[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48038-48057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23886]



[[Page 48037]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Energy





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy



_______________________________________________________________________



10 CFR Part 430



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

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

[[Page 48038]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EE-RM-S-97-700]
RIN 1904-AA84


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, prescribes 
energy conservation standards for certain major household appliances 
and requires the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) to administer 
an energy conservation program for these products. The National 
Appliance Energy Conservation Act amendments require DOE to consider 
amending the energy conservation standards for cooking products. DOE 
today promulgates this final rule to address the energy conservation 
standard for electric cooking products (including microwave products) 
and substitute the term ``cooking products'' for the current, obsolete 
term ``kitchen ranges and ovens.'' DOE is not addressing at this time 
gas cooking products because it has not completed its analysis of the 
relevant issues.
    DOE has determined that there would be no significant conservation 
of energy for electric cooktops, electric self-cleaning ovens and 
microwave ovens, and standards would not be economically justified. 
Therefore, the Department will not add new standards for these 
products. The Department, however, is amending its regulations to 
substitute the name ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' with ``cooking 
products'.

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

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Technical Support Document (TSD) for these 
products may be read at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, room 1E-190, 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-3142, 
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. Copies of the TSD may be obtained from: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20585. (202) 586-9127.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction
    a. Authority
    b. Background
II. Discussion of Electric Cooking Products Comments
    a. Classes
    b. Design Options
    c. Other Comments
    d. Other Comments Regarding the Draft Report and Supplemental 
Analysis
III. Analysis of Electric Cooking Products Standards
    a. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
    b. Significance of Energy Savings
    c. Economic Justification
    d. Payback Period
    e. Conclusion
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    a. Review under the National Environmental Policy Act
    b. Review under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review''
    c. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    d. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    e. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
    f. ``Takings'' Assessment Review
    g. Federalism Review
    h. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    i. Review Under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996
V. DOJ Views on the Proposed Rule

I. Introduction

a. Authority

    Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
(EPCA), P.L. 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation 
Policy Act (NECPA), P.L. 95-619, by the National Appliance Energy 
Conservation Act (NAECA), P.L. 100-12, by the National Appliance Energy 
Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988), P.L. 100-357, and the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), P.L. 102-486 1 created 
the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than 
Automobiles. The consumer products subject to this program are called 
``covered products.'' The covered products specified by statute include 
kitchen ranges and ovens. EPCA, Sec. 322, 42 U.S.C. 6292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the 
National Energy Conservation Policy Act, the National Appliance 
Energy Conservation Act, the National Appliance Energy Conservation 
Amendments of 1988, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, is referred 
to in this notice as the ``EPCA.'' Part B of Title III is codified 
at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For kitchen ranges and ovens, EPCA prescribed an initial Federal 
energy conservation standard effective in 1990 and specified that the 
Department shall publish a final rule no later than January 1, 1992, to 
determine if the 1990 standards should be amended. EPCA, Sec. 325(h), 
42 U.S.C. 6295(h). Any new or amended standard is required to be 
designed so as to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency 
that is technologically feasible and economically justified. EPCA, 
Sec. 325(o)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). The Secretary may not 
prescribe any amended standard which increases the maximum allowable 
energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a 
covered product. EPCA, Sec. 325(o)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1).
    Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) provides that DOE, in determining whether a 
standard is economically justified, must determine whether the benefits 
of the standard exceed its burdens, based, to the greatest extent 
practicable, on a weighing of the following seven factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on 
the consumers of the products subject to such standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price of, in the initial charges for, or maintenance 
expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result 
directly from the imposition of the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    (6) The need for national energy conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

[[Page 48039]]

    In addition, section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) establishes a rebuttable 
presumption of economic justification in instances where the Secretary 
determines that ``the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a 
product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be 
less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first 
year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable test procedure.''
    The Department analyzes the merits of efficiency improvements for 
each class of product independently. The Department applies the same 
criteria to determine the technological feasibility and economic 
justification of each product class, regardless of fuel type.

b. Background

    The current standard (effective January 1, 1990) states that 
kitchen ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord shall not be 
equipped with a constant burning pilot light.
    In 1990, DOE published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
with regard to standards for nine covered products, including electric 
kitchen ranges and ovens. 55 FR 39624 (September 28, 1990) (hereinafter 
referred to as the September 1990 advance notice). The September 1990 
advance notice presented the product classes that DOE planned to 
analyze and provided a detailed discussion of the analytical 
methodology and analytical models that the Department expected to use.
    On March 4, 1994, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR) concerning eight products, including the kitchen ranges and 
ovens. 59 FR 10464 (March 4, 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the 
Proposed Rule.) The Department proposed that the annual energy use of 
kitchen ranges and ovens shall be the sum of the annual energy use of 
any of the following components incorporated into the kitchen range and 
oven and shall not exceed the allowable sum of energy usages for those 
components listed in Table 1-1. These proposed standards were estimated 
to save 5.9 quads.

   Table 1-1.--Proposed Standards Levels for Kitchen Ranges and Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Annual energy use, effective
    Kitchen range and oven  component        as of  September 10, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Electric ovens, self-cleaning.........  267 kWh.
2. Electric ovens, non-self-cleaning.....  218 kWh.
3. Gas ovens, self-cleaning..............  1.64 MMBtu.
4. Gas ovens, non-self-cleaning..........  1.14 MMBtu.
5. Microwave ovens.......................  233 kWh.
6. Electric cooktop, coil element........  260 kWh.
7. Electric cooktop, smooth element......  294 kWh.
8. Gas cooktop...........................  1.71 MMBtu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received over 8,000 comments during the comment period on the 
1994 Proposed Rule and from participants at the public hearings held in 
Washington, DC on April 5-7, 1994 and June 7-8, 1994. 59 comments dealt 
specifically with kitchen ovens, cooktops, and microwave ovens.
    After reviewing the comments on the proposed standards for kitchen 
cooktops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens, the Department 
concluded that a number of significant issues were raised which 
required additional analysis. In 1995, the Department revised the 
analyses regarding kitchen cooktops, ovens, and microwave ovens to 
account for the comments and data received during the public comment 
period. (This revised analysis became the basis for the 1996 Draft 
Report.)
    A moratorium was placed on publication of proposed or final rules 
for appliance efficiency standards as part of the FY 1996 
appropriations legislation. Pub. L. 104-134. That moratorium expired on 
September 30, 1996.
    In 1995 and 1996, the Department conducted a review of its process 
for developing appliance energy efficiency standards. This review 
resulted in the publication of a final rule, entitled ``Procedures for 
Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for 
Consumer Products'' (hereinafter referred to as the Process Rule). 61 
FR 36973 (July 15, 1996). Although the new procedures in the Process 
Rule do not apply to this rulemaking (61 FR at 36980) DOE has employed 
an approach consistent with the new procedures in completing work on 
this rule. In keeping with the new process, and based on comments 
received in response to the Proposed Rule, DOE distributed for comment 
a Draft Report on the Potential Impact of Alternative Energy Efficiency 
Levels for Residential Cooking Products (hereinafter referred to as 
Draft Report). The Draft Report contained DOE's revised analysis, begun 
in 1995, examining five alternative efficiency levels. The revised 
analysis drastically reduced the amount of energy which could be saved 
at each efficiency level. The Draft Report was distributed to a mailing 
list that included all of the commenters on the proposed rule on 
kitchen cooktops, ovens, and microwave ovens on May 5, 1996. (EE-RM-S-
97-700 No. 1 and No. 2.) The letter invited comment on the Draft Report 
by no later than July 1, 1996. During June and July 1996, DOE received 
three comments on the Draft Report and related issues.
    The analysis in the Draft Report indicates that establishing new or 
revised standards for microwave ovens is not economically justified 
because the payback period exceeds the life of the product and would 
produce increased life-cycle costs and a negative net present value. 
The analysis in the Draft Report and the comments received prompted 
further examination of gas cooktops, gas ovens, and electric non-self-
cleaning ovens. DOE prepared an analysis to supplement the Draft Report 
that focuses exclusively on the possible elimination of standing pilot 
lights for gas products and improving non-self-cleaning conventional 
electric ovens by venting and insulating them like self-cleaning 
electric ovens. The supplemental analysis used the latest available 
data from AHAM regarding the trends over time of shares of sales of 
non-self-cleaning conventional ovens and gas products with pilot 
lights. It also used the latest utility price forecasts from the Annual 
Energy Outlook of the Energy Information Administration, AEO 97, and 
the Gas Research Institute, GRI 97.
    In a Federal Register Notice of limited reopening of the record and 
opportunity for public comment (63 FR 9975) dated February 27, 1998, 
the Department reopened the comment period for cooking products for 30 
days. This notice announced the availability of the supplemental 
analysis and gave indication of the prescriptive standard the 
Department was inclined to promulgate in the final rule. The notice 
also indicated the Department's intent to change the name of this 
rulemaking from ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' to ``cooking products.'' 
This change was made because the term ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' does 
not accurately describe the products considered which include 
conventional ranges, cooktops and ovens and microwave ovens.
    Due to a request by the American Gas Association (AGA) for 
additional time,

[[Page 48040]]

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

II. Discussion of Electric Cooking Products Comments

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

    \2\ Comments with unspecified docket numbers belong to docket 
number EE-RM-90-201. This docket contains the September 1990 advance 
notice and the 1994 Proposed Rule. Docket No. EE-RM-S-97-700 
contains the 1996 Draft Report, comments to the 1996 Draft Report, 
comments to the 1998 reopening notice and the supplemental analysis. 
Comments from this docket are specified with Docket number EE-RM-S-
97-700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Classes

Microwave Ovens
    D. Wilson (Frigidaire, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 268) commented that 
heating elements are a utility to Frigidaire's customers and therefore 
require an additional product class for microwave ovens. Les Harris 
(Sharp Electronics Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 285-288) 
commented that there should be separate product classes for the 
convection and browner type microwave ovens based on their specific 
utility, as well as additional product classes for different cavity 
sizes. Jack Weizeorick (AHAM, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 258-260) also 
argued for two product classes: conventional microwave ovens with and 
without browning elements. He based this argument on the test procedure 
which he says does not measure the energy that the browning element 
absorbs from the microwaves. Mr. Weizeorick also argued for a third 
product class to include combination microwave/convection ovens.
    Amana Refrigeration, Inc. (No. 347 at 6) urged DOE to define a 
specific product class for convection/microwave ovens because of the 
browning utility which causes a loss of about four percentage points of 
efficiency. Frigidaire Company (No. 544 at 2) submitted that microwave 
ovens with browning elements need a separate product class because its 
data shows the browner versions are consistently lower in efficiency by 
2.0 percent.
    Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 5-7) argued 
that DOE's approach of a single class microwave oven is too simplistic 
because there are certain design constraints in the various type 
products that have a significant effect on their design and efficiency. 
They commented that the following design differences in microwave ovens 
justify additional product classes: (a) (structurally) fixed ovens, (b) 
portable ovens, (c) heating elements in the oven which absorb microwave 
energy, (d) convection ovens where the heating elements are not located 
in the cooking cavity, and (e) volume efficiency relationships for 
portable ovens only. Consequently, AHAM recommended the adoption of 
five classes of microwave ovens, as follows:

1. Portable Microwave Only--Less than 0.8 ft 3 total cavity 
volume
2. Portable Microwave Only--0.8 to 1.19 ft 3 total cavity 
volume
3. Portable Microwave Only--1.2 ft 3 total cavity volume
4. Portable Microwave/Thermal
5. Built-in (Fixed)

    Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 5) agreed with these classes, 
and Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at 2) reiterated in his 
1996 comments the need for separate microwave oven classes in future 
rulemakings. O.P. Clay (Sharp, No. 521 at 2), relying on data supplied 
to DOE, supported at least three product classes: small cavity size, 
large cavity size, and convection/microwave ovens. C.M. Walsh 
(Thermador, No. 622 at 1) recommended that microwave ovens with a 
usable volume greater than 1.75 cubic feet be put into a separate 
category that is excluded from the standard.
    Les Harris (Sharp Electronics Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 
287-288) requested exclusion of the microwave standard for convection 
and browner type microwave ovens because of the small number that are 
sold and because they provide a specific utility different from the 
standard microwave oven.
    The Department believes more efficiency/cost data is needed to 
separate the ovens into separate product classes. However, because DOE 
is not promulgating standards for microwave ovens in this rule (see 
section III. e.), the Department does not believe it is necessary to 
examine this issue at this time.
Commercial-type Products for Residential Use
    L. Durden (Viking Range Corp, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 180, 189, 196, 
197 and No. 866 at 1) requested a separate energy classification for 
commercial-type home cooking products. He argued that the replacement 
alternative for these products would be purely commercial products 
which consume large amounts of energy and are not safe for home use. A 
purely commercial range if placed next to cabinetry will not pass the 
heat requirements (will cause scorching and burning of the cabinetry). 
Mr. Durden stated that there is a precedent for separate product 
classes for through-the-door service refrigerators and larger-sized 
refrigerator freezers, and consequently, a similar consideration 
(separate energy class) should be considered for commercial-type home 
cooking products. G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 219) 
suggested DOE have a more specific definition in regard to commercial-
type versus standard products. AHAM (AHAM, No. 001 at 14-15) and R. 
Zipkin (Russell Range, Transcript, Jun. 7 at 323) recommended that DOE 
define a separate product class for high-capacity ranges.
    C.B. Walsh (Thermador, No. 622 at 2-6) commented that the useful 
characteristics of the professional style range would have to be 
sacrificed in order for it to meet the best efficiency levels of a 
standard range. He commented that these appliances should be 
categorized as high capacity. He said the definition of a high capacity 
oven should be changed from a volume of 5 or more cubic feet to 4.5 or 
more cubic feet (to include a professional oven with the dimensions of 
28 inches wide, 14 inches high, and 20 inches deep) and its bake burner 
energy minimum changed from 30,000 BTU/h to 22,500 BTU/h because 
efficiency improvements may make today's level of performance (at 
30,000 BTU/h) possible with a burner rated at 25,000 BTU/h or less.
    ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should develop a 
separate product class for commercial products that are sold in limited 
quantities in the residential sector. Because the Department is not 
promulgating minimum energy efficiency standards for cooking products 
in today's rule, the Department believes this comment is not a concern 
at this time.

b. Design Options

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

[[Page 48041]]

at 211-212) commented that more than half of its consumers prefer to 
purchase products with the window feature and those consumers say it is 
an important part of customer satisfaction from a utility standpoint. 
G. Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 7) and D. Karl Landstrom (Battelle, 
Transcript, Apr. 7 at 239-240 and Transcript, Jun. 7 at 292-294) 
commented that the 1994 proposed standard would adversely affect 
cooking utility and quality because of the number of times the consumer 
would open the door to check the food. H. Brooke Stauffer (AHAM, 
Transcript, Apr. 7 at 170-172, 177) argued that the elimination of the 
oven door window would not only reduce utility but also is probably 
prohibited by the NAECA Safe Harbor Provisions. AHAM (AHAM No. 001 at 
6) said the Proposed Rule ``violates NAECA's `safe harbor' prohibition 
against standards which result in significant adverse utility or 
feature impacts (Section 325 (o)(4)).''
    Lyn Cook (Independent Home Economist, No. 749 at 1) conducted 
limited tests using 17 door openings with no window. She found the 
cooking results to be borderline to unacceptable in terms of cooking 
performance.
    Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL, No. 001 at 22-24) commented that this 
option has a ``positive energy savings'' (from 12.49 to 14.35 percent 
for a standard oven) and a ``good payback.'' ADL also commented, 
however, this design option ``does change the utility of the oven, that 
is, consumers currently perceive a major benefit in the window option, 
and are willing to pay a premium for this feature.'' ADL reported 70 
percent of all units shipped include a window.
    W.W. Olson (Assoc Professor & Extension Housing Technology 
Specialist, No. 736 at 1) requested that the removal of the oven door 
window option be deleted from the proposed standard. She based her 
comment on the added burden this design would place on persons with 
limited strength or a painful grasp. In addition, the elimination of 
the oven window would burden people who use a wide range of wheeled 
assistive devices, frail people (early Alzheimers), and people with 
impaired sense of smell because the window would serve as an early 
visual warning of burning or a fire within the oven.
    Margery Tippie (Redbook Magazine, No. 488 at 1) commented that all 
baked goods recipes state a range of baking times, e.g. ``bake 15 to 20 
minutes, or until golden brown''. She said the consumers should ``begin 
checking for doneness at a minimum of 15 minutes baking time, and to 
proceed until the desired degree of doneness is achieved. An oven 
window helps in the process.'' She argued that without the window, 
there would be constant heat (energy) loss since the oven would be 
opened for frequent checking. Lydia Botham (Land O'Lakes, Inc., No. 623 
at 1) commented that this design option (as well as reduced vent rate 
and improved door seals) may increase the energy efficiency of the 
oven, but more testing should be done to ensure consumers are not 
negatively impacted.
    ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should exclude this 
design option from the analysis, since it is just as likely to increase 
as decrease energy use.
    P. Gordon (Marsco Manufacturing Co., No. 595 at 1) urged DOE to 
consider not eliminating the glass in oven doors as an option to gain 
energy efficiency. He commented that heat reflective glasses have been 
able to replace a very expensive borosilicate glass produced in 
Germany. Michael E. Hobbs (Marsco Manufacturing Co., No. 865 at 1) also 
urged DOE to reconsider this design option and to eliminate it. 
Senators Paul Simon, Carol Moseley-Braun and Barbara Boxer (U.S. 
Senate, No. 891 at 1, No. 892 at 1, and No. 907 at 1) also supported 
the argument to eliminate the oven door window design option.
    DOE agrees with the various commenters that the removal of the oven 
door window may cause the users of the ovens to open the doors more 
frequently and therefore, has the potential to result in increased 
energy usage. The opportunity exists to improve the oven door window in 
the future. A newer, proven oven window material is needed that has 
higher thermal insulation properties, can withstand high oven 
temperatures, and has the mechanical strength compatible with the other 
oven parts. Until such a technology is proven, DOE will eliminate this 
design option.
Reduction of Thermal Mass
    G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 217) commented that 
Consumer Reports showed a customer preference for the larger oven 
cavity and not the 30 percent smaller oven cavity which was assumed in 
the TSD. Also, utility may potentially be lost because consumers may 
not be able to cook multiple dishes in a smaller oven. In addition, 
Whirlpool stated this design option affects product durability, 
manufacturing stability, product resistance, and susceptibility to 
being crushed during transit. Arthur D. Little, Inc. (AHAM, No. 001 at 
21-22) commented that this design option will improve the oven 
efficiency, but reductions in material thickness are very limited. 
These limitations are based on: the average porcelain thickness needed 
for adequate wall coverage and sheet metal thickness reduction 
limitations (due to the use of already thin materials.) The ADL 
analysis showed that a \1/2\ to 1 lb reduction in oven cavity thermal 
mass will reduce oven energy consumption by 0.35 to 0.70 percent. ACEEE 
(ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should exclude this design 
option in the analysis because the quality and life of the ovens may be 
harmed.
    The Department agrees with all arguments against inclusion of this 
design option. Due to the issues of consumer product safety and 
structural integrity, DOE has eliminated reduced thermal mass as a 
design option. However, the opportunity exists to improve this 
technology in the future. Newer, less expensive materials or coatings 
may be developed in the future which maintain structural strength, 
reduce or maintain cost, but reduce thermal mass.
Forced Convection
    For electric ovens, G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 
215-216) commented that this design option would result in considerable 
changes in consumer utility because many recipes are not easily 
converted (from natural convection). The timing is different and 
``generational recipes'' which are handed down from one generation to 
the next would not cook the same way. M. Thompson (Whirlpool, No. 391 
at 13) also submitted that industry aggregate efficiency for electric 
self-clean ovens is 2 percent. They reported the industry aggregate 
incremental costs of this design option are approximately 6 to 7 times 
higher than the DOE TSD cost with payback periods dramatically 
increased (from 6 to 302 years for electric standard ovens and from 8 
to 363 years for electric self-clean ovens). Lyn Cook (Independent Home 
Economist, No. 749 at 2) commented that this option would require a 
revolution in consumer cooking methods because it would dramatically 
change the way oven cooking is done.
    Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 7-11) commented that based 
on its evaluation of available data, information provided by 
manufacturers, and oven thermal analysis, this option does not meet 
consumer payback requirements and changes the utility of the oven. ADL 
concluded that the overall energy savings is less than 8 kWh/y as 
compared to DOE's estimates of 41 kWh/y and 33 kWh/y for self-cleaning

[[Page 48042]]

and standard ovens, respectively. The reported incremental price 
increase for this option is $81.95 which would result in payback 
periods of 141 and 106 years, respectively, for these ovens.
    ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that this option looks 
promising. ACEEE argued against the comment concerning ``old family 
recipes'' and said such recipes may need modification, but this problem 
could be solved by allowing consumers to turn off this feature for a 
single use at a time.
    The Department disagrees with arguments that consumer utility is 
decreased. The consumer is given the option to turn the forced 
convection feature on or off. The consumer is therefore given the 
choice to be more energy efficient. The Department realizes that 
certain recipes may have to be modified if the design option is used, 
but the consumer would learn how to use it if desired. Secondly, the 
technology is already in the marketplace. DOE recognizes that full 
credit for energy efficiency is not realized because the oven test 
procedure measures energy use over short periods of time. Certain foods 
would take less time (energy) to cook with convection, e.g. 
approximately 3 hours to cook an average turkey with convection, 
compared to 5-6 hours without it. The Department also believes this 
reduced cooking time increases utility to the consumer.
Improved Door Seals
    M. Thompson (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 223-224) argued that 
a little bit of leakage is absolutely critical especially when baking 
to allow enough moisture release. Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 
9) commented that this design option needs to be considered in 
conjunction with the electric standard Reduced Vent Rate design option 
to minimize the overall impact on cooking performance. Lyn Cook 
(Independent Home Economist, No. 749 at 2) also recommended that DOE 
consider the Improved Door Seal and Reduced Vent Rate options together 
because both have an influence on the natural convective air flow 
through the oven cavity. Lydia Botham (Land O'Lakes, No. 623 at 1) 
commented that this design option may increase the energy efficiency of 
the oven, but more testing should be done.
    For standard electric ovens, Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 
at 17-18) analyzed this design option and concluded that it will have a 
very minor impact on oven efficiency (from 12.15 to 12.39 percent) and 
a price premium that creates a payback in excess of 10 years. 
Additionally, the cooking performance of the oven may be affected. Tim 
Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at 2) commented that improved 
door seals are not justified because of insignificant energy savings 
(0.2%) with excessive payback--less than $1 saved per year.
    DOE agrees with the comments that sufficient air flow through the 
oven cavity is required to allow for proper heating and moisture 
conditions while cooking. This design option does not call for 
elimination of the air flow by improved seals; it merely states they 
can be improved ``without sealing the oven completely.'' Moreover, 
because this design option was not contained in any standard levels the 
Department found to be economically justified in today's rule, the 
Department does not consider it to be an issue in this rulemaking.
Bi-Radiant Oven
    Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at 3) stated that the 
50 percent improvement assumption is unsupported by facts. He also 
noted technical problems making this design option impractical. The 
Department finds in today's rule that this design option is not 
economically justified.
Reflective Surfaces
    Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 10) said that this design 
option causes loss of consumer utility (oven cleaning) and is not 
financially justified. He also commented that industry aggregate 
incremental costs of this design option are approximately 12 to 13 
times higher than the DOE TSD cost, resulting in a 152 year payback 
(Transcript, Jun. 7 at 339). Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 
6 at 3) stated that maintaining highly reflective oven walls is 
impractical.
    C.B. Walsh (Thermador, No. 622 at 2) commented that he was not 
aware of a reflective material which will retain its reflectivity after 
repeated exposure to pyrolytic self-cleaning oven temperatures (850-
950F). Lyn Cook (Independent Home Economist, No. 749 at 2) commented 
that such surfaces would quickly discolor, and their longevity would be 
restricted. She recommended DOE eliminate this design option. ACEEE 
(ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should exclude this design 
option in the analysis because it would be impossible to keep the 
surfaces clean and shiny, particularly in self-cleaning ovens.
    Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 11-17) analyzed this design 
option for electric ovens and concluded: (1) current oven utility is 
not maintainable using reflective surfaces (the characteristics of this 
reflected radiation are different than the normal radiation emitted by 
the current cavity); (2) only modest energy savings are possible (from 
12.15 baseline efficiency to 12.73 efficiency); and (3) consumer 
payback is long (8.62 to 11.33 years).
    Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 5 at 1) 
disagreed with the statement in the Draft Report that reflective pans 
are assumed to have no maintenance cost and could easily be maintained 
by the consumer. Copeland stated that Betty Crocker's experience with 
consumer testing indicates this assumption is incorrect but did not 
provide supporting data. Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at 
3) concurred and stated that the pans would become non-reflective in 
about one year.
    DOE agrees with the lack of sophistication in the technology to 
maintain a clean, reflective oven surface or reflective cooktop pans, 
and therefore achieve an energy efficiency improvement, over the life 
of the products. Therefore, DOE has eliminated the improved reflective 
surfaces in ovens and reflective pans for cooktops as design options in 
this rule.
Oven Separator
    Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 5 at 1) stated 
that an oven separator would have low consumer acceptance and only adds 
to the cost of the appliance. She also stated that the existence of a 
German model has no relevance for American consumers but did not 
provide any reasoning for this statement. However, because the Oven 
Separator design option only was used for max tech and was not found to 
be economically justified, the Department does not believe this issue 
is a concern.
Added Insulation
    DOE received comments which said there would be loss of consumer 
utility with this design option and that it is not cost effective. D. 
Horstman (Maytag, No. 490 at 3) commented that manufacturers would be 
forced to reduce the oven cavity size drastically to comply with the 
proposed standards. He said there would be less utility to the consumer 
and insufficient fuel cost savings to justify the cost premium. 
Likewise, Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 11) submitted that this 
design option will reduce consumer utility (oven size), and result in 
an excessive payback (increase from 5 to 8 years for standard electric 
ovens and increase from 11 to 35 years for self-cleaning electric 
ovens). Whirlpool said this design option would not be justified.

[[Page 48043]]

    Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 19-21) commented that its 
analysis shows that although a 2-inch increase in insulation will have 
a large impact (1.4 percentage points on a 12.15 percent efficiency 
baseline) on the oven energy usage, it will have a negative impact on 
the utility of the oven and range appliances. Either the size of the 
overall cabinet must increase, or the oven cavity volume must be 
reduced. In addition AHAM's comments agreed that thicker insulation (up 
to 4 inches) can achieve a 1.4 percentage point increase in oven 
efficiency, but the implementation of this design may affect the 
utility of the appliance for the reasons stated above.
    The arguments against this design option involve reduction of 
consumer utility due to decreased oven cavity volume, if the same oven 
footprint is maintained. The Department has eliminated this design 
option because it reduces consumer utility and results in an increase 
in the life-cycle cost with a negligible decrease in energy use.
Improved Insulation
    Tom Hoff (Microtherm Inc., No. 605 at 2-4) commented that his 
company has a micro porous thermal insulation which has significantly 
higher thermal insulation capability than existing technology and can 
be used in oven and range applications.
    Maytag (Maytag, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 9 at 4) stated that insulating 
the non-self-cleaning oven in a manner similar to the self-cleaning 
oven does not improve efficiency in a cost justifiable manner. Maytag 
stated that the higher efficiency of the self-cleaning models is not 
due solely to the difference in insulation but is also due to the 
several panes of heat reflective glass in the door and the inner 
baffles.
    AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) commented that there is 
nothing in DOE's analysis which contradicts the significant evidence 
from manufacturers that further insulation will result in negligible 
savings in energy. AHAM commented that in order to attain any possible 
real increase in efficiency, non-self cleaning products would have to 
undergo total door reconstruction (including door seal, heat insulating 
glass) at great, cost-prohibitive expense.
    The Department did consider higher performing insulation (See Draft 
Report Table 1-9) but did not consider the Microtherm product 
specifically due to a lack of data, particularly material costs and 
possible installation or fabrication cost. The Department only 
considered the increased performance and cost of higher density 
fiberglass insulation in existing cavities and did not consider changes 
to any door glass or inner baffles, although improved door seals were 
considered separately.
Reduced Vent Size
    Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 9) commented that this design 
option needs to be considered in conjunction with the design option for 
Improved Door Seal design to minimize the overall impact on cooking 
performance. Marcia K. Copeland (General Mills, Inc., No. 355 at 2) 
commented that reducing oven vent size will negatively impact high 
moisture foods such as pound cake, two-crust fruit pies, roasting, meat 
loaf, lasagna, and foods that need drying such as pastry, biscuits, and 
cookies. The reduced vent size may result in increased baking time, and 
consumers will be less satisfied with the results. Karen Johnson 
(Borden, No. 560 at 1) supported these comments. Lydia Botham (Land 
O'Lakes, No. 623 at 1) commented that this design option may increase 
the energy efficiency of the oven, but more testing should be done.
    Maytag (Maytag, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 9 at 4) stated that because vent 
size is designed to be at an optimum for cooking performance, any 
reduction in size will affect cooking performance. Gregg Greulich 
(Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 33 at 2) stated that the venting 
Whirlpool uses in self-cleaning ovens is virtually identical to the 
venting in its non-self-cleaning models. Whirlpool's testing shows that 
reducing the venting will only serve to degrade cooking performance and 
will not save energy.
    AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) commented that DOE 
erroneously assumed that a reduction in the vent opening of a non-self-
cleaning oven to the same size as a self-clean oven would result in 
energy savings. AHAM commented that vent openings are not automatically 
larger in non-self-cleaning ovens. AHAM stated that the size of the 
vent opening is determined by several factors, only one of which is the 
cleaning type. AHAM commented that if a smaller vent opening were 
effectively required for all models, the product performance would be 
degraded on some models by reducing the moisture loss.
    Oven venting is necessary for the cooking process, but reducing the 
vent rate inherently reduces the energy lost in the cooking process and 
therefore, increases the overall efficiency of the oven. The Department 
assumed that self-cleaning ovens have smaller vents than non-self-
cleaning ovens due to safety concerns regarding air flow during the 
high temperature cleaning cycle. Since the venting systems on self-
cleaning ovens provide satisfactory cooking performance, it was assumed 
that these reduced vents could satisfactorily be applied to non-self-
cleaning ovens and yield an efficiency improvement. However, this 
assumption is refuted by the Whirlpool comment that there is no 
difference in venting in its products and the AHAM comment that vent 
openings are not automatically larger in non-self-cleaning ovens. Thus, 
the Department has probably overstated any energy savings from this 
design option. In making today's determination DOE is not considering 
any energy savings from this design option.
Improved Contact Conductance
    Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 24-27) reported the results 
of its analysis and testing on this design option for electric 
cooktops. Its results showed that the major mechanism for heat transfer 
was physical contact between the pot and coil, not contact pressure. 
The DOE test procedure uses an aluminum block which may be flatter than 
an actual cooking pot. ADL stated it found minimal real world 
efficiency improvements possible. The Department agrees that the heat 
transfer method is a function of physical contact and that this contact 
is influenced by the flatness of the object on the cooktop.
Improved Efficiency of the Magnetron Power Supply/Transformer
    Charles Samuels (AHAM, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 51) argued that the 
transformer improvements were based on faulty communications between 
DOE's contractors and industry; consequently DOE has over-estimated the 
cost and energy improvement potential and not taken into account the 
problems with product size and weight that would be caused by more 
efficient transformers, even if technologically feasible.
    D. Susak (Advance Transformer Company, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 272) 
commented that efficiency increases to 96 percent are not attainable at 
any price, much less at $5 as stated in the TSD. Mr. Susak reported 
results from some testing that resulted in a transformer efficiency of 
91.4 percent with an additional cost of $6.45 per unit and a payback 
period greater than six years. This improvement was from only one of 
its current designs and should not be expected for all designs. Gregg 
Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) agreed with the Advance Transformer 
study and said that Whirlpool's own study corroborates it. He said this 
design option should be dropped. Jack Weizeorick, AHAM (April 7, 
rebuttal at

[[Page 48044]]

341-344) commented that the TSD reference ``(56)'' to C. Huene (TSD, 
Vol 2, App E, p 1-49) was incorrect. Mr. Huene was contacted, and he 
stated he never said that a 95 percent efficient transformer was 
available at a cost of $5.
    O.P. Clay (Sharp, No. 521 at 2) commented that DOE's provided cost 
estimates of $7.90 for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of 
microwave ovens from 54 to 62.5 percent cannot be achieved. Data was 
supplied that showed a 1 percent improvement would cost $4.05, and 
achieving an additional 2.5 percent would cost $9.00. Sharp estimated 
the three design options proposed by DOE would cost at least $13.05 and 
only increase the efficiency 3.5 percent. Sharp urged that DOE not 
include microwave ovens in the rulemaking based on these estimates.
    Robert Lagoussie, International Microwave Power Institute (April 7, 
at 309-310) commented that a technical paper by Dr. C. R. Buffler on an 
improved power supply was misinterpreted in the TSD. Mr. Lagoussie 
commented that the improvement was technically but not economically 
feasible in 1978, and it would be even less economically feasible 
today. D. Wilson (Frigidaire, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 262-263) commented 
that Dr. Buffler reported an efficiency number based on theory that was 
not meant to be a practical solution. The commenter reported that it 
will be difficult to improve the present efficiency levels of 45 to 50 
percent dramatically unless there are technological breakthroughs.
    Clayton Bond (Toshiba Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 317-318) 
commented that his company had met with the other three magnetron 
manufacturers in Japan (there are none in the U.S.), and their response 
to the proposed standard is that the efficiency of the magnetron can be 
increased marginally (1 percent, or from 71 to 72 percent), but the 
cost of even this marginal improvement would be cost prohibitive. This 
one percent increase in efficiency would result in a cost increase of 
more than double the current price of the tube in this country. Other 
concerns were that it would take three years to develop; it would 
require new tooling, jigs, and expensive materials, and this improved 
design would be sold only in the U.S. market which is one-third of the 
world market. Likewise, Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) 
commented that magnetrons produced today are 71% efficient with a 
maximum realistic efficiency of 72%. He argued that this design option 
should be dropped since the magnetrons are as efficient as possible 
already.
    Dennis Wilson, Frigidaire (April 7, rebuttal at 345) commented that 
an increased efficiency microwave oven would require an increase in a 
transformer size and additional costs. Frigidaire's written comments 
(No.544 at 3) further argued that the company would be at an economic 
disadvantage in the European marketplace because this increased size 
would make the higher efficiency microwave oven incompatible with the 
common chassis used for both the domestic and export markets.
    Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 10) commented 
that the high efficiency transformer would be larger and heavier than 
the transformer used today and would result in an increase in the 
overall size of microwave ovens which would result in increased 
shipping costs since fewer could be shipped in a standard sized truck 
or container.
    E. Toomey (Goldstar, No. 503 at 1) commented that her company is 
currently using a 95% efficient magnetron which ``leaves no room for 
improvement.'' At present, she said her company's ovens are already 
rated at close to 60% efficiency. ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 24) urged 
DOE to include the effects of the adoption of European power supply 
standards on U.S. microwave manufacturers.
    DOE has analyzed the data which was submitted during the comment 
period and found the data to be contradictory in part. The comments 
summarized above indicate technological barriers to improving the 
efficiency of microwave ovens above the baseline value of 54 percent. 
However, AHAM data (AHAM, No. 001 at B-1) reports efficiency/cavity 
volume and efficiency/oven type which show many units above 54 percent 
efficiency and a significant number above 57 percent, thus indicating 
the technology exists to improve the efficiency of the ovens. Moreover, 
because this design option was not contained in any standard levels the 
Department found to be economically justified in today's rule, the 
Department does not consider it to be an issue in this rulemaking.
Modified Waveguide
    Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 11) commented 
that only a small efficiency improvement may be available on some 
microwave ovens by reducing the length or improving the finish on the 
waveguides. Many of the ovens produced in 1993 already have these new 
features. Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) agreed with this 
comment and said that this design option should be dropped. He also 
said that it is possible to increase the coupling between the magnetron 
and the cavity for a specific load in such a way that the efficiency 
would improve for that specific load. However, there were several 
significant disadvantages to this tight coupling which he supplied in 
his written comments. D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 4) commented 
that this design option would require the redesign and retooling of the 
waveguide since the waveguide itself is an integral part of the cavity 
design, and a separate part would be necessary in order to reduce the 
material costs. Cost estimates were provided in the written comments. 
The Department believes these comments are well founded. Therefore, 
this design option was eliminated.
Microwave Oven Fan Efficiency
    Les Harris (Sharp Electronics Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 
282-284) commented that the efficiency increase and associated cost 
increase with the fan in the TSD are in error. Various options are 
listed and agreement with the TSD is possible (at 0.8 percent 
increase), but the cost increase is $7 to $8.22, not $1.05 as stated in 
the TSD. This cost would significantly extend the payback period. Also, 
the improvement previously stated requires an electronically commuted 
DC motor, which has been theoretically proven, but not proven in 
practice.
    Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 11) commented 
that manufacturers' data indicates that most fans use between 15 and 32 
watts of power, but some use a high of 75 watts. AHAM supplied data 
which shows an increased efficiency fan, which uses 15.2 watts over the 
``standard'' fan which uses approximately 21 watts, at an additional 
cost of $2.20. If an electronically commuted DC motor were used, the 
power would be reduced to 7.7 watts at an additional cost of $8.25.
    D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 4) commented that a more 
efficient fan motor could be manufactured without a capital investment 
but would require engineering and testing to qualify the component. The 
revised motor is assumed to be directly interchangeable with the 
current motor and not require a tooling investment. Cost estimates were 
provided in the written comments.
    Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) commented that fans use 
about 25 watts and an efficiency improvement of 10% amounts to 2.5 
watts. He stated this improvement could possibly double the cost of the 
fan which increases the payback period, while providing minimal energy 
savings. He

[[Page 48045]]

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

c. Other Comments

Significance of Energy Savings
    H. Brooke Stauffer (AHAM, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 169, 170) commented 
that AHAM does not believe a performance standard is justified because 
the amount of energy saved is insignificant. AHAM argued that the 
energy savings are exaggerated and the costs understated. AHAM said 
this position was based on tests conducted and data which suggests the 
costs reported in the TSD are one-third to one-fourth the actual 
manufacturer's cost to implement various design options. M. Thompson 
(Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 205, 206) gave annual cost savings 
for various design options and argued that their collective savings 
were small.
    AHAM (AHAM, No. 001 at 6) further commented that because the energy 
used by ranges is minor, the proposed standards do not meet the 
threshold NAECA criterion that an amended standard must result in 
``significant conservation of energy'' under Section 325 (o)(3)(B). 
AHAM argued that the total projected energy savings from proposed range 
performance standards are so low that the standard's benefits will not 
exceed its burdens as required under Section 325 (o)(2)(B)(i)(III).
    While the term ``significant'' is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that 
Congress intended the word ``significant'' to mean ``non-trivial.'' 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington. 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 
(D.C.Cir. 1985). Thus, for this rulemaking, DOE concludes that at each 
trial standard level the estimated energy savings is non-trivial and 
therefore significant.
Life Cycle Costs
    D. Karl Landstrom (Battelle, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 233-234) 
commented that the life cycle cost data should be updated by DOE to use 
current DOE Energy Information Administration estimates of future cost 
projections rather than the 1991 estimated projections.
    Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 5) commented that if all of 
DOE's first seven design options were to be incorporated into a new 
standard self-clean electric range, the total annual cost savings would 
be $6.47. He pointed out that in 1979 (when the FTC first considered 
labeling ranges), a total annual operating cost savings difference of 
$7.00 would have been considered significant by consumers. The $6.47 
figure translates into $3.33 in 1979 dollars, less than half of what 
the FTC deemed to be a significant cost savings to consumers.
    Whirlpool (No. 391 at 6) also commented that DOE standards could 
affect eight different Whirlpool product categories. The cost of 
compliance in each product category will likely be millions to many 
tens of millions of dollars. Whirlpool argued that the cumulative 
impact of adding ranges, ovens, and cooktops, when coupled with the 
``diminutive energy savings,'' makes energy standards for this product 
category unjustifiable.
    The Department has recalculated life-cycle costs using the latest 
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) energy prices available at the time of the 
analysis. The Draft Report used AEO 95 energy prices, and the 
supplemental analysis used AEO 97 energy prices. In addition, the Gas 
Research Institute (GRI) 97 prices were used for a basis of comparison 
in the Supplemental Analysis.
Test Procedures
    There were many comments on the test procedures, including annual 
energy consumption. These comments, however, were discussed and 
resolved in the Test Procedure Final Rule for Kitchen Ranges, Cooktops, 
Ovens, and Microwave Ovens. 62 FR 51976 (October 3, 1997).
Economic hardship
    Joann Prater (MCD Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 276-277) 
commented that MCD Corporation would probably go out of business if the 
new microwave ruling is enacted for the following reasons: MCD 
Corporation is a small, single-line product company which recently 
invested $5M in tooling for a new, more efficient oven which is 
scheduled to enter the market this year. This new oven, however, does 
not meet the new efficiency standard proposed in the NOPR. The company 
would not be able to capture its investment during the shorter period 
its new product would be on the market, and MCD could not retool for 
another new oven to be manufactured by the effective date of the new 
standards. She also commented that several assumptions in the TSD are 
incorrect. She maintained that the cost to retool is understated 
because the TSD did not include the additional costs to redesign 
features such as the power supply, the fan, the modified waveguide, an 
improved magnetron, and new reflective surfaces. The TSD accounts for 
only the wave guide. The oral testimony was also supported by written 
comments (MCD Corporation, No. 742 at 1-20).
    Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 1) commented 
that the proposed standards for microwave ovens would ``eliminate the 
last remaining U.S. production and may concentrate U.S. sales in the 
hands of only one or two companies.'' J. Geary (Peerless-Premier 
Appliance Co., No. 352 at 1) commented about the adverse economic 
impact and the potential lessening of competition that the proposed 
standards would have on his company. He commented that DOE and the 
Attorney General had not adequately evaluated the impact of the 
standards on small manufacturers.
    D. Horstman (Maytag, No. 490 at 3) commented that the proposed 
standards, if enacted, would force Maytag to spend millions of dollars 
at its plants with considerable competitive disadvantage compared to 
its primary competitors. He said Maytag may have to discontinue lower 
volume product lines and thus, further reduce competition in the 
marketplace.
    D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 5) commented that the economic 
impact on the Dalton Microwave Operations would be significant if it 
needed to redesign its products to meet the proposed DOE requirements. 
He added that because only a few U.S. companies continue to manufacture 
this product, the addition of more economic burden will likely cause 
the remaining smaller manufacturers to close down, allowing the 
importers to completely take over the market.
    Because the Department found in today's rule that standards for 
microwave ovens are not economically justified, today's rule will not 
result in any economic hardship.
Microwave Noise at Higher Efficiency
    Robert Lagoussie, International Microwave Power Institute (April 7, 
at 310-313), R.D. Parlow (National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, No. 689 at 1), Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels 
(AHAM, No. 001 at 9-10) commented that a microwave oven produces 
electronic noise outside the normal frequency spectrum of 2,400 to 
2,500 MHZ. There can be considerable electronic noise in the 2 to 3 GHz 
range which affects other devices (broadcast/cellular phone), and more 
noise is generated as the efficiency of the microwave increases. The 
International Special Committee on Electromagnetic Interference is 
considering a new noise

[[Page 48046]]

standard this year which would reduce the magnetron noise level 
requirement from 85 to 99 decibels currently to a new standard of 30 to 
40 decibels. Amana Refrigeration, Inc. (No. 347 at 6) commented that 
the FCC has indicated that future requirements for noise interference 
will be tightened substantially. Amana said that design changes 
employed to achieve reduced noise will reduce the unit's efficiency.
    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
submitted comments on behalf of U.S. microwave manufacturers, 
expressing concern that the Department's interest in increasing 
microwave oven efficiency may be counterproductive to efforts being 
made to control radio noise. Increased microwave magnetron efficiency 
could raise radio noise levels, thereby, increasing the potential for 
interference (National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, No. 689 at 1). The Department finds in today's rule 
that this design option is not economically justified; therefore, this 
rule will not cause increased noise.
Manufacturer Impact
    In the Proposed Rule, DOE conducted a manufacturer impact analysis 
using the LBL Manufacturer Impact Model (LBL-MIM) as described in the 
TSD accompanying the 1994 Proposed Rule. Many comments were received 
regarding this analysis. In the revised analysis which supported the 
Draft Report, the Department used a computer model that simulates a 
hypothetical company to assess the likely impacts of standards on 
manufacturers and to determine the effects of standards on the industry 
at large. This model, the Manufacturer Analysis Model (MAM), is 
described in the TSD. Appendix C provides a broad array of outputs, 
including shipments, price, revenue, net income, and short- and long-
run returns on equity. The ``Output Table'' in Appendix C lists values 
for all these outputs for the base case and for each of the five 
standard levels analyzed. It also gives a range for each of these 
estimates. The base case represents the forecasts of outputs with a 
range of energy efficiencies which are expected if there are no new or 
amended standards. A ``Sensitivity Chart'' (TSD, Appendix C) shows how 
returns on equity would be affected by a change in any one of the nine 
control variables of the model. The Manufacturer Analysis Model 
consists of 13 modules. The module which estimates the impact of 
standards on total industry net present value is version 1.2 of the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). The GRIM was dated March 1, 
1993 and was developed by the Arthur D. Little Consulting Company (ADL) 
under contract to AHAM, the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association 
(GAMA), and the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI). 
(See TSD, Appendix C for more details.) The results of this analysis 
are reported in section III. c. of today's rule. However, these results 
were not utilized in coming to the conclusions reported in section III. 
e. All trial standard levels in today's rule were rejected based on 
consumer economics. Therefore, a revised manufacturer impact analysis 
was not necessary.
Rebound Effect
    ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 3) commented that it did not understand 
DOE's estimate of 10% rebound effect for cooking, because this rebound 
effect implies that households purchasing efficient ranges and ovens 
would cook more.
    A ten percent rebound effect was not used in the analysis. A 
rebound effect of less than one percent was used.
Microwave Ovens Not Covered Under NAECA
    Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 2) argued 
that nothing in the statutory language of NAECA required or indicated 
that microwave ovens should fall within the definition of ``kitchen 
ranges and ovens'' in Section 322(a)(10) as opposed to other covered 
products.
    The Department has previously determined that microwave ovens fall 
within the definition of ``kitchen ranges and ovens.'' 43 FR 20108 (May 
10, 1978).
Baseline Values Incorrect in TSD
    Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 7-9) 
commented that the microwave oven baseline value for shipment weighted 
average efficiency of 54.5 percent used in the TSD for the Proposed 
Rule is based on AHAM data of microwave ovens shipped in 1989. More 
recent shipment data shows a new, higher value of 55.8 percent. ACEEE 
(ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should redo its analysis 
after it reduces the average baseline consumption of ovens and cooktops 
to be in line with recent data by utilities and GRI. The Department 
agreed and incorporated the 55.8 percent number into the Draft Report 
analysis.
Consumer Education Programs
    AHAM ( No. 001 at 16) stated that two reports indicated significant 
variations in energy use among consumers preparing identical meals (50 
and 60 percent differences respectively). AHAM recommend that DOE 
establish consumer education programs as a national priority for saving 
energy, in lieu of mandatory product performance standards. G. Greulich 
(Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 220) also commented that more 
emphasis should be placed on consumer education rather than engineering 
redesign of the ranges. R. Markum (Emerson Electric Co., No. 366 at 5) 
commented that much more potential energy savings exist through 
consumer education on the proper methods to achieve maximum cooking 
efficiency rather than through mandatory efficiency standards. Lyn Cook 
(Independent Home Economist, No. 749 at 2) commented that informing the 
consumer on how to make optimal use of energy efficient cooking methods 
is key to reducing the total amount of energy used. She quoted 18 
points from ACEEE's Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings which 
demonstrate how significant energy variances can be eliminated. Mark 
Krebs (Laclede Gas, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 18 at 2) commented that the 
goals of energy efficiency and conservation are more likely to be 
achieved through facilitating consumer education rather than to simply 
dictate or restrict choices of technology.
    The Department is required by statute to promulgate energy 
efficiency standards for cooking products if economically justified and 
technically feasible. EPCA, Sec. 325, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6295. The 
Department's ENERGY STAR program helps to educate consumers 
on the purchase of more energy efficient appliances. The program is 
increasing continually the list of products the program covers. One of 
the criteria the program uses to determine which products it should add 
to the program is an evaluation of whether there is a wide range of 
energy efficiencies among the products in the marketplace. Because 
there are not a wide range of efficiencies for cooking products, they 
have not been added to the Energy Star program thus far.

d. Other Comments Regarding the Draft Report and Supplemental Analysis

    Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 5 at 1-3) stated 
that the Draft Report did not address the implication of the changes to 
the proposed rule on consumers. She also requested DOE provide a 
glossary of terms.
    DOE does analyze the effects of its rulemakings on consumers. For 
example, the Department abolished the

[[Page 48047]]

design option that eliminated the oven door window because of the 
adverse impact it would have on consumer utility. Because today's rule 
does not impose additional efficiency requirements on cooking products, 
the Department concludes that today's rule will not impact consumers.
    The first time the Department uses an acronym, the Department 
spells it out, for example, ``Technical Support Document (TSD)''; then 
the Department uses the acronym (e.g. TSD) throughout the rest of the 
document. The Department, however, agrees a glossary is a good 
suggestion, and the Department will provide a glossary in the TSD.
Electric Non-Self-Cleaning Ovens
    In the reopening notice of February 27, 1998, DOE indicated a 
likelihood of not establishing standards for electric non-self-cleaning 
ovens. Many commenters supported no standards for electric non-self-
cleaning ovens. Whirlpool (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 33 at 2) 
stated that no improved venting or insulation for electric non-self-
cleaning ovens would meet all of DOE's minimum economic and utility 
requirements or its energy savings requirements under NAECA. Whirlpool 
supported the Department's decision not to establish performance 
standards for any electric cooking products. Whirlpool (Whirlpool, EE-
RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at 1) stated that the cost of compliance testing 
would be greater than the potential energy savings of the design 
options. Maytag (Maytag, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 9 at 4) supported DOE's 
conclusions regarding venting and insulating improvements on electric 
non-self-cleaning electric ranges.
    AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2) supported DOE's conclusion 
that no standards are appropriate for microwave ovens or other electric 
cooking products. AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) also cited 
cumulative regulatory burden placed on the manufacturers (due to the 
refrigerator, room air conditioner, and clothes washer rules) as 
another reason why standards for cooking products are inappropriate.
    Steve Nadel (ACEEE, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 32 at 2) supported no new 
standard for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. However, ACEEE disagreed 
with the rationale that the Department cannot be certain that all 
products if vented and insulated like self-cleaning counterparts will 
meet a specific performance standard because DOE can never be sure that 
a specific design option will always achieve a specific performance 
level. DOE could perform additional testing, but given the modest 
savings of a standard, the burden of performance testing, and the fact 
that the rulemaking is already years behind, public interest is best 
served by finalizing a ``no standard'' standard for electric products.
    Mark Krebs (Laclede Gas, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 18 at 1) questioned how 
DOE could state that the record for electric cooking products is 
complete if performance data on electric ovens does not exist. In the 
reopening notice of February 27, 1998, however, the Department stated 
that DOE believed the record was complete for electric cooktops, 
electric self-cleaning ovens, and microwave ovens. The Department did 
not state the record was complete for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. 
The Department issued the February 1998 notice in order to complete the 
record.
    The American Gas Association (AGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 37 at 11-12) 
commented that the Department has not shown adequate justification for 
not issuing standards for electric cooking products. AGA commented that 
the analysis shows a performance standard for electric non-self-
cleaning ovens is technologically feasible, economically justified, and 
will save significant energy. AGA stated that DOE's argument that no 
performance or usage data exists for these products (therefore it is 
unknown if they could meet a performance standard with improved 
insulation & venting) would imply that DOE would not pursue standards 
for any NAECA products where data did not already exist. The National 
Propane Gas Association (NPGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 31 at 2) concurred 
with AGA's comments.
    As discussed under ``design options,'' the Department has received 
information from manufacturers indicating that their self-cleaning and 
non-self-cleaning ovens typically already use the same venting, and the 
Department has probably overstated the energy savings. The Department 
also believes that it has shown adequate justification (see Section 
``III. e. Conclusion'') for rejecting standards for electric cooking 
products.
Separating the Rule
    Many commenters requested the Department split off certain products 
from this rule and finalize the rule for those products immediately. 
AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2) commented that the electric 
range and oven and microwave oven portion of this rulemaking should be 
finalized immediately. AHAM stated that failure to finalize this rule 
has created uncertainty among manufacturers, component suppliers, and 
other parties and adversely affects investment and redesign decisions. 
Amana (Amana, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 38 at 1) emphasized the importance of 
finalizing the electric range and microwave oven portions of the rule 
as soon as possible and separately, if necessary, from the gas cooking 
products rule. Amana cited the adverse effects the delay has caused on 
planning and investment. Whirlpool (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 33 at 
4) stated that it has been waiting eight years for a final rule, which 
has not allowed them to be completely free to dedicate resources to 
innovative consumer features, without setting them forth. Consequently, 
Whirlpool urged DOE to issue a separate rule for electric cooking 
products immediately.
    Sharp (Sharp, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 35 at 1) fully supported DOE's 
conclusion that establishing new or revised energy conservation 
standards for microwave ovens are not technologically feasible or 
economically justified. Sharp requested that DOE separate microwave 
ovens from the other consumer products identified in the notice and 
issue, without delay, a final determination that DOE will not establish 
any energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. Sharp commented 
that such a final pronouncement by DOE will remove the lingering 
uncertainty that has hindered the microwave oven industry.
    Due to requests that the rule be split in order to issue a final 
rule for electric cooking products without further delay, the 
Department has severed the electric cooking products from the gas 
cooking products in this rule.
Energy Rates
    Commenters recommended that the Department should use the latest 
energy price forecasts and the Consumer Marginal Energy Rates (CMER) as 
recommended by the Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy Efficiency 
Standards (ACAES). Sharp (Sharp, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 35 at 2) commented 
that if consumer marginal energy rates were used in the calculations 
for microwave ovens, it would greatly increase the payback period, 
which already extends beyond the economically acceptable timeframe. AGA 
(AGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 37 at 9) also commented that DOE should use 
the latest AEO price projections and the energy cost recommendations of 
the ACAES. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 
No. 31 at 2) concurred with AGA's comments. Edison Electric Institute 
(EEI, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 21 at 1) commented that the analysis should be 
changed to show the results of

[[Page 48048]]

calculations over a range of marginal energy prices, which would lead 
to more accurate ranges of life-cycle-costs, rather than using 
``average'' prices. EEI stated that the avoided energy cost rates using 
AEO 98 are lower than the rates used in the DOE analysis. EEI also 
commented that discount factors for this type of consumer appliance are 
probably too low. In addition, EEI commented that if the peak demand 
savings are assuming 100% coincidence with utility peak demands, 100% 
diversity, and 100% load factors, then the values are too high and 
should be adjusted downward to reflect actual coincidence, diversity, 
and load factors. AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2) also 
commented that AEO 98 and CMER should be used. AHAM stated that these 
lower electricity rates would result in even longer paybacks for any 
possible standard level.
    The Department is committed to certain procedures under the Process 
Rule. 61 FR 36973 (July 15, 1996). These procedures, however, do not 
apply entirely to certain rules already underway, 61 FR at 36980, 
including the cooking products rulemaking. The Supplemental Analysis, 
conducted in 1997, did use the most current energy price forecasts 
available at that time. In addition, the Advisory Committee had not yet 
made its recommendations to the Department regarding CMER at the time 
the Supplemental Analysis was conducted. Furthermore, using these lower 
energy rates would not increase the likelihood that standards for 
electric cooking products would be economically justified because lower 
energy prices would only increase the payback period and decrease the 
life-cycle-cost savings. Consequently, the Department did not expend 
the resources to reanalyze the data using these new energy rates. 
Regarding peak demand savings, the Department agrees with EEI and did 
not assume 100 percent diversity, coincidence, or load factors. See 
Appendix E of the General Methodology in the TSD for a more complete 
explanation.
    EEI questioned whether an energy efficiency standard should discuss 
emissions and environmental impacts. EEI commented that the Draft 
Report downplays the reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide 
emissions from power plants, on an overall and per kWh basis, and it 
does not appear that the report shows a decline in emissions for the 
years 2001-2030. EEI also stated that the impact of restructured 
electricity markets could have a significant impact on emissions, as 
customers choose their preference of generation sources. The Department 
agrees that forecast emission rates for NOX, SO2, 
and CO2 do fall over time. Emission rates may be affected by 
restructuring, but given the absence of clear indications of this 
effect, it was not incorporated into the analysis.

III. Analysis of Electric Cooking Products Standards

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

a. Efficiency Levels Analyzed

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

  Table 4-1.--Annual Energy Use for Standard Levels Analyzed in the Proposed Rule for Kitchen Ranges, Ovens and
                                                 Microwave Ovens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Standard level
                 Product class                 -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Baseline      1          2          3          4          5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric ovens, self-cleaning (kWh)...........      303.7      303.7      303.7      303.7      220.0      213.7
Electric ovens, non-self-cleaning (kWh).......      274.9      263.2      251.8      248.0      169.6      162.4
Microwave ovens (kWh).........................      143.2      143.2      143.2      143.2      143.2      132.4
Electric cooking top, coil element (kWh)......      234.7      234.7      225.2      225.2      222.9      222.9
Electric cooking top, smooth element (kWh)....      233.4      233.4      233.4      233.4      233.4      206.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For analytical purposes the Department segmented the above classes 
into three groups: conventional ovens, conventional cooking tops, and 
microwave ovens. Rather than presenting the results for all classes of 
cooking products in today's notice, the Department selected a class of 
cooking products as being representative, or typical, of each group of 
the product, and DOE is presenting the results only for those 
representative classes. The results for the other classes can be found 
in the TSD in the same sections as those referenced for the 
representative class. The results and conclusions for each group are 
presented separately below.
1. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Conventional Ovens
    The Department selected non-self-cleaning electric ovens as being 
the representative class of conventional ovens. For non-self-cleaning 
electric ovens, trial standard level 1 accomplishes energy efficiency 
improvement from the baseline by reduced venting; level 2 includes 
improved insulation; level 3 includes improved seals; level 4 provides 
for a biradiant oven; level 5 includes reduced conduction losses, 
forced convection, and an oven separator.
    For efficiency levels 1-3 of conventional ovens, the calculations 
are based on the supplemental analysis, using AEO 97 energy price 
forecasts. Efficiency levels 4-5 of conventional ovens are based on the 
Draft Report analysis, which used AEO 95 energy price forecasts. They 
were not reanalyzed in the Supplemental analysis.
2. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Conventional Cooking Tops
    The Department selected electric-coil cooking tops as being 
representative of conventional cooking tops. For electric-coil cooking 
tops, trial standard level 1 remains at the baseline while levels 2 and 
3 accomplish energy efficiency improvements from the baseline by 
incorporating improved heating element contact conductance; levels 4 
and 5 add reflective surfaces.
    Conventional electric cooktops were not addressed in the 
Supplemental Analysis. Values pertaining to cooktops referenced in 
today's rule are based on

[[Page 48049]]

the Draft Report, which used AEO 95 energy price forecasts.
3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Microwave Ovens
    The Department considers all microwave ovens to comprise one class. 
For microwave ovens, trial standard levels 1 through 4 remain at the 
baseline, while level 5 incorporates an efficient power supply, an 
efficient fan, an efficient magnetron, and a reflective surface. All 
values referenced are from the Draft Report, which used AEO 95 energy 
price forecasts.

b. Significance of Energy Savings

    Under section 325(o)(3)(B) of EPCA, the Department is prohibited 
from adopting a standard for a product if that standard would not 
result in ``significant'' energy savings. The Department forecasted 
energy consumption by the use of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory--
Residential Energy Model (LBL-REM). See Appendix B of the TSD. To 
estimate the energy savings by the year 2030 due to revised standards, 
the energy consumption of new cooking products under the base case is 
compared to the energy consumption of those sold under the candidate 
standard levels. For the candidate energy conservation standards, the 
analysis projects that over the period 2001-2030, the following energy 
savings would result for all classes of the product. See Tables 3.3 and 
Supplemental Table 3.16b in the TSD.
1. Conventional Ovens
Level 1--0.05 Quad 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Calculations are based on the supplemental analysis, using 
AEO 97 energy prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level 2--0.10 Quad \3\
Level 3--0.03 Quad \3\
Level 4--1.68 Quad 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Calculations are based Draft Report analysis, which used AEO 
95 energy prices. They were not reanalyzed in the Supplemental 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level 5--1.68 Quad \4\
2. Conventional Cooking Tops
Level 1--0 Quad
Level 2--0.05 Quad
Level 3--0.05 Quad
Level 4--0.10 Quad
Level 5--0.45 Quad
3. Microwave Ovens.
Level 1--0 Quad
Level 2--0 Quad
Level 3--0 Quad
Level 4--0 Quad
Level 5--0.33 Quad
    While the term ``significant'' is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that 
Congress intended the word ``significant'' to mean ``non-trivial.'' 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington. 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 
(D.C.Cir. 1985). Thus, for this rulemaking, DOE concludes that each 
standard level results in significant energy savings.

c. Economic Justification

    Section 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA provides seven factors to be 
evaluated, to the greatest extent practicable, in determining whether a 
conservation standard is economically justified.
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    The engineering analysis identified improvements in efficiency 
along with the associated costs to manufacturers for each efficiency 
level for each class of product. For each design option, these 
associated costs constitute the increased per-unit cost to 
manufacturers to achieve the indicated energy efficiency levels. 
Manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer markups will result in a 
consumer purchase price higher than the manufacturer cost.
    To assess the likely impacts of standards on manufacturers and to 
determine the effects of standards on different-sized firms, the 
Department used a computer model that simulates hypothetical firms in 
the industry under consideration. This model, the Manufacturer Analysis 
Model (MAM), is explained in the TSD. (See TSD, Appendix C.) The cost 
of a compliance testing and certification program is an additional 
impact on the manufacturer. The Department's analysis, however, did not 
assess the impact of this program on the manufacturers.
    For consumers, measures of economic impact are the changes in 
purchase price, annual energy expense, and installation costs. The 
purchase price, installation cost, and cumulative annual energy 
expense, i.e., life-cycle cost, of each standard level are presented in 
Chapter 3 of the TSD. Under section 325 of the EPCA, the life-cycle 
cost analysis is a separate factor to be considered in determining 
economic justification.
    Conventional Ovens. The per-unit increased cost to manufacturers to 
meet efficiency level 1 for electric non-self-cleaning ovens is $1.63; 
to meet level 2, the manufacturers' cost increase is $4.84; level 3 is 
$8.53; level 4 is $71.03, and level 5 is $125.94. See Technical Support 
Document, Table 1.11.
    At those levels of efficiency, the consumer price increase, for 
electric non-self-cleaning ovens at level 1 is $3.5; to meet level 2, 
the cost increase is $11; level 3 is $29; level 4 is $179, and level 5 
is $314. For electric non-self-cleaning ovens, the per-unit reduction 
in annual cost of operation, including energy expenses and any 
additional maintenance costs, at level 1 is $13; standard 
level 2 is $23; level 3 is $23; level 4 is 
$84, and level 5 is $84. See Technical Support 
Document, Table 4.4 and Supplemental Table 4.4.
    The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory-Manufacturer Impact Model analyzes 
the effects of the trial standard levels on both the long run and short 
run returns on equity. Short run return on equity refer to the effect 
during approximately the first three years, and long run return on 
equity refers to the effects beyond three years. The results (analyzed 
in the Draft Report) for all classes of conventional ovens 5 
show that revised standards would have some effect on a prototypical 
manufacturer's short-run return on equity with some decrease at the 
higher standard levels from the 10.53 percent in the base case. 
Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce short-run returns 
on equity of 10.64 percent, 10.63 percent, 10.21 percent, 8.85 percent, 
and 5.14 percent, respectively. These standard levels have slight 
impacts on long-run return on equity. Standard levels 1 through 5 are 
projected to produce long-run return on equities of 10.51 percent, 
10.51 percent, 10.35 percent, 10.33 percent, and 9.75 percent, 
respectively. See Technical Support Document, Tables 5.2 and 5.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These values, calculated in the Draft Report, were based on 
all classes of conventional ovens, including gas ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conventional Cooking Tops. The per-unit increased cost to 
manufacturers to meet the level 1 efficiency for electric-coil cooking 
tops is zero, since this class is at the baseline; to meet levels 2 and 
3 the manufacturers' cost increase is $2.28, and to meet levels 4 and 5 
the cost is $5.31. See Technical Support Document, Table 1.6.
    At those levels of efficiency, the consumer price increase, for 
electric-coil cooking tops at level 1 is unchanged, since it is at the 
baseline; to meet levels 2 and 3 the cost increase is $5, and at levels 
4 and 5 it is $12. See Technical Support Document, Table 4.1.
    The per-unit reduction in annual cost of operation, including 
energy expenses and any increase in maintenance cost, for electric-coil 
cooking tops at level 1 is unchanged since it is at the baseline; 
standard levels 2 and 3 would reduce operational expenses by $1, and 
levels 4 and 5 would reduce operational expenses by $1. See Technical 
Support Document, Table 4.1.
    The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory-Manufacturer Impact Model results 
for

[[Page 48050]]

all classes of conventional cooking tops show that revised standards 
would have slight impacts on a prototypical manufacturer's short-run 
return on equity 6 with some decrease at the higher standard 
levels from the 10.84 percent in the base case. Standard levels 1 
through 5 are projected to produce short-run return on equities of 
11.07 percent, 11.04 percent, 11.08 percent, 11.02 percent, and 9.24 
percent, respectively. These standard levels have slight impacts on 
long-run return on equity, with some decreases at the higher standard 
levels. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce long-run 
returns on equity of 10.77 percent, 10.78 percent, 10.78 percent, 10.42 
percent and 9.71 percent, respectively. See Technical Support Document, 
Tables 5.1 and 5.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These values, calculated in the Draft Report, were based on 
all classes of conventional cooktops, including gas cooktops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microwave Ovens. The per-unit increased cost to manufacturers to 
meet efficiency levels 1 through 4 for microwave ovens is zero since 
these levels are at the baseline; to meet level 5, the manufacturers' 
cost increase is $51.11. See Technical Support Document, Table 1.17.
    At those levels of efficiency, the consumer price increase for 
microwave ovens at levels 1 through 4 is unchanged since they are at 
the baseline; to meet level 5, the cost increase is $66. See Technical 
Support Document, Table 4.8.
    The per-unit reduction in annual cost of operation at levels 1 
through 4 would not reduce annual operational expense since it is at 
the baseline. Standard level 5 would reduce operational expenses by $1. 
See Technical Support Document, Table 4.8.
    The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory-Manufacturer Impact Model results 
for microwave ovens show that revised standards would not affect a 
prototypical manufacturer's long nor short-run return on equity of 3.65 
percent in the base case, except for max tech. Standard levels 1 
through 5 are projected to produce short-run return on equities of 3.65 
percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent and 2.30 percent, 
respectively. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce 
long-run return on equities of 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 
percent, 3.65 percent and 4.81 percent, respectively. See Technical 
Support Document, Tables 5.3 and 5.9.
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Net Present Value
    One measure of the effect of proposed standards on consumers is the 
change in life-cycle costs, including recurring operating expenses, 
purchase price, and installation costs resulting from the new 
standards. The change in life-cycle cost is quantified by the 
difference in the life-cycle costs between the base case and candidate 
standard case for each of the product classes analyzed. The life-cycle 
cost is the sum of the purchase price and the cumulative operating 
expense, including installation and maintenance expenditures, 
discounted over the lifetime of the appliance. The life-cycle cost was 
calculated for the range of efficiencies analyzed in the ``Engineering 
Analysis'' section of the TSD, for each class, in the year standards 
are imposed, using real consumer discount rate of six percent.
    Conventional Ovens. A life-cycle cost is calculated for a unit 
meeting each of the candidate standard levels. For the representative 
class, life-cycle costs for non-self-cleaning ovens at standard levels 
1 and 2 are at or less than the baseline unit. Of the five candidate 
standard levels, units meeting level 2 have the lowest consumer life-
cycle cost for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. See Technical Support 
Document, Table 4.4 and Supplemental Table 4.4.
    For the representative class of electric ovens, standard level 1 
would cause reductions in life-cycle costs for the average consumer of 
$6.1; \3\ standard level 2 would reduce average life-cycle costs by 
$8.0; \3\ standard level 3 would result in an increase of $6.6; \3\ 
level 4 would result in an increase of $88.2; \4\ while standard level 
5 would result in an increase of $217.1.\4\ See Technical Support 
Document, Table 4.18 and Supplemental Table 4.39.
    The Department examined the effect of different discount rates (2, 
6, and 15 percent) on the life-cycle cost curves. See Figure 4.4, Table 
4.4 and Supplemental Table 4.4 in the TSD. Life-cycle cost sensitivity 
to changes in energy price and equipment price were analyzed. See 
Figure 4.12, Table 4.12, and Supplemental Table 4.35 in the TSD. This 
analysis shows that the life-cycle cost minimum using the lowest State 
energy price occurs at standard level 1 for electric non-self-cleaning 
ovens but remains at standard level 2 for all other energy prices 
analyzed.
    The Department also calculated paybacks using the energy prices 
calculated by the Gas Research Institute (GRI). The life-cycle cost 
minimums resulting from the GRI projections remain unchanged from the 
analysis using the AEO price forecasts. The payback periods increase 
slightly for electric non-self-cleaning ovens using the GRI forecasts, 
but these paybacks remain well within the expected life of the product. 
Therefore, the GRI prices have no substantial impact on the outcome of 
the standard levels analyzed.
    The net present value analysis, a measure of the net savings to 
society, indicates that for all classes of conventional electric ovens, 
standard levels 1-3 would produce a net present value of $0.03 billion 
\3\ to consumers. The corresponding values for levels 4 and 5 result in 
a negative $2.53 billion and negative $6.23 billion, respectively.\4\ 
See Technical Support Document, Table 3.6e and Supplemental Table 
3.28b.
    Conventional Cooking Tops. A life-cycle cost is calculated for a 
unit meeting each of the candidate standard levels. For the 
representative class, life-cycle costs at all standard levels, except 
at max tech, are less than the baseline unit for electric coil 
cooktops. Of the five candidate standard levels, units meeting levels 2 
and 3 have the lowest consumer life-cycle cost for electric coil 
cooktops. It should be noted that for another class, electric smooth 
element cooking tops, units meeting the baseline have the lowest 
consumer life-cycle costs. See Technical Support Document, Tables 4.1 
and 4.2.
    For the representative class of electric-coil cooking tops, 
standard level 1 would cause no change in life-cycle costs for the 
average consumer since it is the same as the baseline; standard levels 
2 and 3 would reduce average life-cycle costs by $3.2, and standard 
levels 4 and 5 would result in an increase in life-cycle cost of $1.8. 
See Technical Support Document, Table 4.15.
    The Department examined the effect of different discount rates (2, 
6, and 15 percent) on the life-cycle cost curves. If the discount rate 
is increased to 15 percent, the life-cycle cost minimum occurs at the 
baseline. See TSD Table 4.1. Life-cycle cost sensitivity to changes in 
energy price and equipment price were analyzed. See Figure 4.10 and 
Table 4.10 in the TSD. This analysis shows that the life-cycle cost 
minimum using the lowest State energy price drops to standard level 1 
for electric coil cooktops but remains unchanged for all other energy 
prices analyzed. The life cycle cost minimum remains unchanged for the 
highest State energy price, except for the case including both the 
highest State energy price and the highest equipment price, the LCC 
minimum occurs at max tech. Consequently, high state energy prices have 
no effect on the standard levels analyzed unless equipment prices are 
also high.
    The net present value analysis, a measure of the net savings to 
society, indicates that for all classes of

[[Page 48051]]

conventional electric cooking tops, standard level 1 would produce a 
zero net present value; standard levels 2 and 3 would produce a net 
present value of $0.03 billion, while standard levels 4 and 5 would 
produce negative net present values of $0.09 billion and $3.10 billion, 
respectively. See Technical Support Document, Table 3.6b.
    Microwave Ovens. A life-cycle cost is calculated for a unit meeting 
each of the candidate standard levels. Of the five candidate standard 
levels, units meeting the baseline had the lowest consumer life-cycle 
cost for microwave ovens. See Technical Support Document, Table 4.8. 
Standard levels 1 through 4 would cause no reductions in life-cycle 
costs for the average affected consumer, since they are the same as the 
baseline for microwave ovens. Standard level 5 would increase average 
life-cycle costs by $56.7. See Technical Support Document, Table 4.22.
    The Department examined the effect of different discount rates (2, 
6, and 15 percent) on the life-cycle cost curves and generally found 
little impact. Life-cycle cost sensitivity to changes in energy price 
and equipment price were analyzed. See Figure 4.14 and Tables 4.14 in 
the TSD. This analysis shows little impact.
    The net present value analysis, a measure of the net savings to 
society, indicates that for microwave ovens, standard levels 1 through 
4 would produce a zero net present value to consumers. The net present 
value for level 5 is a negative $4.67 billion. See Technical Support 
Document, Table 3.6g.
3. Energy Savings
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the total projected energy savings 
that result from revised standards. The Department forecasted energy 
consumption through the use of the LBL-REM. (See Appendix B of the TSD 
for a detailed discussion of the LBL-REM.) See section III. b. in 
today's rule for the energy savings of all efficiency levels.
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing classes of products and design options, the 
Department tried to eliminate from consideration any design option that 
would result in degradation of utility or performance. Thus, a separate 
class with a different efficiency standard was created for a product 
where the record indicated that the product included a utility or 
performance-related feature that affected energy efficiency. Five 
separate classes were analyzed; see Table 4-1 in today's rule. In this 
way, the Department attempted to minimize the impact of amended 
standards on the utility and performance of conventional ovens, 
conventional cooking tops, and microwave ovens.
5. Impact of Lessening of Competition
    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act directs the Department to 
consider the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to 
result from the standards, as determined by the Attorney General.
    In a letter dated September 16, 1994, the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) expressed concern about the effects the standards proposed in the 
1994 Proposed Rule might have on industry. DOJ concluded that it is 
likely that competition in the manufacture and sale of commercial/
professional-style or high-end ranges and ovens will be eliminated if 
the proposed standards are adopted. The Department of Justice also 
concluded that there is a possibility that the proposed standard could 
force one or more firms out of the manufacture of standard ranges thus 
lessening competition. (DOJ, No. 840 at 5.) The September 16, 1994, 
letter is printed at the end of today's rule.
    The Department of Justice comments were based on the standards 
proposed in the 1994 Proposed Rule. Because today's rule is not 
promulgating new standards, there will not be significant adverse 
effects on industry.
6. Need of the Nation To Save Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency improves the Nation's energy security, 
strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts of 
energy production.
7. Other Factors
    Decreasing future energy demand as a result of standards will 
decrease air pollution.
    Conventional Ovens.7 Standards would result in a 
decrease in nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. For standard 
level 1, over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated 
NOX reduction would be approximately 11,000 tons. For 
standard levels 2-5, the estimated reductions would be approximately 
23,000 tons, 15,000 tons, 227,000 tons, and 227,000 tons, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The emissions calculated in the Draft Report Tables 7.6-7.10 
were based on both gas and electric ovens. However, from the 
emissions reductions for standard levels 1 and 2 (for which gas 
ovens are at the baseline), the emissions reductions per quad can be 
approximated for electric ovens over the years 2000 to 2030. These 
approximations are 75 million tons CO2 per quad, 135,000 
tons NOX per quad, and 150,000 tons SO2 per 
quad. Decreases in SO2 emissions will not occur because 
the Clean Air Act places a ceiling on SO2 emissions that 
will be met under any regulatory regime. Therefore, these reductions 
should be interpreted as reduced costs to electricity generators for 
controlling SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated decreased need to control SOX over the 
years 2000 to 2030 would be 12,000 tons, 25,000 tons, 17,000 tons, and 
250,000 tons for levels 1-5, respectively.
    Another consequence of the standards would be the reduction of 
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. For standard level 1, over 
the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated CO2 reduction 
would be approximately 6 million tons. For standard levels 2-5, the 
estimated reductions would be 13 million tons, 8 million tons, 126 
million tons, and 126 million tons, respectively.
    Conventional Cooking Tops.8 Standards would results in a 
decrease in nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. For standard 
level 1, over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated 
NOX reduction would be zero. During this time period, there 
would be no reduction of NOX emissions emitted by power 
plants. For standard levels 2-5, the reductions would be approximately 
9,000 tons, 9,000 tons, 18,000 tons, and 80,000 tons, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The emissions calculated in the Draft Report Tables 7.1-7.5 
were based on both gas and electric cooktops. However, from the 
emissions reductions for standard level 2 (for which gas cooktops 
are at the baseline), the emissions reductions per quad can be 
approximated for electric cooktops over the years 2000 to 2030. 
These approximations are 80 million tons CO2 per quad, 
180,000 tons NOX per quad, and 220,000 tons 
SO2 per quad. Decreases in SO2 emissions will 
not occur because the Clean Air Act places a ceiling on 
SO2 emissions that will be met under any regulatory 
regime. Therefore, these reductions should be interpreted as reduced 
costs to electricity generators for controlling SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated decreased need to control SOX over the 
years 2000 to 2030 would be 11,000 tons, 11,000 tons, 22,000 tons, and 
99,000 tons for levels 2-5, respectively.
    Another consequence of the standards would be the reduction of 
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. For standard level 1, over 
the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated CO2 reduction 
would be zero because this standard level is at the baseline. During 
this time period, there would be no reduction of CO2 
emissions emitted by power plants in the United States. For standard 
levels 2-5, the reductions would be approximately 4 million tons, 4 
million tons, 8 million tons, and 36 million tons, respectively.
    Microwave Ovens: Standards would result in a decrease in nitrogen 
oxide (NOX) emissions. For standard levels 1 through 4, over 
the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated NOX reduction 
would be zero. During this time period, those levels of efficiency 
improvement would cause no reduction of NOX emissions from 
power plants in the

[[Page 48052]]

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

    \9\ Decreases in SO2 emissions will not occur because 
the Clean Air Act places a ceiling on SO2 emissions that 
will be met under any regulatory regime. Therefore, these reductions 
should be interpreted as reduced costs to electricity generators for 
controlling SO2. For microwave ovens at standard levels 1 
through 4, over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated 
SO2 reduction would be zero. For standard level 5, the 
need to control SO2 would be reduced by an estimated 53,000 tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

d. Payback Period

    If the increase in initial price of an appliance due to a 
conservation standard would repay itself to the consumer in energy 
savings in less than three years, then it is presumed that such 
standard is economically justified.10 EPCA, 
Sec. 325(o)(2)(B)(iii), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii). This 
presumption of economic justification can be rebutted upon a proper 
showing. Failure to qualify for this presumption shall not be taken 
into consideration in determining whether a standard is economically 
justified. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For this calculation, the Department calculated cost-of-
operation based on the DOE test procedures. Therefore, the consumer 
is assumed to be an ``average'' consumer as defined by the DOE test 
procedures. Consumers who use the products less than the test 
procedure assumes will experience a longer payback while those who 
use them more than the test procedure assumes will have a shorter 
payback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conventional Ovens. Table 4-2 presents the payback periods 
11 for the efficiency levels analyzed for the representative 
class of conventional ovens. For electric ovens, none of the trial 
standard levels satisfies the rebuttable presumption test, i.e., the 
additional price of purchasing a product will be less than three times 
the value of the energy savings that the consumer will receive during 
the first year. See Table 4.18 and Supplemental Table 4.43 in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ These payback periods are weighted averages. They compare 
the portion of the projected distributions of designs in the base 
case that are less efficient than the standard level to the design 
at the standard level. Designs with energy consumption at or below 
the standard level are not affected by the standard and are excluded 
from the calculation of impacts.

   Table 4-2.--Payback Periods of Design Options (Years) for Non-Self-
                       Cleaning ConventionaL Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Payback
                       Standard  level                          period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................     \3\ 4.0
2...........................................................     \3\ 6.5
3...........................................................    \3\ 14.5
4...........................................................    \4\ 22
5...........................................................    \4\ 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conventional Cooking Tops. Table 4-3 presents the payback periods 
for the efficiency levels analyzed for the representative class of 
conventional cooking tops. For electric cooktops, none of the trial 
standard levels satisfies the rebuttable presumption test, i.e., the 
additional price of purchasing a product will be less than three times 
the value of the energy savings that the consumer will receive during 
the first year. See Table 4.15 in the TSD.

 Table 4-3.--Payback Periods of Design Options (Years) for Conventional
                              Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Payback
                       Standard  level                          period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................................       N/A
2...........................................................         6.5
3...........................................................         6.5
4...........................................................        13
5...........................................................        13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microwave Ovens. Table 4-4 presents the payback period for the 
efficiency levels analyzed for microwave ovens. For microwave ovens, 
none of the trial standard levels satisfies the rebuttable presumption 
test, i.e., the additional price of purchasing a product will be less 
than three times the value of the energy savings that the consumer will 
receive during the first year. See Table 4.22 in the TSD.

   Table 4-4.--Payback Periods of Design Options (Years) for Microwave
                                  Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Payback
                       Standard  level                           period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................        N/A
2............................................................        N/A
3............................................................        N/A
4............................................................        N/A
5............................................................         79
------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Conclusion

1. Product Name Change
    The Department is changing the name of this product from ``kitchen 
ranges and ovens'' to ``cooking products.'' This change is made because 
the term ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' does not accurately describe the 
products considered which include microwave ovens, conventional ranges, 
cooktops, and ovens. To be consistent with this change, the Department 
is adding a regulatory definition of ``cooking products'' that is the 
same as the existing definition of ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' to 
Title 10 CFR Part 430.2.
2. Standards
    Section 325(o)(2)(A) of the Act specifies that the Department must 
establish standards that ``achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified.'' EPCA, Sec. 325(o)(2)(A). Technologically 
feasible design options are ``technologies which can be incorporated in 
commercial products or in working prototypes.'' 10 CFR Part 430, 
Appendix A to Subpart C, 4(a)(4)(i). A standard level is economically 
justified if the benefits exceed the burdens. EPCA, 
Sec. 325(o)(2)(B)(i).
    A maximum technologically feasible (max tech) design option was 
identified for each class of cooking products. The max tech levels were 
derived by adding energy-conserving engineering design options to the 
baseline units for each of the respective classes in order of 
decreasing consumer payback. A complete discussion of each max tech 
level, and the design options included in each, is found in the 
Engineering Analysis in the TSD, Chapter 1. Table 5-1 presents the 
Department's max tech performance levels for all classes of the subject 
products:

  Table 5-1.--Cooking Products Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Product class                      Annual energy use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric oven, self-cleaning...............  213.7 kWh.
Electric oven, non-self-cleaning...........  162.4 kWh.
Microwave oven.............................  132.4 kWh.
Electric cooktop, coil element.............  229.9 kWh.
Electric cooktop, smooth element...........  206.4 kWh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48053]]

    Accordingly, DOE first considered the max tech level of efficiency, 
i.e., standard level 5.
    Conventional Ovens 12. Of the standard levels analyzed, 
level 5 will save the most energy (1.68 quads between 2000 and 2030). 
In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that the 
representative class of conventional ovens will incorporate improved 
door seals, reduced venting, increased and improved insulation, forced 
convection, an oven separator, would be biradiant and have reduced 
conduction losses. However, the payback at this standard level of 36 
years for the representative class exceeds the 19-year product life. At 
this standard level, all classes have increased life-cycle costs and 
negative net present value. The Department therefore concludes that the 
burdens of standard level 5 for conventional ovens outweigh the 
benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Standard levels 1-3 were reanalyzed in the Supplemental 
Analysis (which used AEO 97 energy forecasts), and standard levels 
4-5 were not reanalyzed and are based solely on the Draft Report, 
using AEO 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next most stringent standard level is standard level 4. This 
standard level is projected to save 1.68 quads of energy. In order to 
meet this standard, the Department assumes that the representative 
class of conventional ovens will incorporate improved door seals, 
reduced venting, increased and improved insulation, and would be 
biradiant. However, for the representative class the payback at this 
standard level is 22 years. This standard level increases the life-
cycle costs for both classes of electric ovens. In addition, this 
standard level results in a negative net present value for all classes 
of conventional ovens. The Department therefore concludes that the 
burdens of standard level 4 for conventional ovens outweigh the 
benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.
    The next most stringent standard level is standard level 3. This 
standard level is projected to save 0.03 quad of energy. In order to 
meet this standard, the Department assumes that all conventional 
electric ovens incorporate improved door seals, reduced venting, and 
improved insulation. The payback at this standard level is 14 years. 
This standard level increases the life-cycle costs for the 
representative class of electric ovens. The Department therefore 
concludes that the burdens of standard level 3 for conventional ovens 
outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.
    The next most stringent standard level is standard level 2. In the 
Supplemental Analysis prepared in Fall 1997, standard level 2 was 
projected to save 0.1 quad of energy. In order to meet this standard, 
the Department assumes that the representative class of conventional 
ovens will incorporate reduced venting and improved insulation. 
However, the savings estimates the Department used were based on the 
assumption that efficiency gains could be achieved by reducing the vent 
rate and improving the type of insulation used. As discussed in section 
``II. Discussion of Comments, reduced vent size'' the Department has 
determined that there may not be energy savings from reduced venting. 
Thus, in order to evaluate the energy savings and consumer impacts of 
improved insulation only, the Department has considered the incremental 
differences between trial standard level 1 (which consisted of reduced 
venting) and trial standard level 2 (which adds improved insulation). 
Thus, standard level 1 essentially becomes the baseline for this 
evaluation. Excluding the effects of reduced venting on standard level 
2 lowers the energy savings from the reported 0.1 quad to approximately 
0.05 quad, reduces the life-cycle cost savings from the reported $6 to 
approximately to $2, and increases the payback to from the reported 6.5 
years to approximately 9 years (compared to the expected life of 19 
years). Additionally, because currently ovens are not labeled or tested 
for energy consumption and therefore performance data on specific ovens 
does not exist, it is unknown whether all non-self-cleaning electric 
ovens would meet a specific performance standard by the addition of 
insulation alone. Consequently, there is a risk that in order to bring 
some electric non-self-cleaning ovens into compliance with a 
performance standard, manufacturers would need to use additional design 
options. The analysis found no other design options to be cost 
effective. The additional cost would be passed on to consumers. DOE 
could perform additional testing on electric non-self-cleaning ovens, 
but given the modest savings (.05 quad), the burden of performance and 
a certification program, as well as the adverse manufacturer and 
consumer impacts for ovens that might not achieve a performance 
standard by using insulation alone, DOE concluded that the burdens of 
standard level 2 outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard 
level.
    The next most stringent standard level is standard level 1. In the 
Supplemental Analysis prepared in Fall 1997, standard level 1 was 
projected to save 0.05 quad of energy. In order to meet this standard, 
the Department assumes that the representative class of conventional 
ovens will incorporate reduced venting. As discussed in the 
``comments'' section, the Department has determined that there would 
likely not be any energy savings from standard level 1. Therefore, the 
Department rejects standard level 1.
    Conventional Cooking Tops 13. Of the standard levels 
analyzed, level 5 will save the most energy (0.45 quad between 2000 and 
2030). In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that the 
representative class of conventional cooking tops will have reflective 
surfaces and would have improved element contact conductance. At this 
standard level, all classes have increased life-cycle costs and 
negative net present value. The Department therefore concludes that the 
burdens of standard level 5 for conventional cooktops outweigh the 
benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Cooktops and microwave ovens were not reanalyzed in the 
Supplemental Analysis, therefore they are based solely on the Draft 
Report, using AEO 95 energy forecasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next most stringent standard level is standard level 4. This 
standard level is projected to save 0.1 quad of energy. In order to 
meet this standard, electric-coil cooking tops would have improved 
element contact conductance and reflective surfaces. However, this 
standards level results in a negative net present value and increased 
life-cycle costs for the representative class of conventional cooktops. 
The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 4 
for conventional cooktops outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the 
standard level.
    The next most stringent standard level is standard level 3. In 
order to meet this standard, electric-coil cooking tops would have 
improved element contact conductance. This standard level is projected 
to save the average consumer approximately $3 over the life of the 
product, using AEO 95 energy price forecasts. This standard level is 
projected to save 0.05 quad of energy; however, the Department has 
concerns as to whether this energy saving will be realized. Cooktops 
are somewhat unique in that they are completely controlled by the 
consumer. They are not thermostatically controlled, as are 
refrigerators, nor do they operate in a cyclical mode like a 
dishwasher. They are operated for an amount of time determined by the 
consumer to complete a cooking task. Given the small relative 
efficiency improvement of this design level, 4.3 percent, the

[[Page 48054]]

savings would only be realized if consumers reduced their cooking times 
by 4.3 percent. While this is theoretically possible, especially for 
cooking tasks that have a possible definite end point such as boiling 
water or melting butter which would occur 4.3 percent faster, it seems 
highly questionable that consumer behavior would change for the 
majority of cooking tasks to perform them in 4.3 percent less time. The 
savings do not occur unless this consumer behavior change takes place. 
Given the questionable nature of the energy savings, the Department 
believes that the burdens of a testing and certification program and 
the possible manufacturer impacts for cooktops that might not achieve a 
performance standard outweigh the benefits of the standard. The 
Department concludes that the burdens of standard level 3 for 
conventional cooktops outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the 
standard level.
    Standard level 2 is identical to standard level 3 for electric 
cooktops, and standard level 1 is at the baseline. Consequently, the 
Department is not issuing a standard for conventional cooktops because 
the burdens outweigh the benefits for all standard levels analyzed.
    Microwave Ovens \13\. Of the standard levels analyzed, level 5 will 
save the most energy (0.33 quad between 2000 and 2030). In order to 
meet this standard, the Department assumes that all microwave ovens 
will incorporate reflective surfaces and more efficient power supplies, 
fans, and magnetrons. However, the payback at this standard level of 79 
years exceeds the 10-year product life. In addition this level produces 
increased life-cycle costs and a negative net present value. The 
Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 5 for 
microwave ovens outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard 
level.
    Standard levels 1 through 4 are at the baseline. The Department is 
not issuing a standard for microwave ovens because the burdens outweigh 
the benefits for all standard levels analyzed.
    After carefully considering the analysis, the Department is not 
issuing a standard for electric cooking products because the Department 
believes the burdens outweigh the benefits for all standard levels and 
all classes of these products.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

a. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    In issuing the proposed rule, the Department prepared an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-0819) that was published within 
the Technical Support Document for the Proposed Rule. (DOE/EE-0009, 
November 1993.) The environmental effects associated with various 
standard levels were found to be not significant, and a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) was published. 59 FR 15869 (April 5, 1994). 
Because the Department is not issuing now a new standard for these 
products, there are no environmental impacts associated with today's 
rule.

b. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review''

    Today's rule has been determined not to be a ``significant 
regulatory action,'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735), and has not 
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

c. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act 081980 (Pub. L. 96-354), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., requires an assessment of the impact of regulations on 
small businesses unless an agency certifies that the rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses and other small entities. Because the Department is not 
issuing a new standard, this final rule will not have significant 
economic impact on manufacturers of cooking products. DOE certifies 
that today's final rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

d. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by 
this rulemaking. Accordingly, no Office of Management and Budget 
clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.

e. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on 
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following 
requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal 
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review 
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it 
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final 
rule under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and 
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final regulations 
meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

f. ``Takings'' Assessment Review

    It has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988) that this regulation 
would not result in any takings which might require compensation under 
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

g. Federalism Review

    Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism,'' 52 FR 41685 (October 30, 
1987) requires that regulations, rules, legislation, and any other 
policy actions be reviewed for any substantial direct effect on States, 
on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels 
of government. If there are sufficient, substantial direct effects, 
then Executive Order 12612 requires preparation of a federalism 
assessment to be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and 
implementing a regulation or a rule. The Department finds that this 
final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on State 
governments.

[[Page 48055]]

h. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    With respect to a proposed regulatory action that may result in the 
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year, section 
202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires a 
Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting costs, benefits 
and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b). Under 
section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most 
cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing 
otherwise or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with 
law. This final rule does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local, 
or tribal governments or on the private sector.

i. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996

    Consistent with Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, DOE will submit to 
Congress a report regarding the issuance of today's final rule before 
the effective date set forth in the outset of this notice. The report 
will state that it has been determined that this rule is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(a).

V. Department of Justice Views on the Proposed Rule.

September 16, 1994
Honorable Christine A. Ervin
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, and Renewable Energy, 
United States Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585

    Dear Ms. Ervin:
    By letter dated March 14, 1994, the Department of Energy 
(``DOE'') transmitted to the Attorney General a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (59 FR 10464) addressing energy standards for eight 
classes of household appliances. Those classes are: room air 
conditioners, water heaters, direct heating equipment, mobile home 
furnaces, kitchen ranges and ovens, pool heaters, fluorescent lamp 
ballasts and television sets. Section 325 of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act, as amended in 1992 (42 U.S. C. 6295), (``the Act:) 
requires the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of 
any lessening of competition likely to result from the proposed 
standards. This letter contains the competitive impact determination 
of the Department of Justice. (``Department'')

Summary

    The evidence available to the Department does not indicate that 
any significant lessening of competition is likely to result from 
the imposition of the proposed standards for mobile home furnaces 
and pool heaters contained in the Notice. For television sets, 
fluorescent lamp ballasts and professional-style or high-end kitchen 
ranges it is the Department's judgement based on the available 
evidence that significant anticompetitive effects are likely to 
occur. For electric water heaters the evidence indicates that a 
significant anticompetitive effect could take place if sufficient 
time is not permitted firms to develop, produce and market products 
complying with the new standard. For microwave ovens, oil-fired 
water heaters, room air conditioners, and direct heating equipment 
the evidence indicates that anticompetitive effects could result; 
the Department is unable on the basis of the available evidence to 
determine whether such effects are likely. Finally, the evidence 
indicates that the cumulative effects of these and other regulatory 
standards could be to lessen competition in certain markets for 
household appliances.
    In preparing these comments the Department has considered the 
Notice, the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared by Lawrence 
Berkeley Laboratory, written comments and oral comments collected by 
the department in the time allowed and without the benefit of 
compulsory process.

Discussion

    Adoption of standards requiring greater energy efficiency in 
household appliances could affect competition in a number of ways. 
First, by raising the cost of appliances and reducing design and 
feature choices, standards may lower demand. If standards impose 
costs on manufacturers that can not be passed to consumers they can 
lower manufacturers' rates of return. Either one or both of these 
effects could cause manufacturers to exist the market with the 
effect of lessening competition and raising prices. Second, 
imposition of standards may lessen or discourage competition in the 
design and development of new product features or technologies; such 
competition benefits consumers and the economy.
    The record in this proceeding raises many factual issues 
relating, among other things, to the technical feasibility of 
certain standards, their economic impact on manufacturers and 
consumers and consumer reaction to the changes in products that they 
might require. In numerous instances, industry representatives and 
technical consultants retained by them have challenged assumptions 
and conclusions in the Notice and TSD. The Department is not in a 
position to resolve many of these contested issues on the basis of 
the available record. Accordingly, in some instances, the Department 
is unable to reach a conclusion about the impact of the proposed 
standards on competition.

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

    One technical issue that has been raised is whether the proposed 
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts are attainable with 
currently available technology. Numerous ballast manufacturers 
assert that in many instances they are not. The Department concludes 
that the doubts raised about the technical feasibility of the 
standards are serious and affect a substantial number of ballast 
classes. Thus, if the proposed standards were adopted some or all 
manufacturers would likely have to cease the production of many 
products and competition in the sale of those products would cease 
or diminish.

Television Sets and Related Technologies

    1. The weight of available evidence is that adoption of the 
proposed standard for television sets could force all or many 
manufacturers to revise their products to lessen the number and 
quality of their features. Many in the industry contend that the 
only way to produce products that will comply with the standard 
would be to reduce or eliminate features that consume electricity 
such as brighter pictures, remote control, picture-in-picture, 
improved sound and in-set program guides and other features 
presently being developed. Development and marketing of product 
improvements and new features has been an important factor driving 
competition in the market for television sets. Reducing or retarding 
the development of such features could substantially reduce demand 
for sets, retard development and refinement of technology, and 
reduce utility of the product.
    Manufacturers might attempt to circumvent the proposed standard 
by letting features ``migrate''--incorporating them in units to be 
sold separately or packaged with television sets. It is claimed that 
disaggregating features in this manner will decrease overall 
television energy efficiency. There is evidence that it could also 
lessen competition because the development and marketing of features 
in such attached units could be costly and cumbersome, among other 
things encountering receivers that receive cable signals.
    There is evidence that the proposed standard for television sets 
could affect competition in other markets. Representatives of the 
television industry assert that as the ``Information Highway'' 
develops television manufacturers intend to expand the capabilities 
of their products to include new features to enable them to serve as 
in-home devices for data transmission and communication. They argue 
that the TV receiver, already located in virtually every American 
home, could be a uniquely efficient vehicle for the introduction of 
new data-processing and communication devices. The Department does 
not make final judgement on this contention but does conclude that, 
given the apparent difficulties in the marketing of new features as 
part of attached units, the standard is likely to retard the 
development of technology and inhibit the ability of television 
manufacturers to compete with computer manufacturers and other in 
the development of new technologies and features for the Information 
Highway.

[[Page 48056]]

Professional-Style and Standard Ranges

    The Notice proposes a single set of standards for gas ovens and 
cooking tops in household ranges. There is substantial evidence that 
one category of home range cannot be manufactured to meet these 
proposed standards without losing so much of its distinct 
characteristics that it is no longer marketable. Professional-style 
or high-end ranges are products designed to provide some of the 
performance characteristics of professional or restaurant ranges for 
home kitchens. Some of these characteristics which differentiate 
them from standard kitchen ranges, such as high performance burners 
and ovens, involve considerably more energy consumption than do 
standard ranges; the special uses and appeal of these products, and 
their premium in price, depends in good measure on these features. 
Representatives of the range industry assert that high-end ranges 
cannot be modified to comply with the proposed standards without 
giving up so much of the special features of the product that they 
are no longer marketable. The Department concludes that it is likely 
that competition in the manufacture and sale of these products will 
be eliminated if the proposed standards are adopted.
    While not as strong as the evidence relating to professional 
style ranges there is evidence challenging the conclusions in the 
TSD that the proposed standards for standard gas and electric range 
ovens and cooking tops will not require significant retooling or 
redesign and will have not more than minimal impact on 
manufacturers' long run rates of return on equity. The Association 
of Home Appliance Manufacturers contends that the standard could 
have a destructive impact on the range industry. It and various 
range manufacturers claim that design options suggested in the TSD 
are not effective and that compliance would require substantial 
investment in redesign and retooling. The Association also insists 
that suppliers of equipment and technology necessary to comply may 
not be able to respond simultaneously and evenly to range 
manufacturers, a problem that could impose a competitive handicap on 
some range manufacturers.
    A range manufacturer has commented that compliance with the 
standard cold seriously weaken it and its ability to compete. There 
is also evidence that the cumulative costs of compliance with this 
standard and with other and future appliance standards could induce 
or force ``full line'' appliance manufacturers to exit one or more 
of the markets that they serve. The range market is concentrated 
and, while there is conflicting evidence, the Department concludes 
that there is a possibility that this proposed standard could force 
one or more firms out of the manufacture of standard ranges thus 
lessening competition.

Microwave Ovens

    The Notice and the TSD conclude that the proposed standard for 
microwave ovens will not involve any substantial redesign or 
retooling by manufacturers and will have little impact on their long 
run returns on equity. Representatives of the industry strongly 
challenge these conclusions. For example, a representative of MCD 
Corporation has testified that compliance with the standard would 
require that her company, a manufacturer of microwaves, make large 
investments in retooling, and would threaten its viability. The 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers contends that the 
standard will in all likelihood eliminate all U.S. Production of 
microwaves and concentrate U.S. sales in the hands of one or two 
companies. The Department is not in a position to resolve all of the 
contested technical and financial issues but concludes that this 
proposed standard could force some significant producers from this 
concentrated market and substantially lessen competition in it.

Room Air Conditioners

    The Notice and TSD conclude that this proposed standard will not 
involve substantial redesign or retooling and, while it may produce 
some reductions in the short run, will have little or no effect on 
manufacturers' long run returns on equity. This conclusion has been 
challenged by firms in the industry. There is evidence that some of 
the design options suggested in the Notice are less effective and 
more costly than the TSD assumes and that manufacturers may, among 
other things, need to redesign the chassis of some classes to comply 
with the standard. Such redesigns could add to unit installation 
costs, make units larger and more cumbersome to install, and 
otherwise depress demand. There is evidence that at least one 
product, the five thousand BTU unit, may cease to be manufactured if 
the standard is adopted. There are also unresolved issues about such 
matters as the availability and efficacy of some design options 
suggested in the TSD. The Department is not able to resolve these 
issues but concludes that the standard could have a substantial 
negative impact on demand and rates of return, and cause one or more 
firms to cease the manufacture and sale of some of these products, 
thus lessening competition.

Direct Heating Equipment

    Manufacturers of direct heating equipment contend that this 
standard will seriously depress demand for their product and likely 
force some, perhaps all, manufacturers out of this business. Among 
other things, they contend that the TSD substantially underestimates 
the added costs of manufacture, and also the added installation 
costs for venting and wiring, that will be required. They insist 
that consumer cost increases will seriously depress demand for their 
product and that their profit margins will suffer because it will be 
impossible to pass on much of the increased manufacturing costs to 
consumers. The Department cannot resolve many of these issues but 
concludes that there is a possibility that several of the five 
companies that account for most of the production of these products 
might exit the market if the standard is adopted thus substantially 
lessening competition.

Water Heaters

    Manufacturers of oil-fired heaters content that the proposed 
standard for their product class would threaten the survival of the 
product, likely forcing all or most producers out of this business. 
Some claim that it may not be possible with presently available 
technology to design and manufacture a product that would comply. 
Manufacturers assert that the added costs of producing a product in 
compliance with the standard would, in any event, be considerably 
higher than the TSD indicates and that increases in price would very 
seriously depress consumer demand for this product. Five firms, two 
of them Canadian producers, account for most of the sales of this 
product in the U.S. The Department is not able to resolve all the 
questions raised regarding this standard; it concludes that there is 
at least a possibility that the standard might force one or more of 
these competitors to exist the U.S. market. Another firm has been 
taking steps to enter the oil-fired water heater market; adoption of 
the standard may deter it from doing so. The loss of one such firm 
could result in a substantial lessening of competition.
    DOE's proposed standard for electric water heaters would, in 
effect, require that such products have an integral heat pump. DOE 
concedes that this would involve major changes and might cause one 
or more existing firms to cease the marketing of electric water 
heaters but believes that other firms such as air conditioner 
manufacturers may begin producing electric water heaters as a result 
of the standard. There are complex and unresolved issues as to what 
would happen to demand for electric water heaters if consumers were 
required to purchase heat pumps with them. It seems clear that the 
price of such units will be considerably higher than that of the 
electric resistance heaters that the standard would remove from the 
market, but the range of future prices, costs of installation and 
maintenance and degree of consumer acceptance of a product that has 
not been widely accepted until now are very difficult to predict. 
Heat pump water heaters may be useful and economically attractive to 
many consumers but serious issues have been raised in this 
proceeding as to whether certain kinds of consumers, such as 
households with relatively little demand for hot water, will derive 
a benefit from the product.
    Even if the heat pump water heater is eventually widely accepted 
in the market the Department has concluded that it is likely that 
competition will be adversely affected for some period of time if 
adequate time is not permitted for the phasing in of the standard. 
Three millions units or more of electric resistance units are now 
sold annually in the U.S. Only a few thousand heat pump units are 
now produced annually in this country, by two firms. It could take a 
considerable time for other firms to design new product lines and 
being substantial ne production capacity on line. there is also 
evidence from those with experience with the product that heat pump 
water heaters require special maintenance and servicing. 
Considerable time may be required for firms to develop and train 
adequate distribution and service networks if they are to compete 
effectively. If adequate time for phasing in the standard is not 
allowed, for a considerable period of time there could be fewer 
companies competing effectively in the electric water heater 
business than there are now, and competition in this concentrated 
market could be substantially lessened.

[[Page 48057]]

Cumulative Effects of Regulation

    Many of the manufacturers of appliances subject to the proposed 
standards manufacture several different types of appliance, each 
subject to those standards or to others authorized by the Act. As 
indicated above, there is evidence that compliance with some of 
these standards may require manufacturers to make considerable 
investments. It is anticipated that future standards for other 
appliances could require manufacturers to make similar investments. 
Full-line manufacturers such as General Electric, Whirlpool, 
Frigidaire, Amana and Maytag could thus be required to make changes 
in several product lines.
    As the TSD recognizes, it is difficult for manufacturers to pass 
redesign and retooling costs on to consumers. And the impact of a 
single product redesign may fall more heavily on firms with small 
shares of the market since they must write off their costs against 
less sales volume. There is some evidence that firms, particularly 
the smaller ones, facing the prospect of repeated redesigns 
involving several different products, may be induced to cease 
manufacturing one or more of such product lines. Thus to a degree 
that we can not fully assess there is a possibility that the 
cumulative effect of these and future energy efficiency standards 
could be to lessen competition in one or more home appliance 
markets.
        Sincerely yours,
Anne K. Bingaman,
Assistant Attorney General.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Energy Conservation, 
Household appliances.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 22, 1998.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble Part 430 of Chapter II of 
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

    1. The authority citation for Part 430 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Section 430.2 of Subpart A is amended by removing the 
definitions for ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' and ``other kitchen ranges 
and ovens'' and adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions for 
``cooking products'' and ``other cooking products'' to read as follows:

Subpart A--General Provisions


Sec. 430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Cooking products means consumer products that are used as the major 
household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat 
different types of food by one or more of the following sources of 
heat: gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist 
of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units and/or 
one or more heating compartments. They must be one of the following 
classes: conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional 
ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges and other cooking 
products.
* * * * *
    Other cooking products means any class of cooking products other 
than the conventional range, conventional cooking top, conventional 
oven, microwave oven, and microwave/conventional range classes.
* * * * *
    3. Section 430.32 of Subpart C is amended by revising paragraph (j) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 430.32  Energy conservation standards and effective dates.

* * * * *
    (j) Cooking Products. Gas cooking products with an electrical 
supply cord shall not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. 
This standard is effective on January 1, 1990.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-23886 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P