[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 8, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16040-16096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7545]



[[Page 16039]]

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

Part II





Department of Energy





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



10 CFR Part 430



Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain 
Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and 
Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain Commercial 
and Industrial Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers); Final Rule

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

[[Page 16040]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number: EERE-2006-STD-0127]
RIN 1904-AB49


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, 
and Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain 
Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers)

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing that it is 
amending energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking 
efficiency of residential gas kitchen ranges and ovens, because it has 
determined that such standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified and would result in significant conservation of 
energy, the three primary statutory criteria for adoption of standards 
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). DOE is not 
adopting energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking 
efficiency of residential electric kitchen ranges and ovens and 
microwave ovens, because it has determined that such standards would 
not be technologically feasible and economically justified. At this 
point, DOE has decided to defer its decision regarding adoption of 
amended energy conservation standards for the energy efficiency of 
commercial clothes washers and standby mode and off mode power 
consumption by microwave ovens, pending further rulemaking. Finally, 
DOE is not adopting amended standards for dishwashers and dehumidifiers 
in this rulemaking, because recent amendments to EPCA have already set 
standards for those products.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is June 8, 2009. Compliance with 
the standards set by today's final rule is required on April 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents, the 
technical support document, transcripts of the public meetings in this 
proceeding, or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, 
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 
SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call 
Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above telephone number for additional 
information regarding visiting the Resource Room. You may also obtain 
copies of certain previous rulemaking documents in this proceeding 
(i.e., framework document, advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 
notice of proposed rulemaking), draft analyses, public meeting 
materials, and related test procedure documents from the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products.html

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Witkowski, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7463. E-mail: 
[email protected].
    Mr. Eric Stas or Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of the General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. E-mail: 
[email protected] or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. The Standard Levels
    1. Statutorily Set Standard Levels for Dehumidifiers and 
Dishwashers
    2. The Standard Levels for the Energy Efficiency of Residential 
Cooking Products
    3. Further Rulemaking for Commercial Clothes Washers and 
Microwave Ovens
    B. Current Federal Standards
    C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of Cooking Products
    D. Impact on Manufacturers
    E. National Benefits
    F. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for the Two Appliance 
Products
    3. Further Rulemaking To Consider Energy Conservation Standards 
for Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode Power Use and for 
Commercial Clothes Washers
III. General Discussion
    A. Standby Power for Cooking Products
    B. Test Procedures
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Gas Cooking Products--Alternatives to Line-Powered Electronic 
Ignition Systems
    3. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
    E. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Consumers and Manufacturers
    b. Life-Cycle Costs
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Product Classes
    2. Technology Options
    3. Excluded Product Classes and Technologies
    B. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Levels
    2. Manufacturing Costs
    C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    1. Product Prices
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    6. Product Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Effective Date of the Amended Standards
    9. Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case
    10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis
    11. Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period
    D. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net 
Present Value
    1. General
    2. Shipments
    a. New Construction Shipments
    b. Replacements
    c. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and Household Income Impacts
    d. Fuel Switching
    3. Other Inputs
    a. Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies
    b. Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies
    c. Annual Energy Consumption
    d. Site-to-Source Conversion
    e. Total Installed Costs and Operating Costs
    f. Discount Rates
    g. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices
    E. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    G. Employment Impact Analysis
    H. Utility Impact Analysis
    I. Environmental Assessment
V. Discussion of Other Comments
    A. Burdens and Benefits
    1. Consideration of the Value of Avoided Environmental Impacts
    B. Other Comments
    1. Proposed Standards for Conventional Cooking Products
VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Significance of Energy Savings
    C. Economic Justification
    1. Economic Impact on Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers

[[Page 16041]]

    a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    b. Impacts on Manufacturer Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are Small Businesses
    d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. Net Present Value of Consumer Impacts and National Employment 
Impacts
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    D. Conclusion
    1. Overview
    2. Conventional Cooking Products
    3. Microwave Ovens
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Reasons for the Final Rule
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Rule
    3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    5. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
    6. Steps DOE Has Taken To Minimize the Economic Impact on Small 
Manufacturers
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
    M. Congressional Notification
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Final Rule

A. The Standard Levels

    DOE notes that this rulemaking originally bundled four separate 
residential and commercial products (dishwashers, dehumidifiers, 
electric and gas kitchen ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, and 
commercial clothes washers). However, as explained in further detail 
below, various events occurred during the course of the rulemaking 
which resulted in the consideration of a number of these products 
separately. For example, Congress set efficiency levels by statute for 
dishwashers and dehumidifiers, which DOE codified in its regulations 
through a separate rulemaking (along with numerous other statutory 
changes). At the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) stage, public 
commenters made DOE aware of problems with the efficiency data for 
certain commercial clothes washer models upon which DOE had relied in 
its analyses. For microwave ovens, public commenters urged DOE to await 
the impending finalization of the industry standard for measurement of 
microwave oven standby mode and off mode power consumption before 
adopting a corresponding DOE test procedure (a prerequisite for an 
energy conservation standard addressing standby power). DOE believes 
that both of these developments warrant further rulemaking action. For 
these reasons, today's final rule is limited to addressing energy 
conservation standards for the cooking efficiency of electric and gas 
kitchen ranges and ovens and microwave ovens.
1. Statutorily Set Standard Levels for Dehumidifiers and Dishwashers
    As explained in detail in the NOPR in this proceeding, the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; EPCA 
or the Act), initially contained energy conservation standards for 
dehumidifiers and residential dishwashers, as well as requirements for 
DOE to amend those standards, and DOE announced it would consider such 
amendments to those standards in this rulemaking. 73 FR 62034, 62036-40 
(Oct. 17, 2008) (the October 2008 NOPR). However, the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law No. 110-
40, subsequently amended these EPCA provisions in two ways pertinent 
here. First, EISA 2007 prescribed efficiency standards for 
dehumidifiers manufactured on or after October 1, 2012 and removed the 
requirement for a rulemaking to amend the EPCA standards for this 
product. Second, EISA 2007 prescribed maximum energy and water use 
levels for residential dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 
2010, and required completion of a final rule no later than January 1, 
2015 to consider amendment of these dishwasher standards. 73 FR 62034, 
62038-40 (Oct. 17, 2008). (EISA 2007, section 311(a)(1)-(2); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(g)(10) and (cc)) DOE notes that although EISA 2007 did not 
formally remove the requirement to conduct the current rulemaking, the 
statutory standards for dishwashers are to become effective well before 
the effective date of any amended standards that would have arisen from 
the present rulemaking. Consequently, DOE has not conducted further 
analysis in this rulemaking of standards for dehumidifiers and 
residential dishwashers. 73 FR 62034, 62040 (Oct. 17, 2008). Instead, 
DOE has incorporated into its regulations all of the energy 
conservation standards prescribed by EISA 2007 for various products and 
equipment, including those for dehumidifiers and residential 
dishwashers, in a separate rulemaking notice. 74 FR 12058 (March 23, 
2009).
2. The Standard Levels for the Energy Efficiency of Residential Cooking 
Products
    Pursuant to EPCA, any amended energy conservation standard that DOE 
prescribes for cooking products \1\ or commercial clothes washers 
(collectively referred to in this final rule as ``the two appliance 
products'') must be designed to ``achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency * * * which the Secretary determines is 
technologically feasible and economically justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, the new standard must ``result 
in significant conservation of energy.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 
6316(a)) In today's final rule, DOE has decided to adopt amended energy 
conservation standards pertaining to the cooking efficiency of 
residential gas kitchen ranges and ovens pursuant to these criteria. 
Today's final rule requires that residential gas kitchen ranges and 
ovens without an electrical supply cord manufactured after April 9, 
2012 must not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. DOE has 
decided not to adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the 
cooking efficiency of residential electric kitchen ranges and ovens and 
microwave ovens. As explained in further detail below, no cooking 
efficiency standards for these products were found to be 
technologically feasible and economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``cooking products'' as used in this notice refers 
to residential electric and gas kitchen ranges and ovens, including 
microwave ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Further Rulemaking for Commercial Clothes Washers and Microwave 
Ovens
    DOE has decided to defer its decision regarding whether to adopt 
amended energy conservation standards for the energy efficiency of 
commercial clothes washers (CCWs) and for the standby mode and off mode 
power consumption of microwave ovens, pending further rulemaking. The 
reasons for DOE's decision are summarized below.
    In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded for CCWs that a 
standard of 1.76 modified energy factor (MEF) and 8.3 water consumption 
factor (WF) for top-loading CCWs and a standard of 2.0 MEF and 5.5 WF 
for front-loading CCWs are technologically feasible and economically 
justified. 73 FR 62034, 62036 (Oct. 17, 2008). As

[[Page 16042]]

discussed in more detail in section II.B.3, DOE received comments on 
the October 2008 NOPR that questioned the validity of the maximum 
technologically feasible (max-tech) level that was used in the analysis 
of top-loading CCWs. DOE has concluded that additional information is 
required to verify whether the max-tech level specified in the NOPR is 
appropriate.
    Likewise, the October 2008 NOPR tentatively concluded that a 
standard for microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption would be technologically feasible and economically 
justified. Therefore, concurrent with the standards NOPR, DOE published 
in the Federal Register a test procedure NOPR for microwave ovens to 
provide for the measurement of standby mode and off mode power 
consumption by these products. 73 FR 61134 (Oct. 17, 2008). As 
discussed in section II.B.3, DOE received comments on the October 2008 
NOPR that objected to certain definitions that were included in the 
proposed microwave oven test procedure amendments. The commenters 
supported the incorporation of definitions provided in a revision of an 
industry standard for measuring standby power consumption expected to 
be completed later this year. DOE has concluded that it should defer 
consideration of microwave oven energy conservation standards until the 
revised industry standard becomes available for consideration in the 
microwave oven test procedure amendments.
    DOE intends to complete the rulemaking process for these products 
and equipment as expected once additional key data and information 
become available, keeping in mind the relevant statutory deadlines. As 
discussed in the October 2008 NOPR, 73 FR 62034, 62041 (Oct. 17, 2008), 
the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA require DOE to amend the ranges and 
ovens and microwave oven test procedure to incorporate standby and off 
mode energy consumption no later than March 31, 2011. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(B)(vi)) For CCWs, EPCA requires that DOE issue a final rule 
by January 1, 2010, to determine whether the existing energy 
conservation standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(2)(A))

B. Current Federal Standards

    DOE established the current energy conservation standards for 
dishwashers manufactured on or after May 14, 1994, in a final rule 
published in the Federal Register on May 14, 1991 (56 FR 22250). These 
standards include a requirement that the energy factor (EF) of a 
standard-size dishwasher must not be less than 0.46 cycles per 
kilowatt-hour (kWh) and that the EF of a compact-size dishwasher must 
not be less than 0.62 cycles per kWh. (10 CFR 430.32(f)) Section 
311(a)(2) of EISA 2007 established maximum energy and water use levels 
for dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(g)(10)) Under the amended statute, a standard-size dishwasher 
shall not exceed 355 kWh/year and 6.5 gallons of water per cycle, and a 
compact-size dishwasher shall not exceed 260 kWh/year and 4.5 gallons 
of water per cycle.
    EPCA, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), 
Public Law 109-58, prescribes the current energy conservation standard 
for dehumidifiers, shown in Table I.1. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(1); 10 CFR 
430.32(v)) Section 311(a)(1) of EISA 2007 amended EPCA to prescribe 
minimum efficiency levels for dehumidifiers manufactured on or after 
October 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(2))

                           Table I.1--Federal Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPACT 2005 standards effective October 1, 2007            EISA 2007 standards effective October 1, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dehumidifier capacity pints/day          EF liters/kWh   Dehumidifier capacity pints/day   EF liters/kWh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.00 or less.................................            1.00  Up to 35.00.....................            1.35
25.01-35.00...................................            1.20  35.01-45.00.....................            1.50
35.01-54.00...................................            1.30  45.01-54.00.....................            1.60
54.01-74.99...................................            1.50  54.01-75.00.....................            1.70
75.00 or more.................................            2.25  Greater than 75.00..............             2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA prescribes the current energy conservation standard for 
cooking products, which includes a requirement that gas ranges and 
ovens with an electrical supply cord that are manufactured on or after 
January 1, 1990, not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1); 10 CFR 430.32(j)) Currently, no mandatory 
Federal energy conservation standards exist for conventional electric 
ranges and ovens or for microwave ovens.
    EPCA also prescribes standards for CCWs manufactured on or after 
January 1, 2007, requiring that CCWs have an MEF of at least 1.26 and a 
WF of not more than 9.5. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(1); 10 CFR 431.156)

C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of Cooking Products

    In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE considered the impacts on consumers 
of several trial standard levels (TSLs) related to the cooking 
efficiency of conventional cooking products and microwave ovens. 73 FR 
62034, 62037, 62084-90 (Oct. 17, 2008). In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 
tentatively concluded that none of the TSLs for microwave oven cooking 
efficiency were economically justified. 73 FR 62034, 62119 (Oct. 17, 
2008). DOE has reached the same conclusion in today's final rule. 
Therefore, at this time, DOE is not adopting standards for microwave 
oven cooking efficiency (EF), so there will be no positive or negative 
impacts on purchasers of these products.
    Also in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined that at TSL 1, the 
economic impacts (i.e., the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings) on 
consumers of the proposed standards for conventional cooking products 
would be positive. (TSL 1 prohibits constant burning pilots for gas 
appliances but does not change standards for the other product 
classes.) DOE has reached the same conclusion in today's final rule. 
Table I.2 presents the impacts on consumers of the energy conservation 
standards adopted in today's final rule.

[[Page 16043]]



       Table I.2--Implications of Amended Standards for Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Gas cooktops       Gas standard ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New average installed cost..  $332................  $464.
Estimated installed cost      $22.................  $34.
 increase.
Lifetime operating cost       $37.................  $43.
 savings.
Average payback period......  3.3 years...........  7.0 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The typical baseline gas cooktop has an installed price of $310 and 
an average lifetime operating cost of $561, resulting in a total life-
cycle cost of $871. To meet the new standards, DOE estimates that the 
installed price of this product will be $332, an increase of $22. This 
price increase will be offset by lifetime operating cost savings of 
$37, resulting in life-cycle cost savings of $15. For gas standard 
ovens, the typical baseline product has an installed price of $430 and 
an annual average lifetime operating cost of $406, resulting in a total 
life-cycle cost of $836. To meet the new standards, DOE estimates that 
the installed price of this product will be $464, an increase of $34. 
This price increase will be offset by lifetime operating cost savings 
of $43, resulting in life-cycle cost savings of $9.
    For the subgroup of consumers who do not have access to the 
electrical grid or whose religious and cultural practices prohibit the 
use of grid electricity, the amended standards would require use of 
technologies (e.g., a battery-powered spark-ignition device) that have 
not yet been certified to meet applicable safety standards. See 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 
A, sections 4(a)(4)(i) and (iv), and 5(b)(1) and (4). (See sections 
III.C.2 and VI.D.2 of this notice for further discussion.) Based on its 
research, DOE expects that certification of such technologies under 
applicable safety standards will likely be completed when these 
standards become effective.

D. Impact on Manufacturers

    Using a real corporate discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE estimates 
the industry net present value (INPV) in 2006$ of the gas cooktop, gas 
oven, and microwave oven industries to be $288 million, $469 million, 
and $1.46 billion, respectively, in the absence of new or amended 
standards. DOE estimates the impact of the cooking efficiency standards 
adopted in today's final rule on the INPV of manufacturers of these 
products to be between a 1.73-percent loss and a 4.11-percent loss (-$5 
million to -$12 million) for gas cooktop manufacturers and between a 
1.56-percent loss and a 2.10-percent loss (-$7 million to -$10 million) 
for gas oven manufacturers. Because DOE is not adopting standards for 
cooking efficiency of conventional electric cooking products or 
microwave ovens (and because consideration of a standby mode and off 
mode standard for microwave ovens has been deferred), this final rule 
will have no net impact on manufacturers of these products.
    Based on DOE's interviews with manufacturers of cooking products 
and on comments received on the October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined that 
two small businesses that manufacture gas cooking products could be 
disproportionately affected by standards. (See section VII.B of this 
notice for further discussion.)

E. National Benefits

    DOE estimates the standards will save approximately 0.14 quads 
(quadrillion (1015) British thermal units (BTU)) of energy 
over 30 years (2012-2042). This is equivalent to 2.9 days of U.S. 
gasoline use.
    By 2042, DOE expects the energy savings from the standards to 
eliminate the need for approximately 62 megawatts (MW) of generating 
capacity.\2\ These energy savings will result in cumulative 
(undiscounted) greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 13.7 
million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2). Based on a 
methodology developed during 2008, these emission reductions were 
estimated to represent domestic benefits of $0 to $109 million using a 
7-percent discount rate and $0 to $241 million using a 3-percent 
discount rate, cumulative from 2012 to 2042 in 2007$. The methodology 
used to develop these estimates is now under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because the amended standards affect solely residential gas 
consumption, the installed power plant generating capacity change 
represents only 0.005 percent of the total installed generating 
capacity forecasted for the year 2030. Therefore, both the installed 
capacity change and its associated emission reductions are 
negligible. Although effectively negligible, installed generation 
capacity and emission impacts are still reported in section VI of 
today's final rule for TSL 1 (the amended standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the standards will help alleviate air pollution by 
resulting in approximately 6.1 kilotons (kt)) of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) cumulative emission reductions at the sites where 
appliances are used from 2012 through 2042. In addition, the standards 
would result in power plant NOX emissions reductions of 0.6 
kt from 2012 to 2042. The total NOX emissions reductions at 
these locations would be an amount equal to $0.7 to $7.3 million using 
a 7-percent discount rate and $1.5 to $15.4 million using a 3-percent 
discount rate, in 2006$. The standards would also possibly result in 
power plant mercury (Hg) emissions reductions of up to 0.15 tons (t) 
from 2012 to 2042, or an amount equal to $0 to $1.3 million using a 7-
percent discount rate and $0 to $2.6 million using a 3-percent discount 
rate, in 2006$.
    The national NPV of the standards is $254 million using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $706 million using a 3-percent discount rate, 
cumulative from 2012 to 2042 in 2006$. This is the estimated total 
value of future savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs, 
discounted to 2007.
    The benefits and costs of today's final rule to the Nation can also 
be expressed in terms of annualized [2006$] values over the forecast 
period (2012 through 2042). Using a 7-percent discount rate for the 
annualized cost analysis, the cost of the standards established in 
today's final rule is $17 million per year in increased product and 
installation costs, while the annualized benefits are $37 million per 
year in reduced product operating costs. Using a 3-percent discount 
rate, the cost of the standards established in today's final rule is 
$28 million per year and the benefits are $85 million per year.

F. Conclusion

    DOE has evaluated the benefits (energy savings, consumer LCC 
savings, positive national NPV, and emissions reductions) to the Nation 
of amended energy conservation standards for gas cooking products and 
of new cooking efficiency standards for conventional electric cooking 
products and microwave ovens, as well as the costs of such standards 
(loss of manufacturer INPV and consumer LCC increases for some users of 
the cooking products). Based on all available information, DOE has 
determined that the benefits to the

[[Page 16044]]

Nation of the standards for gas cooking products outweigh their costs. 
Today's standards also represent the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and will result in significant energy savings. At present, gas cooking 
products that meet the amended standard levels are commercially 
available or, for the subgroup of consumers without access to the 
electrical grid or whose religious or cultural practices prohibit the 
use of grid electricity, are likely to be commercially available at the 
time the standards become effective.

II. Introduction

A. Authority

    Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 
improve energy efficiency. Part A \3\ of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6309) provides for the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles.'' The program covers consumer products 
and certain commercial products (all of which are referred to hereafter 
as ``covered products''), including electric and gas kitchen ranges and 
ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6292(10), 6295(h)) Part A-1 \4\ of Title III (42 
U.S.C. 6311-6317) establishes a similar program for ``Certain 
Industrial Equipment'' (referred to hereafter as ``covered 
equipment''), including commercial clothes washers. (42 U.S.C. 6312, 
6313(e)) Part A of Title III provides for test procedures, labeling, 
and energy conservation standards for residential cooking products and 
certain other types of products, and it authorizes DOE to require 
information and reports from manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This part was originally titled Part B. It was redesignated 
Part A in the United States Code for editorial reasons.
    \4\ This part was originally titled Part C. It was redesignated 
Part A-1 in the United States Code for editorial reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 
Pub. L. 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for 
cooking products. NAECA requires gas ranges and ovens with an 
electrical supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1, 
1990, not to be equipped with a constant burning pilot light, and 
requires DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings for ranges and ovens 
to determine if the standards established should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(h)(1)-(2)) The test procedures for cooking products appear at 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I.
    DOE is conducting the present rulemaking for cooking products 
pursuant to the authority set forth above. The following paragraphs 
discuss some of the key provisions of EPCA relevant to the standards-
setting rulemaking.
    EPCA provides criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for 
covered products. As indicated above, any new or amended standard for 
cooking products must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Additionally, DOE may not 
prescribe an amended or new standard if DOE determines by rule that 
such a standard would not result in ``significant conservation of 
energy,'' or ``is not technologically feasible or economically 
justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a))
    EPCA also provides that in deciding whether such a standard is 
economically justified for covered products, DOE must, after receiving 
comments on the proposed standard, determine whether the benefits of 
the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent 
practicable, the following seven factors:
    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the 
price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered 
products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
    3. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result 
directly from the imposition of the standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products 
likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
    5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    6. The need for national energy conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a))
    In addition, EPCA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 
6316(a)), establishes a rebuttable presumption that any standard for 
covered products is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
``the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy (and as applicable, water) savings during 
the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the 
standard,'' as calculated under the test procedure in place for that 
standard.
    EPCA also contains what is commonly known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6316(a)) This 
provision mandates that the Secretary not prescribe any amended 
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or 
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. 
EPCA further provides that the Secretary may not prescribe an amended 
or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is ``likely to result 
in the unavailability in the United States of any product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States at the time of 
the Secretary's finding.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a))
    Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA is applicable to promulgating standards 
for any type or class of covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) Under this provision, 
DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies 
generally to such type or class of product for any group of products 
``which have the same function or intended use, if * * * products 
within such group--(A) consume a different kind of energy from that 
consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) 
have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other 
products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature 
justifies a higher or lower standard'' than applies or will apply to 
the other products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In determining 
whether a performance-related feature justifies such a different 
standard for a group of products, DOE must consider ``such factors as 
the utility to the consumer of such a feature'' and other factors DOE 
deems appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any rule prescribing such a 
standard must include an explanation of the basis on which DOE 
established such higher or lower level. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)).
    Federal energy conservation standards for covered products 
generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy 
conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) 
and 6316(a)) DOE can, however, grant waivers of preemption for 
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
and

[[Page 16045]]

other provisions of section 327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 
6316(a))

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    As described in greater detail in the October 2008 NOPR, 73 FR 
62034, 62039-40 (Oct. 17, 2008), the current energy conservation 
standards in EPCA for dishwashers apply to all products manufactured on 
or after May 14, 1994 (10 CFR 430.32(f)); for dehumidifiers, to all 
products manufactured on or after October 1, 2007 (42 U.S.C. 
6295(cc)(1); 10 CFR 430.32(v)); for cooking products, to all products 
manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1); 10 CFR 
430.32(j)); and for CCWs to all equipment manufactured on or after 
January 1, 2007 (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(1); 10 CFR 431.156). In addition, 
EISA 2007 established standards for dishwashers manufactured on or 
after January 1, 2010 (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)) and for dehumidifiers 
manufactured on or after October 1, 2012 (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(2)). These 
standards are discussed in section I.B.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for the Two Appliance Products
    As noted above, this rulemaking originally bundled four products 
(dishwashers, dehumidifiers, residential cooking products, and 
commercial clothes washers). However, during the course of this 
rulemaking, Congress set energy conservation standard levels by statute 
for dishwashers and dehumidifiers as part of EISA 2007. Accordingly, 
the regulatory history provided below focuses on the two remaining 
appliance products--residential cooking products and commercial clothes 
washers.
    NAECA amended EPCA to establish the current prescriptive standard 
requiring gas ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord not to be 
equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)) In 
a rulemaking undertaken pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)), DOE 
issued a final rule in which it found that standards were not justified 
for electric cooking products and, partially due to the difficulty of 
conclusively demonstrating the economic impacts of standards for gas-
fired ranges and ovens, did not include amended standards for gas-fired 
ranges and ovens in the final rule. 63 FR 48038 (Sept. 8, 1998).
    Section 136(a) and (e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 
2005), Public Law 109-58, amended EPCA to add CCWs as covered 
equipment, establish the current standards for such equipment, and 
require that DOE do two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether 
these standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1) and 6313(e)) DOE 
has incorporated these standards into its regulations. 70 FR 60407, 
60416 (Oct. 18, 2005); 10 CFR 431.156.
    DOE commenced this rulemaking on March 15, 2006, by publishing its 
framework document for the rulemaking, and then gave notice of a public 
meeting and of the availability of the document. 71 FR 15059 (March 27, 
2006). The framework document described the approaches DOE anticipated 
using and issues to be resolved in the rulemaking. DOE held the public 
meeting on April 27, 2006, to present the contents of the framework 
document, describe the analyses DOE planned to conduct during the 
rulemaking, obtain public comment on these subjects, and facilitate the 
public's involvement in the rulemaking. DOE also allowed the submission 
of written statements after the public meeting. In response, DOE 
received 11 written statements.
    On December 4, 2006, DOE posted two spreadsheet tools for this 
rulemaking on its Web site. The tools included calculation of the 
impacts of the candidate standard levels developed for the two 
appliance products. One tool calculates LCC and payback periods (PBPs); 
the other--the National Impact Analysis (NIA) Spreadsheet--calculates 
shipments, national energy savings (NES), and NPV.
    On November 15, 2007, DOE published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANOPR) in this proceeding. 72 FR 64432 (November 2007 
ANOPR). In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE described and sought comment on 
the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE was using to 
analyze the impacts of energy conservation standards for the relevant 
appliance products. In addition, DOE published on its Web site the 
complete ANOPR technical support document (TSD), which included the 
results of DOE's preliminary analyses in this rulemaking. In the 
November 2007 ANOPR, DOE requested oral and written comments on these 
preliminary results and on a range of other issues, including the 
measurement of microwave oven standby power consumption and potential 
CCW product classes. DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on 
December 13, 2007, to present the methodology and results of the ANOPR 
analyses, and to receive oral comments from those who attended. The 
oral and written comments DOE received focused on DOE's assumptions, 
approach, and analytical results, and were addressed in detail in the 
October 2008 NOPR.
    In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed new energy conservation 
standards for the two appliance products. 73 FR 62034, 62134 (Oct. 17, 
2008). It also provided additional background information on the 
history of this rulemaking. Id. at 62040-41. In conjunction with the 
October 2008 NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the complete TSD 
for the proposed rule, which incorporated the analyses DOE conducted 
and technical documentation for each analysis. The LCC spreadsheets, 
national impact analysis spreadsheets, Government Regulatory Impact 
Model (GRIM) spreadsheets, and regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 
spreadsheets are also available on DOE's Web site.\5\ The standards 
proposed for the two appliance products are presented in Table II.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Available online at DOE's Web site: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/home_appl_analysis.html.

                          Table II.1--October 2008 Proposed Energy Efficiency Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Product class                                Proposed energy conservation standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kitchen ranges and ovens:
    Gas cooktops/conventional burners..  No constant burning pilot lights.
    Electric cooktops/low or high        No standard.
     wattage open (coil) elements.
    Electric cooktops/smooth elements..  No standard.
    Gas ovens/standard oven............  No constant burning pilot lights.
    Gas ovens/self-clean oven..........  No change to existing standard.
    Electric ovens.....................  No standard.

[[Page 16046]]

 
    Microwave ovens....................  Maximum standby power = 1.0 watt.
Commercial clothes washers:
    Top-loading commercial clothes       1.76 Modified Energy Factor/8.3 Water Factor.
     washers.
    Front-loading commercial clothes     2.00 Modified Energy Factor/5.5 Water Factor.
     washers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE discussed and invited comment 
specifically on the following topics: (1) The proposed standards for 
residential gas kitchen ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, and CCWs, as 
well as DOE's tentative conclusion that standards for residential 
electric kitchen ranges and ovens other than microwave ovens and gas 
self-cleaning ovens are not technologically feasible and economically 
justified; (2) whether battery-powered spark ignition modules are a 
viable alternative to standing pilots for manufacturers of gas ranges, 
ovens, and cooktops; (3) the technical feasibility of incorporating 
microwave oven cooking efficiency with standby mode and off mode power 
into a single metric for the purpose of developing energy conservation 
standards; (4) input and data regarding off mode power for microwave 
ovens; (5) input and data on the utility provided by specific features 
that contribute to microwave oven standby power, particularly display 
technologies and cooking sensors that do not require standby power; (6) 
input and data on control strategies available to allow manufacturers 
to make design tradeoffs between incorporating standby-power-consuming 
features such as displays or cooking sensors and including a function 
to turn power off to these components during standby mode, as well as 
on the viability and cost of microwave oven control board circuitry 
that could accommodate transistors to switch off cooking sensors and 
displays; (7) whether switching or similar modern power supplies can 
operate successfully inside a microwave oven and the associated 
efficiency impacts on standby power; (8) the selection of microwave 
oven standby standard levels for the engineering analysis; (9) input 
and data on the estimated incremental manufacturing costs, the assumed 
approaches to achieve each standby level for microwave ovens, and 
whether any intellectual property or patent infringement issues are 
associated with the design options presented in the TSD to achieve each 
standby level; (10) input and data on the estimated market share of 
microwave ovens at different standby power consumption levels; (11) the 
appropriateness of using other discount rates in addition to 7 percent 
and 3 percent real to discount future emissions reductions; and (12) 
the determination of the anticipated environmental impacts of the 
proposed rule, particularly with respect to the methods for valuing the 
expected carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) emissions savings due to the proposed standards. 73 FR 
62034, 62133 (Oct. 17, 2008).
    In addition to these topics on which it requested comment 
specifically, DOE addressed four topics in the October 2008 NOPR: (1) 
The determination of product classes for both cooking products and 
CCWs; (2) the adequacy of the residential clothes washer test procedure 
for CCWs; (3) small business impacts of the proposed cooking products 
standards; and (4) impacts of the proposed CCW standards on the 
competitive landscape.
    DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2008, 
to hear oral comments on and solicit information relevant to the 
proposed rule.
3. Further Rulemaking To Consider Energy Conservation Standards for 
Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode Power Use and for Commercial 
Clothes Washers
    Among the responses to the October 2008 NOPR, DOE received a number 
of comments from interested parties that presented information and 
arguments for continuing the rulemaking process to consider standards 
for microwave oven standby mode and off mode power consumption, as well 
as standards for CCWs. These comments and DOE's response are discussed 
below.
    Regarding microwave oven standby mode and off mode power 
consumption, interested parties raised concerns over issues associated 
with the concurrent microwave oven test procedure rulemaking. As 
mentioned above and discussed in detail in section III.B of today's 
notice, DOE proposed to amend the microwave oven (MWO) test procedure 
to incorporate by reference specific clauses of International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, Household electrical 
appliances--Measurement of standby power. DOE would have adopted 
definitions for ``standby mode'' and ``off mode'' in accordance with 
the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. 73 FR 62134 (Oct. 17, 2008) (MWO test 
procedure NOPR).
    The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) raised 
concerns about the ``robustness'' of these proposed microwave oven test 
procedure amendments, and supported continuing the microwave oven 
energy conservation standards rulemaking to allow additional time for 
DOE to collect data and to clarify the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 47 at 
pp. 3 and 5) \6\ Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) stated that DOE 
could perform better data gathering and analysis for a microwave oven 
standby power standard if DOE used the entire time until the EISA 2007 
deadline of March 31, 2011 for a test procedure amendment to 
incorporate measurement of standby mode and off mode power consumption. 
Whirlpool and GE Consumer & Industrial (GE) requested that DOE halt the 
current microwave oven energy conservation standards rulemaking and 
work with industry to gather and analyze more comprehensive energy 
performance data. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at pp. 1-2; GE, No. 48 at p. 2) GE 
further stated that DOE's approach to standby mode and off mode power 
consumption for microwave ovens could have important implications for 
other covered products, and that the microwave oven energy conservation 
standards rulemaking should be postponed to allow DOE to address 
standby power issues for covered products either through negotiation or 
through a rulemaking that considers how the definition of ``standby 
power'' will affect all appliances, not just microwave ovens. (GE, No. 
48 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A notation in the form ``AHAM, No. 47 at pp. 3 and 5'' 
identifies a written comment (1) made by AHAM; (2) recorded in 
document number 47 that is filed in the docket of this rulemaking 
(Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0127) and maintained in the Resource Room of 
the Building Technologies Program; and (3) which appears on pages 3 
and 5 of document number 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM raised four other concerns about the proposed microwave oven 
test procedure amendments: (1) Which microwave ovens are covered 
products; (2) the incorporation of the EPCA

[[Page 16047]]

definitions for ``standby mode'' and ``off mode,'' which AHAM claims 
are outdated; (3) the conditions for standby power testing; and (4) the 
test period for measuring standby power. AHAM stated that there is 
considerable confusion regarding the definition of microwave ovens as 
covered products. DOE stated in the microwave oven test procedure NOPR 
that the test procedure amendments would apply to microwave ovens for 
which the primary source of heating energy is electromagnetic 
(microwave) energy, including microwave ovens with or without browning 
thermal elements designed for surface browning of food. The proposed 
test procedure amendments would not cover combination ovens (i.e., 
ovens consisting of a single compartment in which microwave energy and 
one or more other technologies, such as thermal or halogen cooking 
elements or convection systems, contribute to cooking the food). 73 FR 
62134, 62137 (Oct. 17, 2008). AHAM stated that it had been working to 
set up negotiations on a microwave oven standby power standard, but 
that confusion caused by DOE's definition of microwave ovens required 
AHAM to cancel its efforts until the definition is clarified. (AHAM, 
No. 47 at p. 3) Whirlpool concurred that the definition of microwave 
ovens needs to be clarified. It claimed that DOE appears to be creating 
a new product definition without properly engaging interested parties. 
(Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 29; Whirlpool, 
No. 50, at pp. 1-2) \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A notation in the form ``Whirlpool, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 29'' identifies an oral comment that DOE 
received during the November 13, 2008, NOPR public meeting, was 
recorded in the public meeting transcript in the docket for this 
rulemaking (Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0127), and is maintained in the 
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program. This particular 
notation refers to a comment (1) made by Whirlpool during the public 
meeting; (2) recorded in document number 40.5, which is the public 
meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of this rulemaking; 
and (3) which appears on page 29 of document number 40.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) commented that it 
appreciates DOE accelerating development of the microwave oven test 
procedure ahead of the EISA 2007 deadline of 2011 so that standby power 
savings can be captured in this round of rulemaking for cooking 
products. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 32)
    Regarding definitions of ``standby mode'' and ``off mode,'' AHAM 
and Whirlpool recognize that DOE is using the definitions provided 
under the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, but stated that DOE should 
consider IEC's recent work in developing the second edition of IEC 
Standard 62301, particularly the clarifications of the definitions of 
``standby mode'' and ``off mode.'' AHAM cited the case in which a 
microwave oven would be plugged in and only energize a light-emitting 
diode (LED) or some other indication that the unit is in ``off mode.'' 
AHAM commented that this would represent a different way for the 
product to communicate with the consumer that might not be covered 
under the proposed mode definitions. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 40.5 at pp. 58-60; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 
at pp. 60-61) In contrast, ASAP stated that the EISA 2007 language 
defining ``standby mode'' and ``off mode'' was reviewed and agreed to 
by AHAM, and jointly recommended by AHAM and efficiency advocates to 
Congress. Therefore, ASAP asserted that DOE has definitions that were 
recommended by interested parties. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 40.5 at p. 64)
    In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE proposed considering a single 
product class for microwave ovens, encompassing microwave ovens with 
and without browning (thermal) elements. This product class did not 
include microwave ovens that incorporate convection systems. DOE stated 
that it was unaware of any data evaluating the efficiency 
characteristics of microwave ovens incorporating convection systems, 
and sought comments and information that would help it evaluate the 
performance of such products. 72 FR 64432, 64445, 64513 (Nov. 15, 
2007). AHAM commented in response that the single product class should 
be broken up into subcategories according to features that may be 
different than when the standard was first put into effect. 73 FR 
62034, 62049 (Oct. 17, 2008). However, in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 
concluded, based on data supplied by AHAM and its own testing, that no 
features or utilities were uniquely correlated with efficiency that 
would warrant defining multiple product classes for microwave ovens. 
Id. Therefore, for the purposes of the NOPR analyses, DOE retained a 
single product class for microwave ovens. No additional data or 
information was submitted in response to the October 2008 NOPR that 
would justify amending the definition of the microwave oven product 
class.
    DOE agrees with commenters that it is beneficial to harmonize, 
where possible, its standards and test procedures with those of other 
countries and international agencies, particularly in the area of 
standby power. DOE recognizes that IEC Standard 62301 is an 
internationally accepted test standard for the measurement of standby 
power in residential appliances, and that it would be beneficial to 
many manufacturers to be required to meet only a single standby power 
standard because they produce microwave ovens for markets in multiple 
countries. In considering a standby power standard for microwave ovens, 
along with associated amendments to the microwave oven test procedure, 
DOE proposed to incorporate language for definitions of ``active 
mode,'' ``standby mode,'' and ``off mode'' as provided by the EISA 2007 
amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)) However, in directing 
DOE to amend its test procedures to address standby and off mode power 
consumption, the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA allow DOE to amend the 
EPCA definitions of these modes, while requiring that DOE take ``into 
consideration the most current versions'' of IEC Standard 62301 and IEC 
Standard 62087. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(B) and (2)(A)) In light of these 
statutory provisions and recognizing the benefits of harmonization, DOE 
has decided to continue this rulemaking, as to microwave oven standby 
power standards, until the second edition of IEC Standard 62301 is 
finalized, which is expected to occur by July 2009. At such time, DOE 
will consider further modifications to DOE's microwave oven test 
procedure, particularly the ``standby mode'' and ``off mode'' 
definitions, and, on the basis of such amended test procedures, DOE 
will analyze potential energy conservation standards for microwave oven 
standby mode and off mode energy consumption. DOE invites data and 
information that will allow it to further conduct the analysis for 
standby and off mode power consumption of microwave ovens. DOE 
anticipates issuing supplemental notices of proposed rulemaking 
(SNOPRs) for microwave oven energy conservation standards and the 
microwave oven test procedure in order to obtain public input on DOE's 
updated proposals. As part of such SNOPRs, DOE will carefully consider 
and address any microwave oven-related comments on the October 2008 
NOPR that remain relevant.
    For CCWs, interested parties raised questions at the November 13, 
2008, NOPR public meeting and in written comments on the max-tech level 
that DOE had identified in the October 2008 NOPR for top-loading units. 
(See section III.C.3 of this notice for additional discussion of max-
tech levels.)

[[Page 16048]]

Specifically, at the public meeting, Alliance Laundry Systems 
(Alliance) questioned the validity of the certification data for the 
CCW model on which DOE based the max-tech level for top-loading 
machines. Alliance recommended that DOE, at a minimum, test and confirm 
the performance of the max-tech model before using it as the basis for 
assessing technical feasibility for the proposed standards. (Alliance, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 90-92) GE responded that it 
produces the model in question, and its internal testing confirms that 
the model meets the max-tech level. (GE, No. 48 at pp. 4-5) GE and 
Alliance agreed that there would not be consumer acceptance of the 
technology required to achieve the max-tech level (i.e., whether CCWs 
incorporating advanced controls in a lightweight, non-rugged platform 
would be able to withstand the harsher usage in a laundromat or multi-
family housing setting compared to a residential installation). (GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 173-174; Alliance, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 23; Alliance, No. 45 at p. 1; 
Alliance, No. 45.1 at pp. 3, 7, 13) GE stated that it had received 
anecdotal consumer questions on the water levels and clothing turnover 
(i.e., rotation of the clothing from top to bottom in the wash basket) 
during the cycle utilized by its CCW that meets the top-loading max-
tech level. According to GE, while this CCW has achieved the max-tech 
level during actual use in the on-premises laundry segment,\8\ it has 
not yet been justified as sustainable in commercial laundromats where 
the units are subject to much tougher conditions, such as overloading. 
(GE, No. 48 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This segment refers to commercial clothes washers that are 
installed in multi-family housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Multi-Housing Laundry Association (MLA) commented that there is 
no acceptable CCW currently that can meet the top-loading max-tech 
level presented in the October 2008 NOPR. According to MLA, previous 
non-agitator CCWs that could achieve max-tech performance have had poor 
load capacity, poor wash results, and high maintenance costs. MLA 
believes that the only way to meet the max-tech requirements would be 
to have either a cold water wash or such limited amounts of hot water 
that the clothes would not be effectively cleaned. According to MLA, to 
meet the max-tech requirements, water in the rinse cycle would be so 
limited that some soils, detergents, and sand would not be removed. 
(MLA, No. 49 at p. 4) ASAP stated that DOE's conclusion in the TSD on 
the max-tech model (i.e., that all higher-efficiency residential 
clothes washers are impeller-type or do not have traditional agitators) 
is erroneous, commenting that there are agitator-type residential 
clothes washers on the market today that perform at higher levels than 
the CCW max-tech level that DOE has presented in the October 2008 NOPR. 
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 203) Whirlpool 
commented that the max-tech level cannot be achieved with the 
technologies implemented on current CCW models, but it believes that 
technology exists to develop such products by the time standards would 
become effective. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 3)
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the max-tech level in the analysis of 
efficiency levels for CCW energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) In the NOPR analysis, DOE determined that 
the max-tech level for top-loading CCWs, which was analyzed as part of 
TSL 3, is technologically feasible and economically justified. 73 FR 
62034, 62122 (Oct. 17, 2008). However, the comments submitted by 
Alliance in response to the October 2008 NOPR raised questions on the 
validity of the max-tech level. (Alliance, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 40.5 at pp. 90-92; Alliance, No. 45 at p. 1; Alliance, No. 45.1 at 
pp. 4-5) In light of this uncertainty surrounding the performance of 
the CCW model upon which the top-loading max-tech level was based, DOE 
tested several units of that model. Preliminary results indicate that 
the MEF and WF of these units are below and above, respectively, the 
max-tech levels. Therefore, DOE has decided that it will continue the 
CCW rulemaking to further evaluate what an appropriate max-tech level 
should be for top-loading CCWs, and it will revise its analyses for 
this product class as necessary. DOE anticipates issuing an SNOPR to 
obtain public input on DOE's updated proposal regarding CCW standards. 
As part of such SNOPR, DOE will carefully consider and address any CCW-
related comments on the October 2008 NOPR that remain relevant.

III. General Discussion

A. Standby Power for Cooking Products

    An issue in this rulemaking has been whether DOE should consider 
power use in the standby and off modes in adopting energy conservation 
standards for cooking products. As discussed in greater detail in the 
October 2008 NOPR,\9\ EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require that DOE 
address standby mode and off mode energy consumption both in adopting 
standards for all covered products (for final rules for new or amended 
standards adopted after July 1, 2010), including residential ranges and 
ovens and microwave ovens, and in test procedures for covered products 
(by March 31, 2011, for cooking products). (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)) As 
noted above, these provisions are not yet operative as requirements for 
residential cooking products. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 73 FR 62034, 62041 (Oct. 17, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, DOE has examined in this rulemaking whether to 
incorporate standby mode and off mode power consumption in its energy 
conservation standards for residential cooking products. 73 FR 62034, 
62041 (Oct. 17, 2008). Specifically, in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 
stated that it does not intend to pursue revision of its standards and 
test procedures to include standby power use by conventional cooking 
products at this time, because it lacks data indicating the potential 
for significant energy savings with respect to such power use. Id. at 
62041, 62044. Accordingly, DOE tentatively decided to consider test 
procedure amendments for conventional cooking products in a later 
rulemaking that meets the March 31, 2011, deadline set by EISA 2007 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B). 73 FR 62034, 62041, 62044 (Oct. 17, 
2008).
    However, DOE did state its intention in the October 2008 NOPR to 
amend its test procedure for microwave ovens to incorporate a 
measurement of standby power and to consider inclusion of such power as 
part of the energy conservation standards rulemaking for the following 
reasons: (1) Energy use in this mode is a significant proportion of 
microwave oven energy consumption; and (2) currently, the range of 
standby power use among microwave ovens suggests that a standard would 
result in significant energy savings. Id. at 62041-42. As already 
discussed in sections II.B.2 and II.B.3, DOE proposed standards for 
microwave oven standby power use. Id. at 62120, 62134.
    In response to the October 2008 NOPR, Whirlpool stated that no test 
procedure has yet been proposed for conventional cooking product 
standby power, and that Whirlpool does not have experience with or data 
available on standby power in these products. It further stated that 
DOE should request such data promptly to allow adequate time to develop 
it, noting that display technologies will be an issue. (Whirlpool, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 30) DOE expects to

[[Page 16049]]

evaluate standby power for conventional cooking products in a future 
test procedure rulemaking that will meet the EPCA deadline of March 31, 
2011, set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B). 73 FR 62034, 62041 (Oct. 
17, 2008). DOE welcomes relevant data to support this rulemaking 
activity.
    Edison Electric Institute (EEI) commented that standby power could 
effectively be addressed in gas cooking products with constant burning 
pilots by a performance standard for the energy consumption of the 
pilot, rather than by a prescriptive standard that would eliminate 
constant burning pilots altogether. EEI argued that even though energy 
savings would be reduced using this approach, such savings could still 
be fairly significant, and manufacturers would have more flexibility in 
meeting the energy conservation standards. (EEI, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 19-20 and 50-51; EEI, No. 56 at p. 2)
    In response, DOE notes as a preliminary matter that it considered 
EEI's suggestion of reduced input rate pilots as a technology option 
separately in section IV.A.2. The following responds to EEI's 
suggestion to consider an energy conservation standard for standby 
power consumption of ranges and ovens by regulating the performance of 
constant burning pilots. For standby power in conventional cooking 
products, the current DOE test procedures already provide a means for 
measurement of certain standby energy use (i.e., pilot gas consumption 
in gas cooking products and clock energy consumption in ovens), which 
is included in the relevant EF metric. However, as explained above, to 
measure additional standby mode and off mode energy use as directed by 
EISA 2007, DOE would need to amend the test procedure to provide for 
more comprehensive measurement of standby mode and off mode power 
consumption. As discussed above, DOE is not contemplating revision of 
its standards and test procedures to address standby power use for 
conventional cooking products at this time. DOE plans to consider such 
revisions to the test procedure in a later rulemaking which meets the 
EPCA deadline of March 31, 2011. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B)(vi)). DOE 
will also consider standby mode and off mode energy use in its next 
energy conservation standards rulemaking, as required by the EISA 2007 
amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)).
    Further, even if DOE were to implement in this rulemaking the 
requirements of the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA regarding standby mode 
and off mode energy use to conventional cooking products, DOE would be 
unable to prescribe a separate standard for pilot energy consumption in 
gas cooking products. The EISA 2007 amendments require that any final 
rule establishing or revising a standard for a covered product, adopted 
after July 1, 2010, shall incorporate standby mode and off mode energy 
use into a single amended or new standard, if feasible. If not 
feasible, the final rule shall establish a separate standard for 
standby mode and off mode energy consumption, if justified under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Because gas cooking product EF 
already incorporates gas consumption of the pilot by means of the 
calculation of annual energy consumption (10 CFR 430.23(i) and 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix I, sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2), the 
feasibility of a single metric integrating both active mode and standby 
mode energy use has clearly been demonstrated. AHAM stated that it 
strongly advocates, for products other than microwave ovens, that 
standby power be incorporated in active energy standards as directed by 
EISA 2007. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4) DOE expects to address standby mode 
and off mode power consumption in future test procedure and standards 
rulemakings for products other than microwave ovens in accordance with 
the requirements of the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. At such time, DOE 
will determine whether standby mode and off mode energy use can be 
incorporated into a new or amended energy conservation standard as 
directed by 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3).
    For microwave ovens, DOE separately considered whether it is 
feasible to incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a 
single metric. DOE tentatively concluded in the October 2008 NOPR that 
although it may be mathematically possible to combine energy 
consumption into a single metric encompassing active (cooking), 
standby, and off modes, it is not technically feasible to do so at this 
time because of the high variability in the current cooking efficiency 
measurement from which the active mode EF and annual energy consumption 
are derived, and because of the significant contribution of standby 
power to overall microwave oven energy use. 73 FR 62034, 62042-43 (Oct. 
17, 2008). AHAM, Whirlpool, ASAP, and EEI individually, as well as 
ASAP, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 
American Rivers (AR), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), Northwest Power and 
Conservation Council (NPCC), Southern California Gas Company (SCG), San 
Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern California Edison 
(SCE), and Earthjustice (EJ) jointly (hereafter ``Joint Comment'') 
supported the determination that a combined energy metric for microwave 
ovens is technically infeasible. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
40.5 at pp. 27 and 54-55; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
40.5 at p. 29; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 53; EEI, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 55; Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 
4; AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4; Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 10)
    Giving consideration to its previous findings and this general 
support from interested parties, DOE expects to maintain the approach, 
consistent with its preliminary determination, that a separate standby 
mode and off mode energy use metric should be developed in the 
continuation of the microwave oven energy conservation standards 
rulemaking, as discussed in section II.B.3 of this notice.

B. Test Procedures

    For the reasons set forth in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE is not 
pursuing modification of its test procedures for cooking products in 
conjunction with this rulemaking, other than an amendment to address 
the standby power consumption of microwave ovens. 73 FR 62034, 62043-44 
(Oct. 17, 2008). As to the latter, DOE published an MWO test procedure 
NOPR in which it proposed (1) to incorporate by reference into its 
microwave oven test procedure specific clauses from IEC Standard 62301 
as to methods for measuring average standby mode and average off mode 
power consumption; (2) to incorporate into that test procedure 
pertinent definitions that are set forth in EISA 2007 amendments to 
EPCA; and (3) to adopt language to clarify the application of certain 
of the clauses that DOE proposes to incorporate by reference from IEC 
Standard 62301. 73 FR 62134 (Oct. 17, 2008). In the MWO test procedure 
NOPR, DOE also proposed a technical correction to an equation in the 
existing microwave oven test procedure, which concerns energy use in 
the active mode. Id. at 62137, 62141-42.
    Largely because of the issues surrounding the MWO test procedure, 
DOE is continuing the energy conservation standards rulemaking for 
microwave oven standby mode and off mode power consumption. Therefore, 
DOE is also continuing to consider microwave oven test procedure 
amendments that would reflect clarified and expanded definitions of 
``standby

[[Page 16050]]

mode'' and ``off mode'' power, which are expected to be incorporated in 
the second edition of IEC Standard 62301.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    As stated above, any standards that DOE establishes for cooking 
products must be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 
(o)(3)(B)) DOE considers a design option to be technologically feasible 
if it is in use by the respective industry or if research has 
progressed to the development of a working prototype. ``Technologies 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will be 
considered technologically feasible.'' 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
    This final rule considers the same design options as those 
evaluated in the October 2008 NOPR. (See the final rule TSD 
accompanying this notice, chapters 3 and 4.) All the evaluated 
technologies have been used (or are being used) in commercially 
available products or working prototypes. DOE also has determined that 
there are products either on the market or in working prototypes at all 
of the efficiency levels analyzed in this notice. Therefore, DOE has 
determined that all of the efficiency levels evaluated in this notice 
are technologically feasible.
2. Gas Cooking Products--Alternatives to Line-Powered Electronic 
Ignition Systems
    For gas cooking products, TSL 1 corresponds to the replacement of 
baseline constant burning (standing) pilots with electronic ignition 
systems. Line-powered electronic ignition systems are incorporated into 
many gas cooking products currently on the market, and, thus, this 
prescriptive standard is clearly technologically feasible. For the 
consumer subgroup consisting of households without access to 
electricity, however, TSL 1 would require a battery-powered ignition 
system. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE stated that DOE research suggests 
that battery-powered ignition systems could be incorporated by 
manufacturers at a modest cost if manufacturers' market research 
suggested that a substantial number of consumers found such a product 
attribute to be important. DOE noted that such systems have been 
incorporated successfully in a range of related appliances, such as 
instantaneous water heaters. Further, DOE stated it believed that there 
is nothing in the applicable safety standards that would prohibit such 
ignition systems from being implemented on gas cooking products. 
Therefore, DOE stated in the October 2008 NOPR that households that use 
gas for cooking and are without electricity would likely have 
technological options that would enable them to continue to use gas 
cooking if standing pilot ignition systems were eliminated. 73 FR 
62034, 62048, 62075, 62130 (Oct. 17, 2008). Numerous interested parties 
objected to DOE's tentative conclusion for the following reasons.
    Safety. AHAM, Whirlpool, and GE commented that DOE did not address 
potential safety concerns of eliminating standing pilots, and expressed 
concern that battery-powered ignition systems would not meet the 
applicable safety standard, American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) Standard Z21.1, ``American National Standard for Household 
Cooking Gas Appliances'' (ANSI Z21.1). (AHAM, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 15-16, 48-49; AHAM, No. 47 at p. 2; 
Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4; GE, No. 48 at p. 2) AHAM believes that ANSI 
Z21.1 would need to be revised to incorporate battery-powered ignition 
systems for unattended units (i.e., gas ovens), and this would not 
likely take place before the proposed 2012 effective date of potential 
standards. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 2 and p. 4)
    The American Gas Association (AGA) and AHAM commented that battery-
powered ignition systems are not viable on a residential range because 
of cost and safety, particularly regarding the need for battery 
replacement. If a battery is not readily available, these commenters 
argued that consumers may attempt to light the range with a match or 
use an extension cord. Furthermore, these commenters suggested that if 
battery-powered ignition systems are not on the market, the reason may 
be economics. AGA recommended that DOE use caution before determining 
viability of such systems. (AGA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 
pp. 44-45; AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4) Whirlpool noted that battery-powered 
ignition systems are subject to failure when the battery is weak or 
dead, and that the consumer cannot determine battery status. According 
to Whirlpool, using matches as a backup for ignition is unsafe and 
would also lead to making matches more accessible to small children. 
(Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4) U.S. Representatives Joseph Pitts and Bill 
Shuster (Pitts and Shuster) also commented that a safety concern exists 
if a consumer tries to light a range with matches when the batteries in 
the ignition system are dead. (Pitts and Shuster, No. 57 at p. 2) 
Whirlpool, AHAM, and GE expressed concern about the viability of using 
ignition systems typically designed for outdoor grills in an indoor 
application, primarily for reasons of potential gas leakage and 
reliability. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4; AHAM, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 49; GE, No. 48 at p. 2) 
Whirlpool stated that, in outdoor applications such as grills, air 
movement would likely disperse gas if the unit failed to ignite. 
However, in indoor applications, dispersion is unlikely, thereby 
resulting in an elevated threat of explosion or suffocation. 
(Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4) Sempra Utilities (Sempra) agreed with AGA 
about potential safety issues, particularly for low-income consumers. 
(Sempra, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 46) Pacific Gas and 
Electric (PG&E) responded to Sempra's comment by stating that although 
DOE cannot compromise safety in considering battery-powered ignition 
systems, frequently initial cost is weighted too much relative to 
operating cost. (PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 47) 
DOE understands PG&E's comment to mean that, even for low-income 
consumers, a higher cost for a safe, reliable battery-powered ignition 
system may be economically justified. GE stated there are currently no 
proven safe, reliable alternative to standing pilots, and until such 
time as a proven alternative exists, standing pilots should be 
retained. (GE, No. 48 at pp. 1-2)
    Commercial Availability. AGA and Sempra questioned whether battery-
powered ignition systems have been applied to other residential 
products, such as instantaneous water heaters or furnaces. AGA, Pitts 
and Shuster, and the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) recognized 
that there are recreational vehicle (RV) water heaters and furnaces 
which use a 12-volt (V) battery ignition system, but they believe this 
specialty application would be difficult to apply to a domestic range 
due to cost, safety certification, and other issues. (AGA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 18, 44, and 93; Sempra, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 46; NPGA, No. 52 at p. 2; AGA, No. 
46 at p. 2; Pitts and Shuster, No. 57 at p. 2)
    EEI asked if there are battery-powered ignition systems in any 
commercially available indoor gas cooking products on the market. (EEI, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 43) AGA and NPGA stated that 
there are currently no design-certified and listed household products 
available that incorporate battery-powered ignition systems. According 
to AGA and NPGA, any presumption that such systems could be 
incorporated into covered products

[[Page 16051]]

raises a host of uncertainties regarding safety, certification, and 
other issues, and, therefore, goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 
(AGA, No. 46 at p. 2; NPGA, No. 52 at p. 2) Pitts and Shuster commented 
that battery-powered ignitions systems are not currently on the market 
because they are not cost effective. (Pitts and Shuster, No. 57 at p. 
2) AHAM and GE do not see that there are any other viable technologies 
to eliminate standing pilots. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
40.5 at p. 48; GE, No. 48 at p. 2) LG Electronics (LG) asked whether 
DOE considered technologies and products available in other parts of 
the world. (LG, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 47)
    Households Without Electricity. GE and Peerless-Premier Appliance 
Company (Peerless-Premier) stated that standing pilots provide consumer 
utility for customers without line power for economic, religious, or 
other reasons. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 31; GE, 
No. 48 at p. 2; Peerless Letter, No. 57 \10\ at pp. 1-2) AGA and NPGA 
also questioned DOE's assertion that consumer subgroups that are 
prohibited from using electricity would be allowed to use battery-
powered ignition. (AGA, No. 46 at p. 2; NPGA, No. 52 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In addition to its comments submitted to DOE, entered into 
the docket as comment number 42, Peerless-Premier Appliance Co. 
submitted a letter (Peerless Letter) to Congressman Whitfield of 
Kentucky regarding the October 2008 NOPR. A copy of the letter was 
entered into the docket as comment number 55 for this rulemaking in 
addition to comments that Peerless-Premier submitted directly to 
DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE Response to Comments. In response to these comments, DOE 
conducted additional research on battery-powered ignition systems for 
residential gas cooking products. As an initial matter, DOE could not 
identify any indoor ranges incorporating such ignition systems that are 
on the market in the United States. DOE was able to identify a single 
gas range for sale in the United Kingdom (U.K.) that incorporates a 
battery-powered ignition system that appeared to meet the functional 
safety requirements of ANSI Z21.1 (i.e., that the oven main burner is 
lit by an intermittent gas pilot that is in turn lit by a battery-
powered spark igniter.) This ignition system does not require the user 
to push a separate ``light'' button at the same time as the control 
knob is turned to allow pilot gas flow. Such a separate operation would 
be prohibited under ANSI Z21.1. However, further DOE research 
determined that the ignition system does not include a safety device to 
shut off the main gas valve in the event that no flame is detected, 
which is required by the ANSI standard.
    However, as noted from interested parties' comments, there are gas 
cooking products with battery-powered ignition for RV applications that 
are available in the United States. DOE determined that the sections in 
the ANSI safety standards for RV gas cooking products and residential 
gas cooking products that relate to the ignition system are equivalent. 
Thus, it could be inferred that a battery-powered ignition system 
designed for an RV gas range could be integrated into a residential gas 
range that could meet ANSI Z21.1 requirements. Such certification, 
though, does not appear to have been obtained thus far. In addition, 
these ignition systems are powered by 12 V automotive-type batteries 
and consume enough energy during operation to preclude the use of 
typical household-scale batteries, such a 1.5 V ``AA'' or 9 V 
batteries. Since 12 V batteries must be periodically recharged, this 
approach would likely not be viable for consumers without household 
electricity.
    DOE next investigated the possibility that battery-powered ignition 
systems used in other indoor residential appliances in the United 
States could meet the requirements of ANSI Z21.1, even though they are 
not currently being incorporated in gas cooking products. DOE 
identified several such appliances, including a remote-controlled gas 
fireplace and instantaneous gas water heaters. For these products, the 
battery-powered ignition systems are required to meet the same or 
equivalent component-level ANSI safety standards as are required for 
automatic ignition systems in gas cooking products. DOE contacted 
several manufacturers of gas cooking products, fireplaces, and 
instantaneous water heaters, as well as ignition component suppliers, 
to investigate the technological feasibility of integrating these 
existing battery-powered ignition systems into gas cooking products 
that would meet ANSI Z21.1. None of these manufacturers could identify 
insurmountable technological impediments to the development of such a 
product. Based on its research, DOE determined that the primary barrier 
to commercialization of battery-powered ignition systems in gas cooking 
products has been lack of market demand and economic justification 
rather than technological feasibility. Therefore, DOE concludes that a 
gas range incorporating one of these ignition systems could meet ANSI 
Z21.1. In addition, DOE research suggests that the market niche for gas 
cooking products equipped with battery-powered ignition systems, which 
would be created by the proposed gas cooking product standards, would 
likely attract entrants among ignition component suppliers.
    After considering issues regarding safety and commercial 
availability, DOE concludes that technologically feasible alternative 
ignition systems to standing pilots in gas cooking products for the 
small subgroup of households without electricity will likely be 
available at the time these energy conservation standards are 
effective. For more information, see chapter 3 of the TSD accompanying 
this notice.
3. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    As required by EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(2), in developing the 
October 2008 NOPR, DOE identified the design options that would 
increase the energy efficiency of cooking products. 73 FR 62034, 62045 
(Oct. 17, 2008). (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.) DOE did not receive 
any comments on the maximum technologically feasible levels in the 
October 2008 proposed rule that would lead DOE to consider changes to 
these levels. Therefore, for today's final rule, the max-tech levels 
for all cooking product classes are the max-tech levels identified in 
the October 2008 NOPR. These levels are provided in Table III.1 below.

 Table III.1--October 2008 Proposed Max-Tech Levels for Cooking Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Product                            Max-Tech EF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Cooktops..............................................        0.42
Electric Open (Coil) Cooktops.............................        0.769
Electric Smooth Cooktops..................................        0.753
Gas Standard Ovens........................................        0.0583
Gas Self-Clean Ovens......................................        0.0632
Electric Standard Ovens...................................        0.1209
Electric Self-Clean Ovens.................................        0.1123
Microwave Ovens...........................................        0.602
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Energy Savings

    DOE forecasted energy savings in its NES analysis through the use 
of an NES spreadsheet tool, as discussed in the October 2008 NOPR. 73 
FR 62034, 62045-46, 62068-74, 62104-05 (Oct. 17, 2008).
    One criterion that governs DOE's adoption of standards for cooking 
products is that the standard must result in ``significant conservation 
of energy.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) While EPCA does not define the 
term ``significant,'' a U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 
indicated that Congress

[[Page 16052]]

intended ``significant'' energy savings in this context to be savings 
that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' DOE's estimates of the energy 
savings for energy conservation standards at each of the TSLs 
considered for cooking products for today's rule indicate that the 
energy savings each would achieve are nontrivial. Therefore, DOE 
considers these savings ``significant'' within the meaning of section 
325 of EPCA.

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted earlier, EPCA provides seven factors to evaluate in 
determining whether an energy conservation standard for covered 
products is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) The 
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed these factors in 
evaluating efficiency standards for cooking products.
a. Economic Impact on Consumers and Manufacturers
    DOE considered the economic impact of potential standards on 
consumers and manufacturers of cooking products. For consumers, DOE 
measured the economic impact as the change in installed cost and life-
cycle operating costs (i.e., the LCC.) (See sections IV.C of this 
notice and chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this notice.) DOE 
investigated the impacts on manufacturers through the manufacturer 
impact analysis (MIA). (See sections IV.F and VI.C.2 of this notice and 
chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying this notice.) This factor is 
discussed in detail in the October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 62046, 
62057-68, 62075-81, 62085-104, 62128-30 (Oct. 17, 2008).
b. Life-Cycle Costs
    DOE considered life-cycle costs of cooking products, as discussed 
in the October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 62046, 62057-68, 62085-91 (Oct. 
17, 2008). DOE calculated the sum of the purchase price and the 
operating expense--discounted over the lifetime of the product--to 
estimate the range in LCC benefits that consumers would expect to 
achieve due to standards.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA also 
requires DOE to consider the total projected energy savings that are 
expected to result directly from a proposed standard in determining the 
economic justification of that standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As in the October 2008 NOPR (73 FR 62034, 62045-
46, 62068-74, 62104-05 (Oct. 17, 2008)), DOE used the NES spreadsheet 
results for today's final rule in its consideration of total projected 
savings that are directly attributable to the standard levels DOE 
considered.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In considering standard levels, DOE sought to avoid new standards 
for cooking products that would lessen the utility or performance of 
such products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 73 FR 62034, 62046-47, 
62107 (Oct. 17, 2008).
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considers any lessening of competition that is likely to result 
from standards. Accordingly, as discussed in the October 2008 NOPR (73 
FR 62034, 62047, 62107 (Oct. 17, 2008)), DOE requested that the 
Attorney General transmit to the Secretary a written determination of 
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 
from the standards proposed in the October 2008 NOPR, including those 
for cooking products, together with an analysis of the nature and 
extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))
    To assist the Attorney General in making such a determination, DOE 
provided the Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies of the October 
2008 proposed rule and the TSD for review. The Attorney General's 
response is discussed in section VI.C.5 and is reprinted at the end of 
this rule. (DOJ, No. 53 at pp. 1-2)
f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    In considering standards for cooking products, the Secretary must 
consider the need of the Nation to conserve energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The Secretary recognizes that energy conservation 
benefits the Nation in several important ways. The non-monetary 
benefits of standards are likely to be reflected in improvements to the 
security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Standards 
generally are also likely to result in environmental benefits. As 
discussed in the proposed rule, DOE has considered these factors in 
considering whether to adopt standards for cooking products. 73 FR 
62034, 62047, 62081-84, 62107-62113, 62130-31 (Oct. 17, 2008).
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA states that there is a rebuttable 
presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically 
justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that 
meets the standard level is less than three times the value of the 
first-year energy (and, as applicable, water) savings resulting from 
the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate 
values that calculate the payback period for consumers of a product 
meeting potential energy conservation standards, which includes, but is 
not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the 
rebuttable presumption test discussed above. (See chapter 8 of the TSD 
that accompanies this notice.) However, DOE routinely conducts a full 
economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts, including 
those to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as 
required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis 
serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic 
justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or 
rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic 
justification).

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology

    DOE used several analytical tools that it developed previously and 
adapted for use in this rulemaking. One is a spreadsheet that 
calculates LCC and PBP. Another tool calculates national energy savings 
and national NPV. DOE also used the GRIM, along with other methods, in 
its MIA. Finally, DOE developed an approach using the National Energy 
Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate impacts of energy efficiency 
standards for residential cooking products on electric utilities and 
the environment. The TSD appendices discuss each of these analytical 
tools in detail. As a basis for this final rule, DOE has continued to 
use the spreadsheets and approaches explained in the October 2008 NOPR. 
DOE used the same general methodology as applied in the October 2008 
NOPR, but revised some of the assumptions and inputs for the final rule 
in response to interested parties' comments. The following paragraphs 
discuss these revisions.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE 
develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for 
the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the 
industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes 
both quantitative

[[Page 16053]]

and qualitative assessments based primarily on publicly available 
information. DOE presented various subjects in the market and 
technology assessment for this rulemaking. (See the October 2008 NOPR 
and chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.) These include product definitions, 
product classes, manufacturers, quantities and types of products sold 
and offered for sale, retail market trends, and regulatory and 
nonregulatory programs.
1. Product Classes
    In general, when evaluating and establishing energy conservation 
standards, DOE divides covered products into classes by the type of 
energy used, capacity, or other performance-related features that 
affect consumer utility and efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Different 
energy conservation standards may apply to different product classes. 
Id.
    For cooking products, DOE based its product classes on energy 
source (e.g., gas or electric) and cooking method (e.g., cooktops, 
ovens, and microwave ovens). DOE identified five categories of cooking 
products: gas cooktops, electric cooktops, gas ovens, electric ovens, 
and microwave ovens. The following discussion provides clarification 
regarding DOE's selection of product classes for residential cooking 
products.
    In its regulations implementing EPCA, DOE defines a ``conventional 
range'' as ``a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household 
cooking appliance consisting of a conventional cooking top and one or 
more conventional ovens.'' 10 CFR 430.2. The November 2007 ANOPR 
presented DOE's reasons for not treating gas and electric ranges as a 
distinct product category and for not basing its product classes on 
that category, primarily based upon DOE's determination that, because 
ranges consist of both a cooktop and oven, any potential cooktop and 
oven standards would apply to the individual components of the range. 
72 FR 64432, 64443 (Nov. 15, 2007). In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 
defined a single product class for gas cooktops as gas cooktops with 
conventional burners. 72 FR 64432, 64443-44 (Nov. 15, 2007) For gas 
ovens, DOE defined two product classes--gas standard ovens with or 
without a catalytic line and gas self-cleaning ovens. 72 FR 64432, 
64445 (Nov. 15, 2007) These product class definitions were maintained 
in the October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008).
    DOE tentatively concluded in the November 2007 ANOPR that standing 
pilot ignition systems are not performance-related features that 
provide unique utility and would, therefore, not warrant a separate 
product class. 72 FR 64432, 64463 (Nov. 15, 2007). In response to 
interested parties' comments on this proposed determination, DOE noted 
in the October 2008 NOPR that the purpose of ignition systems is to 
ignite the gas when burner operation is needed for cooking, and either 
standing pilot or electronic ignition provides this function. In 
addition, DOE concluded from previous analysis that the ability to 
operate in the event of an electric power outage is not a utility 
feature that affects performance of gas cooking products. 73 FR 62034, 
62048 (Oct. 17, 2008).
    DOE notes that the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA provide an 
exception from the residential boiler energy conservation standards for 
``[a] boiler that is manufactured to operate without any need for 
electricity or any electric connection, electric gauges, electric 
pumps, electric wires, or electric devices. * * *'' (42 U.S.C. 
6295(f)(3)(C)) Such units are typically equipped with a standing pilot. 
The October 2008 NOPR referred indirectly to this exception by stating 
that DOE addressed it in its residential furnace and boiler rulemaking. 
73 FR 62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE is clarifying this statement in 
today's final rule as follows. DOE's full rulemaking analysis 
(conducted prior to passage of EISA 2007) did not result in such an 
exception in its most recent energy conservation standards rulemaking 
for residential furnaces and boilers. 72 FR 65136 (Nov. 19, 2007). 
However, DOE subsequently published a final rule in the form of a 
technical amendment whose sole purpose was to codify the EISA 2007 
amendments to EPCA pertaining to residential furnace and boiler 
standards set by statute, including the exception above. 73 FR 43611, 
43613 (July 28, 2008). Because the July 28, 2008, rule implemented 
statutory provisions over which the Department had no rulemaking 
discretion, DOE did not conduct any supporting analysis or provide any 
input on this boiler exclusion. Congress incorporated this exclusion in 
the energy conservation standards for boilers, but Congress chose not 
to include a similar provision for gas cooking products with standing 
pilots. Accordingly, DOE used the applicable EPCA provisions for 
determining whether performance-related features warrant separate 
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)), and DOE 
determined in the October 2008 NOPR that it would be unable to create a 
similar exception for gas cooking products because there is no unique 
utility associated with gas cooking products equipped with standing 
pilot ignition, compared to those with electronic ignition. 73 FR 
62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE based this understanding on its 
tentative conclusion that there is not expected to be any appreciable 
difference in cooking performance between gas cooking products with or 
without a standing pilot and that battery-powered electronic ignitions 
systems could provide ignition in the absence of line power (i.e., 
electricity from the utility grid). Id.
    Through market research for the October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined 
that battery-powered electronic ignition systems have been implemented 
in other products, such as instantaneous gas water heaters, barbeques, 
furnaces, and other appliances, and the use of such ignition systems 
appeared acceptable under ANSI Z21.1. Therefore, subgroups that 
prohibit the use of line electricity, or that do not have line 
electricity available, could still use gas cooking products without 
standing pilots, assuming gas cooking products would be made available 
with battery-powered ignition. Thus, DOE concluded that standing pilot 
ignition systems do not provide a distinct utility and that a separate 
class for standing pilot ignition systems would not be warranted under 
42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 73 FR 62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008).
    In response to the October 2008 NOPR, AGA commented that DOE should 
assign a separate product class to gas cooking products with standing 
pilots. According to AGA, NPGA, and Pitts and Shuster, DOE acknowledged 
in the October 2008 NOPR that some religious groups do not allow 
electricity or adopt it in their area, and that DOE made an exception 
in EISA 2007 to allow standing pilots for gravity-fed gas boilers for 
such consumers. These commenters believe that gas ranges with standing 
pilots should remain available due to their unique utility. (AGA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 16-18; AGA, No. 46 at p. 2; 
NPGA, No. 52 at p. 2; Pitts and Shuster, No. 57 at p. 1) NPGA also 
objected to DOE's determination in the October 2008 NOPR that gas 
ranges incorporating pilot ignition systems do not provide a unique 
utility to gas customers, as well as DOE's determination that power 
outages are not frequent or long enough for residential electricity 
customers to be affected by the inability to cook food. NPGA and AGA 
stated that the utility of having an appliance with a standing pilot is 
important, especially for that segment of the population that cannot 
use electricity due to religious or

[[Page 16054]]

cultural practices or current economic status, or for whom electrical 
service is unavailable (such as for hunting cabins). (NPGA, No. 52 at 
p. 2; AGA, No. 46 at p. 2) AGA also stated that the unique consumer 
utility of an ignition system is conveyed by the installed environment 
(i.e., whether line electricity is present) rather than by the ignition 
technology itself. According to AGA, EPCA addresses consumer utility 
associated with the covered product, not with a specific system or 
technology used in the product. (AGA, No. 46 at p. 2)
    As discussed above, Congress created the exception to the standards 
in EPCA for residential boilers which operate without the need for 
electricity (i.e., ``gravity-fed gas boilers''). Such an exception was 
not based on analysis in DOE's most recent energy conservation 
standards rulemaking for residential furnaces and boilers. Congress did 
not provide a similar exclusion for gas cooking products with standing 
pilots. Certain consumer subgroups currently use such gas cooking 
products due to religious or cultural practices or a lack of access to 
electrical service. However, DOE continues to believe that the consumer 
utility that would need to be maintained for these subgroups is the 
same as for all consumers (i.e., the ability to ignite the cooking 
product under the nominal conditions of installation, which for these 
consumer subgroups includes the absence of electrical service.) DOE 
also considered whether additional utility is conferred by the ability 
to provide ignition during an atypical event such as a loss of line 
power for those consumers who have electrical service, but DOE did not 
receive additional information regarding duration and frequency of 
power outages that would lead it to conclude that the ability to 
operate during such an event represents significant utility. Therefore, 
DOE maintains that there is no unique utility provided by standing 
pilot ignition systems, and that a separate product class for gas 
cooking products incorporating standing pilots is not warranted under 
42 U.S.C. 6295(q). In making this determination, however, DOE 
recognizes that achieving safe ignition in gas cooking products for 
consumer subgroups without electricity in the home in the absence of 
standing pilot ignition requires an alternative ignition technology 
that does not rely on line power. As discussed in section III.C.2 of 
today's notice and chapter 3 of the TSD accompanying it, DOE identified 
battery-powered ignition systems as a potential alternative to standing 
pilots, and believes that such systems will likely be commercially 
available to these consumer subgroups by the time the energy 
conservation standards are effective.
2. Technology Options
    As discussed above in section III.A, EEI suggested that DOE 
consider methods to reduce the input rate of standing pilot ignition 
systems in gas cooking products, thereby lowering the product's overall 
energy consumption, rather than strictly considering a ban on the use 
of standing pilots. EEI stated that DOE should create a performance 
standard for standing pilot lights, similar to what was proposed in the 
October 2008 NOPR for microwave ovens. EEI claimed a performance 
standard restricting the input rate of standing pilots could save a 
large fraction of standby energy usage in gas cooking products, while 
still providing flexibility to manufacturers. (EEI, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 19-20 and 50-51; EEI, No. 56 at p. 2)
    In the framework document for this rulemaking, DOE requested 
comment on a list of technologies, based on its 1996 analysis in the 
``Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products'' \11\ 
(1996 TSD), that it would consider for improving the efficiency of 
cooking products. These technologies did not include the one EEI now 
suggests (i.e., one reducing the input rate of standing pilot ignition 
systems.) In response, several interested parties submitted comments on 
the framework document that indicated the list of technology options 
was still relevant because there have been no major technological 
breakthroughs in conventional cooking products since 1996. 72 FR 64432, 
64452 (Nov. 15, 2007) No interested parties suggested any additional 
technologies for DOE to consider. DOE presented this list again in the 
November 2007 ANOPR, along with the analyses based on efficiency levels 
derived from the same technology options. 72 FR 64432, 64451-52, 64463-
64 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE did not receive any comments in response to the 
November 2007 ANOPR which suggested analyzing additional technology 
options for conventional cooking products. Furthermore, EEI's comments 
in response to the October 2008 NOPR provided no supporting information 
to validate the technological feasibility of reduced pilot input rate 
for improving the energy usage of gas cooking products equipped with 
standing pilots. DOE research did not identify any commercially 
available pilots suitable for gas range applications that operate at 
input rates substantially lower than that assumed for the baseline 
efficiency levels (117 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h) for gas 
cooktops and 175 Btu/h for gas ovens.) These baseline pilot input rates 
are based upon data DOE received as inputs to its analyses presented in 
the 1996 TSD, and the baseline values are intended to represent average 
input rates for the distribution of pilots incorporated in baseline 
ovens and cooktops. DOE does not have information on the distribution 
of pilot input rates that are associated with the range of ovens and 
cooktops currently on the market, but DOE believes that pilot 
capacities are closely related to the specific burner system(s) in each 
cooking product. DOE concluded that specifying a maximum pilot input 
rate without consideration of the diversity of such systems would 
likely raise utility issues, wherein the pilot could potentially fail 
to perform its required ignition function in some cooking products. For 
these reasons, DOE is not considering reduced pilot input rates in this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Available online at DOE's Web site: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products_0998_r.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Excluded Product Classes and Technologies
    DOE stated in the November 2007 ANOPR that it lacks efficiency data 
to determine whether certain designs (e.g., commercial-style cooking 
products) and certain technologies (e.g., induction cooktops) should be 
excluded from the rulemaking. 72 FR 64432, 64444-45, 64460 (Nov. 15, 
2007). Due to a lack of public comments or other information that would 
counter DOE's tentative decision to exclude these products and 
technologies, DOE maintained these proposed exclusions in the October 
2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008).
    AHAM and Whirlpool agree with the proposal to exclude commercial-
style cooking products and induction technology. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 3; 
Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 1) In light of these comments in support of the 
proposal and in the absence of any new information, DOE has decided not 
to include commercial-style cooking products and induction technology 
in today's final rule.

B. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Levels
    In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE reviewed and updated the design 
options and efficiency levels published in the 1996 TSD analysis, an 
approach generally supported by interested parties. DOE did not receive 
any

[[Page 16055]]

comments on the November 2007 ANOPR regarding omitted cooking 
technologies and retained all the cooking technologies, design options, 
and efficiency levels for cooking product energy factor as part of the 
October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 62052 (Oct. 17, 2008).
    AGA commented in response to the October 2008 NOPR that DOE did not 
consider alternative technologies to banning standing pilots, which 
places a great burden on the justification of pilot ignition products 
as the baseline technology. AGA stated that DOE had difficulty in 
defining reasonable design options for these gas products, but that 
does not justify defining standing pilots as the baseline product. 
(AGA, No. 46 at p. 3)
    In response, DOE notes that baseline products refer to a model or 
models that have features and technologies typically found in products 
currently offered for sale. The baseline model in each product class 
represents the characteristics of products in that class, and typically 
achieves minimum energy efficiency performance. In the case of gas 
cooking products that are not equipped with an electrical cord (i.e., 
gas cooktops and gas standard ovens), minimum energy efficiency 
performance is associated with products equipped with standing pilot 
ignition systems. DOE research has not revealed any other design 
options that would support the definition of different baseline 
efficiency levels for gas cooktops and gas standard ovens, and DOE did 
not receive any information on alternative technologies or design 
options. Therefore, DOE is maintaining the baseline efficiency levels 
associated with standing pilots for gas cooktops and gas standard ovens 
in today's final rule.
2. Manufacturing Costs
    In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE estimated a manufacturing cost at 
each efficiency level in this rulemaking by scaling the manufacturing 
costs that were provided in the 1996 TSD by the producer price index 
(PPI).\12\ 72 FR 64432, 64467-69 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE retained these 
same manufacturing costs in the October 2008 NOPR and is also retaining 
them in today's final rule because it has determined that there has 
been no significant change in the PPI since the analysis for the 
November 2007 ANOPR, which used the PPI from 2006. For electric cooking 
products (including microwave ovens), the PPI increased 1.4 percent 
between 2006 and 2007, the most recent year for which final PPI values 
are available from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor and 
Statistics. The PPI for gas cooking products increased 2.9 percent in 
that same time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.bls.gov/pPI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the October 2008 NOPR, AGA had commented that DOE 
underestimated the incremental manufacturing cost of electronic 
ignition, which for gas cooking products corresponds to efficiency 
level 1. According to AGA, the Harper-Wyman Co., in 1998 comments to 
DOE, provided an incremental retail price of $150 for a gas range with 
electronic ignition relative to a gas range with standing pilot 
ignition system. AGA argued that this retail price increment stands in 
sharp contrast to the $37 incremental manufacturing cost estimated by 
DOE. 73 FR 62034, 62054 (Oct. 17, 2008).
    In response to AGA's comments on the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 
contacted component suppliers of gas cooking product ignition systems 
to validate DOE's manufacturing cost estimates. DOE believes that the 
information collected verified that the costs in the November 2007 
ANOPR represented current costs and, therefore, continued in the 
October 2008 NOPR to characterize the incremental manufacturing costs 
for the non-standing pilot ignition systems with the estimates 
developed for the November 2007 ANOPR. Id.
    In response to the October 2008 NOPR, AGA stated it disagrees with 
DOE's approach for estimating incremental manufacturing costs for 
electronic ignition. AGA commented that DOE's use of survey data on 
appliance prices is a poor proxy for manufacturing cost because pricing 
policy is based on a host of factors (including marginal product 
demand), not strictly on manufactured cost. Therefore, the commenter 
stated that it disagrees with DOE's estimate of $37 in incremental cost 
for electronic ignition. Instead, AGA believes that DOE should use a 
figure closer to the estimate of $150 previously provided by AGA, which 
was based on manufacturer estimates for redesign of pilot ignition 
products. AGA also stated that DOE should examine the impact on 
consumers, not on the manufacturer's costs. (AGA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 17-18; AGA, No. 46 at p. 4)
    For this final rule, DOE conducted further research regarding 
retail prices for comparable gas ranges with standing pilot and 
electronic ignition systems. A comparison of manufacturer suggested 
retail prices for four brands showed a price differential ranging from 
$0 to $50 for a consumer to purchase a gas range with an electronic 
ignition system, rather than a standing pilot, from the same 
manufacturer. (See chapter 3 of the TSD accompanying this notice.) DOE 
recognizes that manufacturer pricing takes many factors into account, 
but the consistency of the price increments among four different 
manufacturers suggests that DOE's estimate of $37 for a manufacturing 
cost increment to eliminate standing pilots in a gas range has greater 
validity than an increment of $150. DOE further notes that, according 
to AGA's comments on the November 2007 ANOPR, the $150 estimate was 
provided by Harper-Wyman Co. in 1998. DOE believes that its own 
discussions with ignition component suppliers during the ANOPR phase of 
this rulemaking may represent more current technologies and costs. 
Therefore, DOE has decided to retain the proposed incremental 
manufacturing costs in today's final rule.

C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    The purpose of the LCC and PBP analyses is to evaluate the economic 
impacts of possible new energy conservation standards for cooking 
products on individual consumers. The LCC is the total consumer expense 
over the life of the product, including purchase and installation 
expense and operating costs (energy expenditures, repair costs, and 
maintenance costs). The PBP is the number of years it would take for 
the consumer to recover the increased costs of purchasing a higher 
efficiency product through energy savings. To calculate LCC, DOE 
discounted future operating costs to the time of purchase and summed 
them over the lifetime of the product. DOE measured the change in LCC 
and the change in PBP associated with a given efficiency level relative 
to a base-case forecast of product efficiency. The base-case forecast 
reflects the market in the absence of amended mandatory energy 
conservation standards.
    As part of the LCC and PBP analyses, DOE developed data that it 
used to establish product prices, installation costs, annual household 
energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, 
product lifetime, and discount rates.
    DOE calculated the LCC and payback periods for cooking products for 
a nationally representative set of housing units, which was selected 
from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Residential Energy 
Consumption

[[Page 16056]]

Survey (RECS).\13\ Similar to the October 2008 NOPR, the analysis for 
today's final rule used the 2001 RECS. (EIA had not yet released the 
2005 RECS when the analysis was performed. Although DOE was unable to 
use the most recent RECS, the 2001 version still offers a relatively 
recent national representation of how consumers utilize cooking 
products. Also, no other public survey provides a representative 
national household sample indicating how frequently consumers use their 
cooking appliances.) By using a representative sample of households, 
the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy 
prices associated with cooking product use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2001 Public 
Use Data Files (2001). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption 
for the cooking product and the energy price. DOE calculated the LCC 
associated with a baseline cooking product for each household. To 
calculate the LCC savings and PBP associated with products meeting 
higher efficiency standards, DOE substituted the baseline unit with a 
more efficient design.
    Table IV.1 summarizes the approaches and data DOE used to derive 
the inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations for the October 2008 NOPR, 
and the changes it made for today's final rule. For this final rule, 
DOE did not introduce changes to the LCC and PBP analyses methodology 
described in the October 2008 NOPR. However, DOE revised its energy 
prices and energy price forecasts based upon the most recently 
available data from EIA. Chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this notice 
contains detailed discussion of the methodology utilized for the LCC 
and PBP analyses, as well as the inputs developed for the analyses.

  Table IV.1--Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions in the LCC and PBP
                                Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Changes for the
           Inputs               October 2008 NOPR        final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Affecting Installed Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Price...............  Derived by            No change.
                               multiplying
                               manufacturer cost
                               by manufacturer,
                               retailer markups
                               and sales tax.
Installation Cost...........  Baseline cost based   No change.
                               on RS Means
                               Mechanical Cost
                               Data, 2008.\14\
                               Based the
                               percentage of
                               households with gas
                               cooking products
                               that would need to
                               install an
                               electrical outlet
                               on requirements in
                               the National
                               Electrical Code
                               (NEC). Determined
                               that only
                               households built
                               before 1960 would
                               require the
                               installation of an
                               outlet. Overall,
                               estimated that 10
                               percent of
                               households with gas
                               standard ovens and
                               4 percent of
                               households with gas
                               cooktops would need
                               to install an
                               electrical outlet
                               to accommodate
                               designs that
                               require
                               electricity. Based
                               electrical outlet
                               installation costs
                               on requirements in
                               the NEC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Affecting Operating Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Energy Use...........  Based on recent       No change.
                               estimates from the
                               2004 ``California
                               Residential
                               Appliance
                               Saturation Survey''
                               \15\ (RASS) and the
                               Florida Solar
                               Energy Center \16\
                               (FSEC). Used 2001
                               RECS data to
                               establish the
                               variability of
                               annual cooking
                               energy consumption.
                               Included standby
                               power consumption
                               for microwave ovens.
Energy Prices...............  Electricity: Based    Electricity: Updated
                               on EIA's 2006 Form    using EIA's 2007
                               861 data.\17\.        Form 861 data.
                              Natural Gas: Based    Natural Gas: Updated
                               on EIA's 2006         using EIA's 2007
                               Natural Gas Monthly   Natural Gas
                               \18\.                 Monthly.
                              Variability:          Variability: No
                               Regional energy       change.
                               prices determined
                               for 13 regions.
Energy Price Trends.........  Forecasted with       Reference Case
                               EIA's Annual Energy   forecasts updated
                               Outlook (AEO) 2008.   with EIA's AEO2009
                                                     Early Release.\19\
                                                     AEO2009 Early
                                                     Release does not
                                                     provide High-Growth
                                                     and Low-Growth
                                                     forecasts, Scaled
                                                     AEO2008 High-Growth
                                                     and Low-Growth
                                                     forecasts by the
                                                     ratio of AEO2009
                                                     and AEO2008
                                                     Reference Case
                                                     forecasts to
                                                     estimate high-
                                                     growth and low-
                                                     growth price
                                                     trends.
Repair and Maintenance Costs  For gas cooktops and  No change.
                               standard ovens,
                               accounted for
                               increased costs
                               associated with glo-
                               bar or electronic
                               spark ignition
                               systems relative to
                               standing pilot
                               ignition systems.
                               For all standard
                               levels for all
                               other product
                               classes, estimated
                               no change in costs
                               between products
                               more efficient than
                               baseline products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Lifetime............  Based on data from    No change.
                               Appliance
                               Magazine,\20\ past
                               DOE TSDs, and the
                               California
                               Measurement
                               Advisory Committee
                               (CALMAC).\21\
                               Variability and
                               uncertainty
                               characterized with
                               Weibull probability
                               distributions.

[[Page 16057]]

 
Discount Rates..............  Approach based on     No change.
                               the finance cost of
                               raising funds to
                               purchase appliances
                               either through the
                               financial cost of
                               any debt incurred
                               to purchase
                               products, or the
                               opportunity cost of
                               any equity used to
                               purchase products.
                               Primary data source
                               is the Federal
                               Reserve Board's
                               Survey of Consumer
                               Finances (SCF) for
                               1989, 1992, 1995,
                               1998, 2001, and
                               2004 \22\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Affecting Installed and Operating Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective Date of New or      2012................  No change.
 Amended Standards.
Base-Case Efficiency          Gas cooktops: 7% at   No change.
 Distributions.                baseline; 93% with
                               electronic spark
                               ignition.
                              Gas standard ovens:   No change.
                               18% at baseline;
                               74% with glo-bar
                               ignition; 8% with
                               electronic spark
                               ignition.
                              Microwave ovens:      No change.
                               100% at baseline EF.
                              All other cooking     No change.
                               products: 100% at
                               baseline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Product Prices
    To calculate the product prices faced by consumers, DOE multiplied 
the manufacturing costs developed from the engineering analysis by the 
supply chain markups it developed (along with sales taxes). To 
calculate the final installed prices, DOE added installation costs to 
the consumer product prices. In response to the October 2008 NOPR, 
interested parties provided no additional comment on DOE's methods for 
establishing consumer product prices. As a result, DOE used the same 
supply chain markups for the final rule that were developed for the 
October 2008 NOPR. See chapter 7 of the TSD accompanying this notice 
for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ RS Means, Mechanical Cost Data (30th Annual Edition) 
(2008). Available for purchase at http://www.rsmeans.com/bookstore/.
    \15\ Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/.
    \16\ Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/.
    \17\ Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.eia.doe.gov.
    \18\ Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.eia.doe.gov.
    \19\ Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html?featureclicked=1&.
    \20\ Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.appliancemagazine.com.
    \21\ Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.calmac.org.
    \22\ Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.federalreserve.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Installation Cost
    Installation costs include labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts. For the October 2008 NOPR and today's final rule, 
DOE used data from the ``RS Means Mechanical Cost Data, (2008),'' on 
labor requirements to estimate installation costs for cooking products.
    For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE did not include an installation cost 
for microwave ovens. Electrolux stated that over-the-range (OTR) 
microwave ovens do have an installation cost. (Electrolux, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 123) DOE acknowledges that OTR 
microwave ovens incur installation costs. However, as noted below, 
because DOE estimated that the installation cost does not change with 
product efficiency, the omission of this cost for microwave ovens has 
no effect on the LCC saving and PBP results.
    For many cooking products, DOE estimated that installation costs 
would be the same for different efficiency levels. For gas cooktops and 
gas standard ovens, DOE evaluated the impact that eliminating standing 
pilot ignition systems would have on the installation cost. Peerless-
Premier stated that eliminating pilots would affect customers who live 
in older houses, apartments, and manufactured homes without a power 
receptacle located at the range site. (Peerless-Premier, No. 42 at pp. 
1-2) For the October 2008 NOPR and today's final rule, DOE considered 
the percentage of households with gas ranges, cooktops, and ovens that 
would require the installation of an electrical outlet in the kitchen 
to accommodate a gas cooking product without standing pilot ignition, 
as well as the cost of installing an electrical outlet.
    For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE reviewed the gas oven and gas 
cooktop household samples to establish which houses may require 
installation of an outlet. DOE was able to determine the composition of 
the household sample of particular vintage (year built) groupings by 
conducting an assessment of National Electrical Code (NEC) requirements 
over time to help determine which homes may need an electrical outlet 
to accommodate a gas cooking product that requires electricity. Because 
the NEC requires spacing electrical outlets every 6 feet for homes 
built since 1960, DOE concluded that homes built after 1959 would not 
need an additional outlet. Pre-1960 homes represent 57 percent of the 
standard gas oven sample and 54 percent of the gas cooktop sample. 
Based on shipments data of gas cooking products indicating that fewer 
than 7 percent and 18 percent of gas cooktops and standard ovens, 
respectively, came equipped with standing pilots, DOE also concluded 
that many pre-1960 homes already have a gas cooking product without 
standing pilot ignition, which implies that they would not need to 
install an additional outlet.
    The Joint Comment asserted that DOE erroneously assumed that 100 
percent of pre-1960 homes with gas cooktops and ovens do not have 
adequate electrical outlets, without regard to the extensive number of 
kitchens that have been remodeled since 1960. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at 
p. 11) EEI made a similar point. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
40.5 at pp. 111-112) In response, DOE did not assume that all pre-1960 
homes with gas cooktops and gas ovens would require an electrical 
outlet. Rather, it concluded that only those households that currently 
have a gas cooking product with standing pilot ignition would need to 
install an electrical outlet to accommodate a gas cooking product 
without standing pilot ignition. Based on the percentage of recent 
shipments of gas cooking products with standing pilots and the fraction 
of the household sample built

[[Page 16058]]

before 1960, DOE estimated that 10 percent of the overall gas standard 
oven household sample would need to install an electrical outlet to 
accommodate a gas standard oven that requires electricity to operate. 
It is worth noting that some portion of gas cooking products with 
standing pilot ignition is evidently purchased by consumers in post-
1959 homes, even though they have an electrical outlet adequate to 
accommodate a gas cooking product without standing pilot ignition.
    AGA and AHAM stated that DOE's approach should not consider all gas 
cooking product consumers, but only the market for gas cooking products 
that utilize standing pilot ignition systems. They believe the 
resulting weighted-average installation cost for all gas cooking 
products would be greater than DOE's estimate. (AGA, No. 46 at pp. 3-4; 
AHAM, No. 47 at p. 2) As described above, DOE did estimate the share of 
the gas oven and gas cooktop household samples that still use standing 
pilot ignition systems, and further estimated the fraction of those 
homes that may require installation of an outlet to accommodate a gas 
cooking product that requires electricity to operate. DOE correctly 
calculated the respective weighted-average installation costs for all 
homes with either gas cooktops or ovens, although the weighted averages 
are reported for informational purposes only and do not directly figure 
into the LCC calculations. For further details on the development of 
the electrical outlet installation cost and the percentage of 
households requiring an outlet, see chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying 
this notice.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE based its estimates of annual energy 
use for cooking products (except microwave ovens) on results from the 
2004 California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) and the 
Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC.). For today's final rule, DOE 
continued to rely on these sources, because they are the latest 
available public sources describing the field consumption of cooking 
products. In addition, DOE continued to use the 2001 RECS data to 
establish the variability of annual energy consumption for cooktops and 
ovens. The 2001 RECS is the most recently available public data source 
that indicates the variability of cooking product usage in U.S. 
households.
    For microwave ovens, DOE used the 2004 RASS to estimate the 
product's annual energy consumption, and it used the 2001 RECS data to 
establish the variability of annual cooking energy consumption. For 
today's final rule, DOE continued to use the above approaches. As noted 
above, the 2004 RASS is the latest available public data source 
describing the average field consumption of microwave ovens, and the 
2001 RECS is the most recently available public data source that 
indicates the variability of microwave oven usage in U.S. households. 
See chapter 6 of the TSD accompanying this notice for further details.
4. Energy Prices
    DOE derived average electricity and natural gas prices for 13 
geographic areas consisting of the nine U.S. Census divisions, with 
four large States (New York, Florida, Texas, and California) treated 
separately. For Census divisions containing one of these large States, 
DOE calculated the regional average values minus the data for the large 
State.
    DOE estimated residential electricity prices for each of the 13 
geographic areas based on data from EIA Form 861, Annual Electric Power 
Industry Report. DOE calculated an average residential electricity 
price by first estimating an average residential price for each utility 
by dividing the residential revenues by residential kilowatt-hour sales 
and then calculating a regional average price by weighting each utility 
with customers in a region by the number of residential consumers 
served in that region. The calculations for today's final rule used the 
most recent available data from 2007.
    DOE estimated residential natural gas prices in each of the 13 
geographic areas based on data from the EIA publication Natural Gas 
Monthly. For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE used the data for 2006 to 
calculate an average summer and winter price for each area. For today's 
final rule, DOE used 2007 data from the same source. DOE calculated an 
average natural gas price by first calculating the average prices for 
each State, and then calculating a regional price by weighting each 
State in a region by its population. This method differs from the 
method used to calculate electricity prices, because EIA does not 
provide consumer-level or utility-level data on gas consumption and 
prices.
    To estimate the trends in electricity and natural gas prices for 
the October 2008 NOPR, DOE used the price forecasts in EIA's Annual 
Energy Outlook (AEO) 2008. To arrive at prices in future years, DOE 
multiplied the average prices described above by the forecast of annual 
average price changes in AEO2008. For today's final rule, DOE updated 
its energy price forecasts to those in the AEO2009 Early Release. 
Because the AEO forecasts prices only to 2030, DOE followed past 
guidelines provided to the Federal Energy Management Program by EIA and 
used the average rate of change during 2020-2030 to estimate the price 
trends after 2030.
    The spreadsheet tools used to conduct the LCC and PBP analyses 
allow users to select either the AEO's high-growth case or low-growth 
case price forecasts to estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP to 
different energy price forecasts. The AEO2009 Early Release provides 
only forecasts for the reference case. Therefore, for the final rule, 
DOE scaled the AEO2008 high-growth case or low-growth forecasts by the 
ratio of AEO2009 and AEO2008 reference case forecasts to estimate high-
growth and low-growth price trends.
    The Joint Comment recommended that DOE conduct a sensitivity 
analysis using other forecasts in addition to the AEO, as they believe 
that the AEO has estimated lower electricity prices than most other 
forecasts. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 11) As mentioned above, DOE 
included the AEO's high-growth case and low-growth case price forecasts 
in its spreadsheet tools to estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP 
results to different energy price forecasts. AEO's high-economic-growth 
and low-economic-growth cases show the effects of alternative economic 
growth assumptions on the energy market projections. In the high-growth 
case, real gross domestic product (GDP) growth averages 3.0 percent per 
year, as a result of higher assumed growth rates for the labor force, 
non-farm employment, and non-farm labor productivity. With higher 
productivity gains and employment growth, inflation and interest rates 
are lower than in the reference case. In the low-growth case, growth in 
real GDP is 1.8 percent per year, as a result of lower assumed growth 
rates for the labor force, non-farm employment, and labor productivity. 
Consequently, the low-growth case shows higher inflation and interest 
rates and slower growth in industrial output and employment than are 
projected in the reference case. DOE believes the AEO alternative 
forecasts provide a suitable range that brackets the forecasts 
resulting from other energy-economy models. In addition, the Joint 
Comment provides no specific information on any other forecasts or on 
why AEO's high-growth and low-growth cases do not provide a reasonable 
range of forecasts. As a result, DOE has concluded that AEO's high-
growth and low-growth cases provide an adequate basis to examine the 
sensitivity of LCC and PBP results to other price forecasts.

[[Page 16059]]

    The Joint Comment stated that to realistically depict energy prices 
in the future, DOE must consider the impact of carbon control 
legislation, since such legislation is very likely. The Joint Comment 
also noted that there are regional cap-and-trade programs in effect in 
the Northeast (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)) and the West 
(Western Climate Initiative (WCI)) that will affect the price of 
electricity but are not reflected in the AEO energy price forecasts. 
(Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 12) Earthjustice stated that Federal caps 
will likely be in place by the time new standards become effective, so 
DOE should increase its electricity prices to reflect the cost of 
complying with emission caps. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 40.5 at pp. 195-196) In response, DOE notes that the shape of 
Federal carbon control legislation, and the ensuing cost of carbon 
mitigation to electricity generators, is as yet too uncertain to 
incorporate into the energy price forecasts that DOE uses. The costs of 
carbon mitigation to electricity generators resulting from the regional 
programs are also very uncertain over the forecast period for this 
rulemaking. Even so, EIA did include the effect of the RGGI in its 
AEO2009 Early Release energy price forecasts, but WCI did not provide 
sufficient detail for EIA to model the impact of the WCI on energy 
price forecasts. Therefore, the energy price forecasts used in today's 
final rule do include the impact of one of the two regional cap-and-
trade programs to the extent possible.
5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components 
that have failed in the appliance, whereas maintenance costs are 
associated with maintaining the operation of the product.
    For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE contacted six contractors in 
different States to estimate whether repair and maintenance costs 
differ between standing pilot and non-standing pilot ignition systems. 
Based on the contractors' input, DOE determined that standing pilots 
are less costly to repair and maintain than either electric glo-bar/hot 
surface ignition systems (used in most gas ovens) or electronic spark 
ignition systems (used in gas cooktops and a small percentage of gas 
ovens); that standing pilot ignition systems require repair and 
maintenance every 10 years to clean valves; and that electric glo-bar/
hot surface ignition systems require glo-bar replacement approximately 
every 5 years. 73 FR 62034, 62064 (Oct. 17, 2008). Electrolux stated 
that its testing indicates that glo-bar ignition systems tend to hold 
their life, but it did not provide data to support this point. 
(Electrolux, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 112) In the 
absence of new data from Electrolux, DOE decided to continue to use the 
information provided by the contractors from which it collected data. 
In the case of electronic ignition systems, control modules tend to 
last about 10 years. The electrodes/igniters can fail because of hard 
contact from pots or pans, although failures are rare.
    Based on the above findings, DOE estimated an average cost 
comprised of a mix of maintenance and repair costs. For standing pilot 
ignition systems, DOE estimated a cost of $126 occurring in the tenth 
year of the product's life. For electric glo-bar/hot surface ignition 
systems, DOE estimated an average cost of $147 occurring every fifth 
year during the product's lifetime. For electronic spark ignition 
systems, DOE estimated an average cost of $178 occurring in the tenth 
year of the product's life. AGA generally agreed with DOE's approach 
for consideration of maintenance of standing pilots and electronic 
ignition systems. However, AGA suggested that DOE use the incremental 
manufacturing cost for electronic ignition systems as a basis for 
developing the maintenance costs for these systems. Using this 
approach, AGA reasoned that the resultant maintenance costs would be 
higher than DOE estimated. (AGA, No. 46 at p. 4) DOE's approach 
resulted in a combined maintenance and repair cost that is well above 
the incremental manufacturing cost for electronic ignition systems. 
Therefore, DOE retained its approach for estimating electronic ignition 
maintenance costs for today's final rule as it captures more costs than 
solely the manufacturing costs of the electronic ignition components. 
See chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this notice for further 
information regarding these estimates.
6. Product Lifetime
    For the October 2008 NOPR and today's final rule, DOE used a 
variety of sources to establish low, average, and high estimates for 
product lifetime. DOE established average product lifetimes of 19 years 
for conventional electric and gas cooking products and 9 years for 
microwave ovens. DOE characterized residential cooking product 
lifetimes with Weibull probability distributions. See chapter 8 of the 
TSD accompanying this notice for further details on the sources used to 
develop product lifetimes, as well as the use of Weibull distributions.
7. Discount Rates
    To establish discount rates for cooking products for the October 
2008 NOPR and today's final rule, DOE derived estimates of the finance 
cost of purchasing these appliances. Because the purchase of products 
for new homes entails different finance costs for consumers than the 
purchase of replacement products, DOE used different discount rates for 
new construction and replacement installations.
    DOE estimated discount rates for new-housing purchases using the 
effective real (after inflation) mortgage rate for homebuyers. This 
rate corresponds to the interest rate after deduction of mortgage 
interest for income tax purposes and after adjusting for inflation. DOE 
used the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 
1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, and 2001 mortgage interest rates. After 
adjusting for inflation and interest tax deduction, effective real 
interest rates on mortgages across the six surveys averaged 3.2 
percent.
    For replacement purchases, DOE's approach for deriving discount 
rates involved identifying all possible debt or asset classes that 
might be used to purchase replacement products, including household 
assets that might be affected indirectly. DOE estimated the average 
shares of the various debt and equity classes in the average U.S. 
household equity and debt portfolios using data from the SCFs from 1989 
to 2004. DOE used the mean share of each class across the six sample 
years (1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004) as a basis for estimating 
the effective financing rate for replacement products. DOE estimated 
interest or return rates associated with each type of equity and debt 
using SCF data and other sources. The mean real effective rate across 
the classes of household debt and equity, weighted by the shares of 
each class, is 5.6 percent.
    See chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this notice for further 
details on the development of discount rates for cooking products.
8. Effective Date of the Amended Standards
    The effective date is the future date when parties subject to the 
requirements of a new standard must begin compliance. DOE assumes that 
any new energy conservation standards adopted in this rulemaking would 
become effective 3 years after the final rule is published in the 
Federal Register. Therefore, for the purpose of the analysis, the 
amended standard is

[[Page 16060]]

assumed to be effective March 2012. DOE calculated the LCC for the 
appliance consumers as if they would purchase a new product in the year 
the standard takes effect.
9. Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case
    For the LCC and PBP analyses, DOE analyzes candidate standard 
levels relative to a baseline efficiency level. However, some consumers 
may already purchase products with efficiencies greater than the 
baseline product levels. Thus, to accurately estimate the percentage of 
consumers that would be affected by a particular standard level, DOE 
considered the distribution of product efficiencies that consumers are 
expected to purchase under the base case (i.e., the case without new 
energy conservation standards). DOE refers to this distribution of 
product of efficiencies as a base-case efficiency distribution.
    Using the base-case efficiency distributions, DOE assigned a 
specific product efficiency to each sample household. If a household 
were assigned a product efficiency greater than or equal to the 
efficiency of a specific standard level under consideration, the LCC 
calculation would show that this household would not be affected by 
that standard level.
    Unfortunately, little is known about the distribution of cooking 
product efficiencies that consumers currently purchase. Whirlpool 
stated that it is not aware of data on the number of consumers 
purchasing electric cooking products that are more efficient than the 
baseline products in the analysis. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4) In the 
absence of any additional data for electric cooking products and gas 
self-cleaning ovens, DOE continued to estimate that 100 percent of the 
market will be at the baseline efficiency levels in 2012.
    For gas cooktops and gas standard ovens, available data allowed DOE 
to estimate the percentage of units sold that have standing pilot 
lights. DOE developed the market share of gas standard ovens with 
standing pilots based on actual shipments data, the most recent being 
data from the Appliance Recycling Information Center (ARIC) for 1997, 
2000, and 2004.\23\ Based on the ARIC data, the entire market share of 
products without standing pilots should be allocated to standard level 
1 (products with glo-bar ignition). But based on information collected 
from contractors, DOE estimated that 10 percent of products without 
standing pilots use spark ignition systems. As a result, DOE allocated 
90 percent of the market share of products without standing pilots to 
standard level 1 (with glo-bar ignition) and the remaining 10 percent 
to standard level 1a (with spark ignition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Appliance Recycling Information Center, INFOBulletin 
8, ``Applications in Appliances'' (March 2005). Please see 
the following Web site for further information: http://www.aham.org/industry/ht/action/GetDocumentAction/id/5370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV.2 shows the market shares of the efficiency levels in the 
base case for gas cooktops and gas standard ovens. Standard level 1 
represents products without standing pilot light ignition systems.

                    Table IV.2--Gas Cooktops and Gas Standard Ovens: Base Case Market Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Gas cooktops                                          Gas standard ovens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Market
          Standard level                 EF         share     Standard level           EF         Market share %
                                                      %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.........................           0.156  6.8     Baseline............          0.0298             17.6
1................................           0.399  93.2    1*..................          0.0536             74.2
2................................           0.420    0     2...................          0.0566              0
                                   ..............  ......  3...................          0.0572              0
                                   ..............  ......  4...................          0.0593              0
                                   ..............  ......  5...................          0.0596              0
                                   ..............  ......  6...................          0.0600              0
                                   ..............  ......  1a*.................          0.0583              8.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For gas standard ovens, candidate standard levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are used for the same
  purpose--to eliminate the need for a standing pilot--but the technologies for each design are different.
  Candidate standard level 1 is a hot surface ignition device, whereas candidate standard level 1a is a spark
  ignition device.

    For microwave ovens, very little is known about the distribution of 
product efficiencies that consumers currently purchase. For the October 
2008 NOPR and the final rule, DOE estimated that 100 percent of the 
microwave oven market is at the baseline efficiency level (EF = 0.557).
10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it 
takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more 
efficient products through operating cost savings compared to baseline 
products. The simple payback period does not account for changes in 
operating expense over time or the time value of money. Payback periods 
greater than the life of the product mean that the increased total 
installed costs are not recovered in reduced operating expenses.
    The inputs to the PBP calculation are the total installed cost of 
the product to the customer for each efficiency level and the annual 
(first-year) operating expenditures for each efficiency level. The PBP 
calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 
energy price trends and discount rates are not needed.
11. Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period
    As noted above, EPCA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 
6316(a)), establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is 
economically justified if the Secretary finds that ``the additional 
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy 
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of 
the energy (and as applicable, water) savings during the first year 
that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard,'' as 
calculated under the test procedure in place for that standard. For 
each TSL, DOE determined the value of the first year's energy savings 
by calculating the quantity of those savings in accordance with DOE's 
test procedure, and multiplying that amount by the average energy price 
forecast for the year in which a new standard would be expected to take 
effect--in this case, 2012.

[[Page 16061]]

    DOE also received comments addressing the topic of using a 
rebuttable presumption payback period to establish the economic 
justification of an energy conservation standard level. The Joint 
Comment and Earthjustice stated that DOE's view that consideration of a 
full range of impacts is necessary because the rebuttable presumption 
payback period criterion is not sufficient for determining economic 
justification does not reflect the extent to which the rebuttable 
presumption analysis constrains DOE's authority to reject standards 
based on economic impacts. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at appendix B, p. 1; 
Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 130) The Joint 
Comment claimed that in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), Congress erected 
a significant barrier to DOE's rejection, on the basis of economic 
justifiability, of standard levels to which the rebuttable presumption 
applies. These commenters also claimed that the fact that DOE seems to 
prefer to proceed under the seven-factor test contained in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i) is not pertinent. The Joint Comment agreed with DOE 
that analysis under the seven factor test is necessary and has 
typically supported standards with paybacks longer than 3 years. 
However, the Joint Comment stated that DOE's decision-making must 
reflect the expressed intent of Congress that the highest standard 
level resulting in cost recovery within 3 years constitutes the 
presumptive lowest standard level that DOE must adopt (Joint Comment, 
No. 44 at appendix B, pp. 1-2)
    DOE does consider both the rebuttable presumption payback criteria, 
as well as a full analysis including all seven relevant statutory 
criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) when examining potential 
standard levels. However, DOE believes that the commenters are 
misinterpreting the statutory provision in question. The Joint Comment 
and Earthjustice present one possible reading of an ambiguous provision 
(i.e., that DOE need not look beyond the results of the rebuttable 
presumption inquiry), but DOE believes that such an approach is neither 
required nor appropriate, because it would ask the agency to 
potentially ignore other relevant information that would bear on the 
selection of the most stringent standard level that meets all 
applicable statutory criteria. The commenters' interpretation would 
essentially restrict DOE from being able to rebut the findings of the 
preliminary presumptive analysis. However, the statute contains no such 
restriction, and such an approach would hinder DOE's efforts to base 
its regulations on the best available information.
    Similarly, DOE believes that the Joint Comment misreads the statute 
in calling for a level that meets the rebuttable presumption test to 
serve as a minimum level when setting the final energy conservation 
standard. To do so would not only eliminate the ``rebuttable'' aspect 
of the presumption but would also lock in place a level that may not be 
economically justified based upon the full complement of statutory 
criteria. DOE is already obligated under EPCA to select the most 
stringent standard level that meets the applicable statutory criteria, 
so there is no need to tie the same requirement to the rebuttable 
presumption.

D. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net Present 
Value

1. General
    DOE's NIA assesses the national energy savings, as well as the 
national NPV of total consumer costs and savings, expected to result 
from new standards at specific efficiency levels. DOE applied the NIA 
spreadsheet to perform calculations of energy savings and NPV using the 
annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the LCC 
analysis. DOE forecasted the energy savings, energy cost savings, 
product costs, and NPV for each product class from 2012 through 2042. 
The forecasts provide annual and cumulative values for all four 
parameters. In addition, DOE incorporated into its NIA spreadsheet the 
ability to analyze sensitivity of the results to forecasted energy 
prices and product efficiency trends.
    Table IV.3 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive the 
inputs to the NES and NPV analyses for the October 2008 NOPR and the 
changes made in the analyses for today's final rule. A discussion of 
the inputs and the changes follows. (See chapter 11 of the TSD 
accompanying this notice for further details.)

 Table IV.3--Approach and Data Used to Derive the Inputs to the National
                     Energy Savings and NPV Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Changes for the
           Inputs               October 2008 NOPR        final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments...................  Annual shipments      See Table IV.4.
                               from Shipments
                               Model.
Effective Date of Standard..  2012................  No change.
Base-Case Forecasted          Shipment-weighted     No change.
 Efficiencies.                 efficiency (SWEF)
                               determined in the
                               year 2005. SWEF
                               held constant over
                               forecast period of
                               2005-2042.
Standards-Case Forecasted     ``Roll-up'' scenario  No change.
 Efficiencies.                 used for
                               determining SWEF in
                               the year 2012 for
                               each standards
                               case. SWEF held
                               constant over
                               forecast period of
                               2012-2042.
Annual Energy Consumption     Annual weighted-      No change.
 per Unit.                     average values as a
                               function of SWEF.
Total Installed Cost per      Annual weighted-      No change.
 Unit.                         average values as a
                               function of SWEF.
Energy Cost per Unit........  Annual weighted-      No change.
                               average values a
                               function of the
                               annual energy
                               consumption per
                               unit and energy
                               prices.
Repair Cost and Maintenance   Incorporated changes  No change.
 Cost per Unit.                in repair costs for
                               non-standing pilot
                               ignition systems.
Escalation of Energy Prices.  AEO2008 forecasts     Updated to AEO2009
                               (to 2030) and         Early Release
                               extrapolation to      forecasts for the
                               2042.                 Reference Case.
                                                     AEO2009 Early
                                                     Release does not
                                                     provide High-Growth
                                                     and Low-Growth
                                                     forecasts; scaled
                                                     AEO2008 High-Growth
                                                     and Low-Growth
                                                     forecasts by the
                                                     ratio of AEO2009
                                                     and AEO2008
                                                     Reference Case
                                                     forecasts to
                                                     estimate high-
                                                     growth and low-
                                                     growth price
                                                     trends.

[[Page 16062]]

 
Energy Site-to-Source         Conversion varies     No change.
 Conversion.                   yearly and is
                               generated by DOE/
                               EIA's National
                               Energy Modeling
                               System (NEMS)
                               program (a time-
                               series conversion
                               factor; includes
                               electric
                               generation,
                               transmission, and
                               distribution
                               losses).
Effect of Standards on        Determined but found  No change.
 Energy Prices.                not to be
                               significant.
Discount Rate...............  3 and 7 percent real  No change.
Present Year................  Future expenses are   No change.
                               discounted to year
                               2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Shipments
    The shipments portion of the NIA spreadsheet is a model that uses 
historical data as a basis for projecting future shipments of the 
appliance products that are the subject of this rulemaking. In 
projecting shipments, DOE accounted for three market segments: (1) New 
construction, (2) existing buildings (i.e., replacing failed products), 
and (3) early replacements. DOE used the early replacement market 
segment to calibrate the shipments model to historical shipments data. 
For purposes of estimating the impacts of prospective standards on 
product shipments (i.e., forecasting standards-case shipments), DOE 
considered the combined effects of changes in purchase price, annual 
operating cost, and household income on the magnitude of shipments.
    Table IV.4 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive the 
inputs to the shipments analysis for the October 2008 NOPR and the 
changes it made for today's final rule. A discussion of the inputs and 
the changes follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 2005 Major 
Appliance Fact Book. Available for purchase at http://www.aham.org/ht/d/ProductDetails/sku/40471101603.

Table IV.4--Approach and Data Used To Derive the Inputs to the Shipments
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Changes for the
           Inputs               October 2008 NOPR        final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Product Classes...  Seven classes for     No change.
                               conventional
                               cooking products;
                               one class for
                               microwave ovens.
New Construction Shipments..  Determined by         No change in
                               multiplying housing   approach. Housing
                               forecasts by          forecasts updated
                               forecasted            with EIA AEO2009
                               saturation of         Early Release
                               cooking products      forecasts for the
                               for new housing.      Reference Case.
                               Housing forecasts     AEO2009 Early
                               based on AEO2008      Release does not
                               projections. New      provide High-Growth
                               housing product       and Low-Growth
                               saturations based     forecasts, Scaled
                               on EIA's 2001 RECS.   AEO2008 High-Growth
                               Forecasted            and Low-Growth
                               saturations           forecasts by the
                               maintained at 2001    ratio of AEO2009
                               levels.               and AEO2008
                                                     Reference Case
                                                     forecasts to
                                                     estimate high-
                                                     growth and low-
                                                     growth housing
                                                     trends.
Replacements................  Determined by         No change.
                               tracking total
                               product stock by
                               vintage and
                               establishing the
                               failure of the
                               stock using
                               retirement
                               functions from the
                               LCC and PBP
                               analysis.
                               Retirement
                               functions revised
                               to be based on
                               Weibull lifetime
                               distributions.
Early Replacements..........  Used to calibrate     No change.
                               Shipments Model to
                               historical
                               shipments data; 2
                               percent of the
                               surviving stock per
                               year is retired
                               early.
Historical Shipments........  Data sources include  No change.
                               AHAM data
                               submittal, AHAM
                               Fact Book,\24\ and
                               Appliance Magazine.
Purchase Price, Operating     For microwave ovens   No change.
 Cost, and Household Income    only, used purchase
 Impacts Due to Efficiency     price and
 Standards.                    efficiency data
                               specific to
                               residential
                               refrigerators,
                               clothes washers,
                               and dishwashers
                               between 1980 and
                               2002 to determine a
                               ``relative price''
                               elasticity of
                               demand.
Fuel Switching..............  Not considered......  No change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. New Construction Shipments
    To determine new construction shipments, DOE used a forecast of 
housing starts coupled with product market saturation data for new 
housing. For new housing completions and mobile home placements, DOE 
adopted the projections from EIA's AEO2008 through 2030 for the October 
2008 NOPR. For today's final rule, DOE used the projections from EIA's 
AEO2009 Early Release Reference Case. Because EIA had not yet released 
the 2005 RECS when the analysis was performed, DOE continued to use the 
2001 RECS to establish cooking product market saturations for new 
housing.
b. Replacements
    DOE estimated replacements using product retirement functions 
developed from product lifetimes. For the October 2008 NOPR and today's 
final rule, DOE used retirement functions based on Weibull 
distributions.
    To calibrate each shipments model against historical shipments, DOE 
established an early replacement market segment. For the October 2008 
NOPR and today's final rule, DOE determined that 2 percent of the 
surviving stock per year was replaced early.

[[Page 16063]]

c. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and Household Income Impacts
    To estimate the combined effects on microwave oven shipments of 
increases in product purchase price and decreases in product operating 
costs due to new efficiency standards, DOE conducted a literature 
review and a statistical analysis on appliance price, efficiency, and 
shipments data for the October 2008 NOPR. DOE used purchase price and 
efficiency data specific to residential refrigerators, clothes washers, 
and dishwashers between 1980 and 2002 from AHAM Fact Books \25\ to 
conduct regression analyses. DOE chose this particular set of 
appliances because of the availability of data to determine a price 
elasticity. These data indicate that there has been a rise in appliance 
shipments and a decline in appliance purchase price and operating costs 
over the time period. Household income has also risen during this time. 
To simplify the analysis, DOE combined the available economic 
information into one variable, termed the ``relative price,'' and used 
this variable in an analysis of market trends and to conduct a 
regression analysis. DOE's regression analysis suggests that the 
relative short-run price elasticity of demand, averaged over the three 
appliances, is -0.34. For example, a relative price increase of 10 
percent results in a shipments decrease of 3.4 percent. Because the 
relative price elasticity incorporates the impacts from three effects 
(i.e., purchase price, operating cost, and household income), the 
impact from any single effect is mitigated by changes in the other two 
effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ DOE used average purchase price and efficiency data 
provided in the 1987, 1988, 1993, 1995, 2000, and 2003 Fact Books.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because DOE's forecast of shipments and national impacts due to 
standards spans 30 years, DOE also considered how the relative price 
elasticity is affected once a new standard takes effect. After the 
purchase price change, price elasticity becomes more inelastic over the 
years until it reaches a terminal value. For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 
incorporated a relative price elasticity change that resulted in a 
terminal value of approximately one-third of the short-run elasticity. 
In other words, DOE determined that consumer purchase decisions become 
less sensitive over time to the initial change in the product's 
relative price. As implemented in the modeling of shipments forecasts, 
DOE estimates that the initial increase in purchase price due to a 
standard will have a more significant impact on product shipments in 
the short term than over the long term (i.e., fewer consumers will 
forego appliance purchases years after the standards have been in place 
than when the standards initially take effect.) DOE received no 
comments on its analysis to estimate the combined effects of increases 
in product purchase price and decreases in operating costs on microwave 
oven shipments and, therefore, retained the approach for the final 
rule.
    In contrast, DOE determined that the combined market of 
conventional electric and gas cooking products (i.e., other than 
microwave ovens) is completely saturated. Thus, DOE assumed for the 
October 2008 NOPR that the considered standard levels would neither 
affect shipments nor cause shifts in electric and gas conventional 
cooking product market shares. 73 FR 62034, 62071 (Oct. 17, 2008). 
Because DOE received no comments on its approach, it continued to use 
it for today's final rule.
d. Fuel Switching
    In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE concluded that the probability that 
the considered standard levels would cause shifts in electric and gas 
conventional cooking product market shares was sufficiently low that it 
was not necessary to consider it. 73 FR 62034, 62071-72 (Oct. 17, 
2008). DOE received no comments on this issue and, therefore, retained 
the approach for today's final rule.
3. Other Inputs
a. Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies
    A key input to the calculations of NES and NPV are the energy 
efficiencies that DOE forecasts for the base case (without new 
standards). The forecasted efficiencies represent the annual shipment-
weighted energy efficiency (SWEF) of the products under consideration 
over the forecast period (i.e., from the estimated effective date of a 
new standard to 30 years after that date).
    For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE first determined the distribution of 
product efficiencies currently in the marketplace to develop a SWEF for 
each product class for 2005. Using the SWEF as a starting point, DOE 
developed base-case efficiencies based on estimates of future 
efficiency increase. From 2005 to 2012 (2012 being the estimated 
effective date of a new standard), DOE estimated that there would be no 
change in the SWEF (i.e., no change in the distribution of product 
efficiencies). Because there are no historical data to indicate how 
product efficiencies have changed over time, DOE estimated that 
forecasted efficiencies would remain at the 2012 level until the end of 
the forecast period, with one exception. Because historical data 
indicates a declining trend in the percentage of gas standard ranges 
equipped with standing pilot lights, DOE did forecast a decline in the 
market share of gas standard ranges equipped with standing pilot lights 
both to 2012 and after 2012. DOE recognizes the possibility that 
product efficiencies may change over time (e.g., due to voluntary 
efficiency programs such as ENERGY STAR), but without historical 
information, DOE had no basis for estimating how much the product 
efficiencies may change. Thus, for the final rule, DOE maintained its 
forecast that efficiencies remain at the level estimated for 2012 for 
residential cooking products.
b. Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies
    For its determination of each of the cases with alternative 
standard levels (``standards cases''), DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario 
to establish the SWEF for 2012. DOE assumed that product efficiencies 
in the base case that do not meet the standard level under 
consideration would roll up to meet the new standard level. Also, DOE 
assumed that all product efficiencies in the base case that were above 
the standard level under consideration would not be affected by the 
standard. DOE made the same assumption regarding forecasted standards-
case efficiencies as for the base case, namely, that forecasted 
efficiencies remained at the 2012 efficiency level until the end of the 
forecast period.
    Again, DOE had no data to reasonably estimate how such efficiency 
levels might change over the next 30 years. By maintaining the same 
rate of increase for forecasted efficiencies in the standards case as 
in the base case (i.e., no change), DOE retained a constant efficiency 
difference between the two cases over the forecast period. Although the 
assumed no-change trends may not reflect what would happen to base-case 
and standards-case product efficiencies in the future, DOE believes 
that maintaining a constant efficiency difference between the base case 
and standards case provides a reasonable estimate of the impact that 
standards have on product efficiency. It is more important to 
accurately estimate the efficiency difference between the standards 
case and base case than to accurately estimate the actual product 
efficiencies in the standards and base cases. Therefore, DOE retained 
the approach used in the October 2008 NOPR for the final rule.

[[Page 16064]]

c. Annual Energy Consumption
    The annual energy consumption per unit depends directly on product 
efficiency. DOE used the SWEFs associated with the base case and each 
standards case, in combination with the annual energy data, to estimate 
the shipment-weighted average annual per-unit energy consumption under 
the base case and standards cases. The national energy consumption is 
the product of the annual energy consumption per unit and the number of 
units of each vintage, which depends on shipments.
    As noted in section IV.D.2.c, DOE used a relative price elasticity 
to estimate standards-case shipments for microwave ovens, but not for 
conventional cooking products. As a result, shipments of microwave 
ovens forecasted under the standards cases are lower than under the 
base case. To avoid the inclusion of energy savings from reduced 
shipments of microwave ovens, DOE used the standards-case shipments 
projection and the standards-case stock to calculate the annual energy 
consumption for the standards cases.
d. Site-to-Source Conversion
    To estimate the national energy savings expected from appliance 
standards, DOE uses a multiplicative factor to convert site energy 
consumption (energy use at the location where the appliance is 
operated) into primary or source energy consumption (the energy 
required to deliver the site energy). In the case of electrical energy, 
primary consumption includes the energy required for generation, 
transmission, and distribution. For the October 2008 NOPR and today's 
final rule, DOE used annual site-to-source conversion factors based on 
the version of NEMS that corresponds to AEO2008. These conversion 
factors account for natural gas losses from pipeline leakage and 
natural gas used for pumping energy and transportation fuel. For 
electricity, the conversion factors vary over time due to projected 
changes in generation sources (i.e., the power plant types projected to 
provide electricity to the country). Since the AEO does not provide 
energy forecasts beyond 2030, DOE used conversion factors that remain 
constant at the 2030 values throughout the remainder of the forecast.
e. Total Installed Costs and Operating Costs
    The increase in total annual installed cost is equal to the 
difference in the per-unit total installed cost between the base case 
and standards case, multiplied by the shipments forecasted in the 
standards case.
    The annual operating cost savings per unit includes changes in 
energy, repair, and maintenance costs. DOE forecasted energy prices for 
the October 2008 NOPR based on AEO2008; it updated the forecasts for 
the final rule using data from AEO2009 Early Release. For the October 
2008 NOPR and today's final rule, DOE accounted for the repair and 
maintenance costs associated with the ignition systems in gas cooking 
products.
f. Discount Rates
    DOE multiplies monetary values in future years by the discount 
factor to determine their present value. DOE estimated national impacts 
using 3- and 7-percent real discount rates, in accordance with guidance 
provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal 
agencies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4 
(Sept. 17, 2003), section E, ``Identifying and Measuring Benefits and 
Costs'').
    The Joint Comment stated that DOE should use a 2- to 3-percent real 
discount rate for the national impact analyses. (Joint Comment, No. 44 
at p. 11) It noted that societal discount rates are the subject of 
extensive academic research and the weight of academic opinion is that 
the appropriate societal discount rate is 3 percent or less. It urged 
DOE to give primary weight to results based on the lower of the 
discount rates recommended by OMB.
    On this point, DOE notes that OMB Circular A-4 references an 
earlier Circular A-94, which states that a real discount rate of 7 
percent should be used as a base case for regulatory analysis. The 7-
percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to 
private capital in the U.S. economy. It approximates the opportunity 
cost of capital and, according to Circular A-94, is the appropriate 
discount rate whenever the main effect of a regulation is to displace 
or alter the use of capital in the private sector. OMB revised Circular 
A-94 in 1992 after extensive internal review and public comment. OMB 
found that the average rate of return to capital remains near the 7-
percent rate estimated in 1992. Circular A-4 also states that when 
regulation primarily and directly affects private consumption, a lower 
discount rate is appropriate. ``The alternative most often used is 
sometimes called the social rate of time preference * * * the rate at 
which `society' discounts future consumption flows to their present 
value.'' \26\ It suggests that the real rate of return on long-term 
government debt may provide a fair approximation of the social rate of 
time preference, and states that over the last 30 years, this rate has 
averaged around 3 percent in real terms on a pre-tax basis. It 
concludes that ``for regulatory analysis, [agencies] should provide 
estimates of net benefits using both 3 percent and 7 percent.'' \27\ 
DOE finds that the guidance from OMB is reasonable, and thus it did not 
give primary weight to results derived using a 3-percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ OMB Circular A-4, ``Regulatory Analysis,'' Sept. 17, 2003, 
p. 33. Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html.
    \27\ OMB Circular A-4, ``Regulatory Analysis,'' Sept. 17, 2003, 
p. 34. Please see the following Web site for further information: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Comment stated that DOE should not apply a discount rate 
to physical units of measure, such as tons of emissions or quads of 
energy. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 11) Consistent with Executive 
Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735, 51737 
(Oct. 4, 1993), DOE discounts the monetized value of these emissions 
reductions using 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates in order to 
determine their present value for rulemaking purposes. Similarly, DOE 
discounts energy savings using 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates 
since the timing of the energy savings, like money saved, have value to 
consumers and the Nation. DOE recognizes that while financial 
investments can grow with time, physical quantities such as energy do 
not, so there are costs and benefits to the Nation associated with the 
timing of when of consuming the energy. In doing so, DOE follows the 
guidance of OMB regarding methodologies and procedures for regulatory 
impact analysis that affect more than one agency. Thus, DOE has 
reported both discounted and undiscounted values for the energy and 
environmental benefits from energy conservation standards.
g. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices
    For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE conducted an analysis of the impact 
of reduced energy demand associated with possible standards on cooking 
products on natural gas and electricity prices. The analysis found that 
gas and electric demand reductions resulting from max-tech standards 
for residential cooking products would have no detectable change on the 
U.S. average wellhead natural gas price or the average user price of 
electricity. Therefore, DOE concluded that residential cooking

[[Page 16065]]

product standards will not provide additional economic benefits 
resulting from lower energy prices.

E. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on 
individual consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable 
subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately affected by a 
national standard level. For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE used RECS data 
to analyze the potential effect of standards for residential cooking 
products on two consumer subgroups: (1) Households with low income 
levels, and (2) households comprised of seniors.
    DOE also considered specific consumer subgroups that do not use or 
have access to electricity and could be affected by the elimination of 
standing pilot ignition systems, such as Amish and some Native American 
communities. DOE's market research for the October 2008 NOPR found that 
battery-powered electronic ignition systems have been implemented in 
other products, such as instantaneous gas water heaters, barbeques, and 
furnaces, and the use of such products is not expressly prohibited by 
applicable safety standards such as ANSI Z21.1. As noted in section 
III.C.2, DOE's research determined that, although there are currently 
no alternative ignition systems to standing pilots in gas cooking 
products that have been certified to ANSI Z21.1, DOE believes such 
certification could be attained and that gas cooking products suitable 
for households without electricity would likely be commercially 
available by the time these standards are in effect.
    More details on the consumer subgroup analysis can be found in 
chapter 12 of the TSD accompanying this notice.

F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    In determining whether a standard for cooking products is 
economically justified, the Secretary of Energy is required to consider 
``the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the 
consumers of the products subject to such standard.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The statute also calls for an assessment of the 
impact of any lessening of competition as determined by the Attorney 
General. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) DOE conducted the MIA to 
estimate the financial impact of higher efficiency standards on 
manufacturers of cooking products, and to assess the impact of such 
standards on employment and manufacturing capacity.
    The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The 
quantitative part of the MIA relies on the GRIM, an industry cash-flow 
model customized for this rulemaking. The GRIM inputs characterize the 
industry cost structure, shipments, and revenues. This includes 
information from many of the analyses described above, such as 
manufacturing costs and prices from the engineering analysis and 
shipments forecasts. The key GRIM output is the INPV, which estimates 
the value of the industry on the basis of cash flows, expenditures, and 
investment requirements as a function of TSLs. Different sets of 
assumptions (scenarios) will produce different results. The qualitative 
part of the MIA addresses factors such as product characteristics, 
characteristics of particular firms, and market and product trends, and 
it includes an assessment of the impacts of standards on subgroups of 
manufacturers that could be disproportionately affected by these 
standards.
    For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE identified three manufacturers of 
gas-fired ovens, ranges, and cooktops with standing pilot lights. Two 
of the three are classified as small businesses under criteria 
prescribed by the Small Business Administration (SBA).\28\ The SBA 
classifies a residential cooking appliance manufacturer as a small 
business if it has fewer than 750 employees. DOE categorized the two 
small businesses into their own subgroup as a result of their size and 
their concentration in the manufacture of residential cooking products. 
Each small manufacturer produces gas-fired cooking products with 
standing pilot ignition systems and derives over 25 percent of its 
total revenue from these appliances. Both small manufacturers produce 
only residential cooking appliances and have annual sales of $50 
million to $60 million, whereas the third is a large, diversified 
appliance manufacturer. The two small cooking businesses are privately 
held and each company has fewer than 300 employees. 73 FR 62034, 62076 
(Oct. 17, 2008). DOE interviewed one of these manufacturers, and also 
obtained from larger manufacturers information about the impacts of 
standards on these small manufacturers of conventional cooking 
products. 73 FR 62034, 62128 (Oct. 17, 2008). In addition, DOE received 
comments from one of the small manufacturers regarding the potential 
impacts of standards. (Peerless-Premier, No. 42 at pp. 1-2) See section 
VII.B for a discussion of DOE's determination of the economic impacts 
of today's final rule on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For more information, see http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the final rule, DOE updated the MIA results based on the total 
shipments and efficiency distributions estimated in the final rule NIA. 
For details of the MIA, see chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying this 
notice.

G. Employment Impact Analysis

    Employment impacts include direct and indirect impacts. Direct 
employment impacts are changes in the number of employees for 
manufacturers of the appliance products that are subject to standards, 
their suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses these 
impacts. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the jobs 
created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the 
manufacturing sector being regulated, due to (1) reduced spending by 
end users on energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the 
utility industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the purchase of 
new products, and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the 
economy.
    In developing the October 2008 NOPR and today's final rule, DOE 
estimated indirect national employment impacts using an input/output 
model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies 
(ImSET). ImSET \29\ is a spreadsheet model of the U.S. economy that 
focuses on 188 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and 
residential building energy use. ImSET is a special-purpose version of 
the ``U.S. Benchmark National Input-Output'' (I-O) model designed to 
estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving 
technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model 
with structural coefficients to characterize economic flows among the 
188 sectors. ImSET's national economic I-O structure is based on a 1997 
U.S. benchmark table, especially aggregated to those sectors. For 
further details, see chapter 15 of the TSD accompanying this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET: Impact 
of Sector Energy Technologies (PNNL-15273 Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory) (2005). Available at http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-15273.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Comment stated that when weighing the economic costs and 
benefits of stronger efficiency standards, DOE must consider that 
adopting standards will increase employment. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at 
p. 13) As described in section VI.C.3, DOE uses ImSet to consider 
indirect employment

[[Page 16066]]

impacts when evaluating alternative standard levels. Direct employment 
impacts on the manufacturers that produce cooking products are analyzed 
in the manufacturer impact analysis, as discussed in section IV.F.

H. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis determines the changes to energy supply 
and demand that result from the end-use energy savings due to 
standards. DOE calculated these changes using the NEMS-BT computer 
model.\30\ The analysis output includes a forecast of the total 
electricity generation capacity at each TSL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EIA approves the use of the name NEMS to describe only an 
official AEO version of the model without any modification to code 
or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code 
modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that 
deviate from AEO assumptions, the name NEMS-BT refers to the model 
as used here. (``BT'' stands for DOE's Building Technologies 
Program.) For more information on NEMS, refer to ``The National 
Energy Modeling System: An Overview,'' DOE/EIA-0581 (98) (Feb. 
1998). Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/058198.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE obtained the energy savings inputs associated with electricity 
and natural gas consumption savings from the NIA. Chapter 14 of the TSD 
accompanying this notice presents details on the utility impact 
analysis.

I. Environmental Assessment

    DOE prepared an environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act and the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) to determine the environmental impacts of 
standards for cooking products. Specifically, DOE estimated the 
reduction in total emissions of CO2 and NOX using 
the NEMS-BT computer model. DOE also calculated a range of estimates 
for reduction in mercury (Hg) emissions using power sector emission 
rates. DOE also calculated the possible monetary benefit of 
CO2, NOX, and Hg reductions. Cumulative monetary 
benefits were determined using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. The 
EA does not include the estimated reduction in power sector impacts of 
sulfur dioxide (SO2), because DOE has determined that any 
such reduction resulting from an energy conservation standard would not 
affect the overall level of SO2 emissions in the United 
States due to the presence of national caps on SO2 
emissions. These topics are addressed further below; see chapter 16 of 
the TSD for additional detail.
    NEMS-BT is run similarly to the AEO2008 NEMS, except that cooking 
product energy use is reduced by the amount of energy saved (by fuel 
type) due to the trial standard levels. The inputs of national energy 
savings come from the NIA analysis. For the EA, the output is the 
forecasted physical emissions. The net benefit of a standard is the 
difference between emissions estimated by NEMS-BT and the AEO2008 
Reference Case. The NEMS-BT tracks CO2 emissions using a 
detailed module that provides results with broad coverage of all 
sectors and inclusion of interactive effects.
    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set an emissions cap on 
SO2 for all power generation. The attainment of the 
emissions cap is flexible among generators and is enforced through the 
use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Because 
SO2 emissions allowances have value, they will almost 
certainly be used by generators, although not necessarily immediately 
or in the same year a standard is in place. In other words, with or 
without a standard, total cumulative SO2 emissions will 
always be at or near the ceiling, and there may be some timing 
differences among yearly forecasts. Thus, it is unlikely that there 
will be reduced overall SO2 emissions from standards as long 
as the emissions ceilings are enforced. Although there may be no actual 
reduction in SO2 emissions, there still may be an economic 
benefit from reduced demand for SO2 emission allowances. 
Electricity savings decrease the generation of SO2 emissions 
from power production, which can lessen the need to purchase 
SO2 emissions allowance credits, and thereby decrease the 
costs of complying with regulatory caps on emissions.
    Future emissions of NOX would have been subject to 
emissions caps under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) issued by the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on March 10, 2005.\31\ 70 FR 25162 
(May 12, 2005). CAIR would have permanently capped emissions in 28 
eastern States and the District of Columbia (D.C.). As with the 
SO2 emissions cap, a cap on NOX emissions would 
have meant that energy conservation standards are not likely to have a 
physical effect on NOX emissions in States covered by the 
CAIR caps. However, prior to the publication of the October 2008 NOPR, 
the CAIR was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) in its July 11, 2008 decision in North 
Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency.\32\ Therefore, for the 
October 2008 NOPR, DOE established a range of NOX reductions 
based on low and high emission rates (in metric kilotons of 
NOX emitted per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity 
generated) derived from the AEO2008. However, on December 23, 2008, the 
DC Circuit decided to allow CAIR to remain in effect until it is 
replaced by a rule consistent with the court's earlier opinion.\33\ As 
a result, DOE used the NEMS-BT model for today's final rule to estimate 
the NOX emissions reductions due to standards. For the 28 
eastern States and DC where CAIR is in effect, no NOX 
emissions reductions will occur due to the permanent cap. Under caps, 
physical emissions reductions in those States would not result from the 
energy conservation standards under consideration by DOE, but standards 
might have produced an environmentally related economic impact in the 
form of lower prices for emissions allowance credits, if they were 
large enough. However, DOE determined that in the present case, such 
standards would not produce an environmentally related economic impact 
in the form of lower prices for emissions allowance credits, because 
the estimated reduction in NOX emissions or the 
corresponding allowance credits in States covered by the CAIR cap would 
be too small to affect allowance prices for NOX under the 
CAIR. In contrast, new or amended energy conservation standards would 
reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States that are not 
affected by CAIR. As a result, the NEMS-BT does forecast emission 
reductions from the cooking product standards considered in today's 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See http://www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule/.
    \32\ 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \33\ North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to SO2 and NOX, future emissions of 
Hg would have been subject to emissions caps under the Clean Air 
Mercury Rule \34\ (CAMR), which would have permanently capped emissions 
of mercury for new and existing coal-fired plants in all States by 
2010, but the CAMR was vacated by the D.C. Circuit in its decision in 
New Jersey v. Environmental Protection Agency \35\ prior to publication 
of the October 2008 NOPR. However, the NEMS-BT model DOE used to 
estimate the changes in emissions for the proposed rule assumed that Hg 
emissions would be subject to CAMR emission caps. Because the emissions 
caps specified by CAMR would have applied to the entire country, DOE 
was unable to use the NEMS-BT model to estimate any changes in the 
quantity of mercury

[[Page 16067]]

emissions that would result from standard levels it considered for the 
proposed rule. Instead, DOE used an Hg emission rate (in metric tons of 
Hg per energy produced) based on the AEO2008. Because virtually all 
mercury emitted from electricity generation is from coal-fired power 
plants, DOE based the emission rate on the metric tons of mercury 
emitted per TWh of coal-generated electricity. To estimate the 
reduction in mercury emissions, DOE multiplied the emission rate by the 
reduction in coal-generated electricity associated with the standards 
considered. Because the CAMR has been vacated, DOE continued to use the 
approach it used for the October 2008 NOPR to estimate the Hg emission 
reductions due to standards for today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005).
    \35\ 517 F 3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to electricity, the operation of gas cooking products 
requires use of fossil fuels and results in emissions of CO2 
and NOX at the sites where the appliances are used. NEMS-BT 
provides no means for estimating such emissions. Therefore, DOE 
calculated separate estimates of the effect of the potential standards 
on site emissions of CO2 and NOX based on 
emissions factors derived from the literature. Natural gas was the only 
fossil fuel DOE accounted for in its analysis of standards for cooking 
products. Because natural gas combustion does not yield SO2 
emissions, DOE did not report the effect of the proposed standards on 
site emissions of SO2.
    For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE monetized reductions in 
CO2 emissions due to standards based on a range of monetary 
values drawn from studies that attempt to estimate the present value of 
the marginal economic benefits likely to result from reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. Several parties provided comments regarding 
the economic valuation of CO2 for the October 2008 NOPR. 
Whirlpool did not support an attempt to value those emissions as part 
of this rulemaking. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 8) EEI commented that 
utilities have embedded the cost of complying with existing 
environmental legislation in their price for electricity, and a similar 
approach may be reasonable for valuing reduced CO2 
emissions. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 194-195) 
The Joint Comment stated that DOE's valuation of avoided CO2 
emissions should use EIA's analysis of the Climate Security Act; the 
core scenario of this analysis yields a $17 price per ton of 
CO2, with an annual 7.4 percent increase. (Joint Comment, 
No. 44 at p. 12) As discussed in section VI.C.6, DOE has continued to 
use the approach described in the October 2008 NOPR (73 FR 62034, 62107 
(Oct. 17, 2008)) for its monetization of environmental emissions 
reductions for today's rule.
    Although this rulemaking does not affect SO2 emissions 
or NOX emissions in the 28 eastern States and D.C. where 
CAIR is in effect, there are markets for SO2 and 
NOX emissions allowances. The market clearing price of 
SO2 and NOX emissions allowances is roughly the 
marginal cost of meeting the regulatory cap, not the marginal value of 
the cap itself. Further, because national SO2 and 
NOX emissions are regulated by a cap-and-trade system, the 
cost of meeting these caps is included in the price of energy. Thus, 
the value of energy savings already includes the value of 
SO2 and NOX control for those consumers 
experiencing energy savings. The economic cost savings associated with 
SO2 and NOX emissions caps is approximately equal 
to the change in the price of traded allowances resulting from energy 
savings multiplied by the number of allowances that would be issued 
each year. That calculation is uncertain because the energy savings 
from new or amended standards for cooking products would be so small 
relative to the entire electricity generation market that the resulting 
emissions savings would have almost no impact on price formation in the 
allowances market. These savings would most likely be outweighed by 
uncertainties in the marginal costs of compliance with SO2 
and NOX emissions caps.

V. Discussion of Other Comments

    Since DOE opened the docket for this rulemaking, it has received 
more than 42 comments from a diverse set of parties, including 
manufacturers and their representatives, members of Congress, energy 
conservation advocates, private citizens, and electric and gas 
utilities. Comments on the analytic methodologies DOE used are 
discussed in section IV of this preamble. Other comments DOE received 
in response to the October 2008 NOPR, limited to those pertaining to 
standards for cooking products, are addressed in this section.

A. Burdens and Benefits

1. Consideration of the Value of Avoided Environmental Impacts
    The Joint Comment stated that DOE has not incorporated the value of 
CO2 emissions reductions into the LCC and NPV analyses. The 
Joint Comment argues that, because the value of CO2 
emissions reductions affects the economic justification of standards, 
DOE must incorporate these effects into the LCC and NPV analyses. 
(Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 12)
    After consideration of this comment, DOE decided to continue to 
report these benefits separately from the direct benefits of energy 
savings (i.e., the NPV of consumer net benefits). Neither EPCA nor the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that the economic 
value of emissions reductions be incorporated in the net present value 
analysis of energy savings. However, DOE believes that considering the 
value of environmental emissions reductions separately from other 
impacts, when weighing the benefits and burdens of standards, provides 
the Department with a more robust understanding of the potential 
impacts of standards.
    Similarly, for other emissions currently not priced (Hg nationwide 
and NOX in those States not covered by CAIR), only ranges of 
estimated economic values based on environmental damage studies of 
varying quality and applicability are available. DOE has also weighed 
these values separately from the direct benefits of energy savings.

B. Other Comments

1. Proposed Standards for Conventional Cooking Products
    The Joint Comment stated that TSL 3 should be adopted for 
conventional cooking products rather than TSL 1. The Joint Comment 
specifically calls attention to the standard level for electric 
standard ovens under TSL 3, and states that this standard level 
satisfies the rebuttable presumption payback period. As a result, the 
Joint Comment concluded that TSL 3 is presumptively economically 
justified. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 11) Earthjustice also stated 
that TSL 3 should be adopted but on grounds that it provided consumers 
with an economic benefit greater than TSL 1. (Earthjustice, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5, p. 200)
    As described in section VI.A, TSL 3 for conventional cooking 
products consists of performance standards for electric standard ovens, 
gas self-cleaning ovens, and electric coil cooktops, in addition to the 
presciptive requirements in TSL 1 of eliminating standing pilots in gas 
cooktops and gas standard ovens. Although the performance standards for 
electric standard ovens and electric cooktops at TSL 3 satisfy the 
rebuttable presumption payback period, as noted in section IV.C.11, DOE 
considers the

[[Page 16068]]

full range of criteria including impacts on consumers, manufacturers, 
and the environment, when determining whether these standards are 
economically justisfied.

VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

    DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of a number of TSLs for the 
cooking products that are the subject of today's final rule. For the 
October 2008 NOPR, DOE based the TSLs on efficiency levels explored in 
the November 2007 ANOPR, and selected the TSLs on consideration of 
economic factors and current market conditions. DOE received no 
comments on the composition of the TSLs. Accordingly, for today's final 
rule, DOE considered the same TSLs it considered for the October 2008 
NOPR.
    Table VI.1 shows the TSLs and the corresponding product class 
efficiencies for conventional cooking products. As discussed in section 
III.C, DOE determined the design options that are technologically 
feasible and can be considered as measures to improve product 
efficiency. However, as discussed in chapters 3 and 4 of the TSD 
accompanying this notice, there are few design options available for 
improving the efficiency of these cooking products due to physical 
limitations on energy transfer to the food being cooked. This is 
particularly true for all cooktop and self-cleaning oven product 
classes. For electric cooktops, DOE was able to identify only a single 
design change for analysis. For gas cooktops and electric self-cleaning 
ovens, DOE was able to identify two design options for analysis. For 
gas self-cleaning ovens, DOE was able to identify three design options 
for analysis. Although DOE considered several design options for 
standard ovens, none significantly increased product efficiency with 
the exception of eliminating standing pilots for gas standard ovens. 
Eliminating standing pilots reduces an oven's overall gas consumption 
by more than 50 percent, whereas all other design options reduce gas 
consumption by approximately 2 percent. Therefore, DOE gave further 
consideration to only four TSLs for conventional cooking products, as 
described below.
    TSL 1 represents the elimination of standing pilot ignition systems 
from gas cooking products. All other product classes are unaffected by 
TSL 1, including gas self-cleaning ovens. EPCA does not allow gas self-
cleaning ovens to use standing pilot ignition systems because they 
already use electricity and come equipped with power cords to enable 
the self-cleaning cycle. Under TSL 1, the current prescriptive standard 
that prohibits the use of standing pilot ignition systems in gas 
cooking pilots equipped with power cords would be extended to all gas 
cooking products, regardless of whether the appliance is equipped with 
a power cord. Under TSL 1, DOE would not regulate the EF of any of the 
conventional cooking product classes and only standing pilot ignition 
systems would be affected.
    TSL 2 for conventional cooking products consists of the candidate 
standard levels from each of the product classes that provide an 
economic benefit to a majority of consumers who are affected by the 
standard. Based on this criterion, only electric coil cooktops and 
electric standard ovens have candidate standard levels that differ from 
those in TSL 1. For the remaining five product classes, the results 
indicate that no candidate standard level provides an economic benefit 
to a majority of consumers.
    TSL 3 for conventional cooking products consists of the same 
candidate standard levels as TSL 2, with one exception: the gas self-
cleaning oven product class. For these ovens, the design option that 
provides, on average, a small level of economic benefit to consumers is 
included.
    TSL 4 is the maximum technologically feasible efficiency level.

                       Table VI.1--Trial Standard Levels for Conventional Cooking Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       TSLs
         Product class          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        TSL 1               TSL 2               TSL 3               TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Coil Cooktops.........  No Standard.......  EF=0.769..........  EF=0.769..........  EF=0.769
Electric Smooth Cooktops.......  No Standard.......  No Standard.......  No Standard.......  EF=0.753
Gas Cooktops...................  No Pilot..........  No Pilot..........  No Pilot..........  EF=0.420
Electric Standard Ovens........  No Standard.......  EF=0.1163.........  EF=0.1163.........  EF=0.1209
Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens...  No Standard.......  No Standard.......  No Standard.......  EF=0.1123
Gas Standard Ovens.............  No Pilot..........  No Pilot..........  No Pilot..........  EF=0.0600
Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens........  No Change to        No Change to        EF=0.0625.........  EF=0.0632
                                  Existing            Existing
                                  Standard*.          Standard*.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Existing Standard = No Pilot.

    As discussed in section III.A, DOE has concluded that it is not 
technically feasible to combine cooking efficiency (or EF) into a new 
efficiency metric with standby power consumption in microwave ovens. 
For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE considered two sets of TSLs--one set 
comprised solely of EF levels and a second set comprised solely of 
standby power levels. As discussed in section II.B.3, DOE has decided 
to continue this rulemaking to further consider microwave oven energy 
conservation standards pertaining to standby power consumption. 
Therefore, for today's final rule, DOE is considering only EF standards 
for microwave ovens.
    Table VI.2 shows the TSLs for the regulation of microwave oven 
cooking efficiency, which is expressed in terms of EF. The TSLs refer 
only to the EF and specify no standard regarding standby power use. TSL 
4 corresponds to the maximum technologically feasible EF level.

[[Page 16069]]



                       Table VI.2--Trial Standard Levels for Microwave Oven Energy Factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             TSLs
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   TSL 1            TSL 2            TSL 3            TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EF..........................................           0.586            0.588            0.597            0.602
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Significance of Energy Savings

    To estimate the energy savings through 2042 attributable to 
potential standards, DOE compared the energy consumption of cooking 
products under the base case (no standards) to energy consumption of 
these products under each standards case (each TSL, or set of new 
standards, that DOE has considered). Tables VI.3 and VI.4 show DOE's 
NES estimates for each TSL for conventional cooking products and 
microwave ovens, respectively. Chapter 11 of the TSD accompanying this 
notice describes these estimates in more detail. In the TSD, DOE 
reports both undiscounted and discounted values of energy savings. 
Discounted energy savings represent a policy perspective in which 
energy savings farther in the future are less significant than energy 
savings closer to the present.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Consistent with Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), DOE follows OMB 
guidance regarding methodologies and procedures for regulatory 
impact analysis that affect more than one agency. In reporting 
energy and environmental benefits from energy conservation 
standards, DOE will report both discounted and undiscounted (i.e., 
zero discount rate) values.

                                    Table VI.3--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Conventional Cooking Products
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           National Energy Savings quads
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                             Electric    Electric                Electric    Electric       Gas      Gas self-
                                                             coil       smooth        Gas      standard   self-clean   standard      clean       Total
                                                           cooktops    cooktops    cooktops      ovens       ovens       ovens       ovens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................        0.00        0.00        0.10        0.00        0.00        0.05        0.00        0.14
2.......................................................        0.04        0.00        0.10        0.05        0.00        0.05        0.00        0.23
3.......................................................        0.04        0.00        0.10        0.05        0.00        0.05        0.09        0.32
4.......................................................        0.04        0.02        0.15        0.07        0.04        0.09        0.10        0.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table VI.4--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Microwave Ovens
                             (Energy Factor)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         National Energy
                          TSL                             Savings quads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................................              0.18
2.....................................................              0.19
3.....................................................              0.23
4.....................................................              0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Economic Justification

1. Economic Impact on Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period
    Consumers affected by new or amended standards usually experience 
higher purchase prices and lower operating costs. Generally, these 
impacts are best captured by changes in life-cycle costs and payback 
period. Therefore, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for the standard 
levels considered in this rulemaking. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses 
provided key outputs for each TSL, which are reported by product in 
Tables VI.5 through VI.12. In each table, the first three outputs are 
average LCC and its components (the average installed price and the 
average operating cost). The next four outputs are the average LCC 
savings along with the proportions of purchases of cooking products 
under three different scenarios in which purchasing a product that 
complies with the TSL would create (1) a net life-cycle cost, (2) no 
impact, or (3) a net life-cycle savings for the purchaser.
    The last two outputs are the median and average PBP for the 
consumer purchasing a design that complies with the TSL. The PBP is the 
number of years it would take for the purchaser to recover, as a result 
of energy savings, the increased costs of higher efficiency products 
based on the operating cost savings from the first year of ownership. 
DOE based its complete PBP analysis for cooking products on energy 
consumption under conditions of actual use of each type of product by 
purchasers. However, as required by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)), DOE based the rebuttable presumption PBP test on 
consumption as determined under conditions prescribed by the DOE test 
procedure. While DOE examined the rebuttable presumption criterion (see 
TSD chapter 8), it considered whether the standard levels considered 
for today's rule are economically justified through a more detailed 
analysis of the economic impacts of these levels pursuant to section 
325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i))
    Tables VI.5, VI.6, and VI.7 show the LCC and PBP results for 
cooktops. To illustrate the role of the base-case forecast in the case 
of gas cooktops (Table VI.7), TSL 1 shows an average LCC savings of 
$15. The average savings are relatively low because 93.5 percent of the 
households in the base case already purchase a gas cooktop at the TSL 1 
level, and thus have zero savings due to the standard. In this example, 
the base case includes a significant number of households that would 
not be affected by a standard set at TSL 1. DOE determined the median 
and average values of the PBPs shown below by excluding the households 
not affected by the standard.

[[Page 16070]]



                                     Table VI.5--Electric Coil Cooktops: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Life-cycle cost                    Life-cycle cost savings           Payback period years
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Households with
                    TSL                         EF      Average    Average    Average    Average  ---------------------------------
                                                       installed  operating     LCC      savings                            Net       Median    Average
                                                         price       cost                           Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................      0.737       $272       $183       $455  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                                                                       ============
1.........................................      0.737        272        183        455                       No change from baseline
                                                                                       ============
2, 3, 4...................................      0.769        276        175        451         $4      27.1%       0.0%      72.9%        7.2       18.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table VI.6--Electric Smooth Cooktops: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Life-cycle cost                    Life-cycle cost savings           Payback period years
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Households with
                    TSL                         EF      Average    Average    Average    Average  ---------------------------------
                                                       installed  operating     LCC      savings                            Net       Median    Average
                                                         price       cost                           Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................      0.742       $309       $183       $492  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                                                                       ============
1, 2, 3...................................      0.742        309        183        492                       No change from baseline
                                                                                       ============
4.........................................      0.753        550        180        730      -$238     100.0%       0.0%       0.0%      1,498      3,736
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table VI.7--Gas Cooktops: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Life-cycle cost                    Life-cycle cost savings            Payback period years
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Households with
                   TSL                        EF      Average    Average    Average    Average  ---------------------------------
                                                     installed  operating     LCC      savings                            Net       Median      Average
                                                       price       cost                           Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................      0.106       $310       $561       $871  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  ..........
1, 2, 3.................................      0.399        332        240        572        $15       0.1%      93.5%       6.4%         4.3         3.3
4.......................................      0.420        361        234        595         -8      93.5%       0.0%       6.5%        73         258
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables VI.8 through VI.11 show the LCC and PBP results for ovens 
(other than microwave ovens). For gas standard ovens, the base case 
includes a significant number of households that would not be affected 
by a standard at TSLs 1 through 3. DOE determined the median and 
average values of the PBPs shown below by excluding the percentage of 
households not affected by the standard. The large difference in the 
average and median values for TSL 4 for all ovens is due to households 
with excessively long PBPs in the distribution of results. The LCC 
analysis for TSL 4 yielded a few results with PBPs of thousands of 
years, leading to an average PBP that is very long. In these cases, the 
median PBP is a more representative value to gauge the length of the 
PBP.

                                     Table VI.8--Electric Standard Ovens: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Life-cycle cost                    Life-cycle cost savings            Payback period years
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Households with
                   TSL                         EF      Average    Average    Average    Average  ---------------------------------
                                                      installed  operating     LCC      savings                            Net       Median     Average
                                                        price       cost                           Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................     0.1066       $414       $231       $645  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  .........
                                                                                      ============
1........................................     0.1066        414        231        645                       No change from baseline
                                                                                      ============
2, 3.....................................     0.1163        421        213        634        $11      42.7%       0.0%      57.3%         8.0        309
4........................................     0.1209        489        206        695        -59      94.4%       0.0%       5.6%        61        2,325
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  Table VI.9--Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Life-cycle cost                    Life-cycle cost savings           Payback period years
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Households with
                    TSL                         EF      Average    Average    Average    Average  ---------------------------------
                                                       installed  operating     LCC      savings                            Net       Median    Average
                                                         price       cost                           Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................     0.1099       $485       $243       $728  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                                                                       ============
1, 2, 3...................................     0.1099        485        243        728                       No change from baseline
                                                                                       ============

[[Page 16071]]

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


                                       Table VI.10--Gas Standard Ovens: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Life-cycle cost                    Life-cycle cost savings            Payback period years
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Households with
                   TSL                        EF      Average    Average    Average    Average  ---------------------------------
                                                     installed  operating     LCC      savings                            Net       Median      Average
                                                       price       cost                           Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................     0.0298       $430       $406       $837  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  ..........
1, 2, 3.................................     0.0583        464        266        730         $9       5.1%      82.3%      12.6%         9.0         7.0
4.......................................     0.0600        507        484        991        -81      93.2%       0.0%       6.8%        25         368
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table VI.11--Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Life-cycle cost                    Life-cycle cost savings           Payback period years
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Households with
                    TSL                         EF      Average    Average    Average    Average  ---------------------------------
                                                       installed  operating     LCC      savings                            Net       Median    Average
                                                         price       cost                           Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................     0.0540       $550       $614     $1,164  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
1, 2......................................     0.0540        550        614      1,164                       No change from baseline
                                                                                       ============
3.........................................     0.0625        566        595      1,161         $3      56.1%       0.0%      43.9%         11        391
4.........................................     0.0632        574        593      1,168         -4      65.0%       0.0%      35.0%         16        461
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VI.12 shows the LCC and PBP results for microwave ovens. 
Results are presented for TSLs pertaining to EF. Because DOE estimated 
that the entire market is at the baseline level, the average LCC 
savings reported for each of the four TSLs are equal to the average LCC 
of the TSL minus the average LCC of the baseline.

                                     Table VI.12--Microwave Ovens: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for EF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Life-cycle cost                    Life-cycle cost savings           Payback period years
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Households with
                    TSL                         EF      Average    Average    Average    Average  ---------------------------------
                                                       installed  operating     LCC      savings                            Net       Median    Average
                                                         price       cost                           Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................      0.557       $220       $124       $344  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
1.........................................      0.586        232        119        351        -$7      90.6%       0.0%       9.4%         30         76
2.........................................      0.588        246        119        364        -21      97.6%       0.0%       2.4%         58        147
3.........................................      0.597        267        117        384        -40      99.2%       0.0%       0.8%         83        210
4.........................................      0.602        294        116        410        -66      99.8%       0.0%       0.2%        117        296
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    DOE estimated consumer subgroup impacts by determining the LCC 
impacts of the TSLs on low-income and senior-only households. DOE found 
that the LCC impacts on these subgroups and the payback periods are 
similar to the LCC impacts and payback periods on the full sample of 
residential consumers. Thus, the proposed standards would have an 
impact on low-income and senior-only households that would be similar 
to the impact on the general population of residential consumers. 
Chapter 12 of the TSD accompanying this notice presents the detailed 
results of that analysis.
2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
    DOE determined the economic impacts on manufacturers of the TSLs 
considered for today's rule, as described in the October 2008 NOPR. 73 
FR 62034, 62075-81, 62091-62104, 62128-30 (Oct. 17, 2008). The results 
of these economic analyses are summarized below. For a more complete 
description of the anticipated economic impacts on manufacturers, see 
chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying this notice.
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    Using two different markup scenarios--a preservation of gross 
margin \37\ (percentage) scenario and a preservation of gross margin 
(in absolute dollars) scenario--DOE estimated the impact of potential 
new standards for conventional cooking products and for the cooking 
efficiency of microwave ovens on the INPV of the industries that 
manufacture these products. 73 FR 62034, 62077-78, 62092-99 (Oct. 17, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ ``Gross margin'' is defined as ``revenues minus cost of 
goods sold.'' On a unit basis, gross margin is selling price minus 
manufacturer production cost. In the GRIMs, markups determine the 
gross margin because various markups are applied to the manufacturer 
production costs to reach manufacturer selling price.

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

[[Page 16072]]

    Under the preservation of gross margin scenario, DOE applied a 
single uniform ``gross margin percentage'' markup across all efficiency 
levels. As production cost increases with efficiency, this scenario 
implies that the absolute dollar markup will increase. In their 
interviews, all manufacturers stated that it is optimistic to assume 
that they would be able to maintain the same gross margin percentage 
markup as their production costs increase in response to an energy 
conservation standard. Therefore, DOE believes that this scenario 
represents a high bound to industry profitability under an energy 
conservation standard. In the ``preservation of gross margin (absolute 
dollars)'' scenario, gross margin is defined as ``revenues less cost of 
goods sold.'' The implicit assumption behind this markup scenario is 
that the industry will lower its markups in response to the standards 
to maintain only its gross margin (in absolute dollars).
    The impact of new standards on INPV consists of the difference 
between the INPV in the base case and the INPV in the standards case. 
INPV is the primary metric used in the MIA and it represents one 
measure of the fair value of an industry in today's dollars. For each 
industry affected by today's rule, DOE calculated INPV by summing all 
of the net cash flows, discounted at the industry's cost of capital or 
discount rate.
    For each type of product under consideration in this rulemaking, 
Tables VI.13 through VI.22 show the changes in INPV under both markup 
scenarios that DOE estimates would result from the TSLs considered for 
this final rule. The tables also present the product conversion costs 
and capital conversion costs that the industry would incur at each TSL. 
Product conversion costs include engineering, prototyping, testing, and 
marketing expenses incurred by a manufacturer as it prepares to come 
into compliance with a standard. Capital investments are the one-time 
outlays for equipment and buildings required for the industry to comply 
(i.e., capital conversion costs).

            Table VI.13--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Electric Cooktops Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario
                                                [Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        TSL
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2006$ millions..............             359             359             357             357             437
Change in INPV............................  2006$ millions..............  ..............               0             (2)             (2)              78
                                            %...........................  ..............               0           -0.55           -0.55           21.76
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............               0             9.6             9.6            21.8
 Product Conversion Expenses.
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............               0               0               0            73.1
 Capital Investments.
Total Investment Required.................  2006$ millions..............  ..............               0             9.6             9.6            94.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.


         Table VI.14--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Electric Cooktops Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Absolute Dollars Markup Scenario
                                             [Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        TSL
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2006$ millions..............             359             359             348             348            (26)
Change in INPV............................  2006$ millions..............  ..............               0            (11)            (11)           (385)
                                            %...........................  ..............               0           -3.18           -3.18         -107.19
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............               0             9.6             9.6            21.8
 Product Conversion Expenses.
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............               0               0               0            73.1
 Capital Investments.
Total Investment Required.................  2006$ millions..............  ..............               0             9.6             9.6            94.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.


              Table VI.15--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Gas Cooktops Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario
                                                [Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        TSL
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2006$ millions..............             288             283             283             283             316
Change in INPV............................  2006$ millions..............  ..............             (5)             (5)             (5)              28
                                            %...........................  ..............           -1.73           -1.73           -1.73            9.88

[[Page 16073]]

 
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             9.4             9.4             9.4            20.8
 Product Conversion Expenses.
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             2.2             2.2             2.2             3.3
 Capital Investments.
Total Investment Required.................  2006$ millions..............  ..............            11.5            11.5            11.5            24.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.


           Table VI.16--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Gas Cooktops Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Absolute Dollars Markup Scenario
                                             [Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        TSL
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2006$ millions..............             288             276             276             276             146
Change in INPV............................  2006$ millions..............  ..............            (12)            (12)            (12)            (99)
                                            %...........................  ..............           -4.11           -4.11           -4.11          -34.45
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             9.4             9.4             9.4            20.8
 Product Conversion Expenses.
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             2.2             2.2             2.2             3.3
 Capital Investments.
Total Investment Required.................  2006$ millions..............  ..............            11.5            11.5            11.5            24.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.


             Table VI.17--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Electric Ovens Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario
                                                [Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        TSL
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2006$ millions..............             797             797             789             789             788
Change in INPV............................  2006$ millions..............  ..............               0             (8)             (8)             (9)
                                            %...........................  ..............               0           -0.98           -0.98           -1.17
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............               0            20.8            20.8            67.6
 Product Conversion Expenses.
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............               0             0.8             0.8           179.8
 Capital Investments.
Total Investment Required.................  2006$ millions..............  ..............               0            21.6            21.6           247.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.


          Table VI.18--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Electric Ovens Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Absolute Dollars Markup Scenario
                                             [Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        TSL
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2006$ millions..............             797             797             778             778             326
Change in INPV............................  2006$ millions..............  ..............               0            (19)            (19)           (471)
                                            %...........................  ..............            0.00           -2.43           -2.43          -59.07
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             0.0            20.8            20.8            67.6
 Product Conversion Expenses.

[[Page 16074]]

 
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             0.0             0.8             0.8           179.8
 Capital Investments.
Total Investment Required.................  2006$ millions..............  ..............             0.0            21.6            21.6           247.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.


                Table VI.19--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Gas Ovens Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario
                                                [Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        TSL
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2006$ millions..............             469             461             461             462             422
Change in INPV............................  2006$ millions..............  ..............             (7)             (7)             (6)            (46)
                                            %...........................  ..............           -1.56           -1.56           -1.36           -9.91
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             9.4             9.4            18.7           100.3
 Product Conversion Expenses.
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             1.8             1.8             7.6            72.0
 Capital Investments.
Total Investment Required.................  2006$ millions..............  ..............            11.1            11.1            26.4           172.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.


             Table VI.20--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Gas Ovens Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Absolute Dollars Markup Scenario
                                             [Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        TSL
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 1               2               3               4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2006$ millions..............             469             459             459             428             287
Change in INPV............................  2006$ millions..............  ..............            (10)            (10)            (41)           (182)
                                            %...........................  ..............           -2.10           -2.10           -8.68          -38.74
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             9.4             9.4            18.7           100.3
 Product Conversion Expenses.
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             1.8             1.8             7.6            72.0
 Capital Investments.
Total Investment Required.................  2006$ millions..............  ..............            11.1            11.1            26.4           172.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.


     Table VI.21--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Microwave Ovens Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario (Energy Factor)
                                                [Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        TSL
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                1a              2a              3a              4a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2006$ millions..............           1,456           1,501           1,575           1,695           1,726
Change in INPV............................  2006$ millions..............  ..............              45             118             238             270
                                            %...........................  ..............            3.06            8.11           16.37           18.53
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............            60.0            75.0            90.0           225.0
 Product Conversion Expenses.
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             0.0             0.0             0.0            75.0
 Capital Investments.

[[Page 16075]]

 
Total Investment Required.................  2006$ millions..............  ..............            60.0            75.0            90.0           300.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.


  Table VI.22--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Microwave Ovens Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Absolute Dollars Markup Scenario (Energy Factor)
                                                [Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        TSL
                                                        Units                Base case   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                1a              2a              3a              4a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2006$ millions..............           1,456           1,256           1,068             778             285
Change in INPV............................  2006$ millions..............  ..............           (200)           (388)           (679)         (1,171)
                                            %...........................  ..............          -13.75          -26.64          -46.60          -80.42
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............            60.0            75.0            90.0           225.0
 Product Conversion Expenses.
Amended Energy Conservation Standards       2006$ millions..............  ..............             0.0             0.0             0.0            75.0
 Capital Investments.
Total Investment Required.................  2006$ millions..............  ..............            60.0            75.0            90.0           300.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.

    As noted above, the October 2008 NOPR provides a detailed 
discussion of the estimated impact of new standards for cooking 
products on INPV. 73 FR 62034, 62091-99 (Oct. 17, 2008).
b. Impacts on Manufacturer Employment
    As discussed in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE expects that employment 
by manufacturers would increase under all of the TSLs considered for 
today's rule, although this does not take into account any relocation 
of domestic jobs to countries with lower labor costs that might be 
influenced by the level of investment required by new standards. 73 FR 
62034, 62100-03 (Oct. 17, 2008). For today's final rule, DOE estimates 
that the increase in the number of production employees in 2012 due to 
standards (depending on the TSL) could be 7 to 577 for conventional 
cooking product manufacturers and 16 to 97 for microwave oven 
manufacturers. Further support for these conclusions regarding direct 
employment impacts is provided in chapter 13 of the TSD. Indirect 
employment impacts from standards, consisting of the jobs created in or 
eliminated from the national economy other than in the manufacturing 
sector being regulated, are discussed in section IV.G.
c. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are Small Businesses
    As discussed in section IV.F and in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 
identified two small manufacturers of residential, conventional cooking 
products. Both manufacture gas-fired ovens, ranges, and cooktops with 
standing pilot lights, and these products comprise 25 percent or more 
of their production. 73 FR 62034, 62076, 62095, 62103 (Oct. 17, 2008). 
Impacts of today's standards on these two small businesses are 
discussed in section VII.B of this notice.
    As explained in the October 2008 NOPR, there are no small 
businesses that manufacture microwave ovens. 73 FR 62034, 62130 (Oct. 
17, 2008).
d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    The October 2008 NOPR notes that one aspect of DOE's assessment of 
manufacturer burden is the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards 
and other regulatory actions that affect manufacture of the same 
covered products and other equipment produced by the same manufacturers 
or their parent companies. 73 FR 62034, 62104 (Oct. 17, 2008). In 
addition to DOE's energy conservation regulations for cooking products, 
DOE identified other regulations that manufacturers face for cooking 
and other products and equipment they manufacture within 3 years before 
and 3 years after the anticipated effective date of the amended DOE 
regulations. Id. The most significant of these additional regulations 
include Federal standby power requirements, several additional Federal 
and State energy conservation standards, the Restriction of Hazardous 
Substance Directive (RoHS), State-by-State restrictions on mercury 
(which affect gas cooking appliances), and international energy 
conservation standards and test procedures. Id. As noted in the October 
2008 NOPR, the last three of these requirements do not affect the 
standards DOE considered for today's final rule. Most manufacturers DOE 
interviewed stated that they already comply with the RoHS directive, 
and most gas cooking appliance manufacturers have already eliminated 
mercury switches or have plans to do so. In addition, although 
manufacturers may incur a substantial cost if there are overlapping 
testing and certification requirements in other markets besides the 
United States, DOE only accounts for domestic compliance costs in its 
calculation of product conversion expenses for products covered in this 
rulemaking. Id.
    EISA 2007 directs DOE to publish final rules to modify its test 
procedures to measure and account for standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption for various products (including kitchen ranges and ovens 
and microwave ovens) by statutorily prescribed dates. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(B). In addition, EISA

[[Page 16076]]

2007 provides that any final rule prescribing amended or new energy 
conservation standards adopted after July 1, 2010 must account for 
standby mode and off mode energy use. 42 U.S.C 6295(gg)(3)(A). DOE has 
determined that some manufacturers of cooking products also produce 
other residential appliances that will be subject to EISA 2007 
regulations on standby and off mode power. In interviews that DOE 
conducted for the October 2008 NOPR, manufacturers stated that these 
requirements will impose a heavy burden on their testing facilities 
going forward. In addition, manufacturers expressed a concern that EISA 
2007's standby power requirements could create many overlapping 
regulatory compliance costs in the future.
    In the analyses conducted for the October 2008 NOPR, DOE also 
identified numerous Federal and State energy conservation standards 
regulations that could affect cooking product manufacturers that 
produce other residential and commercial equipment. (See chapter 13 of 
the NOPR TSD.) Additional investments necessary to meet these potential 
standards could have significant impacts on manufacturers of the 
covered products.
    Chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying this notice addresses in greater 
detail the issue of cumulative regulatory burden.
3. Net Present Value of Consumer Impacts and National Employment 
Impacts
    The NPV analysis estimates the cumulative NPV to the Nation of 
total consumer costs and savings that would result from particular 
standard levels. Tables VI.23 and VI.24 provide an overview of the NPV 
results for each TSL considered for conventional cooking products and 
microwave ovens, respectively, using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent 
real discount rate. See chapter 11 of the TSD accompanying this notice 
for more detailed NPV results.

                                                           Table VI.23--Cumulative Net Present Value for Conventional Cooking Products
                                                                           [Impacts for units sold from 2012 to 2042]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               NPV billion 2006$
                                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Electric coil    Electric smooth     Gas cooktops        Electric       Electric self-     Gas standard     Gas self-clean          Total
                                                   cooktops           cooktops     ------------------  standard ovens      clean ovens          ovens             ovens      -------------------
                     TSL                      -------------------------------------   Discount rate  ------------------------------------------------------------------------    Discount rate
                                                 Discount rate     Discount rate   ------------------   Discount rate     Discount rate     Discount rate     Discount rate  -------------------
                                              -------------------------------------                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  7%       3%       7%       3%        7%       3%       7%       3%       7%       3%       7%       3%       7%       3%       7%        3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................     0.00     0.00     0.00      0.00     0.22     0.56     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.03     0.14     0.00     0.00      0.25      0.71
2............................................     0.09     0.30     0.00      0.00     0.22     0.56     0.13     0.43     0.00     0.00     0.03     0.14     0.00     0.00      0.48      1.43
3............................................     0.09     0.30     0.00      0.00     0.22     0.56     0.13     0.43     0.00     0.00     0.03     0.14     0.01     0.25      0.49      1.68
4............................................     0.09     0.30    -7.30    -13.95    -0.69    -1.01    -0.78    -1.26    -2.77    -5.18    -0.89    -1.72    -0.11     0.03    -12.46    -22.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table VI.24--Cumulative Net Present Value for Microwave Oven Energy
                                 Factor
               [Impacts for units sold from 2012 to 2042]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NPV billion 2006$
                                         -------------------------------
                   TSL                      7% Discount     3% Discount
                                               rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................           -1.23           -2.06
2.......................................           -3.33           -6.05
3.......................................           -6.32          -11.68
4.......................................          -10.05          -18.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also estimated the national employment impacts that would 
result from each TSL. As Table VI.25 shows, DOE estimates that any net 
monetary savings from standards would be redirected to other forms of 
economic activity. DOE also expects these shifts in spending and 
economic activity would affect the demand for labor. DOE estimated that 
net indirect employment impacts from energy conservation standards for 
cooking products would be positive (see Table VI.25), but very small 
relative to total national employment. This increase would likely be 
sufficient to fully offset any adverse impacts on employment that might 
occur in the cooking products industries. For details on the employment 
impact analysis methods and results, see chapter 15 of the TSD 
accompanying this notice.

               Table VI.25--Net National Change in Indirect Employment, Thousands of Jobs in 2042
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Thousands of jobs in 2042
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Conventional cooking
       Trial standard level                 products            Trial standard level        Microwave oven EF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                     0.26                         1                      2.06
2.................................                     0.94                         2                      2.07
3.................................                     1.03                         3                      2.44
4.................................                     1.21                         4                      2.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As indicated in sections III.E.1.d and V.B.4 of the October 2008 
NOPR, DOE has concluded that the TSLs it has considered for cooking 
products would not lessen the utility or performance of any cooking 
products. 73 FR 62034, 62046-47, 62107 (Oct. 17, 2008).
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    As discussed in the October 2008 NOPR (73 FR 62034, 62047, 62107 
(Oct. 17, 2008)) and in section III.D.1.e of this preamble, DOE 
considers any lessening of competition likely to result from proposed 
energy conservation standards. The Attorney General also provides DOE 
with a written determination of the impact, if any, of any such 
lessening of competition. DOE considers the Attorney General's 
determination when preparing the final rule for the standards 
rulemaking and publishes this written determination as an attachment to 
the final rule.

[[Page 16077]]

    The DOJ concluded that the cooking products standards contained in 
the proposed rule could substantially limit consumer choice by 
eliminating the cooking appliance that most closely meets the needs of 
certain consumers, including those with religious and cultural 
practices that prohibit the use of line electricity, those without 
access to line electricity, and those whose kitchens do not have 
appropriate electrical outlets. The DOJ recommended that to maintain 
competition, DOE should consider setting a ``no standard'' standard for 
residential gas cooking products with constant burning pilots to 
address the potential for certain customers to be stranded without an 
economical product alternative. (DOJ, No. 53 at p. 2)
    As discussed in section VI.D.2 above, DOE conducted additional 
research on battery-powered ignition systems for residential gas 
cooking products. DOE was able to identify a gas range for sale in the 
United Kingdom (U.K.) that incorporates a battery-powered ignition 
system that appears to meet the functional safety requirements of ANSI 
Z21.1 (i.e., that the oven main burner is lit by an intermittent gas 
pilot that is in turn lit by a battery-powered spark igniter). This 
ignition system meets the requirements of ANSI Z21.1 in that it does 
not require the user to push a separate ``light'' button at the same 
time as the control knob is turned to allow pilot gas flow. However, 
this ignition system does not include a safety device to shut off the 
main gas valve in the event that no flame is detected, which is 
required by the ANSI standard.
    However, DOE found that there are gas cooking products with 
battery-powered ignition for RV applications available in the United 
States that meet similar ANSI safety standards for RV gas cooking 
products and as found in ANSI safety standards for residential gas 
cooking products. Thus, DOE believes, that a battery-powered ignition 
system designed for an RV gas range could be integrated into a 
residential gas range that could meet ANSI Z21.1 requirements.
    DOE next investigated the possibility that battery-powered ignition 
systems used in other indoor residential appliances in the United 
States could meet the requirements of ANSI Z21.1, even though they are 
not currently being incorporated in gas cooking products. DOE 
identified several such appliances, including a remote-controlled gas 
fireplace and instantaneous gas water heaters. For these products, the 
battery-powered ignition systems are required to meet the same or 
equivalent component-level ANSI safety standards as are required for 
automatic ignition systems in gas cooking products. DOE contacted 
several manufacturers of gas cooking products, fireplaces, and 
instantaneous water heaters, as well as ignition component suppliers, 
to investigate the technological feasibility of integrating these 
existing battery-powered ignition systems into gas cooking products 
that would meet ANSI Z21.1. None of these manufacturers could identify 
insurmountable technological impediments to the development of such a 
product. Based on its research, DOE determined that the primary barrier 
to commercialization of battery-powered ignition systems in gas cooking 
products has been lack of market demand and economic justification 
rather than technological feasibility. Therefore, DOE concludes that a 
gas range incorporating one of these ignition systems could meet ANSI 
Z21.1. In addition, DOE research suggests that the market niche for gas 
cooking products equipped with battery-powered ignition systems, which 
would be created by the proposed gas cooking product standards, would 
likely attract entrants among ignition component suppliers. Therefore, 
in consideration of the above, DOE concludes that technologically 
feasible alternative ignition systems to standing pilots in gas cooking 
products exist and that consumer choice will not be limited by 
eliminating pilot lights of gas ranges and ovens without electrical 
supply cords.
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    Improving the energy efficiency of cooking products, where 
economically justified, would likely improve the security of the 
Nation's energy system by reducing overall demand for energy, thus 
reducing the Nation's reliance on foreign sources of energy. Reduced 
demand would also likely improve the reliability of the electricity 
system, particularly during peak-load periods.
    Energy savings from higher standards for cooking products would 
also produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of 
air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production, 
and with household and building use of fossil fuels at sites where gas 
cooking products are used. Table VI.26 provides DOE's estimate of 
cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions 
that would result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The 
expected energy savings from new standards for cooking products may 
also reduce the cost of maintaining nationwide emissions standards and 
constraints. In the environmental assessment (chapter 16 of the TSD 
accompanying this notice), DOE reports estimated annual changes in 
CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions attributable to each 
TSL.

 Table VI.26--Cumulative CO2, and Other Emissions Reductions (Cumulative
             Reductions for Products Sold From 2012 to 2042)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Emissions Reductions for Conventional Cooking Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                TSL 1      TSL 2      TSL 3      TSL 4
                             -------------------------------------------
CO2 (Mt)....................      13.74      15.46      23.39      34.96
NOX (kt)....................       6.71       6.88      10.82      16.07
Hg (t)......................     0-0.15     0-0.19     0-0.28     0-0.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Emissions Reductions for Microwave Ovens Energy Factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                TSL 1      TSL 2      TSL 3      TSL 4
                             -------------------------------------------
CO2 (Mt)....................      22.88      33.46      53.89      74.67
NOX (kt)....................       2.55       3.75       6.06       8.42
Hg (t)......................     0-0.46     0-0.68     0-1.10     0-1.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mt = million metric tons.
kt = thousand metric tons.
t = metric tons.


[[Page 16078]]

    As discussed in section IV.I of this final rule, DOE does not 
report SO2 emissions reductions from power plants because 
reductions from an energy conservation standard would not affect the 
overall level of SO2 emissions in the United States due to 
the emissions caps for SO2.
    For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE's NEMS-BT modeling assumed that 
NOX would be subject to the CAIR, issued by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency on March 10, 2005. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 
2005). On July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its decision in North Carolina 
v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which the court vacated CAIR. 
531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Because the NEMS-BT model could no longer 
be used to estimate NOX emissions, DOE estimated a range of 
NOX reductions that would result from the trial standard 
levels being considered for the October 2008 NOPR based on low and high 
NOX emission rates. DOE multiplied these emission rates by 
the reduction in electricity generation due to the potential amended 
energy conservation standards considered to calculate the expected 
reduction in NOX emissions. The October 2008 NOPR describes 
these calculations in greater detail. 73 FR 62034, 62108-09 (Oct. 17, 
2008).
    On December 23, 2008, after the publication of the October 2008 
NOPR, the D.C. Circuit decided to allow CAIR to remain in effect until 
it is replaced by a rule consistent with the court's earlier opinion. 
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remand of 
vacatur). As a result, for today's final rule, DOE was able to use the 
NEMS-BT model to estimate the NOX emissions reductions that 
standards would cause. CAIR permanently caps emissions of 
NOX for 28 eastern States and D.C. This means that any new 
or amended energy conservation standards for cooking products would be 
unlikely to result in any reduction of NOX emissions in 
those States covered by the CAIR caps. Under caps, physical emissions 
reductions in those States would not result from the energy 
conservation standards under consideration by DOE, but standards might 
have produced an environmentally related economic impact in the form of 
lower prices for emissions allowance credits, if large enough. However, 
DOE determined that in the present case, such standards would not 
produce an environmentally-related economic impact in the form of lower 
prices for emissions allowance credits, because the estimated reduction 
in NOX emissions or the corresponding allowance credits in 
States covered by the CAIR cap would be too small to affect allowance 
prices for NOX under the CAIR. In contrast, new or amended 
energy conservation standards would reduce NOX emissions in 
those 22 States that are not affected by CAIR. As a result, the NEMS-BT 
does forecast NOX emission reductions from energy sources in 
those 22 States from the cooking product standards considered in 
today's final rule.
    As noted in section IV.I, DOE was able to estimate the changes in 
Hg emissions associated with an energy conservation standard as 
follows. DOE notes that the NEMS-BT model, used as an integral part of 
today's rulemaking, does not estimate Hg emission reductions due to new 
energy conservation standards, as it assumed that Hg emissions would be 
subject to EPA's CAMR.\38\ CAMR would have permanently capped emissions 
of mercury for new and existing coal-fired plants in all States by 
2010. As with SO2 and NOX, DOE assumed that under 
such a system, energy conservation standards would have resulted in no 
physical effect on these emissions, but might have resulted in an 
environmentally related economic benefit in the form of a lower price 
for emissions allowance credits if those credits were large enough. DOE 
estimated that the change in the Hg emissions from energy conservation 
standards would not be large enough to influence allowance prices under 
CAMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in New 
Jersey v. Environmental Protection Agency \39\ to vacate CAMR. In light 
of this development and because the NEMS-BT model could not be used to 
directly calculate Hg emission reductions, DOE used the Hg emission 
rates discussed above to calculate emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Therefore, rather than using the NEMS-BT model, DOE established a 
range of Hg rates to estimate the Hg emissions that could be reduced 
through standards. DOE's low estimate assumed that future standards 
would displace electrical generation only from natural gas-fired power 
plants, thereby resulting in an effective emission rate of zero. (Under 
this scenario, coal-fired power plant generation would remain 
unaffected.) The low-end emission rate is zero because natural gas-
fired power plants have virtually zero Hg emissions associated with 
their operation.
    DOE's high estimate, which assumed that standards would displace 
only coal-fired power plants, was based on a nationwide mercury 
emission rate from AEO2008. (Under this scenario, gas-fired power plant 
generation would remain unaffected.) Because power plant emission rates 
are a function of local regulation, scrubbers, and the mercury content 
of coal, it is extremely difficult to identify a precise high-end 
emission rate. Therefore, the most reasonable estimate is based on the 
assumption that all displaced coal generation would have been emitting 
at the average emission rate for coal generation as specified by 
AEO2008. As noted previously, because virtually all mercury emitted 
from electricity generation is from coal-fired power plants, DOE based 
the emission rate on the tons of mercury emitted per TWh of coal-
generated electricity. Based on the emission rate for 2006, DOE derived 
a high-end emission rate of 0.0255 tons per TWh. To estimate the 
reduction in mercury emissions, DOE multiplied the emission rate by the 
reduction in coal-generated electricity due to the standards considered 
in the utility impact analysis. These changes in Hg emissions are 
extremely small, ranging from 0.03 to 0.27 percent of the national 
base-case emissions forecast by NEMS-BT, depending on the TSL.
    In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE considered accounting for a monetary 
benefit of CO2 emission reductions associated with 
standards. To put the potential monetary benefits from reduced 
CO2 emissions into a form that would likely be most useful 
to decisionmakers and interested parties, DOE used the same methods it 
used to calculate the net present value of consumer cost savings. DOE 
converted the estimated yearly reductions in CO2 emissions 
into monetary values, which were then discounted over the life of the 
affected equipment to the present using both 3-percent and 7-percent 
discount rates.
    In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed to use the range $0 to $20 
per ton for the year 2007 in 2007$. 73 FR 62034, 62110 (Oct. 17, 2008). 
These estimates were based on a previous analysis that used a range of 
no benefit to an average benefit value reported by the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).\40\ DOE derived the 
IPCC

[[Page 16079]]

estimate used as the upper bound value from an estimate of the mean 
value of worldwide impacts due to climate change and not just the 
effects likely to occur within the United States. This previous 
analysis assumed that the appropriate value should be restricted to a 
representation of those costs and benefits likely to be experienced in 
the United States. DOE explained in the October 2008 NOPR that it 
expects such domestic values would be lower than comparable global 
values; however, there currently are no consensus estimates for the 
U.S. benefits likely to result from CO2 emission reductions. 
Because U.S.-specific estimates were unavailable and DOE did not 
receive any additional information that would help narrow the proposed 
range of domestic benefits, DOE used the global mean value as an upper 
bound U.S. value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ During the preparation of its most recent review of the 
state of climate science, the IPCC identified various estimates of 
the present value of reducing CO2 emissions by 1 ton over 
the life that these emissions would remain in the atmosphere. The 
estimates reviewed by the IPCC spanned a range of values. Absent a 
consensus on any single estimate of the monetary value of 
CO2 emissions, DOE used the estimates identified by the 
study cited in ``Summary for Policymakers,'' prepared by Working 
Group II of the IPCC's ``Fourth Assessment Report,'' to estimate the 
potential monetary value of CO2 reductions likely to 
result from standards considered in this rulemaking. According to 
IPCC, the mean social cost of carbon (SCC) reported in studies 
published in peer-reviewed journals was $43 per ton of carbon. This 
translates into about $12 per ton of CO2. The literature 
review (Tol 2005) from which this mean was derived did not report 
the year in which these dollars were denominated. However, DOE 
understands this estimate was for the year 1995 denominated in 
1995$. Updating that estimate to 2007$ yields a SCC for the year 
1995 of $15 per ton of CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Comment asserted that DOE should use the EIA analysis of 
the Climate Security Act from April 2008, including future price 
escalation, to estimate the cost of avoiding CO2 emissions. 
The core scenario of this analysis specifies a $17 price per ton of 
CO2 with an annual 7.4 percent yearly increase forecast. 
(Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 12) Whirlpool stated that the regulation 
of CO2 should be restricted to the regulation of power 
plants and, therefore, does not support an attempt to value those 
emissions as part of this rulemaking. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 8)
    The Department of Energy, together with other Federal agencies, is 
currently reviewing various methodologies for estimating the monetary 
value of reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas 
emissions. This review will consider the comments on this subject that 
are part of the public record for this and other rulemakings, as well 
as other methodological assumptions and issues, such as whether the 
appropriate values should represent domestic U.S. or global benefits 
(and costs). Given the complexity of the many issues involved, this 
review is ongoing. However, consistent with DOE's legal obligations, 
and taking into account the uncertainty involved with this particular 
issue, DOE has included in this rulemaking the values and analyses 
previously conducted.
    Given the uncertainty surrounding estimates of the social cost of 
carbon, DOE previously concluded that relying on any single estimate 
may be inadvisable because that estimate will depend on many 
assumptions. Working Group II's contribution to the ``Fourth Assessment 
Report'' of the IPCC notes the following:

    The large ranges of SCC are due in the large part to differences 
in assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, response lags, the 
treatment of risk and equity, economic and non-economic impacts, the 
inclusion of potentially catastrophic losses, and discount 
rates.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ ``Climate Change 2007--Impacts, Adaptation and 
Vulnerability.'' Contribution of Working Group II to the ``Fourth 
Assessment Report'' of the IPCC, 17. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm (last accessed Aug. 7, 2008).

    Because of this uncertainty, DOE previously used the SCC value from 
Tol (2005), which was presented in the IPCC's ``Fourth Assessment 
Report'' and provided a comprehensive meta-analysis of estimates for 
the value of SCC. Tol released an update of his 2005 meta-analysis in 
September 2007 that reported an increase in the mean estimate of SCC 
from $43 to $71 per ton carbon. Although the Tol study was updated in 
2007, the IPCC has not adopted the update. As a result, DOE previously 
decided to continue to rely on the study cited by the IPCC. DOE notes 
that the conclusions of Tol in 2007 are similar to the conclusions of 
Tol in 2005. In 2007, Tol continues to indicate that there is no 
consensus regarding the monetary value of reducing CO2 
emissions by 1 ton. The broad range of values in both Tol studies are 
the result of significant differences in the methodologies used in the 
studies Tol summarized. According to Tol, all of the studies have 
shortcomings, largely because the subject is inherently complex and 
uncertain and requires broad multidisciplinary knowledge. Thus, it was 
not certain that the values reported in Tol in 2007 are more accurate 
or representative than the values reported in Tol in 2005.
    For today's final rule, DOE continues to use the range of values 
proposed in the October 2008 NOPR, which was based on the values 
presented in Tol (2005) as proposed. Additionally, DOE applied an 
annual growth rate of 2.4 percent to the value of SCC, as suggested by 
the IPCC Working Group II (2007, p. 822). This growth rate is based on 
estimated increases in damage from future emissions that published 
studies have reported. Because the values in Tol (2005) were presented 
in 1995 dollars, DOE calculated more current values, assigning a range 
for SCC of $0 to $20 (2007$) per ton of CO2 emissions.
    The upper bound of the range DOE used is based on Tol (2005), which 
reviewed 103 estimates of SCC from 28 published studies. Tol concluded 
that when only peer-reviewed studies published in recognized journals 
are considered, ``climate change impacts may be very uncertain but [it] 
is unlikely that the marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions 
exceed $50 per ton carbon [comparable to a 2007 value of $20 per ton 
carbon dioxide when expressed in 2007 U.S. dollars with a 2.4 percent 
growth rate].''
    In setting a lower bound, DOE previous analysis agreed with the 
IPCC Working Group II (2007) report that ``significant warming across 
the globe and the locations of significant observed changes in many 
systems consistent with warming is very unlikely to be due solely to 
natural variability of temperatures or natural variability of the 
systems'' (p. 9), and thus tentatively concluded that a global value of 
zero for the SCC cannot be justified. However, DOE previously concluded 
that it is reasonable to allow for the possibility that the SCC for the 
United States may be quite low. In fact, some of the studies examined 
by Tol (2005) reported negative values for the SCC. As stated in the 
October 2008 NOPR, DOE assumed that it was most appropriate to use U.S. 
benefit values rather than world benefit values in its analysis, and 
U.S. values will likely be lower than the global values. As indicated 
above, DOE, together with other Federal agencies, is now reviewing 
whether this previous analysis should be modified. However, it is very 
unlikely that possible changes in this methodology would affect the 
conclusions reached in this rulemaking.
    Table VI.27 presents the resulting estimates of the potential range 
of net present value benefits associated with reducing CO2 
emissions.

[[Page 16080]]



  Table VI.27--Estimates of Value of CO2 Emissions Reductions Under Trial Standard Levels at Seven-Percent and
                                          Three-Percent Discount Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Estimated cumulative CO2    Value at 7%  discount     Value at 3%  discount
 Conventional cooking product TSL     emission reductions Mt     rate million 2007$        rate million 2007$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                    13.74                $0 to $109               $0 to $241.
2.................................                    15.46                $0 to $122               $0 to $270.
3.................................                    23.39                $0 to $182               $0 to $408.
4.................................                    34.96                $0 to $269               $0 to $610.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                    Estimated cumulative CO2    Value at 7%  discount     Value at 3%  discount
 Microwave oven energy factor TSL    emission reductions  Mt     rate million 2007$        rate million 2007$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................                    22.88                $0 to $192               $0 to $404.
2.................................                    33.46                $0 to $277               $0 to $589.
3.................................                    53.89                $0 to $443               $0 to $948.
4.................................                    74.67                $0 to $612              $0 to $1313.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced 
SO2, NOX, and Hg emissions from the TSLs it 
considered. As previously stated, DOE's initial analysis assumed the 
presence of nationwide emission caps on SO2 and Hg, and caps 
on NOX emissions in the 28 States covered by CAIR. In the 
presence of these caps, DOE concluded that no physical reductions in 
power sector emissions would occur, but that the standards could put 
downward pressure on the prices of emissions allowances in cap-and-
trade markets. Estimating this effect is very difficult because of 
factors such as credit banking, which can change the trajectory of 
prices. DOE has concluded that the effect from energy conservation 
standards on SO2 allowance prices is likely to be negligible 
based on runs of the NEMS-BT model. See chapter 16 of the TSD 
accompanying this notice for further details.
    Because the courts have decided to allow the CAIR rule to remain in 
effect, projected annual NOX allowances from NEMS-BT are 
relevant. As noted above, standards would not produce an economic 
impact in the form of lower prices for emissions allowance credits in 
the 28 eastern States and DC covered by the CAIR cap. New or amended 
energy conservation standards would reduce NOX emissions in 
those 22 States that are not affected by CAIR. For the area of the 
United States not covered by CAIR, DOE estimated the monetized value of 
NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the TSLs 
considered for today's final rule based on environmental damage 
estimates from the literature. Available estimates suggest a very wide 
range of monetary values for NOX emissions, ranging from 
$370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX from stationary 
sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a range of $421 per ton to 
$4,326 per ton in 2006$).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Office of Management and Budget Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, ``2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and 
Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 
Local, and Tribal Entities,'' Washington, DC (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Hg emissions reductions, DOE estimated the national monetized 
values resulting from the TSLs considered for today's rule based on 
environmental damage estimates from the literature. DOE conducted 
research for today's final rule and determined that the impact of 
mercury emissions from power plants on humans is considered highly 
uncertain. However, DOE identified two estimates of the environmental 
damage of mercury based on two estimates of the adverse impact of 
childhood exposure to methyl mercury on IQ for American children, and 
subsequent loss of lifetime economic productivity resulting from these 
IQ losses. The high-end estimate is based on an estimate of the current 
aggregate cost of the loss of IQ in American children that results from 
exposure to mercury of U.S. power plant origin ($1.3 billion per year 
in year 2000$), which works out to $31.7 million per ton emitted per 
year (2006$).\43\ The low-end estimate is $0.66 million per ton emitted 
(in 2004$) or $0.71 million per ton in 2006$. DOE derived this estimate 
from a published evaluation of mercury control using different methods 
and assumptions from the first study, but also based on the present 
value of the lifetime earnings of children exposed.\44\ Table VI.28 and 
Table VI.29 present the resulting estimates of the potential range of 
present value benefits associated with reduced national NOX 
and Hg emissions from the TSLs DOE considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Trasande, L., et al., ``Applying Cost Analyses to Drive 
Policy that Protects Children,'' 1076 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 911 
(2006).
    \44\ Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, ``Designing Environmental 
Policy: Lessons from the Regulation of Mercury Emissions,'' 
Regulatory Analysis 05-01, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory 
Studies, Washington, DC (2004). A version of this paper was 
published in the Journal of Regulatory Economics in 2006. The 
estimate was derived by back-calculating the annual benefits per ton 
from the net present value of benefits reported in the study.

              Table VI.28--Estimates of Monetary Value of Reductions of Hg and NOX by Trial Standard Level at a Seven-Percent Discount Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Value of estimated Hg
        Conventional cooking product TSL          Cumulative NOX  emission    Value of NOX emission    Estimated cumulative Hg     emission reductions
                                                       reductions  kt       reductions million 2006$   emission reductions  t         million 2006$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................                     6.71                0.7 to 7.3                 0 to 0.15                 0 to 1.3.
2...............................................                     6.88                0.7 to 7.5                 0 to 0.19                 0 to 1.6.
3...............................................                    10.82               1.1 to 11.5                 0 to 0.28                 0 to 2.2.

[[Page 16081]]

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


 
                                                                                                                                 Value of estimated  Hg
        Microwave oven energy factor TSL          Cumulative NOX  emission    Value of NOX emission   Estimated cumulative  Hg     emission reductions
                                                        reductions kt       reductions million 2006$    emission reductions t         million 2006$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................                     2.55                0.3 to 3.2                 0 to 0.46                  0 to 3.7
2...............................................                     3.75                0.4 to 4.6                 0 to 0.68                  0 to 5.4
3...............................................                     6.06                0.7 to 7.3                 0 to 1.10                  0 to 8.6
4...............................................                     8.42               1.0 to 10.2                 0 to 1.52                 0 to 11.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              Table VI.29--Estimates of Monetary Value of Reductions of Hg and NOX by Trial Standard Level at a Three-Percent Discount Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Value of estimated  Hg
        Conventional cooking product TSL          Cumulative NOX  emission    Value of NOX emission    Estimated cumulative Hg     emission reductions
                                                        reductions kt       reductions million 2006$    emission reductions t         million 2006$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................                     6.71               1.5 to 15.4                 0 to 0.15                 0 to 2.6.
2...............................................                     6.88               1.5 to 15.7                 0 to 0.19                 0 to 3.3.
3...............................................                    10.82               2.4 to 24.5                 0 to 0.28                 0 to 4.6.
4...............................................                    16.07               3.5 to 36.1                 0 to 0.41                 0 to 6.9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                                                                                                                  Value of estimated Hg
        Microwave oven energy factor TSL           Cumulative NOX emission    Value of NOX emission    Estimated cumulative Hg     emission reductions
                                                        reductions kt       reductions million 2006$    emission reductions t         million 2006$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................                     2.55                0.6 to 6.1                 0 to 0.46                 0 to 7.8.
2...............................................                     3.75                0.9 to 8.9                 0 to 0.68                0 to 11.3.
3...............................................                     6.06               1.4 to 14.4                 0 to 1.10                0 to 18.2.
4...............................................                     8.42               1.9 to 19.9                 0 to 1.52                0 to 25.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Conclusion

1. Overview
    EPCA contains criteria for prescribing new or amended energy 
conservation standards. It provides that any such standard for a 
covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 
determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary 
must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven factors 
previously discussed in section II.A of today's final rule. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) A determination of whether a standard level is 
economically justified is not made based on any one of these factors in 
isolation. The Secretary must weigh each of these seven factors in 
total in determining whether a standard is economically justified. 
Further, the Secretary may not establish a new or amended standard if 
such standard would not result in ``significant conservation of 
energy,'' or ``is not technologically feasible or economically 
justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    In deciding whether to adopt amended or new energy conservation 
standards for conventional cooking products, and for the cooking 
efficiency of microwave ovens, respectively, DOE started by examining 
the maximum technologically feasible levels to determine whether those 
levels were economically justified. Upon finding that the maximum 
technologically feasible levels were not economically justified, DOE 
analyzed the next lower TSL to determine whether that level was 
economically justified. DOE follows this procedure until it identifies 
a TSL that is economically justified, or determines that no TSL is 
economically justified.
    Below are tables that summarize the results of DOE's quantitative 
analysis for each of the TSLs it considered for today's final rule. 
These tables present the results for each TSL, and will aid the reader 
in the discussion of costs and benefits of each TSL. The range of 
values for industry impacts represents the results for the different 
markup scenarios that DOE used to estimate manufacturer impacts.
    In addition to the quantitative results, DOE also considered other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. In the case of 
conventional cooking products, DOE considered the burden on the 
industry associated with complying with performance standards. 
Currently, conventional cooking products are not rated for efficiency 
because DOE has promulgated only prescriptive standards for gas cooking 
products. Therefore, any proposed performance standards would require 
the industry to test, rate, and label these cooking products, a 
significant burden that the industry currently does not bear. In the 
specific case of gas cooking products, DOE also considered the safety 
and commercial availability of battery-powered ignition devices as a 
replacement for standing pilot ignition systems.
2. Conventional Cooking Products
    Table VI.30 summarizes the results of DOE's quantitative analysis 
for the TSLs it considered for conventional cooking products for 
today's final rule. The impacts at each TSL are measured relative to a 
no-standards base case.

[[Page 16082]]



                Table VI.30--Summary of Quantitative Results for Conventional Cooking Products *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Category                               TSL 1        TSL 2        TSL 3        TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Energy Saved (quads):
    0% Discount Rate........................................         0.14         0.23         0.32         0.50
    7% Discount Rate........................................         0.04         0.06         0.08         0.12
    3% Discount Rate........................................         0.08         0.12         0.17         0.26
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) **.......................        0.062        0.081        0.120        0.184
NPV of Consumer Impacts (2006$ billion):
    7% Discount Rate........................................        0.254        0.475        0.486     (12.456)
    3% Discount Rate........................................        0.706        1.432        1.684     (22.787)
Industry Impacts:
    Gas Cooktops
        Industry NPV (2006$ million)........................     (5)-(12)     (5)-(12)     (5)-(12)      28-(99)
        Industry NPV (% Change).............................      (2)-(4)      (2)-(4)      (2)-(4)      10-(34)
    Electric Cooktops
        Industry NPV (2006$ million)........................            0     (2)-(11)     (2)-(11)     78-(385)
        Industry NPV (% Change).............................            0      (1)-(3)      (1)-(3)     22-(107)
    Gas Ovens
        Industry NPV (2006$ million)........................     (7)-(10)     (7)-(10)     (6)-(41)   (46)-(182)
        Industry NPV (% Change).............................          (2)          (2)      (1)-(9)    (10)-(39)
    Electric Ovens
        Industry NPV (2006$ million)........................            0     (8)-(19)     (8)-(19)    (9)-(471)
        Industry NPV (% Change).............................            0      (1)-(2)      (1)-(2)     (1)-(59)
Cumulative Emissions Reductions: [dagger]
    CO2 (Mt)................................................        13.74        15.46        23.39        34.96
    NOX (kt)................................................         6.71         6.88        10.82        16.07
    Hg (t)..................................................       0-0.15       0-0.19       0-0.28       0-0.41
Value of Emissions Reductions:
    CO2 (2007$ million)
        7% Discount Rate....................................        0-109        0-122        0-182        0-269
        3% Discount Rate....................................        0-241        0-270        0-408        0-610
    NOX (2006$ million)
        7% Discount Rate....................................      0.7-7.3      0.7-7.5     1.1-11.5     1.6-16.8
        3% Discount Rate....................................     1.5-15.4     1.5-15.7     2.4-24.5     3.5-36.1
    Hg (2006$ million)
        7% Discount Rate....................................        0-1.3        0-1.6        0-2.2        0-3.3
        3% Discount Rate....................................        0-2.6        0-3.3        0-4.6        0-6.9
Mean LCC Savings * (2006$):
    Gas Cooktop/Conventional Burners........................           15           15           15          (8)
    Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil)          ...........            4            4            4
     Elements...............................................
    Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements........................  ...........  ...........  ...........        (238)
    Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line.....            9            9            9         (81)
    Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven................................  ...........  ...........            3          (4)
    Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line  ...........           11           11         (50)
    Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........        (143)
Median PBP (years):
    Gas Cooktop/Conventional Burners........................          4.3          4.3          4.3         73.0
    Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil)          ...........          7.2          7.2          7.2
     Elements...............................................
    Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements........................  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,498
    Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line.....          9.0          9.0          9.0         25.3
    Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven................................  ...........  ...........         11.0         15.6
    Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line  ...........          8.0          8.0         60.7
    Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........          236
LCC Consumer Impacts:
    Gas Cooktop/Conventional Burners
        Net Cost (%)........................................          0.1          0.1          0.1         93.5
        No Impact (%).......................................         93.5         93.5         93.5          0.0
        Net Benefit (%).....................................          6.4          6.4          6.4          6.5
    Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil)
     Elements
        Net Cost (%)........................................  ...........         27.1         27.1         27.1
        No Impact (%).......................................  ...........          0.0          0.0          0.0
        Net Benefit (%).....................................  ...........         72.9         72.9        *72.9
    Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements
        Net Cost (%)........................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        100.0
        No Impact (%).......................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          0.0
        Net Benefit (%).....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          0.0
    Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line
        Net Cost (%)........................................          5.1          5.1          5.1         93.2
        No Impact (%).......................................         82.3         82.3         82.3          0.0
        Net Benefit (%).....................................         12.6         12.6         12.6          6.8
    Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven
        Net Cost (%)........................................  ...........  ...........         56.1         65.0
        No Impact (%).......................................  ...........  ...........          0.0          0.0
        Net Benefit (%).....................................  ...........  ...........         43.9         35.0

[[Page 16083]]

 
    Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or w/o a Catalytic Line
        Net Cost (%)........................................  ...........         42.7         42.7         94.4
        No Impact (%).......................................  ...........          0.0          0.0          0.0
        Net Benefit (%).....................................  ...........         57.3         57.3          5.6
    Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven
        Net Cost (%)........................................  ...........  ...........  ...........         78.5
        No Impact (%).......................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          0.0
        Net Benefit (%).....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........         21.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount
  indicated.
** Changes in installed generation capacity in gigawatts (GW) by 2042 based on the AEO2008 Reference Case.
[dagger] CO2 emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants and at households. NOX emissions
  impacts include physical reductions at power plants and at households.

    First, DOE considered TSL 4, the max-tech level. TSL 4 would likely 
save 0.50 quads of energy through 2042, an amount DOE considers 
significant. Discounted at 7 percent, the projected energy savings 
through 2042 would be 0.12 quads. TSL 4 would result in a decrease of 
$12.5 billion in the NPV of consumer benefits, using a discount rate of 
7 percent. The emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 34.96 Mt of 
CO2, 16.07 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 0.41 t of Hg 
with a corresponding value of $0 to $269 million for CO2, 
$1.6 to $16.8 million for NOX, and $0 to $3.3 million for 
Hg, using a discount rate of 7 percent. Total generating capacity in 
2042 is estimated to decrease by 0.184 gigawatts (GW) under TSL 4.
    At TSL 4, DOE projects that the average conventional cooking 
product consumer would experience an increase in LCC, with the 
exception of consumers of electric coil cooktops. In the case of the 
latter, the average consumer would save $4 in LCC. With the exception 
of electric coil cooktop consumers, DOE estimated LCC increases at TSL 
4 for at least 65 percent of consumers in the Nation that purchase 
conventional cooking products. The median payback period of each 
product class, with the exception of electric coil cooktops and gas 
self-cleaning ovens, is projected to be substantially longer than the 
mean lifetime of the product.
    DOE estimates that the technology needed to attain TSL 4 for 
electric cooktops (improved contact conductance) may not provide energy 
savings under field conditions. 73 FR 62034, 62115 (Oct. 17, 2008). 
Measured efficiency gains from improved contact conductance have been 
obtained under DOE test procedure conditions using an aluminum test 
block. To ensure consistent and repeatable testing, the aluminum test 
block is used to establish cooktop efficiency by measuring the 
increased heat content of the block during a test measurement. Because 
the test block is much flatter than actual cooking vessels and, thus, 
allows for a higher degree of thermal contact between the block and 
coil element, the efficiency gains with an actual cooking vessel likely 
may not be as large or may not even be achievable. Therefore, DOE 
doubts that electric cooktop consumers may actually realize savings 
with products at TSL 4.
    DOE estimated the projected change in INPV at TSL 4 for each of the 
following four general categories of conventional cooking products: Gas 
cooktops, electric cooktops, gas ovens, and electric ovens. The 
projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of $28 million to a 
decrease of $99 million for gas cooktops, an increase of $78 million to 
a decrease of $385 million for electric cooktops, a decrease of $46 
million to a decrease of $182 million for gas ovens, and a decrease of 
$9 million to a decrease of $471 million for electric ovens. At TSL 4, 
DOE recognizes the risk of very large negative impacts if 
manufacturers' expectations about reduced profit margins are realized. 
In particular, if the high end of the range of negative impacts is 
reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 34 percent 
in INPV to gas cooktop manufacturers, a net loss of 107 percent in INPV 
to electric cooktop manufacturers, a net loss of 39 percent to gas oven 
manufacturers, and a net loss of 59 percent to electric oven 
manufacturers.
    After carefully considering the analysis and weighing the benefits 
and burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes that the potential benefits of 
energy savings and emissions reductions are outweighed by the potential 
multi-million dollar negative net economic cost to the Nation's 
consumers, the economic burden on many individual consumers, and the 
large capital conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV 
for manufacturers. In addition, because conventional cooking products 
are not rated for efficiency, TSL 4 would significantly impact the 
industry in terms of the added cost of testing, rating, and labeling 
these products. Consequently, DOE concludes that TSL 4 is not 
economically justified.
    Next, DOE considered TSL 3, which yielded primary energy savings 
estimated at 0.32 quads of energy through 2042, an amount which DOE 
considers to be significant. Discounted at 7 percent, the energy 
savings through 2042 would be 0.08 quads. TSL 3 would result in an 
increase of $486 million in the NPV of consumer benefit, using a 
discount rate of 7 percent. The emissions reductions are projected to 
be 23.39 Mt of CO2, 10.82 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 
0.28 t of Hg with a corresponding value of $0 to $182 million for 
CO2, $1.1 to $11.5 million for NOX, and $0 to 
$2.2 million for Hg, using a discount rate of 7 percent. Total 
generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 3 is estimated to decrease by 
0.120 GW.
    For electric smooth cooktops and electric self-cleaning ovens, TSL 
3 does not alter the current absence of a standard because none of the 
candidate standard levels for these products provide economic savings 
to consumers. However, average gas and electric coil cooktop consumers 
would save $15 and $4 in LCC, respectively, at TSL 3. Average consumers 
of gas standard ovens, gas self-cleaning ovens, and electric standard 
ovens would realize LCC savings of $9, $3, and $11, respectively, at 
TSL 3. The median payback period of each product class impacted by TSL 
3 is projected to be shorter than the mean lifetime of the products (19 
years). For example, at TSL 3 the projected payback period is 4.3 years 
for average consumers of gas cooktops, whereas the projected payback 
period is 11.0 years for average consumers of gas self-cleaning ovens.
    Although TSL 3 provides LCC savings to the average consumer, DOE 
estimates a significant percentage of consumers of gas self-cleaning 
ovens and electric standard ovens would be burdened by

[[Page 16084]]

the standard (i.e., experience increases in their LCC). DOE estimates 
that 56 percent of consumers of gas self-cleaning ovens and 43 percent 
of consumers of electric standard ovens would be burdened by TSL 3. In 
the case of electric standard ovens, almost 50 percent of consumers 
would be burdened. In the case of gas cooktops, 94 percent of consumers 
are not impacted by TSL 3 (they already purchase cooktops at TSL 3). Of 
the remaining 6 percent of gas cooktop consumers who are impacted by 
TSL 3, nearly all would realize LCC savings. For gas standard ovens, 82 
percent consumers are not impacted by TSL 3. Of the remaining 18 
percent of gas standard oven consumers who are affected by TSL 3, two-
thirds realize LCC savings. In the case of electric coil cooktops, more 
than 70 percent of consumers have a decrease in their LCC. However, the 
efficiency gain achieved at TSL 3 would be achieved through the same 
technological change as TSL 4 (improved contact conductance). As noted 
for TSL 4, DOE has significant doubt that electric cooktop consumers 
would actually realize economic savings at TSL 3.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV for each of the four general 
categories of conventional cooking products range from a decrease of $5 
million to a decrease of $12 million for gas cooktops, a decrease of $2 
million to a decrease of $11 million for electric cooktops, a decrease 
of $6 million to a decrease of $41 million for gas ovens, and a 
decrease of $8 million to a decrease of $19 million for electric ovens. 
At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the risk of negative impacts if manufacturers' 
expectations about reduced profit margins are realized. In particular, 
if the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 
3 could result in maximum net losses of up to 4 percent in INPV for gas 
cooktop manufacturers, 3 percent for electric cooktop manufacturers, 9 
percent for gas oven manufacturers, and 2 percent for electric oven 
manufacturers.
    Although DOE recognizes the economic benefits to the Nation's 
consumers that could result from TSL 3, DOE concludes that the benefits 
of a standard at TSL 3 would be outweighed by the economic burden on 
conventional cooking product consumers. The economic savings realized 
by average consumers are outweighed by the significant percentage of 
gas self-cleaning oven and electric standard oven consumers who are 
burdened by the standard. Considering that TSL 3 also adversely impacts 
manufacturers' INPV and would place a significant burden on 
manufacturers to comply with the standards, the benefits of energy 
savings and emissions reductions are not significant enough to outweigh 
the burdens of the standard. Consequently, DOE concludes that TSL 3 is 
not economically justified.
    DOE next considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.23 quads of energy 
through 2042, an amount DOE considers significant. Discounted at 7 
percent, the projected energy savings through 2042 would be 0.06 quads. 
DOE projects TSL 2 to yield an NPV of consumer benefit of $475 million, 
using a discount rate of 7 percent. The estimated emissions reductions 
are 15.46 Mt of CO2, 6.88 kt to of NOX, and 0 t 
to 0.19 t of Hg with a corresponding value of $0 to $122 million for 
CO2, $0.7 to $7.5 million for NOX, and $0 to $1.6 
million for Hg, using a discount rate of 7 percent. Total generating 
capacity in 2042 under TSL 2 would likely decrease by 0.081 GW.
    The candidate standard levels for each of the product classes that 
comprise TSL 2 are the same as TSL 3 except for gas self-cleaning 
ovens. DOE did not alter the current standard and establish an 
efficiency level for gas self-cleaning ovens for TSL 2 because, as 
described for TSL 3, efficiency levels that go beyond the baseline 
level do not yield LCC savings to a majority of gas self-cleaning 
consumers. For all other product classes, the impacts to consumers at 
TSL 3 are identical to those at TSL 2.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV for each of the four general 
categories of conventional cooking products range from a decrease of $5 
million to a decrease of $12 million for gas cooktops, a decrease of $2 
million to a decrease of $11 million for electric cooktops, a decrease 
of $7 million to a decrease of $10 million for gas ovens, and a 
decrease of $8 million to a decrease of $19 million for electric ovens. 
At TSL 2, DOE recognizes the risk of negative impacts if manufacturers' 
expectations about reduced profit margins are realized. In particular, 
if the high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 
2 could result in a net loss of 4 percent in INPV to gas cooktop 
manufacturers, a net loss of 3 percent in INPV to electric cooktop 
manufacturers, a net loss of 2 percent to gas oven manufacturers, and a 
net loss of 2 percent to electric oven manufacturers.
    Although DOE recognizes the economic benefits to the Nation's 
consumers that could result from TSL 2, DOE concludes that the benefits 
of a standard at TSL 2 would be outweighed by the economic burden that 
would be placed upon conventional cooking product consumers. The 
potential economic savings realized by average consumers are outweighed 
by the significant percentage of electric standard oven consumers who 
are burdened by the standard and by the significant risk that consumers 
of electric coil cooktops would not realize the savings projected for 
that product. TSL 2 would also adversely impact manufacturer INPV and 
would place a significant burden on manufacturers to comply with the 
standards. Consequently, the benefits of energy savings and emissions 
impacts of TSL 2 are not significant enough to outweigh the burdens 
that would be created by the standard. Consequently, DOE concludes that 
TSL 2 is not economically justified.
    DOE next considered TSL 1. With TSL 1, only amended energy 
conservation standards consisting of prescriptive requirements to 
eliminate standing pilots for gas cooktops and gas standard ovens would 
be promulgated. DOE projects that TSL 1 would save 0.14 quads of energy 
through 2042, an amount DOE considers significant. Discounted at 7 
percent, the projected energy savings through 2042 would be 0.04 quads. 
DOE projects TSL 1 to yield an NPV of consumer benefit of $254 million, 
using a discount rate of 7 percent. The estimated emissions reductions 
are 13.74 Mt of CO2, 6.71 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 
0.15 t of Hg with a corresponding value of $0 to $109 million for 
CO2, $0.7 to $7.3 million for NOX, and $0 to $1.3 
million for Hg, using a discount rate of 7 percent. Total generating 
capacity in 2042 under TSL 1 would decrease by 0.062 GW.
    At TSL 1, average gas cooktop and gas standard oven consumers would 
save $13 and $6 in LCC, respectively. DOE estimates that 94 percent of 
gas cooktop consumers and 82 percent of gas standard oven consumers 
would not be affected at TSL 1. Of the remaining impacted consumers, 
DOE estimates that nearly all gas cooktop consumers and over 70 percent 
of gas standard oven consumers would realize LCC savings due to the 
elimination of standing pilots. The median payback period for the 
impacted consumers is 4.3 years for gas cooktop consumers and 9.0 years 
for gas standard oven consumers.
    At TSL 1, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $5 
million to a decrease of $12 million for gas cooktops and a decrease of 
$7 million to a decrease of $10 million for gas ovens. At TSL 1, DOE 
recognizes the risk of negative impacts if

[[Page 16085]]

manufacturers' expectations about reduced profit margins are realized. 
In particular, if the high end of the range of impacts is reached as 
DOE expects, TSL 1 could result in a net loss of 4 percent in INPV to 
gas cooktop manufacturers and a net loss of 2 percent to gas oven 
manufacturers. Although DOE estimates that TSL 1 would lead to some net 
loss in INPV to gas cooktop and gas oven manufacturers, because TSL 1 
is comprised of prescriptive requirements, the industry would not face 
the additional costs associated with complying with performance 
requirements. Currently, only prescriptive standards for conventional 
cooking products are in effect requiring that gas cooking products with 
an electrical supply cord not be equipped with a constant burning 
pilot. As a result, conventional cooking product manufacturers are not 
currently subject to the costs of testing the rated performance of 
their products to label and comply with performance-based energy 
conservation standards. Because TSL 1 effectively extends the existing 
prescriptive requirement to all gas cooking products regardless of 
whether the products have an electrical supply cord, DOE avoids 
burdening manufacturers with testing, labeling, and compliance costs 
that they currently do not bear.
    As stated in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE recognizes that there is a 
small subgroup of consumers that use gas cooking products but are 
without household electricity. 73 FR 62034, 62116 (Oct. 17, 2008). 
Under TSL 1, these consumers are likely to be affected because they 
would be required to use an electrical source for cooking products to 
operate the ignition system. For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE market 
research demonstrated that battery-powered electronic ignition systems 
have been implemented in other products, such as instantaneous gas 
water heaters, barbeques, and furnaces, and the use of such products is 
not expressly prohibited by applicable safety standards for gas cooking 
products. Id. Therefore, DOE tentatively concluded for the October 2008 
NOPR that households that use gas for cooking and are without 
electricity would likely have technological options that would enable 
them to continue to use gas cooking if standing pilot ignition systems 
are eliminated. Id.
    However, as detailed in section III.C.2 of today's final rule, 
numerous interested parties objected to the above conclusion, and in 
particular, commenters argued that there are currently no commercially 
available gas cooking products with battery-powered electronic ignition 
systems that have been certified to applicable U.S. safety standards. 
In response to these comments, DOE conducted additional research on 
battery-powered ignition systems for residential gas cooking products, 
which confirmed commenters' statements regarding the absence of any gas 
cooking products with battery-powered electronic ignition systems 
currently certified to applicable U.S. safety standards. However, DOE 
concludes that the primary barrier to commercialization of battery-
powered ignition systems in gas cooking products has been lack of 
market demand and economic justification rather than technological 
feasibility. DOE further concludes that a gas range incorporating one 
of these ignition systems could meet the requirements of ANSI Z21.1. In 
addition, DOE research suggests that the market niche for gas cooking 
products equipped with battery-powered ignition systems, which would be 
created by a standard at TSL 1, would likely attract entrants among 
ignition component suppliers and, therefore, that technologically 
feasible alternative ignition systems to standing pilots in gas cooking 
products for households without electricity will likely be available by 
the time these energy conservation standards are effective.
    Although DOE recognizes the economic impact that a standard at TSL 
1 would have upon a small subgroup of consumers of gas cooking 
products, DOE concludes that the benefits to the significant majority 
of the Nation's consumers that could result from TSL 1 would outweigh 
the economic burden that would be placed upon this subgroup. Although 
TSL 1 would adversely impact manufacturer INPV, DOE has concluded that 
it would not place a significant burden on manufacturers to comply with 
the standards in terms of changes to existing manufacturing processes 
and certification testing. Therefore, the benefits of energy savings 
and emissions impacts of TSL 1 are significant enough to outweigh the 
burdens that would be created by the standard. Consequently, DOE 
concludes that TSL 1 is economically justified.
    In sum, after carefully considering the analysis, the comments on 
the October 2008 NOPR, and the benefits and burdens of each of the TSLs 
DOE considered, the Secretary concludes that amended standards for 
cooking efficiency of conventional cooking products, consisting of a 
prohibition of constant burning pilots for all gas kitchen ranges and 
ovens, will save a significant amount of energy and are technologically 
feasible and economically justified. In addition, the Secretary also 
concludes that no amended cooking efficiency standard is both 
technologically feasible and economically justified for residential 
electric kitchen ranges and ovens. Therefore, DOE is not adopting any 
energy conservation standards for residential electric kitchen ranges 
and ovens.
3. Microwave Ovens
    Table VI.31 presents a summary of the quantitative results for the 
microwave oven TSLs pertaining to cooking efficiency. The impacts at 
each TSL are measured relative to a no-standards base case.

                  Table VI.31--Summary of Quantitative Results for Microwave Oven Energy Factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Category                               TSL 1        TSL 2        TSL 3        TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Energy Saved (quads):
    0% Discount Rate........................................         0.18         0.19         0.23         0.25
    7% Discount Rate........................................         0.05         0.05         0.07         0.07
    3% Discount Rate........................................         0.10         0.10         0.13         0.14
Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) **.......................        0.137        0.207        0.340        0.477
NPV of Consumer Impacts (2006$ billion):
    7% Discount Rate........................................       (1.23)       (3.33)       (6.32)      (10.05)
    3% Discount Rate........................................       (2.06)       (6.05)      (11.68)      (18.70)
Industry Impacts:
    Industry NPV (2006$ million)............................     45-(200)    118-(388)    238-(679)   270-(1171)
    Industry NPV (% Change).................................       3-(14)       8-(27)      16-(47)      19-(80)
Cumulative Emissions Impacts: [dagger]

[[Page 16086]]

 
    CO2 (Mt)................................................        22.88        33.46        53.89        74.67
    NOX (kt)................................................         2.55         3.75         6.06         8.42
    Hg (t)..................................................       0-0.46       0-0.68       0-1.10       0-1.52
Value of Emissions Reductions:
    CO2 (2007$ million)
        7% Discount Rate....................................        0-192        0-277        0-443        0-612
        3% Discount Rate....................................        0-404        0-589        0-948       0-1313
    NOX (2006$ million)
        7% Discount Rate....................................      0.3-3.2      0.4-4.6      0.7-7.3     1.0-10.2
        3% Discount Rate....................................      0.6-6.1      0.9-8.9     1.4-14.4     1.9-19.9
    Hg (2006$ million)
        7% Discount Rate....................................        0-3.7        0-5.4        0-8.6       0-11.8
        3% Discount Rate....................................        0-7.8       0-11.3       0-18.2       0-25.2
Mean LCC Savings * (2006$)..................................          (7)         (21)         (40)         (66)
Median PBP (years)..........................................         29.9         58.1         82.8        116.6
LCC Consumer Impacts:
    Net Cost (%)............................................         90.6         97.6         99.2         99.8
    No Impact (%)...........................................          0.0          0.0          0.0          0.0
    Net Benefit (%).........................................          9.4          2.4          0.8          0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount
  indicated.
** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on the AEO2008 Reference Case.
[dagger] CO2 emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NOX emissions impacts include
  physical reductions at power plants.

    First, DOE considered TSL 4, the max-tech level for microwave oven 
cooking efficiency. TSL 4 would save 0.25 quads of energy through 2042, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Discounted at 7 percent, the 
projected energy savings through 2042 would be 0.07 quads. TSL 4 would 
result in a decrease of $10.05 billion in the NPV of consumer impacts, 
using a discount rate of 7 percent. The emissions reductions at TSL 4 
are 74.67 Mt of CO2, 8.42 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 
1.52 t of Hg with a corresponding value of $0 to $612 million for 
CO2, $1.0 to $10.2 million for NOX, and $0 to 
$11.8 million for Hg, using a discount rate of 7 percent. Total 
generating capacity in 2042 is estimated to decrease compared to the 
reference case by 0.477 GW.
    At TSL 4, DOE projects that the average microwave oven consumer 
would experience an increase in LCC. The median payback period for the 
average consumer is projected to be substantially longer than the mean 
lifetime of the product.
    DOE estimated the projected change in INPV ranges at TSL 4 from an 
increase of $270 million to a decrease of $1.171 billion. At TSL 4, DOE 
recognizes the risk of very large negative impacts if manufacturers' 
expectations about reduced profit margins are realized. In particular, 
if the high end of the range of negative impacts is reached, as DOE 
expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 80 percent in INPV to 
microwave oven manufacturers.
    After carefully considering the analysis and weighing the benefits 
and burdens of TSL 4, DOE concludes that the benefits of energy savings 
and emissions reductions would be outweighed by a large decrease in the 
NPV of consumer impacts, the economic burden on many consumers, and the 
large capital conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV 
for manufacturers. Consequently, DOE concludes that TSL 4 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE next considered TSL 3. Primary energy savings are estimated at 
0.23 quads of energy through 2042, which DOE considers significant. 
Discounted at 7 percent, the energy savings through 2042 would be 0.07 
quads. TSL 3 would result in a decrease of $6.32 billion in the NPV of 
consumer benefit, using a discount rate of 7 percent. The emissions 
reductions are projected to be 53.89 Mt of CO2, 6.06 kt of 
NOX, and 0 t to 1.10 t of Hg with a corresponding value of 
$0 to $443 million for CO2, $0.7 to $7.3 million for 
NOX, and $0 to $8.6 million for Hg, using a discount rate of 
7 percent. Total generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 3 is estimated 
to decrease by 0.340 GW.
    At TSL 3, DOE projects that the average microwave oven consumer 
would experience an increase in LCC. The median payback period of the 
average consumer is projected to be substantially longer than the mean 
lifetime of the product.
    DOE estimated the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase 
of $238 million to a decrease of $679 million. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes 
the risk of very large negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
about reduced profit margins are realized. In particular, if the high 
end of the range of negative impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 
could result in a net loss of 47 percent in INPV to microwave oven 
manufacturers.
    After carefully considering the analysis and weighing the benefits 
and burdens of TSL 3, DOE concludes that the benefits of energy savings 
and emissions reductions would be outweighed by the large decrease in 
the NPV of consumer impacts, the economic burden on many consumers, and 
the large capital conversion costs that could result in a reduction in 
INPV for manufacturers. Consequently, DOE concludes that TSL 3 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE next considered TSL 2. DOE projects that TSL 2 would save 0.19 
quads of energy through 2042, an amount DOE considers significant. 
Discounted at 7 percent, the projected energy savings through 2042 
would be 0.05 quads. DOE projects TSL 2 to result in a decrease in the 
NPV of consumer impacts of $3.33 billion. The estimated emissions 
reductions are 33.46 Mt of CO2, 3.75 kt of NOX, 
and 0 t to 0.68 t of Hg with a corresponding value of $0 to $227 
million for CO2, $0.4 to $4.6 million for NOX, 
and $0 to $5.4 million for Hg, using a discount rate of 7 percent. 
Total generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 2 would likely decrease by 
0.207 GW.
    At TSL 2, DOE projects that the average microwave oven consumer 
would experience an increase in LCC. The median payback period of the 
average consumer is projected to be substantially longer than the mean 
lifetime of the product.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of 
$118 million to a decrease of $388 million. At

[[Page 16087]]

TSL 2, DOE recognizes the risk of negative impacts if manufacturers' 
expectations about reduced profit margins are realized. In particular, 
if the high end of the range of negative impacts is reached, as DOE 
expects, TSL 2 could result in a net loss of 27 percent in INPV to 
microwave oven manufacturers.
    After carefully considering the analysis and weighing the benefits 
and burdens of TSL 2, DOE concludes that the benefits of energy savings 
and emissions reductions would be outweighed by the large decrease in 
the NPV of consumer impacts, the economic burden on many consumers, and 
the large capital conversion costs that could result in a reduction in 
INPV for manufacturers. Consequently, DOE concludes that TSL 2 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE next considered TSL 1. DOE projects that TSL 1 would save 0.18 
quads of energy through 2042, an amount DOE considers significant. 
Discounted at 7 percent, the projected energy savings through 2042 
would be 0.05 quads. For the Nation as a whole, DOE projects TSL 1 to 
result in a decrease in the NPV of consumer impacts of $1.23 billion. 
The estimated emissions reductions are 22.88 Mt of CO2, 2.55 
kt of NOX, and 0 t to 0.46 t of Hg with a corresponding 
value of $0 to $192 million for CO2, $0.3 to $3.2 million 
for NOX, and $0 to $3.7 million for Hg, using a discount 
rate of 7 percent. Total generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 1 would 
likely decrease by 0.137 GW.
    At TSL 1, DOE projects that the average microwave oven consumer 
would experience an increase in LCC. The median payback period of the 
average consumer is projected to be substantially longer than the mean 
lifetime of the product.
    At TSL 1, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$45 million to a decrease of $200 million. At TSL 1, DOE recognizes the 
risk of negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations about reduced 
profit margins are realized. In particular, if the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 1 could result in a 
net loss of 14 percent in INPV to microwave oven manufacturers.
    After carefully considering the analysis and weighing the benefits 
and burdens of TSL 1, DOE concludes that the benefits of energy savings 
and emissions reductions would be outweighed by the large decrease in 
the NPV of consumer impacts, the economic burden on many consumers, and 
the large capital conversion costs that could result in a reduction in 
INPV for manufacturers. Consequently, DOE concludes that TSL 1 is not 
economically justified.
    In sum, after carefully considering the analysis, the comments on 
the October 2008 NOPR, and the benefits and burdens of each of the TSLs 
DOE considered, the Secretary concludes that no amended standard is 
both technologically feasible and economically justified for microwave 
oven EF. Therefore, DOE is not adopting any energy conservation 
standard for microwave oven EF.

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    Today's regulatory action has been determined to be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). 
Accordingly, this action was subject to review under the Executive 
Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 
Office of Management and Budget.
    The Executive Order requires each agency to identify in writing the 
specific market failure or other specific problem that it intends to 
address that warrants agency action, as well as to assess the 
significance of that problem in evaluating whether any new regulation 
is warranted. Executive Order 12866, section 1(b)(1).
    The October 2008 NOPR evaluated the market failure that the 
proposed rule would address. 73 FR 62034, 62122-23 (Oct. 17, 2008). 
DOE's analysis for some residential gas cooking products explicitly 
quantifies and accounts for the percentage of consumers that already 
purchase more efficient equipment and takes these consumers into 
account when determining the national energy savings associated with 
various TSLs. The analysis suggests that accounting for the market 
value of energy savings alone (i.e., excluding any possible additional 
``externality'' benefits such as those noted below) would produce 
enough benefits to yield net benefits across a wide array of products 
and circumstances. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE requested additional 
data (including the percentage of consumers purchasing more efficient 
cooking products and the extent to which consumers of all product types 
will continue to purchase more efficient equipment), in order to test 
the existence and extent of these consumer actions. 73 FR 62034, 62123 
(Oct. 17, 2008). DOE received no such data from interested parties in 
response to the October 2008 NOPR.
    DOE believes that there is a lack of consumer information and/or 
information processing capability about energy efficiency opportunities 
in the home appliance market. If this is the case, DOE would expect the 
energy efficiency for cooking products to be randomly distributed 
across key variables such as energy prices and usage levels. DOE has 
already identified the percentage of consumers that already purchase 
more efficient gas cooktops and gas standard ovens. However, DOE does 
not correlate the consumer's usage pattern and energy price with the 
efficiency of the purchased product. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 
sought data on the efficiency levels of existing cooking products by 
how often they are used (e.g., how many times or hours the product is 
used) and their associated energy prices (and/or geographic regions of 
the country). Id. DOE received no such data from interested parties in 
response to the October 2008 NOPR. Therefore, DOE was unable to test 
for today's final rule the extent to which purchasers of cooking 
products behave as if they are unaware of the costs associated with 
their energy consumption.
    A related issue is asymmetric information (one party to a 
transaction has more and better information than the other) and/or high 
transactions costs (costs of gathering information and effecting 
exchanges of goods and services). In many instances, the party 
responsible for an appliance purchase may not be the one who pays the 
cost to operate it. For example, home builders in large-scale 
developments often make decisions about appliances without input from 
home buyers and do not offer options to upgrade those appliances. Also, 
apartment owners normally make decisions about appliances, but renters 
often pay the utility bills. If there were no transactions costs, it 
would be in the home builders' and apartment owners' interest to 
install appliances that buyers and renters would choose. For example, 
one would expect that a renter who knowingly faces higher utility bills 
from low-efficiency appliances would be willing to pay less in rent, 
and the apartment owner would indirectly bear the higher utility cost. 
However, this information is not readily available, and it may not be 
in the renter's interest to take the time to develop it, or, in the 
case of the landlord who installs a high-efficiency appliance, to 
convey that information to the renter.

[[Page 16088]]

    To the extent that asymmetric information and/or high transactions 
costs are problems, one would expect to find certain outcomes for 
appliance energy efficiency. For example, all things being equal, one 
would not expect to see higher rents for apartments with high-
efficiency appliances. Conversely, if there were symmetric information, 
one would expect appliances with higher energy efficiency in rental 
units where the rent includes utilities compared to those where the 
renter pays the utility bills separately. Similarly, for single-family 
homes, one would expect higher energy efficiency levels for replacement 
units than for appliances installed in new construction. Within the new 
construction market, one would expect to see appliances with higher 
energy efficiency levels in custom-built homes (where the buyer has 
more say in appliance choices) than in comparable homes built in large-
scale developments.
    DOE received no data from interested parties in response to the 
October 2008 NOPR on the issue of asymmetric information and/or high 
transactions costs. Therefore, DOE was unable to determine for today's 
final rule the extent to which asymmetric information and/or high 
transaction costs are a market failure.
    In addition, this rulemaking is likely to yield certain external 
benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of cooking products 
that are not captured by the users of such equipment. These benefits 
include externalities related to environmental protection and energy 
security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced 
emissions of greenhouse gases. The TSLs which DOE evaluated resulted in 
CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions. DOE also 
determined a range of possible monetary benefits associated with the 
emissions reductions. DOE considered both the emissions reductions and 
their possible monetary benefit in determining the economic feasibility 
of the TSLs.
    DOE conducted an RIA and, under the Executive Order, was subject to 
review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in 
the OMB. DOE presented to OIRA the draft final rule and other documents 
prepared for this rulemaking, including the RIA, and has included these 
documents in the rulemaking record. They are available for public 
review in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-9127, 
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.
    The RIA is contained as chapter 17 in the TSD prepared for the 
rulemaking. The RIA consists of (1) a statement of the problem 
addressed by this regulation, and the mandate for government action; 
(2) a description and analysis of the feasible policy alternatives to 
this regulation; (3) a quantitative comparison of the impacts of the 
alternatives; and (4) the national economic impacts of today's 
standards. In today's final rule DOE is not adopting any standards for 
microwave ovens. Therefore, DOE performed an RIA solely for 
conventional cooking products for today's final rule.
    The RIA calculates the effects of feasible policy alternatives to 
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products and 
provides a quantitative comparison of the impacts of the alternatives. 
DOE evaluated each alternative in terms of its ability to achieve 
significant energy savings at reasonable costs, and compared it to the 
effectiveness of the proposed rule. DOE analyzed these alternatives 
using a series of regulatory scenarios as input to the NIA Spreadsheets 
for the two appliance products, which it modified to allow inputs for 
voluntary measures. For more details on how DOE modified the NIA 
spreadsheets to determine the impacts due to the various non-regulatory 
alternatives to standards, refer to chapter 17 of the TSD accompanying 
this notice.
    As shown in Table VII.1 below, DOE identified the following major 
policy alternatives for achieving increased energy efficiency in 
conventional cooking products:
     No new regulatory action;
     Financial incentives;

    [rtrif] Consumer rebates;
    [rtrif] Consumer tax credits;
    [rtrif] Manufacturer tax credits;

     Voluntary energy efficiency targets;
     Bulk government purchases;
     Early replacement; and
     The proposed approach (national performance and 
prescriptive standards).

             Table VII.1--Non-Regulatory Alternatives to Standards for Conventional Cooking Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Net present value** billion $
                                                                      Energy     -------------------------------
                       Policy alternatives                        savings* quads    7% Discount     3% Discount
                                                                                       rate            rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No New Regulatory Action........................................            0               0               0
Consumer Rebates................................................            0.12            0.21            0.60
Consumer Tax Credits............................................            0.05            0.08            0.27
Manufacturer Tax Credits........................................            0.01            0.02            0.06
Early Replacement...............................................            0.01            0.07            0.12
Today's Standards at TSL 1......................................            0.14            0.25            0.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Energy savings are in source quads.
** Net present value is the value in the present of a time series of costs and savings. DOE determined the net
  present value from 2012 to 2042 in billions of 2006 dollars.
*** Voluntary energy efficiency target and bulk government purchase alternatives are not considered because the
  percentage of the market at TSL 1 (today's standard) is well over the market adoption target level that each
  alternative strives to attain.

The net present value amounts shown in Table VII.1 refer to the NPV for 
consumers. The costs to the government of each policy (such as rebates 
or tax credits) are not included in the costs for the NPV since, on 
balance, consumers would be both paying for (through taxes) and 
receiving the benefits of the payments. The following paragraphs 
discuss each of the policy alternatives listed in Table VII.1. (See the 
TSD accompanying this notice, chapter 17.)
    No New Regulatory Action. The case in which no regulatory action is 
taken with regard to conventional cooking products constitutes the 
``base case'' (or ``No Action'') scenario. In this case, between 2012 
and 2042, conventional cooking products are expected to use 10.3 quads 
of primary energy. Since this

[[Page 16089]]

is the base case, energy savings and NPV are zero by definition.
    Consumer Rebates. Consumer rebates cover a portion of the 
incremental installed cost difference between products meeting baseline 
efficiency levels and those meeting higher efficiency levels, which 
generally result in a higher percentage of consumers purchasing more 
efficient models. DOE utilized market penetration curves from a study 
that analyzed the potential of energy efficiency in California.\45\ The 
penetration curves are a function of benefit-cost ratio (i.e., lifetime 
operating costs savings divided by increased total installed costs) to 
estimate the increased market share of more efficient products given 
incentives by a rebate program. Using specific rebate amounts, DOE 
calculated, for each of the considered products, the benefit-cost ratio 
of the more efficient appliance with and without the rebate to project 
the increased market penetration of the product due to a rebate 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Rufo, M. and F. Coito, California's Secret Energy Surplus: 
The Potential for Energy Efficiency (prepared for The Energy 
Foundation and The Hewlett Foundation by Xenergy, Inc.) (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For conventional cooking products meeting the efficiency levels in 
TSL 1 (i.e., gas cooking products without constant burning pilot 
lights), DOE estimated that the annual increase in consumer purchases 
of these products due to consumer rebates would be 7.8 percent. DOE 
selected the portion of the incremental costs covered by the rebate 
(i.e., 100 percent) using data from rebate programs conducted by 88 gas 
utilities, electric utilities, and other State government agencies.\46\ 
DOE estimated that the impact of this policy would be to permanently 
transform the market so that the increased market share seen in the 
first year of the program would be maintained throughout the forecast 
period. At the estimated participation rates, consumer rebates would be 
expected to provide 0.12 quads of national energy savings and an NPV of 
$0.21 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Because DOE was not able to identify consumer rebate 
programs specific to conventional cooking products, rebate amounts 
for another kitchen appliance, dishwashers, were used to estimate 
the impact from a rebate program providing incentives for more 
efficient cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although DOE estimated that consumer rebates would provide national 
benefits for conventional cooking products, these benefits would be 
smaller than the benefits resulting from national performance standards 
at the proposed levels. Thus, DOE rejected consumer rebates as a policy 
alternative to national performance standards.
    Consumer Tax Credits. Consumer tax credits cover a percentage of 
the incremental installed cost difference between products meeting 
baseline efficiency levels and those with higher efficiencies. Consumer 
tax credits are considered a viable non-regulatory market 
transformation program as evidenced by the inclusion of Federal 
consumer tax credits in EPACT 2005 for various residential appliances. 
(Section 1333 of EPACT 2005; codified at 26 U.S.C. 25C) DOE reviewed 
the market impact of tax credits offered by the Oregon Department of 
Energy (ODOE) (ODOE, No. 35 at p. 1) and Montana Department of Revenue 
(MDR) (MDR, No. 36 at p. 1) to estimate the effect of a national tax 
credit program. To help estimate the impacts from such a program, DOE 
also reviewed analyses prepared for the California Public Utilities 
Commission,\47\ the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance,\48\ and the 
Energy Foundation/Hewlett Foundation.\49\ For each of the appliance 
products considered for this rulemaking, DOE estimated that the market 
effect of a tax credit program would gradually increase over a time 
period until it reached its maximum impact. Once the tax credit program 
attained its maximum effect, DOE assumed the impact of the policy would 
be to permanently transform the market at this level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Itron and KEMA, 2004/2005 Statewide Residential Retrofit 
Single-Family Energy Efficiency Rebate Evaluation (prepared for the 
California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Gas And Electric 
Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, Southern California 
Edison, Southern California Gas Company, CPUC-ID 1115-04) 
(2007).
    \48\ KEMA, Consumer Product Market Progress Evaluation Report 3 
(prepared for Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Report 
07-174) (2007).
    \49\ Rufo, M., and F. Coito, op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For conventional cooking products, DOE estimated that the market 
share of efficient products meeting TSL 1 would increase by 0.7 percent 
in 2012 and increase over a 6-year period to an annual maximum of 2.8 
percent in 2020. At these estimated participation rates, consumer tax 
credits would be expected to provide 0.05 quads of national energy 
savings and an NPV of $0.08 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate).\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Because DOE was not able to identify consumer tax credit 
programs specific to conventional cooking products, increased market 
penetrations for another kitchen appliance, dishwashers, were used 
to estimate the impact from a tax credit program providing 
incentives for more efficient conventional cooking products and 
microwave ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated that while consumer tax credits would yield national 
benefits for conventional cooking products, these benefits would be 
much smaller than the benefits from the proposed national performance 
standards. Thus, DOE rejected consumer tax credits as a policy 
alternative to national performance standards.
    Manufacturer Tax Credits. Manufacturer tax credits are considered a 
viable non-regulatory market transformation program as evidenced by the 
inclusion of Federal tax credits in EPACT 2005 for manufacturers of 
residential appliances. (Section 1334 of EPACT 2005; codified at 26 
U.S.C. 45M) Similar to consumer tax credits, manufacturer tax credits 
would effectively result in lower product prices to consumers by an 
amount that covered part of the incremental price difference between 
products meeting baseline efficiency levels and those meeting higher 
efficiency levels. Because these tax credits would go to manufacturers 
instead of consumers, research indicates that fewer consumers would be 
affected by a manufacturer tax credit program than by consumer tax 
credits.51 52 Although consumers would benefit from price 
reductions passed through to them by the manufacturers, research 
demonstrates that approximately half the consumers who would benefit 
from a consumer tax credit program would be aware of the economic 
benefits of more efficient technologies included in an appliance 
manufacturer tax credit program. In other words, research estimates 
that half of the effect from a consumer tax credit program is due to 
publicly available information or promotions announcing the benefits of 
the program. This effect, referred to as the ``announcement effect,'' 
is not part of a manufacturer tax credit program. Therefore, DOE 
estimated that the effect of a manufacturer tax credit program would be 
only half of the maximum impact of a consumer tax credit program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ K. Train, Customer Decision Study: Analysis of Residential 
Customer Equipment Purchase Decisions (prepared for Southern 
California Edison by Cambridge Systematics, Pacific Consulting 
Services, The Technology Applications Group, and California Survey 
Research Services) (1994).
    \52\ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, End-Use Forecasting 
Group. Analysis of Tax Credits for Efficient Equipment (1997). 
Available at http://enduse.lbl.gov/Projects/TaxCredits.html. (Last 
accessed April 24, 2008.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For conventional cooking products, the percentage of consumers 
purchasing products meeting TSL 1 would be expected to increase by 0.6 
percent due to a manufacturer tax credit program.\53\ DOE assumed that 
the impact of the manufacturer tax credit policy would be to 
permanently transform the market so

[[Page 16090]]

that the increased market share seen in the first year of the program 
would be maintained throughout the forecast period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ DOE assumed that the manufacturer tax credit program would 
affect only consumers of gas cooking products, who did not need 
electric outlets installed; therefore the increased percentage 
impact includes only those consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the above estimated participation rates, manufacturer tax 
credits would provide 0.01 quads of national energy savings and an NPV 
of $0.02 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) for conventional 
cooking products.
    DOE estimated that while manufacturer tax credits would yield 
national benefits for conventional cooking products, these benefits 
would be much smaller than the benefits from national performance 
standards. Thus, DOE rejected manufacturer tax credits as a policy 
alternative to the proposed national performance standards.
    Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets. DOE estimates the impact of 
voluntary energy efficiency targets by reviewing the historical and 
projected market transformation performance of past and current ENERGY 
STAR programs. However, DOE did not analyze the potential impacts of 
voluntary energy efficiency targets for conventional cooking products 
because over 85 percent of the gas range market already meets TSL 1. 
The ENERGY STAR program typically targets products where a maximum of 
approximately 25 percent of the existing market meets the target 
efficiency level.\54\ Since the market for gas ranges are well above 
the 25-percent threshold, DOE did not consider this approach for 
conventional cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Sanchez, M. and A. Fanara, ``New Product Development: The 
Pipeline for Future ENERGY STAR Growth,'' Proceedings of the 2000 
ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings (2000) Vol. 6, 
pp. 343-354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Early Replacement. The early replacement policy alternative 
envisions a program to replace old, inefficient units with models 
meeting efficiency levels higher than baseline equipment. Under an 
early replacement program, State governments or electric and gas 
utilities would provide financial incentives to consumers to retire the 
appliance early in order to hasten the adoption of more efficient 
products. For all of the considered products, DOE modeled this policy 
by applying a 4-percent increase in the replacement rate above the 
natural rate of replacement for failed equipment. DOE based this 
percentage increase on program experience with the early replacement of 
appliances in the State of Connecticut.\55\ DOE assumed the program 
would continue for as long as it would take to ensure that the eligible 
existing stock in the year that the program began (2012) was completely 
replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Nexus and RLW Analytics, Impact, Process, and Market Study 
of the Connecticut Appliance Retirement Program: Overall Report, 
Final. (Submitted to Northeast Utilities--Connecticut Light and 
Power and the United Illuminating Company by Nexus Market Research, 
Inc. and RLW Analytics, Inc.) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For conventional cooking products, this policy alternative would 
replace old, inefficient units with models meeting the efficiency 
levels in TSL 1. DOE estimated that such an early replacement program 
would be expected to provide 0.01 quads of national energy savings and 
an NPV of $0.07 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate).
    Although DOE estimated that the above early replacement programs 
for each of the considered products would provide national benefits, 
they would be much smaller than the benefits resulting from national 
performance standards. Thus, DOE rejected early replacement incentives 
as a policy alternative to national performance standards.
    Bulk Government Purchases. Under this policy alternative, the 
government sector would be encouraged to shift their purchases to 
products that meet the target efficiency levels above baseline levels. 
Aggregating public sector demand could provide a market signal to 
manufacturers and vendors that some of their largest customers sought 
suppliers with products that met an efficiency target at favorable 
prices. This program also could induce ``market pull'' impacts through 
manufacturers and vendors achieving economies of scale for high-
efficiency products. Under such a program, DOE would assume that 
Federal, State, and local government agencies would administer it. At 
the Federal level, such a program would add more efficient products for 
which the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) has energy efficient 
procurement specifications.
    However, DOE did not analyze the potential impacts of bulk 
government purchases for conventional cooking products because over 85 
percent of the gas range market already meets TSL 1. FEMP procurement 
specifications typically promote products in the top 25 percent of the 
existing product offerings in terms of efficiency. Since most of the 
gas ranges sold in the base case already comply with such 
specifications, DOE was not able to consider this program as a source 
of data for conventional cooking products.
    National Performance Standards (TSL 1 for conventional cooking 
products). As indicated in the paragraphs above, none of the 
alternatives DOE examined would save as much energy as the amended 
energy conservation standards. Therefore, DOE will adopt the efficiency 
levels listed in section VI.D.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, and a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 
adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 
examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers 
alternative ways of reducing negative impacts. Also, as required by 
Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) classifies manufacturers of 
household cooking appliances as small businesses if they have 750 or 
fewer employees. DOE used these small business size standards, 
published at 61 FR 3286 (Jan. 31, 1996) and codified at 13 CFR part 
121, to determine whether any small entities would be required to 
comply with today's rule. The size standards are listed by North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry 
description. Household cooking appliance manufacturing is classified 
under NAICS 335221.
    Bearing in mind the relevant NAICS classification above, DOE 
determined that none of the manufacturers of microwave ovens sold in 
the U.S. are small businesses under these SBA classifications. 73 FR 
62034, 62130 (Oct. 17, 2008). However, DOE identified two domestic 
manufacturers of conventional cooking appliances that meet the SBA 
small business definition and are affected by this rulemaking. Id. at 
62128. DOE interviewed one of these manufacturers, and also obtained 
from larger manufacturers information about the impacts of standards on 
these small manufacturers of conventional cooking products. Id. DOE 
reviewed the proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the

[[Page 16091]]

procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. Id. On the 
basis of this review, DOE determined that it could not certify that its 
proposed standards for conventional cooking products (TSL 1), if 
promulgated, would have no significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Id. at 62128-29. DOE made this determination 
due to the potential impact on manufacturers of gas cooking products 
generally, including small businesses, of the proposed standard's 
elimination of standing pilot lights. Id.
    Because of these potential impacts on small manufacturers, DOE 
prepared an IRFA during the NOPR stage of this rulemaking. DOE provided 
the IRFA in its entirety in the October 2008 NOPR (73 FR 62034, 62129-
30 (Oct. 17, 2008)), and also transmitted a copy to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the SBA for review. Chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying 
this notice contains more information about the impact of this 
rulemaking on manufacturers.
    DOE has prepared a FRFA for this rulemaking, which is presented in 
the following discussion. DOE is transmitting a copy of this FRFA to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The FRFA below is written in 
accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
1. Reasons for the Final Rule
    Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 
improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) 
provides for the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Other Than Automobiles.'' The program covers consumer products and 
certain commercial products (all of which are referred to hereafter as 
``covered products''), including residential cooking products. (42 
U.S.C. 6292(10)) DOE publishes today's final rule to amend energy 
conservation standards for conventional cooking appliances by 
eliminating standing pilot ignition systems.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Rule
    EPCA provides criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for 
covered products and equipment. As indicated above, any new or amended 
standard for conventional cooking products must be designed to achieve 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)), although 
EPCA precludes DOE from adopting any standard that would not result in 
significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Moreover, 
DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain products, if no test 
procedure has been established for the product; or (2) if DOE 
determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) The Act (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) also provides that, in deciding whether a standard is 
economically justified, DOE must, after receiving comments on the 
proposed standard, determine whether the benefits of the standard 
exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, 
weighing seven factors as described in section II.A of the preamble. 
EPCA directs DOE to undertake energy conversation standards rulemakings 
for cooking products according to the schedules established in 42 
U.S.C. 6295(h)(2).
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    Through market research, interviews with manufacturers of all 
sizes, and discussions with trade groups, DOE was able to identify two 
small businesses that manufacture conventional cooking appliances which 
would be affected by today's rule.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    Potential impacts on all manufacturers of conventional cooking 
appliances vary by TSL. Margins for all businesses could be impacted 
negatively by the adoption of any TSL, since all manufacturers have 
expressed an inability to pass on cost increases to retailers and 
consumers. The two small domestic businesses under discussion differ 
from their competitors in that they are focused on cooking appliances 
and are not diversified appliance manufacturers. Therefore, any rule 
affecting products manufactured by these small businesses will impact 
them disproportionately because of their size and their focus on 
cooking appliances. However, due to the low number of competitors that 
agreed to be interviewed, DOE was not able to characterize this 
industry segment with a separate cash-flow analysis due to concerns 
about maintaining confidentiality and uncertainty regarding the 
quantitative impact on revenues of a standing pilot ban.
    At TSL 1 for gas ovens and gas cooktops, the elimination of 
standing pilot lights would eliminate one of the niches that these two 
small businesses serve in the cooking appliance industry. Both 
businesses also manufacture ovens and cooktops with electronic ignition 
systems, but the ignition source would no longer be a differentiator 
within the industry as it is today. The result would be a potential 
loss of market share since consumers would be able to choose from a 
wider variety of competitors, all of which operate at much higher 
production scales.
    For all other TSLs concerning conventional cooking appliances 
(which have not been selected in today's final rule), the impact on 
small, focused business entities would be proportionately greater than 
for their competitors since these businesses lack the scale to afford 
significant R&D expenses, capital expansion budgets, and other 
resources when compared to larger entities. The exact extent to which 
smaller entities would be affected, however, is hard to gauge, because 
manufacturers did not respond to questions regarding all investment 
requirements by TSL during interviews. Notwithstanding this limitation, 
research associated with other small entities in prior rulemakings 
suggests that many costs associated with complying with rulemakings are 
fixed, regardless of production volume.
    Since all domestic manufacturers already manufacture all of their 
conventional cooking appliances with electronic ignition modules as a 
standard feature or as an option for consumers, the cost of converting 
the remaining three domestic manufacturers exclusively to electronic 
ignition modules would be relatively modest. However, given their focus 
and scale, any conventional cooking appliance rule would affect these 
two domestic small businesses disproportionately compared to their 
larger and more diversified competitor.
5. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
    Peerless-Premier commented in response to the October 2008 NOPR 
that it is a privately held company that employs about 300 people 
located at two manufacturing plants. Peerless-Premier focuses on the 
value segment of the market, with a large percentage of its business 
attributable to standing pilot ranges, which represent half of the gas 
ranges it produces. That company stated that DOE's proposed ban on 
standing pilot ranges would have a disastrous effect on Peerless-
Premier's business. It commented that it has remained competitive 
largely because of niche positioning in the market, and that many 
customers choose its product line because of the standing pilot ranges. 
Without this ``sell benefit,'' Peerless-Premier believes much of its 
business could go elsewhere, which would ultimately result in 
significant job losses

[[Page 16092]]

at its two manufacturing sites. (Peerless-Premier, No. 42 at pp. 1-2; 
Peerless Letter, No. 55 at p. 1) AGA expressed concern that, in 
response to the November 2007 ANOPR, several manufacturers indicated 
they would be harmed if standing pilots were eliminated, but AGA felt 
that small business impacts were not adequately addressed. (AGA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 17)
    As described earlier, DOE contacted two small manufacturers of 
conventional cooking products to determine the extent that eliminating 
standing pilot lights would affect their businesses. Both companies 
stated they would experience material harm. However, because they did 
not provide supporting detail, DOE was not able to quantify the exact 
extent to which smaller entities would be affected. Therefore, DOE 
cannot verify their claims that they would be severely impacted by a 
standard that eliminates standing pilot lights. Furthermore, as 
discussed in section VI.D.2 above, DOE believes alternatives to 
standing pilot lights exist that would meet the standard in today's 
final rule, and the Department does not believe manufacturers will be 
more severely impacted than estimated in the Manufacturers Impact 
Analysis.
6. Steps DOE Has Taken To Minimize the Economic Impact on Small 
Manufacturers
    In today's final rule, the only TSL under consideration for 
conventional cooking appliances is the elimination of standing pilot 
ignition systems for gas ovens and gas cooktops. All manufacturers of 
such appliances with standing pilot systems stated during interviews 
that there are no known alternatives on the market today that would 
allow their appliances to meet safety standards (such as ANSI Z21.1), 
while not using a line-powered ignition system or standing pilots. 
Although battery-powered ignition systems have found application in a 
few cooking products such as the outdoor gas barbeque market, none of 
such systems have yet to find application in indoor cooking appliances. 
During an MIA interview, one manufacturer expressed doubt that any 
third-party supplier would develop such a solution, given the small, 
and shrinking market that standing pilot-equipped ranges represent. 
Another manufacturer stated, however, that while the market share of 
gas cooking products with standing pilot ignition systems has been 
declining, a substantial market is still served by such appliances. DOE 
research suggests that battery-powered ignition systems could be 
incorporated by manufacturers at a modest cost if manufacturer's market 
research suggested that a substantial number of consumers found such a 
product attribute important, and that ignition system manufacturers may 
consider battery-powered ignitions systems a viable niche product when 
these standards are effective. DOE notes that such systems have been 
incorporated successfully in a range of related appliances, such as 
instantaneous water heaters and gas fireplaces. Further, DOE believes 
that there is nothing in the applicable safety standards that would 
prohibit such ignition systems from being implemented on gas cooking 
products. Therefore, DOE believes that households that use gas for 
cooking and are without electricity will likely have technological 
options that would enable them to continue to use gas cooking products 
without standing pilot ignition systems.
    In addition to the TSL being considered, the TSD associated with 
this final rule includes a report referred to in section VII.A in the 
preamble as the RIA (discussed earlier in this report and in detail in 
chapter 17 of the TSD accompanying this notice). For conventional 
cooking appliances, this report discusses the following policy 
alternatives: (1) No standard, (2) consumer rebates, (3) consumer tax 
credits, (4) manufacturer tax credits, and (5) early replacement. With 
the exception of consumer rebates, the energy savings of these 
regulatory alternatives are at least three times smaller than those 
expected from the standard levels under consideration. The economic 
impacts mirror these regulatory alternatives.
    The conventional cooking appliance industry is very competitive. 
The two small businesses differentiate their products from most of 
their larger competitors by offering their products in non-traditional 
sizes and with standing pilot ignition systems. Three primary consumer 
groups purchasing standing pilot-equipped products were identified by 
manufacturers in their MIA interviews: (1) Consumers without line power 
near the range (or in the house); (2) consumers who prefer appliances 
without line power for religious reasons; and (3) consumers seeking the 
lowest initial appliance cost. Manufacturers could not identify the 
size of the respective market segments, but demographics suggest that 
initial price is the primary reason that consumers are opting for 
standing pilot-equipped ranges. Consumer subgroups that eschew line 
power and homes without line power cannot alone explain why up to 18 
percent of gas cooking appliances are bought with standing pilot 
ignition systems. Furthermore, all manufacturers already make gas 
ranges with electronic ignition, including the high-volume domestic 
manufacturer of conventional cooking appliances with standing pilots. 
Thus, the primary benefit of standing pilot ignition systems appears to 
be the differentiation of the small businesses from most higher-volume 
competitors. While the actual revenue benefit is hard to quantify, both 
small business manufacturers stated during interviews that the company 
would expect to experience material economic harm if standing pilot 
ignition systems were eliminated.
    Due to the low number of small business respondents to DOE 
inquiries and the uncertainty regarding the potential impact of TSL 1 
on small conventional cooking appliance manufacturers, DOE was not able 
to conduct a separate small business impact analysis.
    As mentioned above, the other policy alternatives (no standard, 
consumer rebates, consumer tax credits, manufacturer tax credits, and 
early replacement) are described in section VII.A of the preamble and 
in the regulatory impact analysis (chapter 17 of the TSD accompanying 
this notice). Since the impacts of these policy alternatives are lower 
than the impacts described above for the proposed standard levels, DOE 
expects that the impacts to small manufacturers would also be less than 
the impacts described above for the proposed standard level.
    DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on 
February 19, 2003. The previous discussion describes how small business 
impacts entered into DOE's selection of today's standards for 
conventional cooking products. DOE made its decision regarding 
standards by beginning with the highest level considered (TSL 4) and 
successively eliminating TSLs until it found a TSL that is both 
technically feasible and economically justified, taking into account 
other EPCA criteria. As discussed previously, DOE did not receive 
detailed data from small manufacturers to quantify the impacts of 
today's standards on small manufacturers of conventional cooking 
products.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    DOE stated in the October 2008 NOPR that this rulemaking would 
impose no new information and recordkeeping requirements, and that OMB 
clearance

[[Page 16093]]

is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.). 73 FR 62034, 62130 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE received no comments 
on this in response to the October 2008 NOPR and, as with the proposed 
rule, today's rule imposes no information and recordkeeping 
requirements. Therefore, DOE has taken no further action in this 
rulemaking with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE prepared an environmental assessment of the impacts of the 
potential standards it considered for today's final rule which it has 
published as chapter 16 within the TSD for the final rule. DOE found 
the environmental effects associated with today's standard levels for 
conventional cooking products to be insignificant. Therefore, DOE is 
issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508), and DOE's regulations for compliance with the NEPA 
(10 CFR part 1021). The FONSI is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735.
    In accordance with DOE's statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of regulations that have Federalism implications, DOE 
examined the proposed rule and determined that the rule would not have 
a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 73 FR 
62034, 62131 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE received no comments on this issue in 
response to the October 2008 NOPR, and its conclusions on this issue 
are the same for the final rule as they were for the proposed rule. 
Therefore, DOE is taking no further action in today's final rule with 
respect to Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    As indicated in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE reviewed the proposed 
rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4) (UMRA), which imposes requirements on Federal agencies when 
their regulatory actions will have certain types of impacts on State, 
local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. 73 FR 62034, 
62131 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE concluded that, although the proposed rule 
would not contain an intergovernmental mandate, it might result in 
expenditure of $100 million or more in one year by the private sector. 
Id. Therefore, in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE addressed the UMRA 
requirements that it prepare a statement as to the basis, costs, 
benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed rule, and that it 
identify and consider regulatory alternatives to the proposed rule. Id. 
DOE received no comments concerning the UMRA in response to the October 
2008 NOPR. However, as explained above, a number of products originally 
bundled in this rulemaking have either had standards set separately or 
will be subject to further rulemaking action. Consequently, this final 
rule will not result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Therefore, DOE is taking no further action in today's final 
rule with respect to the UMRA.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    DOE determined that, for this rulemaking, it need not prepare a 
Family Policymaking Assessment under Section 654 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277). Id. DOE 
received no comments concerning Section 654 in response to the October 
2008 NOPR, and, therefore, takes no further action in today's final 
rule with respect to this provision.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE determined under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions 
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'' 53 
FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that the proposed rule would not result in 
any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution. 73 FR 62034, 62131 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE 
received no comments concerning Executive Order 12630 in response to 
the October 2008 NOPR, and, therefore, takes no further action in 
today's final rule with respect to this Executive Order.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR

[[Page 16094]]

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the OMB 
and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with 
applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. DOE 
determined that the proposed rule was not a ``significant energy 
action'' within the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 73 FR 62034, 
62132 (Oct. 17, 2008). Accordingly, it did not prepare a Statement of 
Energy Effects on the proposed rule. DOE received no comments on this 
issue in response to the October 2008 NOPR. As with the proposed rule, 
DOE has concluded that today's final rule is not a significant energy 
action within the meaning of Executive Order 13211, and has not 
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the rule.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, the OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology, issued its ``Final Information Quality Bulletin 
for Peer Review'' (the Bulletin), which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 14, 2005. 70 FR 2664. The purpose of the Bulletin 
is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Federal government's 
scientific information. The Bulletin establishes that certain 
scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists 
before it is disseminated by the Federal government. As indicated in 
the October 2008 NOPR, this includes influential scientific information 
related to agency regulatory actions, such as the analyses in this 
rulemaking. 73 FR 62034, 62132 (Oct. 17, 2008).
    As more fully set forth in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE held formal 
in-progress peer reviews of the types of analyses and processes that 
DOE has used in considering energy conservation standards as part of 
this rulemaking, and issued a report on these peer reviews. Id.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report 
regarding the issuance of today's final rule. The report will state 
that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Energy Conservation test 
procedures, Household appliances, Imports.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31, 2009.
Steven G. Chalk,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, chapter II, subchapter D, of 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 430 is amended to 
read as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
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.

0
2. Section 430.32 of subpart C is amended by revising paragraph (j) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and effective 
dates.

* * * * *
    (j) Cooking Products. (1) Gas cooking products with an electrical 
supply cord shall not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. 
This standard is effective on January 1, 1990.
    (2) Gas cooking products without an electrical supply cord shall 
not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. This standard is 
effective on April 9, 2012.
* * * * *

Appendix

[The following letter from the Department of Justice will not appear 
in the Code of Federal Regulations.]

[[Page 16095]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP09.000


[[Page 16096]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP09.001

[FR Doc. E9-7545 Filed 4-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C