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)), although EPCA 

precludes DOE from adopting any 

standard that would not result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Moreover, DOE 

may not prescribe a standard (1) for 

certain products, if no test procedure 

has been established for the product; or 

(2) if DOE determines by rule that the 

standard is not technologically feasible 

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

6295(o)(3)) The Act (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) also provides that, in 

deciding whether a standard is 

economically justified, DOE must, after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, weighing seven 

factors as described in section II.A of the 

preamble. EPCA directs DOE to 

undertake energy conversation 

standards rulemakings for cooking 

products according to the schedules 

established in 42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2). 

3. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

Through market research, interviews 

with manufacturers of all sizes, and 

discussions with trade groups, DOE was 

able to identify two small businesses 

that manufacture conventional cooking 

appliances which would be affected by 

today’s rule. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

Potential impacts on all 

manufacturers of conventional cooking 

appliances vary by TSL. Margins for all 

businesses could be impacted negatively 

by the adoption of any TSL, since all 

manufacturers have expressed an 

inability to pass on cost increases to 

retailers and consumers. The two small 

domestic businesses under discussion 

differ from their competitors in that they 

are focused on cooking appliances and 

are not diversified appliance 

manufacturers. Therefore, any rule 

affecting products manufactured by 

these small businesses will impact them 

disproportionately because of their size 

and their focus on cooking appliances. 

However, due to the low number of 

competitors that agreed to be 

interviewed, DOE was not able to 

characterize this industry segment with 

a separate cash-flow analysis due to 

concerns about maintaining 

confidentiality and uncertainty 

regarding the quantitative impact on 

revenues of a standing pilot ban. 

At TSL 1 for gas ovens and gas 

cooktops, the elimination of standing 

pilot lights would eliminate one of the 

niches that these two small businesses 

serve in the cooking appliance industry. 

Both businesses also manufacture ovens 

and cooktops with electronic ignition 

systems, but the ignition source would 

no longer be a differentiator within the 

industry as it is today. The result would 

be a potential loss of market share since 

consumers would be able to choose 

from a wider variety of competitors, all 

of which operate at much higher 

production scales. 

For all other TSLs concerning 

conventional cooking appliances (which 

have not been selected in today’s final 

rule), the impact on small, focused 

business entities would be 

proportionately greater than for their 

competitors since these businesses lack 

the scale to afford significant R&D 

expenses, capital expansion budgets, 

and other resources when compared to 

larger entities. The exact extent to 

which smaller entities would be 

affected, however, is hard to gauge, 

because manufacturers did not respond 

to questions regarding all investment 

requirements by TSL during interviews. 

Notwithstanding this limitation, 

research associated with other small 

entities in prior rulemakings suggests 

that many costs associated with 

complying with rulemakings are fixed, 

regardless of production volume. 

Since all domestic manufacturers 

already manufacture all of their 

conventional cooking appliances with 

electronic ignition modules as a 

standard feature or as an option for 

consumers, the cost of converting the 

remaining three domestic manufacturers 

exclusively to electronic ignition 

modules would be relatively modest. 

However, given their focus and scale, 

any conventional cooking appliance 

rule would affect these two domestic 

small businesses disproportionately 

compared to their larger and more 

diversified competitor. 

5. Significant Issues Raised by Public 

Comments 

Peerless-Premier commented in 

response to the October 2008 NOPR that 

it is a privately held company that 

employs about 300 people located at 

two manufacturing plants. PeerlessPremier focuses on the value segment of 

the market, with a large percentage of its 

business attributable to standing pilot 

ranges, which represent half of the gas 

ranges it produces. That company stated 

that DOE’s proposed ban on standing 

pilot ranges would have a disastrous 

effect on Peerless-Premier’s business. It 

commented that it has remained 

competitive largely because of niche 

positioning in the market, and that 

many customers choose its product line 

because of the standing pilot ranges. 

Without this ‘‘sell benefit,’’ PeerlessPremier believes much of its business 

could go elsewhere, which would 

ultimately result in significant job losses 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16092 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

at its two manufacturing sites. (PeerlessPremier, No. 42 at pp. 1–2; Peerless 

Letter, No. 55 at p. 1) AGA expressed 

concern that, in response to the 

November 2007 ANOPR, several 

manufacturers indicated they would be 

harmed if standing pilots were 

eliminated, but AGA felt that small 

business impacts were not adequately 

addressed. (AGA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 17) 

As described earlier, DOE contacted 

two small manufacturers of 

conventional cooking products to 

determine the extent that eliminating 

standing pilot lights would affect their 

businesses. Both companies stated they 

would experience material harm. 

However, because they did not provide 

supporting detail, DOE was not able to 

quantify the exact extent to which 

smaller entities would be affected. 

Therefore, DOE cannot verify their 

claims that they would be severely 

impacted by a standard that eliminates 

standing pilot lights. Furthermore, as 

discussed in section VI.D.2 above, DOE 

believes alternatives to standing pilot 

lights exist that would meet the 

standard in today’s final rule, and the 

Department does not believe 

manufacturers will be more severely 

impacted than estimated in the 

Manufacturers Impact Analysis. 

6. Steps DOE Has Taken To Minimize 

the Economic Impact on Small 

Manufacturers 

In today’s final rule, the only TSL 

under consideration for conventional 

cooking appliances is the elimination of 

standing pilot ignition systems for gas 

ovens and gas cooktops. All 

manufacturers of such appliances with 

standing pilot systems stated during 

interviews that there are no known 

alternatives on the market today that 

would allow their appliances to meet 

safety standards (such as ANSI Z21.1), 

while not using a line-powered ignition 

system or standing pilots. Although 

battery-powered ignition systems have 

found application in a few cooking 

products such as the outdoor gas 

barbeque market, none of such systems 

have yet to find application in indoor 

cooking appliances. During an MIA 

interview, one manufacturer expressed 

doubt that any third-party supplier 

would develop such a solution, given 

the small, and shrinking market that 

standing pilot-equipped ranges 

represent. Another manufacturer stated, 

however, that while the market share of 

gas cooking products with standing 

pilot ignition systems has been 

declining, a substantial market is still 

served by such appliances. DOE 

research suggests that battery-powered 

ignition systems could be incorporated 

by manufacturers at a modest cost if 

manufacturer’s market research 

suggested that a substantial number of 

consumers found such a product 

attribute important, and that ignition 

system manufacturers may consider 

battery-powered ignitions systems a 

viable niche product when these 

standards are effective. DOE notes that 

such systems have been incorporated 

successfully in a range of related 

appliances, such as instantaneous water 

heaters and gas fireplaces. Further, DOE 

believes that there is nothing in the 

applicable safety standards that would 

prohibit such ignition systems from 

being implemented on gas cooking 

products. Therefore, DOE believes that 

households that use gas for cooking and 

are without electricity will likely have 

technological options that would enable 

them to continue to use gas cooking 

products without standing pilot ignition 

systems. 

In addition to the TSL being 

considered, the TSD associated with 

this final rule includes a report referred 

to in section VII.A in the preamble as 

the RIA (discussed earlier in this report 

and in detail in chapter 17 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice). For 

conventional cooking appliances, this 

report discusses the following policy 

alternatives: (1) No standard, (2) 

consumer rebates, (3) consumer tax 

credits, (4) manufacturer tax credits, and 

(5) early replacement. With the 

exception of consumer rebates, the 

energy savings of these regulatory 

alternatives are at least three times 

smaller than those expected from the 

standard levels under consideration. 

The economic impacts mirror these 

regulatory alternatives. 

The conventional cooking appliance 

industry is very competitive. The two 

small businesses differentiate their 

products from most of their larger 

competitors by offering their products in 

non-traditional sizes and with standing 

pilot ignition systems. Three primary 

consumer groups purchasing standing 

pilot-equipped products were identified 

by manufacturers in their MIA 

interviews: (1) Consumers without line 

power near the range (or in the house); 

(2) consumers who prefer appliances 

without line power for religious reasons; 

and (3) consumers seeking the lowest 

initial appliance cost. Manufacturers 

could not identify the size of the 

respective market segments, but 

demographics suggest that initial price 

is the primary reason that consumers are 

opting for standing pilot-equipped 

ranges. Consumer subgroups that 

eschew line power and homes without 

line power cannot alone explain why up 

to 18 percent of gas cooking appliances 

are bought with standing pilot ignition 

systems. Furthermore, all manufacturers 

already make gas ranges with electronic 

ignition, including the high-volume 

domestic manufacturer of conventional 

cooking appliances with standing pilots. 

Thus, the primary benefit of standing 

pilot ignition systems appears to be the 

differentiation of the small businesses 

from most higher-volume competitors. 

While the actual revenue benefit is hard 

to quantify, both small business 

manufacturers stated during interviews 

that the company would expect to 

experience material economic harm if 

standing pilot ignition systems were 

eliminated. 

Due to the low number of small 

business respondents to DOE inquiries 

and the uncertainty regarding the 

potential impact of TSL 1 on small 

conventional cooking appliance 

manufacturers, DOE was not able to 

conduct a separate small business 

impact analysis. 

As mentioned above, the other policy 

alternatives (no standard, consumer 

rebates, consumer tax credits, 

manufacturer tax credits, and early 

replacement) are described in section 

VII.A of the preamble and in the 

regulatory impact analysis (chapter 17 

of the TSD accompanying this notice). 

Since the impacts of these policy 

alternatives are lower than the impacts 

described above for the proposed 

standard levels, DOE expects that the 

impacts to small manufacturers would 

also be less than the impacts described 

above for the proposed standard level. 

DOE has reviewed today’s final rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. The previous discussion describes 

how small business impacts entered 

into DOE’s selection of today’s 

standards for conventional cooking 

products. DOE made its decision 

regarding standards by beginning with 

the highest level considered (TSL 4) and 

successively eliminating TSLs until it 

found a TSL that is both technically 

feasible and economically justified, 

taking into account other EPCA criteria. 

As discussed previously, DOE did not 

receive detailed data from small 

manufacturers to quantify the impacts of 

today’s standards on small 

manufacturers of conventional cooking 

products. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

DOE stated in the October 2008 NOPR 

that this rulemaking would impose no 

new information and recordkeeping 

requirements, and that OMB clearance 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16093 

is not required under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.). 73 FR 62034, 62130 (Oct. 17, 

2008). DOE received no comments on 

this in response to the October 2008 

NOPR and, as with the proposed rule, 

today’s rule imposes no information and 

recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, 

DOE has taken no further action in this 

rulemaking with respect to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE prepared an environmental 

assessment of the impacts of the 

potential standards it considered for 

today’s final rule which it has published 

as chapter 16 within the TSD for the 

final rule. DOE found the environmental 

effects associated with today’s standard 

levels for conventional cooking 

products to be insignificant. Therefore, 

DOE is issuing a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with the NEPA (10 CFR part 

1021). The FONSI is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. 

In accordance with DOE’s statement 

of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

regulations that have Federalism 

implications, DOE examined the 

proposed rule and determined that the 

rule would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 73 FR 

62034, 62131 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE 

received no comments on this issue in 

response to the October 2008 NOPR, 

and its conclusions on this issue are the 

same for the final rule as they were for 

the proposed rule. Therefore, DOE is 

taking no further action in today’s final 

rule with respect to Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, the final 

regulations meet the relevant standards 

of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

As indicated in the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE reviewed the proposed rule 

under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA), which imposes requirements 

on Federal agencies when their 

regulatory actions will have certain 

types of impacts on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private 

sector. 73 FR 62034, 62131 (Oct. 17, 

2008). DOE concluded that, although 

the proposed rule would not contain an 

intergovernmental mandate, it might 

result in expenditure of $100 million or 

more in one year by the private sector. 

Id. Therefore, in the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE addressed the UMRA 

requirements that it prepare a statement 

as to the basis, costs, benefits, and 

economic impacts of the proposed rule, 

and that it identify and consider 

regulatory alternatives to the proposed 

rule. Id. DOE received no comments 

concerning the UMRA in response to 

the October 2008 NOPR. However, as 

explained above, a number of products 

originally bundled in this rulemaking 

have either had standards set separately 

or will be subject to further rulemaking 

action. Consequently, this final rule will 

not result in the expenditure of $100 

million or more in any one year. 

Therefore, DOE is taking no further 

action in today’s final rule with respect 

to the UMRA. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

DOE determined that, for this 

rulemaking, it need not prepare a 

Family Policymaking Assessment under 

Section 654 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

(Pub. L. 105–277). Id. DOE received no 

comments concerning Section 654 in 

response to the October 2008 NOPR, 

and, therefore, takes no further action in 

today’s final rule with respect to this 

provision. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE determined under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that the proposed rule 

would not result in any takings which 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 73 FR 62034, 62131 (Oct. 

17, 2008). DOE received no comments 

concerning Executive Order 12630 in 

response to the October 2008 NOPR, 

and, therefore, takes no further action in 

today’s final rule with respect to this 

Executive Order. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

16094 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any significant 

energy action. DOE determined that the 

proposed rule was not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13211. 73 FR 62034, 

62132 (Oct. 17, 2008). Accordingly, it 

did not prepare a Statement of Energy 

Effects on the proposed rule. DOE 

received no comments on this issue in 

response to the October 2008 NOPR. As 

with the proposed rule, DOE has 

concluded that today’s final rule is not 

a significant energy action within the 

meaning of Executive Order 13211, and 

has not prepared a Statement of Energy 

Effects on the rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, the OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology, issued its ‘‘Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review’’ (the Bulletin), which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 14, 2005. 70 FR 2664. The 

purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the 

quality and credibility of the Federal 

government’s scientific information. 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

government. As indicated in the October 

2008 NOPR, this includes influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions, such as the analyses 

in this rulemaking. 73 FR 62034, 62132 

(Oct. 17, 2008). 

As more fully set forth in the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE held formal inprogress peer reviews of the types of 

analyses and processes that DOE has 

used in considering energy conservation 

standards as part of this rulemaking, 

and issued a report on these peer 

reviews. Id. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

submit to Congress a report regarding 

the issuance of today’s final rule. The 

report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy Conservation test 

procedures, Household appliances, 

Imports. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31, 

2009. 

Steven G. Chalk, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

chapter II, subchapter D, of Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

430 is amended to read as set forth 

below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 430.32 of subpart C is 

amended by revising paragraph (j) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(j) Cooking Products. (1) Gas cooking 

products with an electrical supply cord 

shall not be equipped with a constant 

burning pilot light. This standard is 

effective on January 1, 1990. 

(2) Gas cooking products without an 

electrical supply cord shall not be 

equipped with a constant burning pilot 

light. This standard is effective on 

April 9, 2012. 

* * * * * 

Appendix 

[The following letter from the Department of 

Justice will not appear in the Code of Federal 

Regulations.] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16095 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2ER08AP09.000</GPH>
16096 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. E9–7545 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2ER08AP09.001</GPH>