[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33030-33098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13764]



[[Page 33029]]

Vol. 80

Wednesday,

No. 111

June 10, 2015

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 430





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Conventional Ovens; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 33030]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AD15


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Conventional Ovens

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer 
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
residential conventional ovens. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department 
of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent, amended standards 
would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would 
save a significant amount of energy. DOE is proposing new and amended 
energy conservation standards for residential conventional ovens. DOE 
is also announcing a public meeting to receive comment on these 
proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 2015, from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast 
as a webinar. See section VII Public Participation for webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public 
meeting, but no later than August 10, 2015. See section VII Public 
Participation for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945. Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. For 
more information, refer to the Public Participation section near the 
end of this notice.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy 
Conservation Standards for residential conventional cooking products, 
and provide docket number EE-2014-BT-STD-0005 and/or regulatory 
information number (RIN) number 1904-AD15. Comments may be submitted 
using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. 
Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the 
message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to 
include printed copies.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to 
[email protected].
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005. This Web 
page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the 
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section VII for further information on how to submit 
comments through www.regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John Cymbalsky, 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) 287-1692. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits and Costs
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Conventional 
Cooking Products
III. General Discussion
    A. Scope of Coverage
    B. Further Rulemaking To Consider Energy Conservation Standards 
for Conventional Cooking Tops
    C. Test Procedure
    D. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    E. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    F. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. General
    2. Product Classes
    3. Technology Options
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. Screened-Out Technologies
    2. Remaining Technologies
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Methodology
    2. Product Testing and Reverse Engineering
    3. Efficiency Levels
    4. Incremental Manufacturing Production Cost Estimates
    5. Consumer Utility
    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

[[Page 33031]]

    1. Product Costs
    2. Installation Costs
    3. Unit Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    6. Product Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Compliance Date
    9. Base Case Efficiency Distribution
    10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis
    11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period
    G. Shipments Analysis
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. Efficiency Trends
    2. National Energy Savings
    3. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit
    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
    3. Discussion of Comments
    4. Manufacturer Interviews
    K. Emissions Analysis
    L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    3. National Impact Analysis
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    7. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    8. Other Factors
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Conventional 
Ovens
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    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
VII. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as 
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles.\2\ These products include residential 
conventional ovens, the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical 
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
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)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must 
result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and other statutory provisions 
discussed in this notice, DOE proposes new and amended energy 
conservation standards for residential conventional ovens. The proposed 
standards, which are the maximum allowable integrated annual energy 
consumption (IAEC), are shown in Table I-1. The integrated annual 
energy consumption includes active mode (including fan-only mode for 
conventional ovens), standby mode, and off mode energy use. These 
proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all products listed in 
Table I-1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on 
or after the date three years after the publication of any final rule 
for this rulemaking. The proposed standards correspond to trial 
standard level (TSL) 2, which is described in section V.A. DOE also 
notes that any newly adopted performance standards for conventional 
ovens resulting from this current rulemaking would not affect the 
current prescriptive standards prohibiting constant burning pilots for 
all gas cooking products (10 CFR 430.32(j)).

Table I-1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum integrated annual
             Product class                  energy consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard Oven, Free-standing..  122.5 + (31.8 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Electric Standard Oven, Built-In/Slide-  128.6 + (31.8 x Rated Cavity
 In.                                      Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Electric Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing  163.2 + (42.3 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Electric Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/      169.1 + (42.3 x Rated Cavity
 Slide-In.                                Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Gas Standard Oven, Free-Standing.......  492.9 + (214.4 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Gas Standard Oven, Built-In/Slide-In...  499.5 + (214.4 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Gas Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing.....  746.7 + (214.4 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Gas Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/Slide-In.  755.5 + (214.4 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The Rated Cavity Volume is the volume of the oven cavity in cubic
  feet as measured using the final DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part
  430, subpart B, appendix I.

    As discussed in section III.B, DOE has decided to defer its 
decision regarding whether to adopt amended energy conservation 
standards for conventional cooking tops, pending further rulemaking. In 
both the test procedure NOPR published on January 30, 2013 (78 FR 6232, 
the January 2013 TP NOPR) and the test procedure supplemental NOPR 
(SNOPR) published on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71894, the December 2014 
TP SNOPR), DOE proposed amendments to the cooking products test 
procedure in Appendix I to subpart B of Title 10 of the CFR part 430 
that would allow for the testing of active mode energy consumption of 
induction cooking tops. After reviewing public comments on the December 
2014 TP SNOPR, conducting interviews with manufacturers, and performing

[[Page 33032]]

additional analyses, DOE believes further study is required before a 
cooking top test procedure can be established that produces test 
results which measure energy use during a representative average use 
cycle, is repeatable and reproducible, and is not unduly burdensome to 
conduct. For these reasons, this NOPR is limited to addressing energy 
conservation standards for conventional ovens. As discussed in section 
III.A, the proposed standards would cover conventional ovens, including 
conventional ovens that are a part of conventional ranges. DOE intends 
to complete the rulemaking process for conventional cooking tops once 
additional key data and information become available.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I-2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
proposed standards on consumers of residential conventional ovens, as 
measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple 
payback period (PBP).\3\ The average LCC savings are positive for all 
product classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of the 
equipment, which is estimated to be 15 years for electric and 17 years 
for gas ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The average LCC savings are measured relative to the base-
case efficiency distribution, which depicts the market in the 
compliance year (see section IV.F.9). The simple PBP, which is 
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative 
to the baseline model.

 Table I-2--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards (TSL 2) on
               Consumers of Residential Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Average LCC   Simple payback
              Product class                  savings *         period
                                              (2014$)         (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard Oven, Free-standing...          $15.18             4.0
Electric Standard Oven, Built-in/Slide-            15.25             4.0
 in.....................................
Electric Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing.           14.10             0.9
Electric Self-Clean Oven, Built-in/Slide-          14.20             0.9
 in.....................................
Gas Standard Oven, Free-Standing........          289.73             1.7
Gas Standard Oven, Built-in/Slide-in....          289.77             1.7
Gas Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing......          282.80             1.2
Gas Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/Slide-in..          282.85             1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no
  impact).

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
consumers is described in section IV.F of this notice.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted 
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the 
analysis period (2015 to 2048). Using a real discount rate of 9.1 
percent, DOE estimates that the industry net present value (INPV) for 
manufacturers of residential conventional ovens is $783.5 million in 
2014$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may 
lose up to 11.0 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $86.4 
million in 2014$. Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the 
manufacturers of residential conventional ovens, DOE does not expect 
any plant closings or significant loss of employment.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this NOPR notice.

C. National Benefits and Costs \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2013 
dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a 
significant amount of energy. The lifetime energy savings from 
residential conventional oven products purchased in the 30-year period 
that begins in the assumed year of compliance with the proposed 
standards (2019-2048), relative to the base case without the proposed 
standards, amount to 0.71 quadrillion Btu (quads).\5\ This represents a 
savings of 11.2 percent relative to the energy use of these products in 
the base case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A quad is equal to 10\15\ British thermal units (Btu). The 
quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. FFC energy 
savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of 
energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 
see section IV.H.2.
     A quad is equal to 10\15\ British thermal units (Btu).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 
savings of the proposed standards for ovens in residential conventional 
cooking products ranges from $4.7 billion (at a 7-percent discount 
rate) to $11.0 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV 
expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings 
minus the estimated increased product costs for products purchased in 
2019-2048.
    In addition, the proposed standards would have significant 
environmental benefits. The energy savings described above are 
estimated to result in cumulative emission reductions of 41.1 million 
metric tons (Mt) \6\ of carbon dioxide (CO2), 221.2 thousand 
tons of methane, 29.5 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 
69 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 0.52 thousand 
tons of nitrous oxide (N2O), and 0.09 tons of mercury 
(Hg).\7\ The cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions through 
2030 amounts to 7.5 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting 
from the annual electricity use of 0.7 million homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the Annual 
Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO 2014) Reference case, which generally 
represents current legislation and environmental regulations for 
which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 
2013.

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

[[Page 33033]]

    The value of the CO2 reductions is calculated using a 
range of values per metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 
the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent Federal 
interagency process.\8\ The derivation of the SCC values is discussed 
in section IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC 
values (see Table I-4), DOE estimates the present monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reduction is between $0.3 billion and $4.1 
billion, with a value of $1.3 billion using the central SCC case 
represented by $41.2/t in 2015.\9\ DOE also estimates the present 
monetary value of the NOX emissions reduction, is $0.1 
billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.2 billion at a 3-percent 
discount rate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working 
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; 
revised November 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.
    \9\ The values only include CO2 emissions, not 
CO2 equivalent emissions; other gases with global warming 
potential are not included.
    \10\ DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and 
SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I-3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits 
expected to result from the proposed standards for residential 
conventional ovens.

 Table I-3--Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed
   Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Ovens *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Present value
             Category               (Billion 2014$)    Discount rate (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings...........                5.0                 7
                                                11.6                 3
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                    0.3                 5
 ($12.2.0/t case) **.............
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                    1.3                 3
 ($41.2/t case) **...............
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                    2.1                 2.5
 ($63.4/t case) **...............
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                    4.1                 3
 ($121/t case) **................
NOX Reduction Monetized Value                    0.1                 7
 [dagger]........................                0.2                 3
Total Benefits [dagger][dagger]..                6.4                 7
                                                13.2                 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Installed Costs......                0.3                 7
                                                 0.6                 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including Emissions Reduction                    6.1                 7
 Monetized Value [dagger][dagger]               12.6                 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with residential
  conventional ovens shipped in 2019-2048. These results include impacts
  to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in
  2019-2048. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed
  costs incurred by manufacturers due to any final standard, some of
  which may be incurred in preparation for the rule.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in
  2014$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The
  first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated
  using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case
  represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated
  using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an
  escalation factor.
[dagger] The $/ton values used for NOX are described in section IV.L.2.
[dagger][dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived
  using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount
  rate ($40.5/t case).

    The benefits and costs of these proposed standards, for products 
sold in 2019-2048, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. 
The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized 
national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of 
products that meet the new or amended standards (consisting primarily 
of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in 
equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of 
the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 emission 
reductions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2014, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from 
each year to 2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 
percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of 
CO2 reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount 
rates, as shown in Table I.3. Using the present value, DOE then 
calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting 
in the compliance year that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although DOE believes that the values of operating savings and 
CO2 emission reductions are both important, two issues are 
relevant. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. 
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 
transactions, whereas the value of CO2 reductions is based 
on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings 
and CO2 savings are performed with different methods that 
use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost 
savings is measured for the lifetime of residential conventional ovens 
shipped in 2019-2048. Because CO2 emissions have a very long 
residence time in the atmosphere,\12\ the SCC values in future years 
reflect future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 
CO2 that continue well beyond 2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of 
the order of 30-95 years. Jacobson, MZ (2005). ``Correction to 
``Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic 
matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global 
warming.'' '' J. Geophys. Res. 110. pp. D14105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards are shown in Table I-4. The results under

[[Page 33034]]

the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate 
for benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which 
DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series 
that has a value of $41.2/t in 2015, the cost of the proposed standards 
is $33.5 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the 
benefits are $494 million per year in reduced equipment operating 
costs, $74 million in CO2 reductions, and $9 million in 
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts 
to $543 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 
benefits and costs and the average SCC series that has a value of 
$41.2/t in 2015, the cost of the proposed standards is $33.1 million 
per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $648 
million per year in reduced operating costs, $74 million in 
CO2 reductions, and $13 million in reduced NOX 
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $701 million per 
year.

                  Table I-4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Ovens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          (million 2014$/year)
                                                                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Discount rate                                            Low net benefits        High net benefits
                                                                                  Primary estimate *           estimate *               estimate *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings.............  7%......................................  494....................  457....................  542.
                                     3%......................................  648....................  593....................  719.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value        5%......................................  21.....................  20.....................  24.
 ($12.2/t case) *.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value        3%......................................  74.....................  68.....................  81.
 ($41.2/t case) *.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value        2.5%....................................  108....................  100....................  119.
 ($63.4/t case) *.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($121/ 3%......................................  228....................  211....................  252.
 t case) *.
NOX Reduction Monetized              7%......................................  9.24...................  8.66...................  10.11.
 Value[dagger].                      3%......................................  13.43..................  12.46..................  14.80.
Total Benefits [dagger][dagger]....  7% plus CO2 range.......................  524 to 731.............  485 to 677.............  576 to 804.
                                     7%......................................  577....................  534....................  634.
                                     3% plus CO2 range.......................  682 to 889.............  625 to 817.............  758 to 986.
                                     3%......................................  734....................  674....................  815.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs.  7%......................................  34.....................  34.....................  33.
                                     3%......................................  33.....................  34.....................  33.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger][dagger].............  7% plus CO2 range.......................  491 to 697.............  451 to 642.............  543 to 771.
                                     7%......................................  543....................  499....................  601.
                                     3% plus CO2 range.......................  649 to 856.............  592 to 783.............  725 to 953.
                                     3%......................................  701....................  640....................  783.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with residential conventional ovens shipped in 2019-2048. These results include
  benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2014-2043. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed
  costs incurred by manufacturers due to any final standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and
  High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2015 \13\ Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In
  addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high
  decline rate f in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three
  cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th
  percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor.
[dagger] The $/ton values used for NOX are described in section IV.L.2.
[dagger][dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with 3-percent discount rate
  ($41.2/t case). In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the
  labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

    DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is 
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/AEO/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Conclusion

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that products 
achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for 
at least some, if not most, product classes covered by this proposal. 
Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively concluded 
that the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy 
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and 
emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for 
manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).
    DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as 
trial standard levels, and is considering them in this rulemaking. 
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of 
the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the 
projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE 
receives in response to this notice and related information collected 
and

[[Page 33035]]

analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 
energy efficiency levels presented in this notice that are either 
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of 
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical 
background related to the establishment of standards for residential 
cooking products.

A. Authority

    Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other 
Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances 
(collectively referred to as ``covered products''), which includes 
residential cooking products \14\, and specifically residential 
conventional ovens, that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 
6292(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these 
products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and directed DOE to conduct 
rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(h)(2)) (DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must 
periodically review its already established energy conservation 
standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, the next 
review that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six 
years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a 
standard for a covered product.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ DOE's regulations define kitchen ranges and ovens, or 
``cooking products'', as one of the following classes: Conventional 
ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave 
ovens, microwave/conventional ranges and other cooking products. (10 
CFR 430.2) Based on this definition, in this notice, DOE interprets 
kitchen ranges and ovens to refer more generally to all types of 
cooking products including, for example, microwave ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered 
products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; 
(3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) 
certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the 
remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, 
DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy 
efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each 
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 
these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with 
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE test procedures for 
residential conventional cooking products currently appear at title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix 
I (Appendix I).
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products. As indicated above, any new or 
amended standard for a covered product 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)) 
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in 
the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain products, 
including residential conventional ovens, 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)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven statutory 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 the covered 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, or as applicable, water, 
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
    5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, 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 covered 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. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, 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 savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when 
promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has 
two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level 
than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for 
any group of covered products that have the same function or intended 
use if DOE determines that 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. (42 U.S.C. 6294(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of

[[Page 33036]]

products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer 
of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on 
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(2))
    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
    Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in section 310(3) of 
EISA 2007, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation 
standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address 
standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg) (3)) 
Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after 
that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of 
standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 
off mode energy use into the standard, or, if that is not feasible, 
adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for 
residential conventional cooking products address standby mode and off 
mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such 
energy use into any amended energy conservation standards it adopts in 
the final rule.
    DOE has also reviewed this proposed regulation pursuant to 
Executive Order 13563. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 
supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, 
and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive 
Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by 
Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing 
that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with 
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative 
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent 
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; 
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present 
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its 
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
DOE believes that the NOPR is consistent with these principles, 
including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, 
benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized. Consistent 
with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, 
the energy efficiency standards proposed herein by DOE achieve maximum 
net benefits. For further discussion of how this NOPR achieves maximum 
net benefits, see section V.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In a final rule published on April 8, 2009 (April 2009 Final Rule), 
DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for 
residential cooking products to prohibit constant burning pilots for 
all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both with or 
without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on or after April 9, 
2012. 74 FR 16040, 16041-16044. DOE's regulations, codified at 10 CFR 
430.2, define conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and 
conventional ranges as classes of cooking products. As noted in the 
April 2009 Final Rule, DOE considered standards for conventional 
cooking tops and conventional ovens separately, and noted that any 
cooking top or oven standard would apply to the individual components 
of the conventional range. 74 FR 16040, 16053.
    Based on DOE's review of gas cooking products available on the 
market in the United States, DOE notes that there may be confusion 
regarding how the current standards apply to different pilot ignition 
systems. Specifically, DOE is aware of a gas range that is designed to 
heat and cook food based on the principle of heat storage. A low input 
rate burner continuously heats the cooking top surface and cast iron 
oven cavities, and maintains these components at a constant 
temperature. A secondary ``pilot burner'' is used to ignite the main 
burner and this pilot remains lit between cooking cycles as well as 
when the main burner is shut off for short periods of non-use. Although 
the secondary pilot may provide additional heating to the body of the 
range, its primary function is to ignite the main burner, and would 
thus be considered a constant burning pilot because it is a continuous 
gas flame used to ignite the gas at the main burner. It is the main 
burner that provides the primary source of heat for the cooking 
function of the range.
    In this NOPR, DOE is clarifying that a constant burning pilot in 
conventional cooking products is considered to be a continuous gas 
flame having the primary purpose to ignite the gas at the burner(s) 
that is (are) used to heat or cook food and which remains lit between 
cooking cycles. The design and configuration, including whether it 
incorporates any air premixing or whether it has a secondary heating 
function, does not exclude the device from consideration as constant 
burning pilot.
    DOE also notes that any newly adopted performance standards for 
conventional cooking products resulting from this current rulemaking 
would not affect the current prescriptive standards prohibiting 
constant burning pilots for all gas cooking products.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Conventional Cooking 
Products
    The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 
Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for 
gas cooking products, requiring gas ranges and ovens with an electrical 
supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, not to 
be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. NAECA also directed 
DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent 
or additional standards were justified for kitchen ranges and ovens. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295 (h)(1)-(2))
    DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a 
final rule on September 8, 1998, which found that no standards were 
justified for conventional electric cooking products at that time. In 
addition, partially due to the difficulty of conclusively demonstrating 
that elimination of standing pilots for conventional gas

[[Page 33037]]

cooking products without an electrical supply cord was economically 
justified, DOE did not include amended standards for conventional gas 
cooking products in the final rule. 63 FR 48038. For the second cycle 
of rulemakings, DOE published the April 2009 Final Rule amending the 
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products to 
prohibit constant burning pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., 
gas cooking products both with or without an electrical supply cord) 
manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. DOE decided to not adopt energy 
conservation standards pertaining to the cooking efficiency of 
conventional electric cooking products because it determined that such 
standards would not be technologically feasible and economically 
justified at that time. 74 FR 16040, 16041-16044.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE decided not to 
adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking 
efficiency of microwave ovens. DOE also published a final rule on 
June 17, 2013 adopting energy conservation standards for microwave 
oven standby mode and off mode. 78 FR 36316. DOE is not considering 
energy conservation standards for microwave ovens as part of this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance 
of a final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE publish a NOPR 
proposing new standards or a notice of determination that the existing 
standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Based on 
this provision, DOE must publish by March 31, 2015, either a NOPR 
proposing new standards for conventional electric cooking products and/
or amended standards for conventional gas cooking products \16\ or a 
notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be 
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As discussed in section III.A, DOE is also tentatively 
planning to consider new energy conservation standards for gas 
cooking products with higher burner input rates, which were 
previously excluded from standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 12, 2014, DOE published a request for information (RFI) 
notice (the February 2014 RFI) to initiate the mandatory review process 
imposed by EPCA. As part of the RFI, DOE sought input from the public 
to assist with its determination on whether new or amended standards 
pertaining to conventional cooking products are warranted. 79 FR 8337. 
In making this determination, DOE must evaluate whether new or amended 
standards would (1) yield a significant savings in energy use and (2) 
be both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B))

III. General Discussion

A. Scope of Coverage

    As discussed in section II.A, 6292(a)(10) of EPCA covers kitchen 
ranges and ovens, or ``cooking products.'' DOE's regulations define 
``cooking products'' as consumer products that are used as the major 
household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat 
different types of food by one or more of the following sources of 
heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist 
of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units \17\ 
and/or one or more heating compartments. They must be one of the 
following classes: Conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, 
conventional ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges and 
other cooking products. (10 CFR 430.2) In this NOPR, DOE is considering 
energy conservation standards for certain residential conventional 
cooking products, namely, conventional ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The term surface unit refers to burners for gas cooking 
tops, electric resistance heating elements for electric cooking 
tops, and inductive heating elements for induction cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that conventional ranges are defined in 10 CFR 430.2 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. In this rulemaking, DOE is not considering gas and 
electric conventional ranges as a distinct product category and is not 
basing its product classes on that category. Instead, DOE plans to 
consider energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops 
and conventional ovens separately. Because ranges consist of both a 
cooking top and oven, any potential cooking top or oven standards would 
apply to the individual components of the range. DOE invites comment on 
its proposal to develop two distinct component standards under separate 
timetables, and whether issues of product design and development, 
consumer utility, and more broadly, cumulative regulatory burden 
concerns that could arise as a result of its proposal (see sections 
IV.J and VII.E). DOE anticipates issuing a NOPR for energy conservation 
standards for cooktops in the next year. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing 
to clarify in the definitions of conventional cooking tops and 
conventional ovens, in 10 CFR 430.2, that these include the individual 
cooking top or oven portion of a conventional range.
    As part of the most recent standards rulemaking for conventional 
cooking products, DOE decided to exclude residential conventional gas 
cooking products with higher burner input rates, including products 
marketed as ``commercial-style'' or ``professional-style,'' from 
consideration of energy conservation standards due to a lack of 
available data for determining efficiency characteristics of those 
products. DOE considers these products to be gas cooking tops with 
burner input rates greater than 14,000 British thermal units (Btu)/hour 
(h) and gas ovens with burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 74 
FR 16040, 16054 (Apr. 8, 2009); 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 
2007). DOE also stated that the current DOE cooking products test 
procedures may not adequately measure performance of gas cooking tops 
and ovens with higher burner input rates. 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 
(Nov. 15, 2007).
    As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that it tentatively 
planned to consider energy conservation standards for all residential 
conventional cooking products, including gas cooking products with 
higher burner input rates. In addition, DOE stated that it may consider 
developing test procedures for these products and determine whether 
separate product classes are warranted. 79 FR 8337, 8340 (Feb. 12, 
2014).
    The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and 
Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) commented that because there is no 
test procedure to test commercial-style products, they cannot 
effectively comment on how these products should be treated in a 
standards rulemaking, nor can DOE effectively evaluate their energy 
use. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 2; \18\ Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 2) AHAM 
added that nothing has changed since DOE determined in the April 2009 
Final Rule that it lacks efficiency data to determine whether 
commercial-style cooking products should be excluded from the 
rulemaking, and thus, DOE cannot make a tentative conclusion to 
consider energy conservation standards for commercial-style products. 
(AHAM, STD No. 9 at pp. 2-3) In response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR, 
Sub Zero Group, Inc. (Sub Zero) stated that DOE's conclusion that the 
existing test procedure in Appendix I should be used to test ovens with 
high input rates is incorrect. Sub Zero commented that, due to the lack 
of data, complexity, and

[[Page 33038]]

small potential for energy savings, DOE should exempt commercial-style 
or ``high performance'' products from coverage. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at 
p. 3 \19\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A notation in the form ``AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 2'' 
identifies a written comment (1) made by AHAM; (2) recorded in 
document number 9 that is filed in the docket of this energy 
conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005) 
and maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies 
Program; and (3) which appears on page 2 of document number 9.
    \19\ A notation in the form ``Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 3'' 
identifies a written comment (1) made by Sub Zero; (2) recorded in 
document number 20 that is filed in the docket of the concurrent 
cooking products test procedures rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2012-
BT-TP-0013) and maintained in the Resource Room of the Building 
Technologies Program; and (3) which appears on page 3 of document 
number 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas 
Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern 
California Edison (SCE) (collectively, the California investor-owned 
utilities (IOUs)) supported DOE's decision to consider standards for 
professional-style gas cooking products and commented that DOE should 
refer to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z83.11-
2006/CSA Standard 1.8-2006 (R2011), ``Gas Food Service Equipment,'' 
when developing a definition for these products. (California IOUs, STD 
No. 11 at p. 1)
    As discussed in section III.B, DOE proposed to amend the 
conventional cooking top test procedure in Appendix I to, among other 
things, measure the energy use of gas cooking tops with high burner 
input rates and to clarify that the existing conventional oven test 
procedure is appropriate for ovens with high burner input rates, 
including products marketed as commercial-style. See 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 
3, 2014). DOE notes that the current definitions for ``conventional 
cooking top,'' ``conventional oven,'' and ``conventional range'' in 10 
CFR 430.2 already cover conventional gas cooking products with higher 
burner input rates, as these products are household cooking appliances 
with surface units or compartments intended for the cooking or heating 
of food by means of a gas flame. As a result, DOE is proposing energy 
conservation standards for all residential conventional cooking 
products, including gas cooking products with higher burner input 
rates. As discussed in section IV.A.2, DOE is not considering 
establishing a separate product class for gas cooking products with 
higher burner input rates that are marketed as ``commercial-style'' 
and, as a result, DOE is not proposing separate definitions for these 
products.
    Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) commented that DOE should 
separately define commercial and residential gas cooking products. NRDC 
noted that because of the availability of residential gas cooking tops 
with higher burner input rates previously associated with commercial 
use, these burner types are not what define commercial units. NRDC 
stated that the definitions should be based on more fundamental 
distinctions between commercial and residential products, such as 
configuration of the burners on the cooking top, number of burners, or 
number of high-input rate burners. (NRDC, STD No. 12 at p. 2) As part 
of this rulemaking, DOE is considering energy conservation standards 
for residential conventional cooking products. As discussed above, this 
includes residential conventional gas cooking products with high burner 
input rates, including those marketed as commercial-style. For these 
products, DOE tentatively concludes that the existing definitions for 
conventional cooking top, conventional oven, and conventional range 
accurately describe the products that are the subject of this 
rulemaking. In addition, DOE clarifies that the proposed scope of 
coverage for this rulemaking relates only to consumer products. Thus, 
this rule applies to those residential conventional cooking products 
that are of a type which, to any significant extent, are distributed 
into commerce for personal use or consumption. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)). 
These consumer products can be distinguished from commercial/industrial 
equipment, which are of a type not sold for consumer use. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(2)(A)) Thus, DOE is not proposing to define commercial cooking 
products as part of this rulemaking.
    DOE notes that the test procedures for conventional ranges, cooking 
tops, and ovens found at Appendix I do not address all possible types 
of combined cooking products (i.e., residential products that combine a 
conventional cooking product with other appliance functionality, which 
may or may not include another cooking product), such as microwave/
conventional ovens or any other products that may combine a 
conventional cooking product with other appliance functionality that is 
not a conventional cooking product. DOE stated in the February 2014 RFI 
that because test procedures are not available addressing products that 
combine a conventional cooking product with other appliance 
functionality that is not a conventional cooking product (e.g., 
microwave/conventional ovens), DOE is not considering energy 
conservation standards for such products at this time. 79 FR 8337, 8340 
(Feb. 12, 2014).
    AHAM and Whirlpool agreed with DOE's tentative determination to not 
consider standards for combined cooking products. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at 
p. 3; Whirlpool STD No. 13 at p. 2) AHAM stated that combined products 
are too diverse and probably do not occupy enough of the market to 
justify coverage by DOE. AHAM stated that DOE has not provided 
sufficient analysis on each of these products to justify their 
coverage, nor has DOE provided adequate definitions. Thus, AHAM 
continues to oppose the inclusion of combined products in the scope of 
covered products in the conventional cooking products rulemakings. 
(AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 3) In the absence of comments opposing this 
determination and for the reasons discussed above, DOE is not 
considering energy conservation standards in this NOPR for products 
that may combine a conventional cooking product with other appliance 
functionality that is not a conventional cooking product.

B. Further Rulemaking To Consider Energy Conservation Standards for 
Conventional Cooking Tops

    As part of this rulemaking, DOE intends only to address energy 
conservation standards for conventional ovens, including conventional 
ovens that are a part of conventional ranges. In response to the 
concurrent cooking products test procedure proposed rulemaking, DOE 
received a number of comments from interested parties that presented 
information and arguments for deferring the rulemaking process to 
consider standards for conventional cooking tops until a 
representative, repeatable, and reproducible test procedure could be 
developed. DOE also conducted a series of manufacturer interviews and 
performed additional testing in order to confirm stakeholder comments 
that additional study was warranted before establishing both a test 
procedure and amended standards for conventional cooking tops. These 
comments and DOE's response are discussed below.
    In the January 2013 TP NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to the cooking 
products test procedure in Appendix I to subpart B of Title 10 of the 
CFR part 430 that would allow for testing the active mode energy 
consumption of induction cooking products; i.e., conventional cooking 
tops and ranges equipped with induction heating technology for one or 
more surface units on the cooking top. DOE proposed to incorporate 
induction cooking tops by amending the definition of ``conventional 
cooking top'' to include induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE 
proposed to require for all cooking tops the use of test equipment 
compatible with induction technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to 
replace the solid aluminum test

[[Page 33039]]

blocks currently specified in the test procedure for cooking tops with 
hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: An aluminum body and 
a stainless steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234 (Jan. 30, 2013).
    AHAM commented that DOE should rely on the finalized version of the 
test procedure (i.e., the October 2012 TP Final Rule) and not a 
proposed test procedure when evaluating energy conservation standards, 
particularly given the significant opposing comments that question the 
validity of the proposed test procedure for cooking tops (as discussed 
in AHAM's comments on the January 2013 TP NOPR). Accordingly, AHAM 
stated that DOE should address AHAM's and other stakeholder comments 
regarding induction cooking and finalize amendments to the test 
procedure before using those amendments to conduct any analysis for the 
standards rulemaking, or else proceed without addressing induction 
cooking products in this round of standards rulemaking. (AHAM, STD No. 
9 at pp. 3-4, 6, 7)
    AHAM and Whirlpool commented that a test procedure should be 
developed to address commercial-style cooking products if DOE plans to 
evaluate them in a standards analysis. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 2; 
Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 1) AHAM also commented that DOE should 
either proceed without addressing commercial-style products as it did 
for the April 2009 Final Rule or delay the rulemaking analysis until 
there is a finalized test procedure that can measure commercial-style 
products. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 4, 6, 7) AHAM added that it cannot 
provide data regarding the differences between residential-style and 
commercial-style gas cooking products without a test procedure to 
measure higher input rated burners. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 7) The 
California IOUs supported amending the test procedure to measure the 
energy use of residential conventional gas cooking products with higher 
burner input rates. (California IOUs, STD No. 11 at p. 2)
    In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE modified its proposal from the 
January 2013 TP NOPR to specify different test equipment that would 
allow for measuring the energy efficiency of induction cooking tops, 
and would include an additional test block size for electric surface 
units with large diameters (both induction and electric resistance). 79 
FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). In addition, DOE proposed methods to test non-
circular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible 
concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction cooking tops. Id. 
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed amendments to add a 
larger test block size to test gas cooking top burners with higher 
input rates. Id.
    AHAM formally requested an extension of the comment period for the 
December 2014 TP SNOPR, citing the difficulty the members had procuring 
the specified hybrid test block materials, and noting that many 
manufacturers were not able to properly assess the new specifications, 
testing variation, repeatability, and reproducibility of the proposed 
test procedure before the comment period closed. (AHAM, TP No. 14 at p. 
1) AHAM also expressed concern with DOE's choice to pursue an 
accelerated rulemaking schedule for cooking products, stating that 
DOE's deadlines did not allow for a thorough technical examination. 
AHAM believes DOE has not conducted adequate outreach to manufacturers, 
has not been sufficiently transparent in its data collection and 
analysis, and has failed to adhere to its own Process Improvement Rule, 
which calls for all of the above. AHAM asked DOE to conduct more 
substantive dialogue with stakeholders that would result in more in-
depth comments on the test procedure SNOPR and advised DOE that the 
cooking top test procedure as proposed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR 
may result in technical problems. (AHAM, TP No. 18 at pp. 1-2)
    Both the BSH Home Appliances Corporation (BSH) and General Electric 
Appliances (GE) confirmed that delays associated with acquiring the 
hybrid test block materials meant they needed additional time to 
evaluate DOE's proposed cooking top test procedure. (BSH, TP No. 16 at 
p. 2; GE, TP No. 17 at p. 1) BSH commented that the proposed hybrid 
test block method fails to cover several aspects which are necessary to 
enhance the reproducibility of measuring cooking top energy 
consumption, such as test load sizing and positioning, and recommended 
DOE take into account important specifications which are already fixed 
in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 60350-2 
Edition 2, ``Household electric appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Method for 
measuring performance'' (IEC Standard 60350-2). (BSH, TP No. 16 at p. 
1) Further, both manufacturers and AHAM suggested that DOE specify 
additional test block diameters because the test block sizes proposed 
by DOE do not adequately reflect the surface unit sizes currently 
available on the market. (BSH, TP No. 16 at p. 5; GE, TP No. 17 at p 2; 
AHAM, TP No. 18 at p. 2)
    Stakeholders also expressed a significant number of concerns with 
the use of thermal grease. GE noted that since receiving DOE's 
proposal, it has not been able to replicate the DOE test results using 
the methods described. (GE, TP No. 17 at p. 2) Specifically, GE 
observed that the aluminum body slid off the stainless steel base 
during the test, that the thermal grease dried out, and that the amount 
of grease between the blocks changed from one test to another. (GE, TP 
No. 17 at p. 2) Both manufacturers and AHAM requested that DOE specify 
an operating temperature range for the thermal grease as well as an 
application thickness to address these issues, but also noted that the 
thermal conductivity and viscosity of the grease may still change over 
time or after repeated use at high temperatures. (BSH, TP No. 16 at p. 
11; GE, TP No. 17 at p. 2; AHAM, TP No. 18 at p. 3) GE further 
commented that the variation introduced by the hybrid test block due to 
block construction, flatness, thermal grease, and inadequate sizing, 
may be small sources of variation individually, but collectively, these 
issues result in a test method that is incapable of being able to 
reliably discern efficiency differences between similar products, 
alternate technology options, and product classes. Thus, GE believes 
the test method proposed for conventional cooking tops in the December 
2014 TP SNOPR results in too much variability to serve as the basis for 
establishing a standard. (GE, TP No. 17 at p. 3)
    The California IOUs also stated that they prefer an alternative to 
the hybrid test block and recommended that DOE require water-heating 
test methods to measure the cooking efficiency of conventional cooking 
tops. Specifically, the California IOUs requested that DOE align the 
residential cooking product test methods with existing industry test 
procedures, such as ASTM F1521-12 and IEC Standard 60350-2. (California 
IOUs, TP No. 19 at p. 1) The California IOUs commented that they plan 
to conduct additional testing to better characterize the differences 
between the water-heating and hybrid test block test procedures, and 
will provide these results to DOE. According to the California IOUs, 
the differences in test procedure standard deviation between the hybrid 
test block and water-heating test method as presented in the December 
2014 TP SNOPR did not sufficiently show that the hybrid test block 
method is more repeatable than a water-heating method. (California 
IOUs, TP No. 19 at p. 2) Additionally, the California IOUs believe 
cooking

[[Page 33040]]

efficiencies derived using a water-heating test method are more 
representative of the actual cooking performance of cooking tops as 
opposed to a test procedure using hybrid test blocks since many 
different foods prepared on cooktops will have relatively high liquid 
content. (California IOUs, TP No. 19 at p. 1)
    In February and March of 2015, DOE conducted a series of interviews 
with manufacturers of conventional cooking products, representing the 
majority of the U.S. market, regarding the proposed cooking top test 
procedure. Manufacturers agreed that the hybrid test block method, as 
proposed, presented many issues which had not yet been addressed, and 
which left the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure 
in question. These concerns were similar to those expressed in written 
comments but came from a larger group of contributing manufacturers and 
included:
     Difficulty obtaining the hybrid test block materials;
     Difficulty obtaining and applying the thermal grease 
without more detailed specifications (i.e., thermal conductivity alone 
was not sufficient to identify a grease that performed according to 
DOE's descriptions in the SNOPR);
     Difficulty testing induction cooking tops that use 
different programming techniques to prevent overheating (some 
manufacturers still observed that power to the heating elements cut off 
prematurely during testing with the hybrid test block, despite adding 
thermal grease); and
     The need for larger test block sizes to test electric 
surface units having 12-inch and 13-inch diameters and gas surface 
units with high input rates.
    Interviewed manufacturers that produce and sell products in Europe 
overwhelmingly supported the use of water-heating test method and 
harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 for measuring the energy 
consumption of electric cooking tops. These manufacturers noted that 
the benefits of pursuing a test method similar to the IEC water-heating 
method include compatibility with all electric cooking top types, 
additional cookware diameters to account for the variety of surface 
unit sizes on the market, and the test load's ability to represent a 
real-world cooking top load.
    For these reasons, DOE has decided to continue the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking for conventional ovens but to defer 
its decision regarding adoption of energy conservation standards for 
conventional cooking tops until a representative, repeatable and 
reproducible test method for cooking tops is finalized. At such time, 
DOE will consider further modifications to DOE's cooking top active 
mode test procedure and, on the basis of such an amended test 
procedure, DOE will analyze potential energy conservation standards for 
cooking top energy consumption. DOE invites data and information that 
will allow it to further conduct the analysis of cooking tops, 
particularly when using a water-heating method to evaluate energy 
consumption. DOE anticipates issuing additional notices for cooking top 
test procedures and standards in order to obtain public input on DOE's 
updated proposals. As part of these notices, DOE will carefully 
consider and address any cooking top-related comments on the December 
2014 TP SNOPR and the February 2014 RFI that remain relevant.

C. Test Procedure

    DOE's test procedures for conventional ranges, conventional cooking 
tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens are codified at appendix 
I to subpart B of Title 10 of the CFR part 430.
    DOE established the test procedures in a final rule published in 
the Federal Register on May 10, 1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120-20128. DOE 
revised its test procedures for cooking products to more accurately 
measure their efficiency and energy use, and published the revisions as 
a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 (Oct. 3, 1997). These test procedure 
amendments included: (1) A reduction in the annual useful cooking 
energy; (2) a reduction in the number of Self-Clean oven cycles per 
year; and (3) incorporation of portions of IEC Standard 705-1988, 
``Methods for measuring the performance of microwave ovens for 
household and similar purposes,'' and Amendment 2-1993 for the testing 
of microwave ovens. Id. The test procedures for conventional cooking 
products establish provisions for determining estimated annual 
operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the ratio of cooking 
energy output to cooking energy input), and energy factor (defined as 
the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to total annual energy 
input). 10 CFR 430.23(i); Appendix I.
    DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off 
mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode (i.e., fan-only 
mode) testing provisions, for residential conventional cooking 
products. DOE published a final rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, 
the October 2012 TP Final Rule), adopting standby and off mode 
provisions that satisfy the EPCA requirement that DOE include measures 
of standby mode and off mode energy consumption in its test procedures 
for residential products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A))
    In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed modifications to the 
test block used to evaluate conventional cooking top energy 
consumption. As discussed in section III.B, DOE plans to consider 
further modifications to DOE's cooking top active mode test procedure 
in a future rulemaking. In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also 
proposed to incorporate methods for measuring conventional oven volume, 
clarified that the existing oven test block must be used to test all 
ovens regardless of input rate, and provided a method to measure the 
energy consumption and efficiency of conventional ovens equipped with 
an oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). DOE is proposing energy 
conservation standards for conventional ovens in this NOPR based on 
these proposals in the December 2014 TP SNOPR. DOE intends to update 
the standards rulemaking analyses based on any final amendments related 
to ovens developed as part of the concurrent test procedure rulemaking. 
DOE recognizes that interested parties need sufficient time to evaluate 
the proposed energy conservation standards using the final test 
procedure for conventional ovens. DOE considers the stated energy 
conservation standards rulemaking process to provide sufficient time to 
submit meaningful comments based on a finalized DOE conventional oven 
test procedure.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current 
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the 
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the 
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list 
of technology options for consideration in consultation with 
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then 
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are 
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in 
commercially available products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 
section 4(a)(4)(i).
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further

[[Page 33041]]

evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional 
screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, and 
service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and 
(3) adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv). Section IV.B of this notice 
discusses the results of the screening analysis for residential 
conventional ovens, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it 
screened out, and those that are the basis for the trial standard 
levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening 
analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR Technical 
Support Document (TSD).
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for 
residential conventional ovens, using the design parameters for the 
most efficient products available on the market or in working 
prototypes, and information from the previous rulemaking. The max-tech 
levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section 
IV.C.3 of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the products that 
are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the year of compliance with new and amended standards (2019 
to 2048).\20\ The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of 
products purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the 
energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy 
consumption between each standards case and the base case. The base 
case represents a projection of energy consumption in the absence of 
new and amended efficiency standards, and it considers market forces 
and policies that affect demand for more efficient products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers 
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE uses its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet models to 
estimate energy savings from potential new and amended standards. The 
NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) 
calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly 
consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For 
electricity, DOE calculates national energy savings in terms of primary 
energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to 
generate and transmit the site electricity. For electricity, natural 
gas, and oil, DOE also calculates full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. 
As discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy 
amendment, the FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, 
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 
petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the 
impacts of energy efficiency standards. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
    To calculate primary energy savings, DOE derives annual conversion 
factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information 
Administration's (EIA) most recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).\21\ For 
FFC energy savings, DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an 
FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or 
equipment. For more information, see section IV.H.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For this NOPR, DOE used AEO 2014. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/AEO/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that 
such action would result in ``significant'' energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term ``significant'' is not defined in the 
Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 
(D.C. Cir. 1985), opined that Congress intended ``significant'' energy 
savings in the context of EPCA to be savings that were not ``genuinely 
trivial.'' The energy savings for the proposed standards (presented in 
section IV.H.2) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them 
``significant'' within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether 
a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has 
addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on 
manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as 
discussed in section IV.J. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach 
to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-
term assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the 
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must 
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year 
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include industry net present 
value (INPV), which values the industry on the basis of expected future 
cash flows; cash flows by year; changes in revenue and income; and 
other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and 
reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including 
impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of 
standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing 
capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant 
closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into 
account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other 
regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These 
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers 
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of 
the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also 
evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable 
subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a 
national standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis.

[[Page 33042]]

    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance 
and repair costs, product lifetime, and consumer discount rates. To 
account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as 
product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, 
with probabilities attached to each value. For its analysis, DOE 
assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first 
year of compliance with amended standards.
    The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated 
relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the 
absence of amended standards. DOE identifies the percentage of 
consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC 
increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a 
particular standard level. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in 
further detail in section IV.F.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As 
discussed in section IV.H.2, DOE uses spreadsheet models to project 
national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design 
options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates 
potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of 
the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 
available to DOE, the standards proposed in this notice would not 
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration 
in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine 
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the 
Secretary within 60days of the publication of a proposed rule, together 
with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to 
the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and 
respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    DOE also considers the need for national energy conservation in 
determining whether a new or amended standard is economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from new 
or amended standards are likely to provide improvements to the security 
and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand 
for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the 
reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility 
impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's 
needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M.
    New or amended standards also are likely to result in environmental 
benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 
greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with energy production and use. DOE 
conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how standards may affect 
these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K. DOE reports the 
emissions impacts from each TSL it considered in section IV.K of this 
notice. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions 
resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L.
g. Other Factors
    EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a 
standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that 
the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) 
To the extent interested parties submit any relevant information 
regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other 
categories described above, DOE could consider such information under 
``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates 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 is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed 
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for 
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year 
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In 
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers 
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and 
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The 
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the 
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation 
is discussed in section IV.F.11 of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments

    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
proposed standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the 
LCC and PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The national 
impacts analysis uses a spreadsheet set that provides shipments 
forecasts and calculates national energy savings and net present value 
resulting from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the 
third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), 
to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three 
spreadsheet tools are available at the Web site for this rulemaking: 
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=85. Additionally, DOE used output from the EIA's 
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014, a widely known energy forecast for 
the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. General
    For the market and technology assessment, DOE develops information

[[Page 33043]]

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 and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly 
available information. Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD contains additional 
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
2. Product Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that 
justifies a different standard. In making a determination whether a 
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must 
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and 
other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
    During the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for 
cooking products, DOE evaluated product classes for conventional ovens 
based on energy source (i.e., gas or electric). These distinctions 
initially yielded two conventional oven product classes: (1) Gas ovens; 
and (2) electric ovens. DOE later determined that the type of oven-
cleaning system is a utility feature that affects performance. DOE 
found that standard ovens and ovens using a catalytic continuous-
cleaning process use roughly the same amount of energy. On the other 
hand, Self-Clean ovens use a pyrolytic process that provides enhanced 
consumer utility with lower overall energy consumption as compared to 
either standard or catalytically lined ovens. DOE defined the following 
product classes in the TSD for the April 2009 Final Rule (2009 TSD) 
\22\ for conventional ovens:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The technical support document from the previous 
residential cooking products standards rulemaking is available at: 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0127-
0097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Electric ovens--standard oven with or without a catalytic 
line;
     Electric ovens--self-clean oven;
     Gas ovens--standard oven with or without a catalytic line; 
and
     Gas ovens--self-clean oven.
    As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that it tentatively 
plans to maintain the product classes for conventional ovens from the 
previous standards rulemaking, as presented above. DOE stated that it 
may consider whether separate product classes are warranted for 
conventional gas ovens with higher burner input rates. 79 FR 8337, 
8341-8342 (Feb. 12, 2014).
    Based on DOE's review of gas conventional ovens and ranges 
available on the U.S. market, and based on manufacturer interviews and 
testing conducted as part of the engineering analysis described in 
section IV.C and Chapter 5 of the TSD, DOE notes that the self-cleaning 
function of the self-clean oven may employ methods other than a high 
temperature pyrolytic cycle to perform the cleaning action. 
Specifically, DOE is aware of a type of self-cleaning oven that uses a 
proprietary oven coating and water to perform a self-clean cycle with a 
shorter duration and at a significantly lower temperature setting. The 
self-cleaning cycle for these ovens, unlike catalytically-lined 
standard ovens that provide continuous cleaning during normal baking, 
still have a separate self-cleaning mode that is user-selectable and 
must be tested separately. In this NOPR, DOE is clarifying that a self-
clean electric or gas conventional oven is an oven that has a user-
selectable mode separate from the normal baking mode, not intended to 
heat or cook food, which is dedicated to cleaning and removing cooking 
deposits from the oven cavity walls.
    With regard to commercial-style products, AHAM commented that 
without a definition or test procedure for such products, neither AHAM 
nor DOE can determine at this stage whether these products would 
warrant a separate product class. AHAM noted that DOE should first 
develop a test procedure for these products to allow for analysis of 
them. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 12)
    Based on DOE's review of the residential conventional gas ovens 
available on the market, residential-style gas ovens typically have an 
input rate of 16,000 to 18,000 Btu/h whereas residential gas ovens 
marketed as commercial-style typically have burner input rates ranging 
from 22,500 to 30,000 Btu/h.\23\ Additional review of both the 
residential-style and commercial-style gas oven cavities indicated that 
there is significant overlap in oven cavity volume between the two oven 
types. Standard residential-style gas oven cavities range from 2.5 to 
5.6 cubic feet (ft\3\) in volume and gas ovens marketed as commercial-
style have cavity volumes ranging from 3.0 to 6.0 ft\3\. Sixty percent 
of the commercial-style models surveyed had cavity volumes between 4.0 
and 5.0 ft\3\ while fifty percent of the standard models had cavity 
volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\. The primary differentiating factor 
between the two oven types was burner input rate, which is greater than 
22,500 Btu/h for commercial-style gas ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ However, DOE noted that many gas ranges, while marketed as 
commercial- or professional-style and having multiple surface units 
with high input rates, did not have a gas oven with a burner input 
rate above 22,500 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that the 
test load for ovens as specified in the existing DOE test procedure in 
Appendix I is appropriate for gas ovens with burner input rates greater 
than 22,500 Btu/h. 79 FR at 71915-71916. As a result, DOE conducted 
testing for this NOPR to determine whether conventional gas ovens with 
higher burner input rates warrant establishing a separate product 
class. DOE evaluated the cooking efficiency of the eight conventional 
gas ovens listed in Table IV-1. Five of these ovens had burners rated 
at 18,000 Btu/h or less and the remaining three had burner input rates 
ranging from 27,000 Btu/h to 30,000 Btu/h.

                                             Table IV-1--Performance Characteristics of Gas Oven Test Sample
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Normalized
                                                             Installation     Burner input rate    Cavity  volume    Measured cooking       cooking
          Test unit No.                    Type             configuration          (Btu/h)          (cubic feet         efficiency       efficiency **
                                                                                                      (ft\3\))          (percent)          (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................  Standard............  Freestanding.......             18,000                4.8                6.6                7.0
2................................  Standard............  Freestanding.......             18,000                4.8                6.0                6.3
3................................  Self-Clean..........  Freestanding.......             18,000                5.0                7.6                8.1
4................................  Standard............  Freestanding.......             16,500                4.4                6.2                6.2
5................................  Self-Clean..........  Built-in...........             13,000                2.8                9.4                8.3
6................................  Standard *..........  Freestanding.......             28,000                5.3                4.3                5.1

[[Page 33044]]

 
7................................  Standard *..........  Slide-in...........             27,000                4.4                5.2                5.2
8................................  Standard *..........  Freestanding.......             30,000                5.4                3.9                4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These products are marketed as commercial-style gas ovens.
** Measured cooking efficiency normalized to a fixed cavity volume of 4.3 cubic feet.

    The measured cooking efficiencies for ovens with burner input rates 
above 22,500 Btu/h were lower than for ovens with ratings below 22,500 
Btu/h, even after normalizing cooking efficiency to a fixed cavity 
volume. However, DOE also noted that the conventional gas ovens with 
higher burner input rates in DOE's test sample were marketed as 
commercial-style and had greater total thermal mass, including heavier 
racks and thicker cavity walls, even after normalizing for cavity 
volume. To determine whether the lower measured efficiency of these 
ovens was due to the higher input rate burners, DOE isolated the 
heating element from the thermal mass of the oven by placing 1-inch 
thick insulation on all surfaces inside the oven cavity, except for the 
bottom of the cavity where the burner was located, and ran tests 
according to the DOE test procedure. By adding insulation, heat 
transfer to the cavity walls was minimized and retained in the cavity 
to heat the test block. DOE selected test unit 3 and test unit 8 in 
Table IV-1 for test because of the similarity in cavity volume, their 
difference in efficiency, and their differing input rate (18,000 Btu/h 
and 30,000 Btu/h, respectively). Figure IV.1 displays the resulting 
test block temperature increase as a function of test time, measured 
with and without insulation lining the interior oven cavity walls.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN15.000

    Without the added insulation inside the oven cavity, the 
temperature rise in the test block was similar for each oven, despite 
the large difference in burner input rate. In contrast, by adding 
insulation inside the cavity, the test block temperature in the 30,000 
Btu/h oven increased at a faster rate than in the 18,000 Btu/h oven. 
This suggests that much of the energy input to the 30,000 Btu/h oven 
goes to heating the added mass of the cavity, rather than the test 
load, resulting in relatively lower measured efficiency.

[[Page 33045]]

    DOE also investigated the time it took each oven in the test sample 
to heat the test load to a final test temperature of 234 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) above its initial temperature, specified in the DOE 
test procedure in Appendix I. As shown in Table IV-2, gas ovens with 
burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h do not heat the test load 
significantly faster than the ovens with lower burner input rates, and 
two out of the three units with the higher burner input rates took 
longer than the average time to heat the test load. Therefore, DOE 
preliminarily concludes that there is no unique utility associated with 
faster cook times that is provided by gas ovens with burner input rates 
greater than 22,500 Btu/h.

                                         Table IV-2--Gas Oven Test Times
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Bake time to
                                                         Burner input rate   reach 234 [deg]F    Difference in
               Unit                        Type               (Btu/h)         above initial      time from avg
                                                                                temp (min)           (min)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................  Standard............             18,000               43.6               -3.8
2................................  Standard............             18,000               43.6               -3.8
3................................  Self-Clean..........             18,000               47.2               -0.2
4................................  Standard............             16,500               44.9               -2.5
5................................  Self-Clean..........             13,000               48.9                1.5
6................................  Standard *..........             28,000               48.9                1.5
7................................  Standard *..........             27,000               45.4               -2.0
8................................  Standard *..........             30,000               57.2                9.8
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Average......................  ....................  .................               47.4  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Test units 6, 7, and 8 are marketed as commercial-style ovens.

    In response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR, Sub Zero commented that 
categorizing all ovens under the term conventional cooking suggests 
that DOE is unaware of the significant positive differences provided to 
a subset of consumers by commercial-style products. (Sub Zero, TP No. 
20 at p. 2) If standards are to be proposed, Sub Zero requested that 
the product classes be significantly expanded in number to recognize 
the unique and important utility and performance attributes associated 
with ``high performance'' cooking products. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 
3) Sub Zero suggested that these products offer residential consumers 
performance similar to that found in restaurants, at a safety and 
convenience level that is acceptable for residential use. Commercial-
style ovens would thus include gas ranges in widths up to 60 inches, 
gas ovens up to 36 inches wide with high output infrared broilers and 
convection fans, dual fuel ranges combining gas cooktops with sealed 
burners and large, electric self-cleaning convection ovens that use 
hidden bake elements and multiple heating circuits for added control, 
as well as separate convection elements or multiple convection fans. 
Sub Zero believes that analysis based largely on the traditional 30-
inch wide gas or electric range cannot adequately evaluate the very 
different performance attributes offered by high performance products 
which are essential to consumer utility. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 2)
    In selecting a test sample to support DOE's engineering analysis, 
discussed in section IV.C.2 and Chapter 5 of the TSD, DOE attempts to 
capture a wide range of products having features that may result in the 
determination of additional product classes. DOE included two 
commercial-style gas ovens greater than 30-inches in width as part of 
its test sample. DOE is not aware of data showing the improved cooking 
performance of these products due to the features described in the 
comments as compared to conventional gas ovens not marketed as 
commercial-style or commercial-style gas ovens less than or equal to 30 
inches in width. All of the commercial-style ovens evaluated by DOE 
contained features such as infrared broilers, convection fans, and 
hidden bake elements, but DOE observed that many of the same features 
were also available in conventional gas ovens with lower input rates. 
DOE welcomes data demonstrating the improved cooking performance 
associated with the features for commercial-style gas ovens with widths 
greater than 30-inches that result in increased energy consumption, but 
are not available in conventional gas ovens with lower input rates or 
commercial-style gas ovens with widths of 30 inches or less.
    Based on DOE's testing, reverse engineering, and additional 
discussions with manufacturers, DOE determined that the major 
differentiation between conventional gas ovens with lower burner input 
rates and those with higher input rates, including those marketed as 
commercial-style, was design and construction related to aesthetics 
rather than improved cooking performance. Further, DOE did not identify 
any unique utility conferred by commercial-style gas ovens. For the 
reasons discussed above, DOE is not proposing to establish a separate 
product class for conventional gas ovens with higher burner input 
rates.
    As discussed in section III.B, in the October 2012 TP Final Rule, 
DOE amended appendix I to include methods for measuring fan-only 
mode.\24\ Based on DOE's testing of freestanding, built-in, and slide-
in conventional gas and electric ovens, DOE noted that all of the 
built-in and slide-in ovens tested consumed energy in fan-only mode, 
whereas freestanding ovens did not. The energy consumption in fan-only 
mode for built-in and slide-in ovens ranged from approximately 1.3 to 
37.6 watt-hours (Wh) per cycle (0.25 to 7.6 kWh/yr). Based on DOE's 
reverse engineering analyses discussed in section IV.C.2, DOE noted 
that built-in and slide-in products had an additional exhaust fan and 
vent assembly that was not present in freestanding products. The 
additional energy required to exhaust air from the oven cavity is 
necessary for slide-in and built-in installation configurations to meet 
safety-related temperature requirements because the oven is enclosed in 
cabinetry. For these reasons, DOE proposes to include separate product 
classes for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Fan-only mode is an active mode that is not user-selectable 
in which a fan circulates air internally or externally to the 
cooking product for a finite period of time after the end of the 
heating function.

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

[[Page 33046]]

    In summary, DOE proposes the product classes listed in Table IV-3 
for the NOPR.

                           Table IV-3--Proposed Product Classes for Conventional Ovens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Product class                     Product type               Sub-category         Installation type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................  Electric oven..................  Standard with or     Freestanding.
                                                                   without a
                                                                   catalytic line.
2..............................  ...............................  ...................  Built-in/Slide-in.
3..............................  ...............................  Self-clean.........  Freestanding.
4..............................  ...............................  ...................  Built-in/Slide-in.
5..............................  Gas oven.......................  Standard with or     Freestanding.
                                                                   without a
                                                                   catalytic line.
6..............................  ...............................  ...................  Built-in/Slide-in.
7..............................  ...............................  Self-clean.........  Freestanding.
8..............................  ...............................  ...................  Built-in/Slide-in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Technology Options
    As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE uses 
information about existing and past technology options and prototype 
designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to 
improve energy efficiency. Initially, these technologies encompass all 
those that DOE believes are technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of the 
NOPR TSD includes the detailed list and descriptions of all technology 
options identified for this equipment.
    In the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that based on a preliminary 
review of the cooking products market and information published in 
recent trade publications, technical reports, and manufacturer 
literature, the results of the technology screening analysis performed 
during the previous standards rulemaking remain largely relevant for 
this rulemaking. 79 FR 8337, 8341 (Feb. 12, 2014). DOE stated in the 
February 2014 RFI that it planned to consider the technology options 
presented in Table IV-4 for conventional ovens. 79 FR 8337, 8342-8343 
(Feb. 12, 2014).

 Table IV-4--February 2014 RFI Technology Options for Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only).
2. Electronic spark ignition (gas only).
3. Forced convection.
4. Halogen lamp oven (electric only).
5. Improved and added insulation.
6. Improved door seals.
7. No oven-door window.
8. Oven separator.
9. Radiant burner (gas only).
10. Reduced conduction losses.
11. Reduced thermal mass.
12. Reduced vent rate.
13. Reflective surfaces.
14. Steam cooking.
15. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the February 2014 RFI, DOE received a number of 
comments regarding the technology options for conventional ovens.
    AHAM commented that forced convection should not be considered a 
technology option for gas or electric ovens. AHAM stated that only some 
foods can be cooked with convection and that accelerating the cooking 
time or baking rate for other foods will not produce acceptable 
results. Accordingly, AHAM believes this technology option would impact 
consumer utility. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 5) DOE recognizes that using 
forced convection for cooking certain foods may be undesirable. DOE is 
not considering forced convection as a complete replacement to the 
conventional bake cooking function. Instead DOE considered forced 
convection as a separate heating mode in addition to the bake function 
for the engineering analysis. DOE also notes that the test procedure in 
Appendix I averages the energy consumption measured during bake-only 
mode with the energy consumption measured during forced convection mode 
to calculate the total cooking efficiency and IAEC for the oven, 
representing equal use of forced convection and bake-only cooking 
cycles. As a result, DOE is retaining forced convection as a technology 
option for this NOPR.
    AHAM and Whirlpool commented that reducing the vent rate should not 
be considered because it could result in incomplete combustion. In 
addition, AHAM stated that it would impact the ability of the product 
to manage moisture release. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 6; Whirlpool, STD 
No. 13 at p. 4) As noted in the 2009 TSD, DOE believes that vent size 
of both standard electric and standard gas ovens could be reduced while 
maintaining a satisfactory combustion environment. Since all Self-Clean 
ovens are already designed with this technology, no new improvements 
are required by the industry to incorporate this technology option. DOE 
noted in the 2009 TSD that an increase of approximately 0.62 absolute 
percentage points for standard electric ovens and 0.5 absolute 
percentage points for standard gas ovens was possible with this 
technology option. As a result, DOE retained reduced vent rate as a 
technology option for standard ovens for this NOPR.
    AHAM commented that improved door seals may not provide a 
significant improvement in efficiency. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 6) DOE 
notes that door seals for standard ovens generally consist of a strip 
of silicone rubber, while Self-Clean ovens usually incorporate 
fiberglass seals. Because some venting is required for proper cooking 
performance, a complete seal on the oven is undesirable. As DOE noted 
in the 2009 TSD, the oven door seals can be improved further without 
sealing the oven completely. Based on discussions with manufacturers, 
DOE believes that fiberglass seals can be installed in standard ovens 
to improve efficiency. As a result, DOE retained improved door seals as 
a technology option for standard ovens.
    Whirlpool commented that it has already optimized insulation in its 
ovens for safety reasons. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) DOE noted in 
the 2009 TSD that standard ovens used low-density insulation (1.09 
pounds (lb)/ft\3\) whereas self-clean ovens used higher-density 
insulation (1.90 lb/ft\3\). Based on interviews with manufacturers for 
this rulemaking, DOE notes that manufacturers generally use the same 
amount of insulation for standard ovens versus self-clean ovens, but 
with different densities. Insulation is added primarily to pass 
Underwriters Laboratory (UL) surface temperature safety testing 
requirements, which explains why Self-Clean ovens, which require high 
temperatures for pyrolysis, tend to have a more effective insulation 
package. DOE notes that higher-density insulation can be used in 
standard

[[Page 33047]]

ovens to improve efficiency. As a result, DOE retained improved 
insulation as a technology option for standard ovens.
    Whirlpool commented that there may be savings associated with steam 
cooking realized by the user, but these savings would likely not be 
measured in the DOE test procedure. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) 
While there are several residential steam ovens currently on the 
market, DOE is unaware of any test procedures that accurately measure 
the energy use of the steam cooking mode while producing repeatable and 
reproducible results. As a result, DOE is unaware of any data regarding 
the efficiency of steam cooking. For these reasons, DOE did not 
consider steam cooking in the analysis.
    Whirlpool commented that there could be savings for gas ovens from 
electronic spark ignition over a glo-bar igniter, which could use 250-
500W throughout the cooking cycle. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) As 
discussed in section IV.C.2, based on DOE's testing, DOE agrees that 
switching from a glo-bar to an electronic spark ignition system would 
result in energy savings. As a result, DOE is maintaining electronic 
spark ignition as a technology option for this NOPR.
    Based on DOE's review of products on the market, DOE notes that 
radiant burners for gas ovens are only incorporated into broiling, 
which is a secondary cooking function not measured under the test 
procedure; energy use is instead measured during the primary bake 
function. As a result, the benefits of radiant burners are not measured 
by the current test procedure. Accordingly, DOE eliminated radiant 
burners in gas ovens from further analysis.
    In the previous standards rulemaking, DOE noted that oven 
separators had only been researched, but never put into production. 72 
FR 64432, 64456 (Nov. 15, 2007). Based on DOE's review of products on 
the market, DOE notes that one manufacturer offers a conventional 
electric oven with an oven separator. As a result, DOE plans to 
consider oven separators as a technology option for electric ovens.
    In addition to the technology options presented in Table IV-4, DOE 
considered an additional technology option for optimizing the burner 
and cavity design for gas ovens based on product testing and reverse 
engineering analyses conducted for this NOPR. As described in section 
IV.A.2 and further in section IV.C.2, DOE's testing indicated that 
reducing the thermal mass of the oven cavity can increase cooking 
efficiency. Because oven cavity and burner design are interdependent, 
DOE is proposing to consider optimized burner and cavity design as a 
technology option for increasing efficiency for gas ovens consistent 
with products available on the market rather than the reduced thermal 
mass technology option considered for the previous rulemaking.
    Table IV-5 lists the proposed technology options that DOE is 
considering for the NOPR.

     Table IV-5--Proposed Technology Options for Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only).
2. Electronic spark ignition (gas only).
3. Forced convection.
4. Halogen lamp oven (electric only).
5. Improved and added insulation (standard ovens only).
6. Improved door seals.
7. No oven-door window.
8. Oven separator (electric only).
9. Reduced conduction losses.
10. Reduced vent rate.
11. Reflective surfaces.
12. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
13. Optimized burner and cavity design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the use of optimized burner and cavity design 
(and other options listed in Table IV-5) to meet the proposed 
efficiency levels discussed in section I.A.1.b. (See section VII.E)

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking:
    1. Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing 
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the 
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the 
compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be 
considered further.
    3. Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is 
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    4. Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b))
    In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of 
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above four criteria, it 
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed 
below.
    The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties 
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each 
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether 
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened 
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
    For conventional ovens, DOE screened out added insulation, bi-
radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no oven door window, and reflective 
surfaces, for the reasons that follow.
    Although some analyses have shown reduced energy consumption by 
increasing the thickness of the insulation in the oven cabinet walls 
and doors from two inches to four inches, consumer utility would be 
negatively impacted by the necessary reduction in cavity volume to 
maintain the same oven footprint and overall cabinet volume. Therefore, 
DOE screened out added insulation. The improved insulation design 
option, however, will be retained, because insulation with a higher 
density (i.e., greater insulating value) does not require additional 
space and thus would not impact oven cavity size.
    The last working prototype of a bi-radiant oven known to DOE was 
tested in the 1970s. The technology requires a low-emissivity cavity, 
electronic controls, and highly absorptive cooking utensils. The need 
for specialized cookware and cavity maintenance issues negatively 
impact consumer utility. Therefore, DOE screened out bi-radiant ovens 
from further analysis.
    DOE is not aware of any ovens that utilize halogen lamps alone as 
the heating element, and no data were found or submitted to demonstrate 
how efficiently halogen elements alone perform relative to conventional 
ovens. DOE believes that it would not be practicable to manufacture, 
install, and service halogen lamps for use in

[[Page 33048]]

consumer cooking products on the scale necessary to serve the relevant 
market at the time of the standard's effective date. Therefore, DOE 
screened out halogen lamp ovens.
    Whirlpool commented that oven door windows are a key consumer 
utility and purchase driver, and there may even be more energy used 
from increased door openings to check on food (associated with no oven 
door window) versus looking through the window. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 
at p. 4) DOE notes that the 2009 TSD reported a small annual energy 
savings associated with no oven door window, but that consumer 
practices of opening the door to inspect the food while cooking could 
negate any benefit. Comments during manufacturer interviews and 
comments from stakeholders in previous rulemakings agreed that removing 
the window was not a feasible option for most ovens. 63 FR 48038, 
48040-48041 (Sep. 8, 1998); 72 FR 64432, 64456 (Nov. 15, 2007). Reduced 
consumer utility and the potential for increased energy use along with 
decreased safety due to the additional door openings, justify 
elimination of this design option from further analysis. In addition, 
DOE addresses the efficiency impact of double-pane or other highly 
insulated oven door windows by means of the reduced conduction losses 
design option, which has been retained for further analysis.
    Whirlpool commented that reflective surfaces would be very 
difficult to implement correctly. Whirlpool stated that there would be 
reduced consumer savings if the surface gets dirty and reduced consumer 
functionality from the appearance of stains. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at 
p. 4) In the 2009 TSD, DOE noted that manufacturers have stated that it 
has been very difficult to obtain satisfactory cooking performance with 
reflective surfaces and that reflective surfaces degrade after the 
first baking function and continue to degrade through the life of the 
product. DOE also noted in the 2009 TSD that is uncertain whether, or 
how much, energy savings is realizable with this technology option. 
Because of the uncertainty of the potential energy savings and the 
general lack of sophistication in the technology in terms of 
maintaining clean, reflective surfaces over the lifetime of the 
product, DOE screened out this technology option from further analysis.
2. Remaining Technologies
    Based on the screening analysis, DOE considered the design options 
listed in Table IV-6 for conventional ovens.

       Table IV-6--Remaining Conventional Oven Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Electronic spark ignition (gas only).
2. Forced convection.
3. Improved insulation.
4. Improved door seals (standard ovens only).
5. Oven separator (electric only).
6. Reduced conduction losses.
7. Reduced vent rate.
8. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
9. Optimized burner and cavity design (gas only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship 
of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency. This 
relationship serves as the basis for the cost-benefit calculations for 
consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. In determining the cost-
efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the increase in manufacturer 
cost associated with increasing the efficiency of products from the 
baseline up to the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') 
efficiency level for each product class.
1. Methodology
    DOE typically structures the engineering analysis using one of 
three approaches: (1) The design-option approach, which provides the 
incremental costs of adding design options to a baseline model that 
will improve its efficiency (i.e., lower its energy use); (2) the 
efficiency-level approach, which provides the incremental costs of 
moving to higher energy efficiency levels, without regard to the 
particular design option(s) used to achieve such increases; and (3) the 
reverse-engineering (or cost-assessment) approach, which provides 
``bottom-up'' manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various 
levels of increased efficiency, based on teardown analyses (or physical 
teardowns) that provide detailed data on costs for parts and material, 
labor, overhead, and equipment, tooling, conveyor, and space 
investments for models that operate at particular efficiency levels.
    In the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that in order to create the 
cost-efficiency relationship, it anticipated having to structure its 
engineering analysis using a design-option approach, supplemented by 
reverse engineering (physical teardowns and testing of existing 
products in the market) to identify the incremental cost and efficiency 
improvement associated with each design option or design option 
combination. In addition, DOE stated that it intends to consider cost-
efficiency data from the 2009 TSD. 79 FR 8337, 8347 (Feb. 12, 2014). 
DOE maintained this approach for this NOPR. DOE also conducted 
interviews with manufacturers of conventional ovens to develop a deeper 
understanding of the various combinations of design options used to 
increase product efficiency, and their associated manufacturing costs.
2. Product Testing and Reverse Engineering
    To develop the cost-efficiency relationships for the engineering 
analysis, DOE conducted testing and reverse engineering teardowns on 
products available on the market. Because there are no performance-
based energy conservation standards or energy reporting requirements 
for conventional cooking products, DOE selected test units based on 
performance-related features and technologies advertised in product 
literature. DOE's test sample included 1 gas wall oven, 7 gas ranges, 5 
electric wall ovens, and 2 electric ranges for a total of 15 
conventional ovens covering all of the product classes considered in 
this NOPR. The test units are described in detail in chapter 5 of the 
NOPR TSD.
    Each test unit was tested according to the oven test procedure 
clarifications proposed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR. DOE then 
conducted physical teardowns on each test unit to develop a 
manufacturing cost model and to evaluate key design features. DOE 
supplemented its reverse engineering analyses by conducting 
manufacturer interviews to obtain feedback on efficiency levels, design 
options, inputs for the manufacturing cost model, and resulting 
manufacturing costs. DOE used the results from testing, reverse 
engineering, and manufacturer interviews to develop the efficiency 
levels and manufacturing costs discussed in sections IV.C.3 and IV.C.4.
    Table IV-7 and Table IV-8 present the testing results for the 
conventional gas and electric ovens, respectively.

[[Page 33049]]



                                                   Table IV-7--DOE Conventional Gas Oven Test Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Burner input    Cavity volume                               Convection (Y/   IAEC  (kBtu/
         Test Unit No.               Oven product class       rate  (Btu/h)      (ft\3\)            Ignition type               N)              yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................  Gas Standard--Freestanding          18,000             4.8  Spark.....................               N           1341.4
2..............................  Gas Standard--Freestanding          18,000             4.8  Glo-bar...................               N           1503.7
3..............................  Gas Self-Clean--                    18,000             5.0  Glo-bar...................               Y           1419.0
                                  Freestanding.
4..............................  Gas Standard--Freestanding          16,500             4.4  Glo-bar...................               N           1516.6
5..............................  Gas Self-Clean--Built-in/           13,000             2.8  Glo-bar...................               N           1171.3
                                  Slide-in.
6..............................  Gas Standard--Freestanding          28,000             5.3  Glo-bar...................               Y           2078.9
7..............................  Gas Standard--Built-in/             27,000             4.4  Glo-bar...................               Y           1938.0
                                  Slide-in.
8..............................  Gas Standard--Freestanding          30,000             5.4  Glo-bar...................               Y           2315.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Table IV-8--DOE Conventional Electric Oven Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Heating
      Test Unit No.         Oven product class       element      Cavity volume  Convection  (Y/  IAEC  (kWh/yr)
                                                  wattage  (W)       (ft\3\)            N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................  Electric Self-Clean--          3,000           5.9 *               Y            266.2
                            Freestanding.
2........................  Electric Standard--            2,000             2.4               N            213.7
                            Freestanding.
3........................  Electric Self-Clean--          3,400             2.7               N            158.7
                            Built-in/Slide-in.
4........................  Electric Standard--            2,600             4.3               N            287.8
                            Built-in/Slide-in.
5........................  Electric Self-Clean--          2,600             4.3               N            308.8
                            Built-in/Slide-in.
6........................  Electric Self-Clean--          2,600             4.3               Y            341.8
                            Built-in/Slide-in.
7........................  Electric Self-Clean--          2,800             4.3               N            370.0
                            Built-in/Slide-in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Test Unit 1 was equipped with an oven separator that allowed for splitting the single cavity into two separate
  smaller cavities with volumes of 2.7 ft\3\ and 3.0 ft\3\.

3. Efficiency Levels
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    A baseline unit is a product that just meets current Federal energy 
conservation standards. DOE uses the baseline unit for comparison in 
several phases of the NOPR analyses, including the engineering 
analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine energy 
savings that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, 
DOE compares energy use at each of the higher energy ELs to the energy 
consumption of the baseline unit. Similarly, to determine the changes 
in price to the consumer that will result from an amended energy 
conservation standard, DOE compares the price of a unit at each higher 
EL to the price of a unit at the baseline.
    As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE initially developed baseline 
efficiency levels by considering the current standards for conventional 
gas ovens and the baseline efficiency levels for conventional electric 
ovens from the previous standards rulemaking analysis. DOE developed 
tentative baseline efficiency levels for the February 2014 RFI 
considering the current test procedure in appendix I. The baseline 
efficiency levels proposed in the February 2014 RFI are presented in 
Table IV-9. DOE developed baseline efficiency levels for standby mode 
and off mode based on test data presented in the microwave oven test 
procedure SNOPR.\25\ For fan-only mode, DOE developed baseline 
efficiency levels considering the additional annual energy consumption 
in fan-only mode based on test data presented in an SNOPR for the 
conventional cooking products test procedure. 77 FR 31443, 31449 (May 
25, 2012). The efficiency levels presented in the February 2014 RFI are 
based on an oven with a cavity volume of 3.9 ft\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In the May 2012 microwave oven test procedure SNOPR, DOE 
considered test procedure amendments for measuring the standby mode 
and off mode energy consumption of combined cooking products and, as 
a result, presented standby power data for microwave ovens, 
conventional cooking tops, and conventional ovens. 77 FR 28805, 
28811 (May 16, 2012).

                   Table IV-9--February 2014 RFI Conventional Oven Baseline Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2009 Standards rulemaking
                                         --------------------------------------------
              Product class                Energy factor   Annual energy consumption         Proposed IAEC
                                               (EF)                  \26\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Oven--Standard Oven with or              0.1066  274.9 kWh.................  370.0 kWh.
 without a Catalytic Line.
Electric Oven--Self-Clean Oven..........          0.1099  266.6 kWh.................  360.0 kWh.
Gas Oven--Standard Oven with or without           0.0536  1656.7 kBtu...............  2076.5 kBtu.
 a Catalytic Line.
Gas Oven--Self-Clean Oven...............          0.0540  1644.4 kBtu...............  1965.0 kBtu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \26\ DOE notes that the previous conventional cooking products 
test procedure in appendix I included the clock energy consumption. 
As a result, DOE subtracted the clock energy consumption before 
adding the standby and off mode energy consumption when considering 
integrated efficiency levels for this standards rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that, while they agreed fan-only mode should be 
considered, DOE should gather more data before determining appropriate

[[Page 33050]]

baseline levels. AHAM stated that DOE should update the data collected 
during the test procedure rulemaking and request information from 
manufacturers on the energy use in fan-only mode. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at 
p. 6) Whirlpool commented that fan-only mode power varies greatly for 
ovens and depends on the size of the oven, insulation, dual or single 
speed fan, single or double oven, etc. Whirlpool stated that it does 
not currently have fan-only mode data and cannot comment on the 
appropriateness of DOE's assumptions for fan-only power. (Whirlpool, 
STD No. 13 at p. 6)
    DOE developed baseline efficiency levels for this NOPR considering 
both data from the previous standards rulemaking and the measured 
energy use for the test units. As discussed in section IV.C.2, DOE 
conducted testing for all units in its test sample to measure IAEC, 
which includes energy use in active mode (including fan-only mode) and 
standby mode. DOE also requested energy use data as part of the 
manufacturer interviews. However, because manufacturers are not 
currently required to conduct testing according to the DOE test 
procedure, very little energy use information was available.
    The baseline efficiency levels for this NOPR differ from those 
presented in the February 2014 RFI. DOE compared the minimum cooking 
efficiency measured in its test sample to the minimum cooking 
efficiency levels assumed for the previous standards rulemaking 
analysis. Often, the lowest measured efficiency in DOE's test sample 
for this NOPR was lower than the values for the previous rulemaking.
    To update the baseline efficiency levels for conventional ovens, 
first DOE derived a new relationship between IAEC and cavity volume as 
discussed in section I.A.1.c. Using the slope from the previous 
rulemaking, DOE selected new intercepts corresponding to the ovens in 
its test sample with the lowest efficiency, so that no ovens in the 
test sample were cut off by the baseline curve. DOE then set baseline 
standby energy consumption for conventional ovens equal to that of the 
oven/range with the highest standby energy consumption in DOE's test 
sample to maintain the full functionality of controls for consumer 
utility. While only DOE test data was available to validate the 
baseline equation for gas ovens, DOE compared the new baseline equation 
for electric ovens with data available in the Natural Resources Canada 
(NRCan) databases, which showed that DOE's assumptions for slopes and 
intercepts reasonably represented the market. A detailed discussion of 
DOE's derivation of the cavity volume relationship is provided Chapter 
5 of the NOPR TSD.
    In addition to the product classes proposed in the February 2014 
RFI, DOE is also proposing separate product classes for freestanding 
and built-in/slide-in ovens as discussed in section IV.A.2. As a 
result, DOE developed separate baseline efficiency levels for each 
proposed product class based on testing conducted for this NOPR. The 
proposed baseline efficiency levels for this NOPR are presented in 
Table IV-10. After receiving manufacturer feedback and reviewing 
products currently on the market, DOE determined that a cavity volume 
of 3.9 ft\3\ no longer represents the market average. Thus, efficiency 
levels are based on an oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\. 
Additional details on the development of the proposed baseline 
efficiency levels are included in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

        Table IV-10--Conventional Oven Baseline Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Product class                Sub type         Proposed IAEC *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Oven--Standard Oven      Freestanding......  294.5 kWh.
 with or without a Catalytic      Built-in/Slide-in.  301.5 kWh.
 Line.
Electric Oven--Self-Clean Oven..  Freestanding......  355.0 kWh.
                                  Built-in/Slide-in.  361.1 kWh.
Gas Oven--Standard Oven with or   Freestanding......  2118.2 kBtu.
 without a Catalytic Line.        Built-in/Slide-in.  2128.1 kBtu.
Gas Oven--Self-Clean Oven.......  Freestanding......  1883.8 kBtu.
                                  Built-in/Slide-in.  1893.7 kBtu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Proposed IAEC baseline efficiency levels are normalized based on a 4.3
  ft\3\ volume oven.

b. Incremental Efficiency Levels
    For each product class, DOE analyzes several efficiency levels and 
determines the incremental cost at each of these levels. For the 
February 2014 RFI, DOE tentatively proposed the incremental efficiency 
levels presented in Table IV-11 through Table IV-14. DOE developed 
these levels based primarily on the efficiency levels presented in the 
2009 TSD, adjusted to account for the proposed and amended test 
procedures. DOE also considered efficiency levels for standby mode and 
off mode associated with changing conventional linear power supplies to 
switch-mode power supplies and the Commission of the European 
Communities Regulation 1275/2008 (hereinafter ``Ecodesign 
regulation''), which requires products to have a maximum standby power 
of 1 W. 79 FR 8337, 8345-8346 (Feb. 12, 2014).The efficiency levels 
presented in the February 2014 RFI are based on an oven with a cavity 
volume of 3.9 ft\3\.

   Table IV-11--February 2014 RFI Gas Standard Oven Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Proposed IAEC
            Level             Efficiency level source        (kBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................  2009 TSD (Electric Glo-             2076.5
                               bar Ignition).
1...........................  2009 TSD (Electric Glo-             1932.0
                               bar Ignition) + SMPS.
2...........................  2009 TSD (Improved                  1844.2
                               Insulation) + SMPS.
3...........................  2009 TSD (2 +                       1717.7
                               Electronic Spark
                               Ignition) + SMPS.
4...........................  2009 TSD (3 + Improved              1702.6
                               Door Seals) + SMPS.
5...........................  2009 TSD (4 + Reduced               1695.4
                               Vent Rate) + SMPS.
6...........................  2009 TSD (5 + Reduced               1685.9
                               Conduction Losses) +
                               SMPS.
7...........................  2009 TSD (6 + Forced                1636.0
                               Convection) + SMPS.

[[Page 33051]]

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


  Table IV-12--February 2014 RFI Gas Self-Clean Oven Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Proposed IAEC
            Level             Efficiency level source        (kBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................  2009 TSD (Baseline)....             1965.0
1...........................  2009 TSD (Baseline) +               1820.5
                               SMPS.
2...........................  2009 TSD (Forced                    1596.9
                               Convection) + SMPS.
3...........................  2009 TSD (2) +                      1482.3
                               Electronic Spark
                               Ignition + SMPS.
4...........................  2009 TSD (3 + Improved              1472.0
                               Door Seals) + SMPS.
5...........................  2009 TSD (4 + Reduced               1467.8
                               Conduction Losses) +
                               SMPS.
6...........................  2009 TSD (5) + 1 W                  1330.9
                               Standby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table IV-13--February 2014 RFI Electric Standard Oven Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Proposed IAEC
            Level             Efficiency level source        (kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................  2009 TSD (Baseline)....              370.0
1...........................  2009 TSD (Baseline) +                327.7
                               SMPS.
2...........................  2009 TSD (Reduced Vent               316.1
                               Rate) + SMPS.
3...........................  2009 TSD (2 + Improved               304.8
                               Insulation) + SMPS.
4...........................  2009 TSD (3 + Improved               300.9
                               Door Seals) + SMPS.
5...........................  2009 TSD (4 + Reduced                300.3
                               Conduction Losses) +
                               SMPS.
6...........................  2009 TSD (5 + Forced                 295.2
                               Convection) + SMPS.
7...........................  2009 TSD (6) + 1 W                   255.0
                               Standby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table IV-14--February 2014 RFI Electric Self-Clean Oven Efficiency
                                 Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Proposed IAEC
            Level             Efficiency level source        (kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................  2009 TSD (Baseline)....              360.0
1...........................  2009 TSD (Baseline) +                317.7
                               SMPS.
2...........................  2009 TSD (Reduced                    317.0
                               Conduction Losses) +
                               SMPS.
3...........................  2009 TSD (2 + Forced                 312.0
                               Convection) + SMPS.
4...........................  2009 TSD (3) + 1 W                   271.9
                               Standby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the February 2014 RFI, AHAM disagreed with DOE's 
consideration of the 1-W Ecodesign regulation standby requirements 
because products sold in the European Union are different from the 
products sold in the United States. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 6) DOE 
reevaluated the efficiency levels associated with standby power 
improvements based on design options identified during product testing 
and reverse engineering rather than considering an efficiency level 
specifically associated with the 1-W Ecodesign regulation standby 
requirement.
    Laclede commented that DOE's assumption of 3.5 amp x 110 volt 
continuous consumption of a typical glo-bar ignition module would mean 
its consuming 385 W (0.385 kW) per hour. Laclede stated that they 
believe this may be the worst-case scenario and may make it appear that 
further efficiency improvements are possible. However, Lacelede stated 
that further efficiency improvements in glo-bar may lead to higher 
costs for gas cooking products without sufficient economic benefits. 
Laclede's testing data indicates glo-bar ignition system consumption of 
only 0.16 kWh. (Laclede, STD No. 8 at p. 2) Laclede also commented that 
it appears that DOE considers the electric load from glo-bar ignition 
systems as of no value to the thermal process of cooking in the oven. 
Laclede contends this electric resistance load in gas ovens most likely 
does contribute to the cooking process and DOE will need to provide 
transparent and robust analyses to explain this relationship. (Laclede, 
STD No. 8 at pp. 2-3)
    Based on DOE's testing of units in its test sample, electric glo-
bar ignition systems consumed between 330 W and 450 W and ranged 
between 0.141 kWh and 0.261 kWh per cycle, with an average of 0.202 kWh 
per cycle. DOE notes that the glo-bar energy consumption may vary 
depending on burner and cavity design (e.g., burner input rating, 
cavity volume). DOE also notes that the glo-bar ignition system was not 
power on throughout the entire cooking cycle and only consumed power 
when gas flow to the burner was on, turning off when the burner cycled 
off. As discussed above, DOE updated its efficiency level analysis 
based on testing conducted for this NOPR. Any contribution of the glo-
bar ignition system to heating the load would be accounted for in 
testing according to the DOE test procedure in Appendix I.
    For the NOPR, DOE developed incremental efficiency levels for each 
product class by first considering information from the 2009 TSD. In 
cases where DOE identified design options during testing and reverse 
engineering teardowns, DOE updated the efficiency

[[Page 33052]]

levels based on the tested data. In addition to the efficiency levels 
associated with design options identified in the February 2014 RFI, DOE 
also included an efficiency level for electric ovens based on a test 
unit equipped with an oven separator that allowed for reducing the 
cavity volume that is used for cooking. For conventional gas ovens, 
DOE's testing showed that energy use was correlated to oven burner and 
cavity design (e.g., thermal mass of the cavity and racks) and can be 
significantly reduced when optimized. DOE determined the efficiency 
level associated with optimized burner and cavity design based on the 
tested units normalized for cavity volume.
    Table IV-15 through Table IV-18 show the incremental efficiency 
levels for each product class, including whether the efficiency level 
is from the 2009 TSD or based on testing for the NOPR. The efficiency 
levels are normalized based on an oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 
ft\3\. Details of the derivations of each efficiency level are provided 
in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

                              Table IV-15--Electric Standard Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Proposed IAEC  (kWh)
                                                                 --------------------------------   Relative %
        Level           Efficiency level source   Design option                   Built-in/Slide-   decrease in
                                                                   Freestanding         in             IAEC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............  NOPR Testing............  Baseline.......           294.5           301.5  ..............
1....................  NOPR Testing............  Baseline + SMPS           284.6           291.4          -3.37%
2....................  2009 TSD................  1 + Reduced               271.7           278.2          -4.51%
                                                  Vent Rate.
3....................  2009 TSD................  2 + Improved              259.2           265.4          -4.61%
                                                  Insulation.
4....................  2009 TSD................  3 + Improved              254.9           261.0          -1.64%
                                                  Door Seals.
5....................  NOPR Testing............  4 + Forced                244.6           250.5          -4.04%
                                                  Convection.
6....................  NOPR Testing............  5 + Oven                  207.8           212.8         -15.04%
                                                  Separator.
7....................  2009 TSD................  6 + Reduced               207.3           212.2          -0.27%
                                                  Conduction
                                                  Losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Table IV-16--Electric Self-Clean Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Proposed IAEC  (kWh)
                                                                 --------------------------------   Relative %
        Level           Efficiency level source   Design option                   Built-in/Slide-   decrease in
                                                                   Freestanding         in             IAEC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............  NOPR Testing............  Baseline.......           355.0           361.1  ..............
1....................  NOPR Testing............  Baseline + SMPS           345.1           351.0          -2.78%
2....................  NOPR Testing............  1 + Forced                327.2           332.7          -5.21%
                                                  Convection.
3....................  NOPR Testing............  2 + Oven                  278.9           283.7         -14.74%
                                                  Separator.
4....................  2009 TSD................  3 + Reduced               278.1           282.9          -0.29%
                                                  Conduction
                                                  Losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Table IV-17--Gas Standard Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Proposed IAEC  (kWh)
                                                                 --------------------------------   Relative %
        Level           Efficiency level source   Design option                   Built-in/Slide-   decrease in
                                                                   Freestanding         in             IAEC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............  2009 TSD................  Baseline.......          2118.2          2128.1  ..............
1....................  NOPR Testing............  Baseline +               1649.3          1657.0         -22.14%
                                                  Optimized
                                                  Burner/Cavity.
2....................  NOPR Testing............  1 + SMPS.......          1614.7          1622.2          -2.10%
3....................  NOPR Testing............  2 + Electronic           1490.7          1497.7          -7.68%
                                                  Spark Ignition.
4....................  2009 TSD................  3 + Improved             1414.8          1421.5          -5.09%
                                                  Insulation.
5....................  2009 TSD................  4 + Improved             1400.6          1407.2          -1.01%
                                                  Door Seals.
6....................  NOPR Testing............  5 + Forced               1355.6          1362.0          -3.21%
                                                  Convection.
7....................  2009 TSD................  6 + Reduced              1347.0          1353.3          -0.64%
                                                  Conduction
                                                  Losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table IV-18--Gas Self-Clean Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Proposed IAEC  (kWh)
                                                                 --------------------------------   Relative %
        Level           Efficiency level source   Design option                   Built-in/Slide-   decrease in
                                                                   Freestanding         in             IAEC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............  2009 TSD................  Baseline.......          1883.8          1893.7  ..............
1....................  NOPR Testing............  Baseline + SMPS          1848.2          1858.0          -1.89%
2....................  NOPR Testing............  1 + Electronic           1668.7          1677.5          -9.71%
                                                  Spark Ignition.
3....................  NOPR Testing............  2 + Forced               1596.3          1604.7          -4.34%
                                                  Convection.
4....................  2009 TSD................  3 + Reduced              1591.0          1599.4          -0.33%
                                                  Conduction
                                                  Losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 33053]]

c. Relationship Between IAEC and Oven Cavity Volume
    The conventional oven efficiency levels detailed above are 
predicated upon baseline ovens with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\. Based 
on DOE's testing of conventional gas and electric ovens and discussions 
with manufacturers, IAEC scales with oven cavity volume due to the fact 
that larger ovens have higher thermal masses and larger volumes of air 
(including larger vent rates) than smaller ovens. Because the DOE test 
procedure for measuring IAEC uses a fixed test load size, larger ovens 
with higher thermal mass will have a higher measured IAEC. As a result, 
DOE considered available data to characterize the relationship between 
IAEC and oven cavity volume.
    DOE established the slopes by first evaluating the data from the 
2009 TSD, which presented the relationship between measured energy 
factor (EF) and cavity volume, then translated from EF to IAEC 
considering the range of cavity volume for the majority of products 
available on the market. DOE believes these slopes continue to be 
relevant based on DOE's testing. For electric ovens, DOE considered the 
data for standard and self-clean ovens available in the Natural 
Resources Canada product databases.\27\ DOE notes that this data is 
based on the same test procedure considered for the previous DOE 
standards rulemaking, and as a result, DOE believes the slopes based on 
these larger datasets are relevant for this analysis. The intercepts 
for each efficiency level were then chosen so that the equations pass 
through the desired IAEC corresponding to a particular volume. Values 
for the slopes and intercepts for each conventional oven product class 
are presented in Table IV-19 and Table IV-20. Additional details 
regarding the derivation of the slopes and intercepts for the oven IAEC 
versus cavity volume relationship are presented in chapter 5 of the 
NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Available at: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/index.cfm?action=app.search-recherche&appliance=OVENS_E.

           Table IV-19--Slopes and Intercepts of Electric Oven IAEC Versus Cavity Volume Relationship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Standard electric ovens                  Self-clean electric ovens
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Slope = 31.8                              Slope = 42.3
            Level            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Freestanding      Built-in/Slide-in       Freestanding      Built-in/slide-in
                                   intercepts           intercepts           intercepts           intercepts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................               157.74               164.78               173.12               179.18
1...........................               147.82               154.62               163.24               169.13
2...........................               134.98               141.47               145.28               150.86
3...........................               122.45               128.64                97.05               101.81
4...........................               118.20               124.29                96.24               100.98
5...........................               107.91               113.75  ...................  ...................
6...........................                71.10                76.07  ...................  ...................
7...........................                70.54                75.49  ...................  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              Table IV-20--Slopes and Intercepts of Gas Oven IAEC versus Cavity Volume Relationship
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Standard gas ovens                       Self-clean gas ovens
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Slope = 214.4                             Slope = 214.4
            Level            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Freestanding      Built-in/slide-in       Freestanding      Built-in/slide-in
                                   intercepts           intercepts           intercepts           intercepts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................               1196.3               1206.2                961.8                971.8
1...........................                727.4                735.1                926.3                936.0
2...........................                692.7                700.3                746.7                755.5
3...........................                568.8                575.8                674.4                682.8
4...........................                492.9                499.5                669.1                677.5
5...........................                478.7                485.2  ...................  ...................
6...........................                433.7                440.1  ...................  ...................
7...........................                425.1                431.4  ...................  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Incremental Manufacturing Production Cost Estimates
    Based on the analyses discussed above, DOE developed the cost-
efficiency results for each product class shown in Table IV-21. Where 
available, DOE developed incremental manufacturing production costs 
(MPCs) based on manufacturing cost modeling of test units in its sample 
featuring the proposed design options. For design options that were not 
observed in DOE's sample of test units for this NOPR, DOE used the 
incremental manufacturing costs developed as part of the 2009 TSD, then 
adjusted the values to reflect changes in the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' Producer Price Index (PPI) for household cooking appliance 
manufacturing.\28\ DOE notes that the estimated incremental MPCs would 
be equivalent for the freestanding and built-in/slide-in oven product 
classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ppi/.

[[Page 33054]]



                      Table IV-21--Conventional Oven Incremental Manufacturing Product Cost
                                                     [2014$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Electric ovens                     Gas ovens
                      Level                      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Standard       Self-clean       Standard       Self-clean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
1...............................................           $0.82           $0.82           $0.00           $0.82
2...............................................            2.76           25.00            0.82            7.31
3...............................................            7.89           56.74            7.31           27.96
4...............................................           10.22           61.93           12.44           33.15
5...............................................           34.40  ..............           14.77  ..............
6...............................................           66.14  ..............           35.43  ..............
7...............................................           70.36  ..............           39.74  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Consumer Utility
    In determining whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA 
requires DOE to consider ``any lessening of the utility or the 
performance of the covered products likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
    In a response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR, Sub Zero commented 
that heavier gauge materials provide customers with extended product 
life, quality, functionality, and durability. Sub Zero also commented 
that that full extension oven racks provided in these products provide 
consumer utility. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 3)
    In response to the February 2014 RFI, AHAM and Whirlpool commented 
that new energy conservation standards could likely impact the utility 
of conventional ovens in the following ways:
     A standard could lower burner input rates, which will 
impact cooking times. Higher burner input rates allow for quicker 
cooking time, which is an important consumer utility;
     A standard could result in smaller oven windows. Consumers 
desire larger windows in order to view the food during cooking without 
opening the oven door. Smaller windows could result in more door 
openings, and thus increase energy use;
     A standard could also result in the removal of accent 
lighting and large displays which are preferred consumer features. 
There is reduced consumer utility from further reducing standby power 
from what products use today. According to Whirlpool, the market is 
still pushing manufacturers to add more advanced electronics that use 
more standby power. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 7; Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at 
pp. 5, 8).
    Accordingly, AHAM and Whirlpool opposed amendment of the existing 
standards for cooking products. AHAM and Whirlpool stated that not only 
would amended standards fail to be technologically feasible or 
economically justified, but they would also impact the utility of 
cooking products. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 7; Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 
8).
    DOE conducted the engineering analysis by considering design 
options that are consistent with products currently on the market, and 
as a result, DOE did not consider changes that would result in smaller 
oven windows or removal of accent lighting and display features. In 
addition, as discussed in section IV.A.2, DOE noted that gas ovens with 
higher burner input rates did not have significantly faster cooking 
times when tested according to the DOE test procedure in Appendix I. 
This is likely due in large part to the fact that gas-cooking products 
with higher burner input rates marketed as commercial-style often have 
significantly larger thermal masses, which absorb a significant amount 
of additional heat. DOE is also not aware of data justifying how added 
thermal mass improves durability, extends product life, or provides 
additional consumer utility as compared to standard residential-style 
ovens. As a result, DOE does not believe that any of the design options 
and efficiency levels considered in this NOPR would impact the consumer 
utility of conventional ovens, as suggested by AHAM and Whirlpool. 
However DOE welcomes continued feedback on this topic, including how 
the efficiency levels and technology options presented in Table IV-15 
through Table IV-18 may affect consumer utility (see section VII.E).

D. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the 
distribution chain to convert the MPC estimates derived in the 
engineering analysis to consumer prices. At each step in the 
distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to 
cover business costs and profit margin. For conventional cooking 
products, the main parties in the distribution chain are manufacturers 
and retailers.
    Thus, DOE analyzed a manufacturer-to-consumer distribution channel 
consisting of three parties: (1) The manufacturers of the products; (2) 
the retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling 
them to consumers; and (3) the consumers who purchase the products.
    The manufacturer markup converts MPC to manufacturer selling price 
(MSP). DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the 
annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by 
publicly traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance 
manufacturing and whose combined product range includes conventional 
cooking products.
    For retailers, DOE developed separate markups for baseline products 
(baseline markups) and for the incremental cost of more efficient 
products (incremental markups). Incremental markups are coefficients 
that relate the change in the MSP of higher-efficiency models to the 
change in the retailer sales price. DOE relied on economic data from 
the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental 
markups.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ U.S. Census, 2007 Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS), 
Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to developing manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE 
included sales taxes in the final appliance retail prices. DOE used an 
Internet source, the Sales Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate applicable 
sales taxes.
    Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of 
markups for conventional ovens.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The energy use analysis provides estimates of the annual energy 
consumption of ovens at the considered efficiency levels. DOE uses 
these values in the LCC and PBP analyses and in the NIA to establish 
the savings in

[[Page 33055]]

consumer operating costs at various product efficiency levels. DOE 
developed energy consumption estimates for all product classes analyzed 
in the engineering analysis.
    For the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE utilized a 2004 California 
Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) \30\ and a Florida Solar 
Energy Center (FSEC) study \31\ to establish representative annual 
energy use values for cooking products. For this NOPR, DOE used an 
update to the California RASS \32\ and a recent FSEC study \33\ to 
establish representative annual energy use values for conventional 
ovens. These studies confirmed that annual cooking energy use has been 
consistently declining since the late 1970s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ California Energy Commission, California Statewide 
Residential Appliance Saturation Study (June 2004).
    \31\ D.S. Parker. ``Research Highlights from a Large Scale 
Residential Monitoring Study in a Hot Climate,'' Proceeding of 
International Symposium on Highly Efficient Use of Energy and 
Reduction of its Environmental Impact (January 2002).
    \32\ California Energy Commission, Residential Appliance 
Saturation Survey (RASS) (2009).
    \33\ Parker, D., Fairey, P., Hendron, R., ``Updated 
Miscellaneous Electricity Loads and Appliance Energy Usage Profiles 
for Use in Home Energy Ratings, the Building America Benchmark 
Procedures and Related Calculations,'' Florida Solar Energy Center 
(FSEC) (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's energy use analysis estimated the range of energy use of 
cooking products in the field, i.e., as they are actually used by 
consumers. Because energy use by residential cooking products varies 
greatly based on consumer usage patterns, DOE established a range of 
energy use. The Energy Information Administration (EIA)'s 2009 
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 2009) is one source for 
estimating the range of energy use for cooking products.\34\ DOE used 
data from RECS 2009 for this NOPR to establish this range.\35\ Although 
RECS 2009 does not provide the annual energy consumption of the cooking 
product, it does provide the frequency of cooking use. DOE was unable 
to use the frequency of use to calculate the annual energy consumption 
using a bottom-up approach, as data in RECS did not include information 
about the duration of a cooking event to allow for an annual energy use 
calculation. DOE therefore relied on California RASS and FSEC studies 
to establish the annual energy consumption of a cooking product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2009 RECS 
Survey Data (2013) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/).
    \35\ RECS 2009 is based on a sample of 12,083 households 
statistically selected to represent 113.6 million housing units in 
the United States. RECS 2009 data are available for 27 geographical 
areas (including 16 large States) (Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From RECS 2009, DOE developed household samples for each product 
class. For each household using a conventional cooking product, RECS 
provides data on the frequency of use and number of meals cooked in the 
following bins: (1) Less than once per week, (2) once per week, (3) a 
few times per week, (4) once per day, (5) two times per day, and (6) 
three or more times per day. Thus, DOE utilized the frequency of use to 
define the variability of the annual energy consumption. Conducting the 
analysis in this manner captures the observed variability in annual 
energy consumption while maintaining the average annual energy 
consumption. To determine the variability of cooking product energy 
consumption, DOE first equated the weighted-average cooking frequency 
from RECS with the average energy use values based on CA RASS and FSEC 
studies. DOE then varied the annual energy consumption for each RECS 
household based on its reported cooking frequency. Thus, DOE utilized 
the range in frequency of use to define the variability of the annual 
energy consumption.
    Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD describes the energy use analysis in 
detail.
    AHAM expressed objections to DOE's reliance on RECS 2009 for 
analyses, stating that it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare 
the results to the energy use measured in a controlled test procedure 
situation. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 7) DOE utilized RECS 2009 only to 
characterize variability of usage across various consumers. For 
representative energy use DOE relied on other studies and surveys to 
establish baseline energy consumption.
    Whirlpool noted that cooking product energy use is unique from 
other major appliances in that there is a wide variation amongst 
consumers, with consumer behavior as a key determinant. (Whirlpool, STD 
No. 13 at p. 8) DOE acknowledges that consumer behavior is a key 
determinant of the eventual energy use by the product. To characterize 
the variability in usage across consumers, DOE utilized data from RECS 
2009, as described above.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    The purpose of the LCC and PBP analysis is to evaluate the economic 
impacts of potential 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.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to an estimate of the base-case product efficiency 
distribution. The base-case estimate reflects the market in the absence 
of new or amended energy conservation standards, including the market 
for products that exceed the current energy conservation standards. In 
contrast, the PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
    DOE calculated the LCC and payback periods for conventional ovens 
for a nationally representative set of housing units selected from RECS 
2009. By using a representative sample of households, the analysis 
captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices 
associated with cooking product use.
    For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption 
for the cooking product and the appropriate energy price. DOE first 
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 more efficient designs.
    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. Inputs to the LCC and PBP 
analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs for establishing the total 
installed cost and (2) inputs for calculating the operating costs. DOE 
models the uncertainty and the variability in the inputs to the LCC and 
PBP analysis using Monte Carlo simulations and probability 
distributions.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Monte Carlo process statistically captures input 
variability and distribution without testing all possible input 
combinations. Therefore, while some atypical situations may not be 
captured in the analysis, DOE believes the analysis captures an 
adequate range of situations in which the conventional cooking 
products operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections contain comments on the inputs and key 
assumptions of DOE's LCC and PBP analysis and explain how DOE took

[[Page 33056]]

these comments into consideration. Chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying 
this notice contains detailed discussion of the methodology and data 
utilized for the LCC and PBP analysis.
1. Product Costs
    To calculate the prices faced by cooking products purchasers, DOE 
multiplied the manufacturing costs developed from the engineering 
analysis by the supply chain markups it developed (along with sales 
taxes).
    To project future product prices, DOE examined the electric and gas 
cooking products Producer Price Index (PPI) for the period 1982-2013. 
This index, adjusted for inflation, shows a declining trend. The 
decline for gas cooking products is a little more significant than that 
for electric cooking products (see appendix 10-D of the NOPR TSD). 
Based on an exponential fit of the adjusted PPIs, DOE utilized a 
declining price trend for both electric and gas cooking products as the 
default case to project future product price.
2. Installation Costs
    Installation costs include labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts. For this NOPR, DOE used data from the 2013 RS 
Means Mechanical Cost Data on labor requirements to estimate 
installation costs for conventional ovens.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Mechanical Cost Data (2013) 
(Available at http://rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/default.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, DOE estimated that installation costs would be the same 
for different efficiency levels.
3. Unit Energy Consumption
    Section IV.E describes the derivation of annual energy use for 
conventional ovens.
    DOE did not find any evidence of a rebound effect, in which 
consumers use a more efficient appliance more intensively, for 
conventional ovens. Cooking practices are affected by people's eating 
habits, which are unlikely to change due to higher product efficiency. 
DOE requests comment on its decision to not use a rebound effect for 
cooking products (see issue 11 in section VII.E).
4. Energy Prices
    DOE derived marginal residential electricity and natural gas prices 
for 27 geographic areas.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ DOE characterized the geographic distribution into 27 
geographic areas to be consistent with the 27 states and group of 
states reported in RECS 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated residential electricity prices for each of the 27 
areas based on 2013 data from EIA Form 861, Annual Electric Power 
Industry Report.\39\ DOE first estimated a marginal residential price 
for each utility, and then calculated an marginal price for each area 
by weighting each utility with customers in an area by the number of 
residential customers served in that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Utility EIA form 861 submissions for 20132012 are available 
at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated marginal residential natural gas prices in each of 
the 27 geographic areas based on 2013 data from the EIA publication 
Natural Gas Monthly publication.\40\ DOE calculated a marginal natural 
gas price for each area 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The EIA Natural Gas Monthly publication is available at 
http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/monthly/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate future trends in electricity and natural gas prices, 
DOE used price forecasts in AEO 2015. To arrive at prices in future 
years, DOE multiplied the marginal prices described above by the 
forecast of annual average changes in national-average residential 
electricity and natural gas prices. Because AEO 2015 forecasts prices 
only to 2040, DOE used the average rate of change during 2025-2040 to 
estimate the price trends beyond 2040.
    Laclede and the American Gas Association (AGA) suggest that DOE use 
consumer marginal energy rates when evaluating the LCC for each 
standard efficiency level. They noted that this approach was 
recommended by DOE's Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy Efficiency 
Standards in April 1998. AGA notes that a marginal price analysis 
reflects incremental changes in natural gas costs most closely 
associated with changes in the amount of gas consumed. (Laclede, STD 
No. 8 at p. 4 and AGA, STD No. 7 at p. 2) DOE developed estimates of 
marginal electricity and natural gas prices for the NOPR analysis.
    The spreadsheet tool used to conduct the LCC and PBP analysis 
allows users to select the AEO 2015 high-growth case or low-growth case 
price forecasts to estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP to 
different energy price forecasts.
5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components 
that have failed in the appliance. Maintenance costs are associated 
with maintaining the operation of the equipment.
    Typically, small incremental changes in product efficiency incur 
no, or only very small, changes in repair and maintenance costs over 
baseline products. For all electric cooking products, DOE did not 
include any changes in repair and maintenance costs for products more 
efficient than baseline products.
    For gas ovens, DOE determined the repair and maintenance costs 
associated with different types of ignition systems. Following the 
approach adopted in the April 2009 Final Rule for electric glo-bar/hot 
surface ignition systems, DOE estimated an average repair cost of $170 
occurring every fifth year during the product's lifetime. For 
electronic spark ignition systems, DOE estimated an average repair cost 
of $206 occurring in the tenth year of the product's life. DOE seeks 
comments from the industry on repair cost estimation (see section 
VII.E).
    See chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this notice for further 
information regarding repair and maintenance costs.
6. Product Lifetime
    Equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired 
from service. DOE used a variety of sources to establish low, average, 
and high estimates for product lifetime. Utilizing data from Appliance 
Magazine Market Insight, DOE established average product lifetimes of 
15 years for conventional electric ovens and 17 years for conventional 
gas ovens.\41\ DOE characterized the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Appliance Magazine, Market Insight. The U.S. Appliance 
Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy & Replacement Picture 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to households to estimate the present value of future operating costs. 
DOE estimated a distribution of residential discount rates for 
conventional cooking products based on consumer financing costs and 
opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings and 
maintenance costs.
    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE's 
approach involved identifying all relevant household debt or asset 
classes in order to approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds 
related to appliance energy cost savings and maintenance costs. DOE 
estimated the average percentage shares of the various

[[Page 33057]]

types of debt and equity by household income group using data from the 
Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1995, 
1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010.\42\ Using the SCF and other sources, 
DOE then developed a distribution of rates for each type of debt and 
asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in the year 
in which amended standards would take effect. DOE assigned each sample 
household a specific discount rate drawn from one of the distributions. 
The average rate across all types of household debt and equity and 
income groups, weighted by the shares of each class, is 5.0 percent. 
See chapter 8 in the NOPR TSD for further details on the development of 
consumer discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Note that two older versions of the SCF are also available 
(1989 and 1992). These surveys were not used in this analysis 
because they do not provide all of the necessary types of data 
(e.g., credit card interest rates). DOE determines that the 15-year 
span covered by the six surveys included is sufficiently 
representative of recent debt and equity shares and interest rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Compliance Date
    The compliance date is the date when a covered product is required 
to meet a new or amended standard. DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 
all customers as if each were to purchase new equipment in the year 
that compliance with amended standards is required. EPCA, as amended, 
requires that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule 
establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice 
of determination that standards for the product do not need to be 
amended, or a NOPR that includes new proposed energy conservation 
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE's last final rule for 
conventional cooking products was issued on March 31, 2009. Thus, DOE 
must act by March 31, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(b). Any amended 
standards would apply to conventional cooking products manufactured 
three years after the date on which the final amended standard is 
published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) Therefore, for purposes of its 
analysis, DOE assumed that a final rule would be published in 2016, 
which results in 2019 being the first year of compliance with amended 
standards.
9. Base Case Efficiency Distribution
    To accurately estimate the percentage of consumers that would be 
affected by a particular standard level, DOE estimates the distribution 
of equipment efficiencies that consumers are expected to purchase under 
the base case (i.e., the case without amended energy efficiency 
standards). DOE refers to this distribution of equipment energy 
efficiencies as a base-case efficiency distribution. This approach 
reflects the fact that some consumers may already purchase equipment 
with efficiencies greater than the baseline equipment levels.
    DOE did not have market data reflecting the efficiency distribution 
of cooking products being sold. DOE's Compliance Certification Database 
provides information on models of gas cooking products that comply with 
the requirement of not having a standing pilot. In the absence of data 
on the efficiency distribution of the products being sold in the 
market, DOE calculated the market share of available efficiency options 
based on consumer's sensitivity to first cost. DOE treated renters and 
owners as two separate entities to establish price sensitivities, and 
used a logit model to characterize historical shipments as a function 
of price. DOE used shipments data collected by the Market Research 
Magazine and the PPI for household cooking appliance manufacturers 
between the years 2002-2012, along with the manufacturer cost data from 
the engineering analysis to analyze factors that influence consumer 
purchasing decisions of cooking products. Because the data are not 
sufficient to capture any definite trend in efficiency, DOE used the 
2013 distribution (described in Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD) to represent 
the market in the compliance year (2019).
    Table IV-22 and present market shares of the efficiency levels in 
the base case for conventional ovens.\43\ See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD 
for further details on the development of base-case market shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ For the conventional oven product classes, the efficiency 
levels are based on an oven with a cavity volume of 3.9 ft\3\. As 
discussed in section IV.C.3, DOE developed slopes and intercepts to 
characterize the relationship between IEAC and cavity volume for 
each efficiency level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 33058]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN15.001

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis
    The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the 
additional installed cost of more efficient equipment, compared to 
baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. PBPs are expressed in 
years. PBPs that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased 
total installed cost is 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
    EPCA 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 savings during the first year that the consumer will receive 
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the test procedure

[[Page 33059]]

in place for that standard. (42 U.S.C. (o)(2)(B)(iii) For each 
considered efficiency level, DOE determines the value of the first 
year's energy savings by calculating the quantity of those savings in 
accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying that 
amount by the average energy price forecast for the year in which 
compliance with the amended standards would be required.

G. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of product shipments to calculate the national 
impacts of standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash 
flows. DOE develops shipment projections based on historical data and 
an analysis of key market drivers for each product. Historical 
shipments data are used to build up an equipment stock and also to 
calibrate the shipments model. DOE accounted for three market segments: 
(1) New construction, (2) existing homes (i.e., replacing failed 
products), and (3) retired but not replaced. DOE used the retired but 
not replaced market segment to calibrate the shipments model to 
historical shipments data.
    DOE considered the impacts of prospective standards on product 
shipments. The combined market of conventional electric and gas cooking 
products is completely saturated. Thus, DOE concluded that any price 
increase due to a standard would not impact the overall decision to 
purchase. However, DOE did implement an impact due to a standard on the 
efficiency of the product that will likely be purchased. This impact is 
captured through a change in the efficiency distribution of the market.
    Table IV-24 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive the 
inputs to the shipments analysis for the NOPR.

     Table IV-24--Approach and Data Used To Derive the Inputs to the
                           Shipments Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Inputs                              Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction Shipments........  Determined by multiplying housing
                                     forecasts by forecasted saturation
                                     of cooking products for new
                                     housing. Housing forecasts based on
                                     AEO2014 projections. New housing
                                     product saturations based on RECS
                                     2009. Forecasted saturations
                                     maintained at 2009 levels.
Replacements......................  Determined by tracking total product
                                     stock by vintage and establishing
                                     the failure of the stock using
                                     retirement functions from the LCC
                                     and PBP analysis. Retirement
                                     functions were based on Weibull
                                     lifetime distributions.
Retired but not replaced..........  Used to calibrate shipments model to
                                     historical shipments data to
                                     account for a decline in the
                                     replacement shipments.
Historical Shipments..............  Data sources include U.S.
                                     Statistical Review of Appliance
                                     Industry and Appliance Magazine.
Impacts Due to Efficiency           Not considered due to a fully
 Standards.                          saturated market.
Fuel Switching....................  Not considered, as no significant
                                     movement was observed from
                                     historical data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine new construction shipments, DOE used a forecast of new 
housing coupled with product market saturation data for new housing. 
For new housing completions and mobile home placements, DOE adopted the 
projections from EIA's AEO 2015 through 2040.
    DOE estimated replacements using product retirement functions 
developed from product lifetimes. For this NOPR, DOE used retirement 
functions based on Weibull distributions.
    To reconcile the historical shipments with the model, DOE assumed 
that every retired unit is not replaced. DOE attributed the reason for 
this non-replacement to building demolition occurring at the rate of 
approximately three percent of the retiring units per annum over the 
period 2013-2048. The assumed not-replaced rate is distributed into 2.8 
percent for electric cooking products and 4.1 percent for gas cooking 
products.
    DOE allocated shipments to each of the eight product classes based 
on the current market share of each class. DOE developed the market 
shares based on historical data collected from Appliance Magazine 
Market Research report \44\ and U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical 
Review.\45\ The shares are kept constant over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Appliance Magazine Market Research. The U.S. Appliance 
Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy & Replacement Picture 2012.
    \45\ Appliance 2011. U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 
2000 to YTD 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AGA voiced concern that the establishment of energy conservation 
standards for natural gas cooking appliances may result in increased 
first-cost of these appliances, making them less attractive and leading 
to potential fuel switching. (AGA, STD No. 7 at p. 2) Because this NOPR 
considers standards for both electric and natural gas appliances, any 
increase in the price of the appliance would impact cooking products of 
both fuel types. As switching typically includes additional 
installation costs for accessing the new fuel source (e.g. installation 
of a gas line for gas appliances and installation of electrical lines 
for electrical appliances), which would outweigh the incremental change 
in equipment price, DOE determined that fuel-switching would not occur.
    For further details on the shipments analysis, please refer to 
chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the national energy savings and the national NPV 
of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result 
from amended standards at specific efficiency levels.
    DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet model to calculate the national 
energy savings and the consumer costs and savings from each TSL.\46\ 
The NIA calculations are based on the annual energy consumption and 
total installed cost data from the energy use analysis and the LCC 
analysis. DOE projected the lifetime energy savings, energy cost 
savings, equipment costs, and NPV of customer benefits for each product 
class over the lifetime of equipment sold from 2019 through 2048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ DOE's use of MS Excel as the basis for the spreadsheet 
models provides interested parties with access to the models within 
a familiar context. In addition, the TSD and other documentation 
that DOE provides during the rulemaking help explain the models and 
how to use them. Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by 
changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluated the impacts of proposed standards for conventional 
ovens by comparing base-case projections with standards-case 
projections. The base-case projections characterize energy use and 
customer costs for each product class in the

[[Page 33060]]

absence of proposed energy conservation standards.
    Table IV-25 summarizes the key inputs for the NIA. The sections 
following provide further details, as does chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.

          Table IV-25--Inputs for the National Impact Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Input                             Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.........................  Annual shipments from shipments
                                     model.
Compliance date...................  January 1, 2019.
Base case efficiency..............  Based on the consumer choice model.
Standards case efficiency.........  Based on a ``roll up'' scenario to
                                     establish a 2019 shipment weighted
                                     efficiency.
Annual energy consumption per unit  Calculated for each efficiency level
                                     and product class based on inputs
                                     from the energy use analysis.
Total installed cost per unit.....  Calculated by efficiency level using
                                     manufacturer selling prices and
                                     weighted-average overall markup
                                     values.
Energy expense per unit...........  Annual energy use is multiplied by
                                     the corresponding average
                                     electricity and gas price.
Escalation of electricity and gas   AEO 2015 forecasts (to 2040) and
 prices.                             extrapolation beyond 2040 for
                                     electricity and gas prices.
Electricity site-to-primary energy  A time series conversion factor;
 conversion.                         includes electric generation,
                                     transmission, and distribution
                                     losses.
Discount rates....................  3% and 7%.
Present year......................  2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Efficiency Trends
    A key component of DOE's estimates of national energy savings and 
NPV is the energy efficiencies forecasted over time. For the base case, 
in the absence of any historical efficiency data, and absence of an 
ENERGY STAR program for conventional cooking products, DOE assumed that 
efficiency would follow the distribution based on consumer choice 
model. The model responds to changes in product prices, and therefore, 
is affected by the learning effect on the prices.
    To estimate the impact that standards would have in the year 
compliance becomes required, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario, which 
assumes that equipment efficiencies in the base case that do not meet 
the standard level under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the 
new standard level and equipment shipments at efficiencies above the 
standard level under consideration are not affected. In each standards 
case, the efficiency distributions remain constant at the 2019 levels 
for the remainder of the shipments forecast period.
2. National Energy Savings
    For each year in the forecast period, DOE calculates the national 
energy savings for each standard level by multiplying the shipments of 
ovens by the per-unit annual energy savings. Cumulative energy savings 
are the sum of the annual energy savings over the lifetime of all 
equipment shipped during 2019-2048.
    The annual energy consumption per unit depends directly on 
equipment efficiency. DOE used the shipment-weighted energy 
efficiencies associated with the base case and each standards case, in 
combination with the annual energy use 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. DOE calculates the total annual 
site energy savings for a given standards case by subtracting total 
energy use in the standards case from total energy use in the base 
case. Note that total shipments are the same in the standards cases as 
in the base case.
    DOE converted the site electricity consumption and savings to 
primary energy (power sector energy consumption) using annual 
conversion factors derived from the AEO 2014 version of the National 
Energy Modeling System (NEMS).
    The American Public Gas Association (APGA), National Propane Gas 
Association (NGPA), AGA, and Laclede recommend that DOE incorporate 
full fuel cycle analysis in the conservation standard. (APGA, STD No. 6 
at p. 2, NPGA, STD No. 5 at pp. 1-3, AGA, STD No. 7 at p. 2, and 
Laclede, STD No. 8 at p. 3) In response to the recommendations of a 
committee on ``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches 
to Energy Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of 
Science, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use, 
GHG emissions and other emissions in the national impact analyses and 
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011). After evaluating the 
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a 
statement of amended policy in the Federal Register in which DOE 
explained its determination that NEMS is the most appropriate tool for 
its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 
49701 (August 17, 2012). The FFC factors incorporate losses in 
production and delivery in the case of natural gas (including fugitive 
emissions), and energy used to produce and deliver the fuels used by 
power plants. The approach used for this NOPR, and the FFC multipliers 
that were applied, are described in appendix 10A of the NOPR TSD. DOE 
continues to work with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to make 
available to the consumer information regarding FFC energy use through 
the Energy Guide label. Table IV-26 through Table IV-29 below present 
the FFC equivalent of IAEC for the considered efficiency levels.

                    Table IV-26--Conventional Electric Standard Ovens: FFC Equivalent of IAEC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          IAEC--site (kWh)                           IAEC--FFC (kWh)
       Standard level        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Freestanding           Built-in           Freestanding           Built-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................                  294                  302                  962                  985

[[Page 33061]]

 
1...........................                  285                  291                  930                  952
2...........................                  272                  278                  888                  909
3...........................                  259                  265                  847                  867
4...........................                  255                  261                  833                  853
5...........................                  245                  250                  799                  819
6...........................                  208                  213                  679                  695
7...........................                  207                  212                  677                  694
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Table IV-27--Conventional Electric Self-Clean Ovens: FFC Equivalent of IAEC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          IAEC--site (kWh)                           IAEC--FFC (kWh)
       Standard level        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Freestanding           Built-in           Freestanding           Built-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................                  355                  361                1,160                1,180
1...........................                  345                  351                1,128                1,147
2...........................                  327                  333                1,069                1,087
3...........................                  279                  284                  912                  927
4...........................                  278                  283                  909                  924
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Table IV-28--Conventional Gas Standard Ovens: FFC Equivalent of IAEC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          IAEC--site (kWh)                           IAEC--FFC (kWh)
       Standard level        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Freestanding           Built-in           Freestanding           Built-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................                2,118                2,128                2,347                2,358
1...........................                1,649                1,657                1,828                1,836
2...........................                1,615                1,622                1,789                1,798
3...........................                1,491                1,498                1,652                1,660
4...........................                1,415                1,421                1,568                1,575
5...........................                1,401                1,407                1,552                1,559
6...........................                1,356                1,362                1,502                1,509
7...........................                1,347                1,353                1,493                1,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     Table IV-29--Conventional Gas Self-Clean Ovens: FFC Equivalent of IAEC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          IAEC--site (kWh)                           IAEC--FFC (kWh)
       Standard level        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Freestanding           Built-in           Freestanding           Built-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................                1,884                1,894                2,087                2,098
1...........................                1,848                1,858                2,048                2,059
2...........................                1,669                1,677                1,849                1,859
3...........................                1,596                1,605                1,769                1,778
4...........................                1,591                1,599                1,763                1,772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are: (1) Total annual installed cost; (2) 
total annual savings in operating costs; and (3) a discount factor to 
calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE calculates the 
lifetime net savings for equipment shipped each year as the difference 
between the base case and each standards case in total savings in 
lifetime operating costs and total increases in installed costs. DOE 
calculates lifetime operating cost savings over the life of each 
considered oven unit in conventional cooking products shipped during 
the forecast period.
a. Total Annual Installed Cost
    The total installed cost includes both the equipment price and the 
installation cost. For each product class, DOE calculated equipment 
prices by efficiency level using manufacturer selling prices and 
weighted-average overall markup values. Because DOE calculated the 
total installed cost as a function of equipment efficiency, it was able 
to determine annual total installed costs based on the annual shipment-
weighted efficiency levels determined in the shipments model. DOE 
accounted for the repair and maintenance costs associated with the 
ignition systems in gas cooking products.
    As noted in section IV.F.1, DOE assumed a declining trend in the 
conventional cooking products prices

[[Page 33062]]

over the analysis period. In addition, DOE conducted sensitivity 
analyses using alternative price trends: One in which the rate of 
decline in prices is greater after 2014, and one in which the rate of 
decline is lower. These price trends, and the NPV results from the 
associated sensitivity cases, are described in appendix 10B of the NOPR 
TSD.
b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings
    The per-unit energy savings were derived as described in section 
IV.H.2. To calculate future electricity and natural gas prices, DOE 
applied the projected trend in national-average commercial electricity 
and natural gas price from the AEO 2015 Reference case, which extends 
to 2040, to the prices derived in the LCC and PBP analysis. DOE used 
the trend from 2025 to 2040 to extrapolate beyond 2040. DOE requests 
comment on its approach (see issue 9 in section VII.E).
    In addition, DOE analyzed scenarios that used the energy price 
projections in the AEO 2015 Low Economic Growth and High Economic 
Growth cases. These cases have higher and lower energy price trends 
compared to the Reference case. These price trends, and the NPV results 
from the associated cases, are described in appendix 10C of the NOPR 
TSD.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net dollar savings in 
future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. DOE 
estimates the NPV using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount 
rate in accordance with guidance provided by the OMB to Federal 
agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.\47\ The discount 
rates for the determination of NPV are in contrast to the discount 
rates used in the LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect a 
consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the 
average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. 
economy. The 3-percent real value represents the ``social rate of time 
preference,'' which is the rate at which society discounts future 
consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, ``Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis,'' Section E, (Sept. 17, 2003) (Available at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 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 this NOPR, DOE used RECS 2009 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.
    More details on the consumer subgroup analysis can be found in 
chapter 11 of the TSD accompanying this notice.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE conducted an MIA for residential conventional ovens to estimate 
the financial impact of new and amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of these products. 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 residential 
conventional ovens covered in this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs are 
data on the industry cost structure, equipment costs, shipments, and 
assumptions about manufacturer markups and conversion costs. The key 
MIA output is INPV. DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash flows using 
standard accounting principles and to compare changes in INPV between a 
base case and various TSLs in the standards case. The difference in 
INPV between the base and standards cases represents the financial 
impact of new and amended energy conservation standards on residential 
conventional oven manufacturers. Different sets of assumptions 
(scenarios) produce different INPV results. The qualitative part of the 
MIA addresses factors such as manufacturing capacity; characteristics 
of, and impacts on, any particular subgroup of manufacturers; and 
impacts on competition.
    DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In the 
first phase DOE prepared an industry characterization based on the 
market and technology assessment and publicly available information. In 
the second phase, DOE developed an interview guide based on the 
industry financial parameters derived in the first phase. In the third 
phase, DOE conducted interviews with a variety of residential 
conventional cooking product manufacturers that account for more than 
85 percent of domestic residential conventional oven sales covered by 
this rulemaking. During these interviews, DOE discussed engineering, 
manufacturing, procurement, and financial topics specific to each 
company and obtained each manufacturer's view of the residential 
conventional oven industry as a whole. The interviews provided 
information that DOE used to evaluate the impacts of new and amended 
standards on manufacturers' cash flows, manufacturing capacities, and 
direct domestic manufacturing employment levels. Section V.B.2 of this 
NOPR contains a discussion on the estimated changes in the number of 
domestic employees involved in manufacturing residential conventional 
ovens covered by the proposed standards. Section IV.J.4 of this NOPR 
contains a description of the key issues manufacturers raised during 
the interviews.
    During the third phase, DOE also used the results of the industry 
characterization analysis in the first phase and feedback from 
manufacturer interviews to group together manufacturers that exhibit 
similar production and cost structure characteristics. DOE identified 
one manufacturer subgroup for a separate impact analysis--small 
business manufacturers--using the small business employee threshold of 
750 total employees published by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA). This threshold includes all employees in a business' parent 
company and any other subsidiaries. Based on this classification, DOE 
identified seven residential conventional oven manufacturers that 
qualify as small businesses. The manufacturer subgroup analysis is 
discussed in greater detail in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD and in 
section VI.B of this notice.
2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flows over time 
due to new and amended energy conservation standards. These changes in 
cash flows result in either a higher or lower INPV for the standards 
case compared to the base case (the case where a standard is not set). 
The GRIM analysis uses a standard annual cash flow analysis that 
incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry 
financial information as inputs. It then models changes in costs, 
investments, and manufacturer margins that result from new and amended 
standards. The GRIM uses these inputs to calculate a series of annual 
cash flows beginning with the base year of the analysis, 2015, and 
continuing to 2048. DOE computes INPV by summing the stream of annual 
discounted cash flows during the analysis period. DOE used a real 
discount rate of 9.1 percent for residential conventional cooking 
product manufacturers. The discount rate estimates were derived from

[[Page 33063]]

industry corporate annual reports to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (SEC 10-Ks). During manufacturer interviews residential 
conventional oven manufacturers were asked to provide feedback on this 
discount rate. Most manufacturers agreed that a discount rate of 9.1 
was appropriate to use for residential conventional oven manufacturers. 
Many inputs into the GRIM came from the engineering analysis, the NIA, 
manufacturer interviews, and other research conducted during the MIA. 
The major GRIM inputs are described in detail in the following 
sections.
a. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
    DOE expects new and amended energy conservation standards for 
residential conventional ovens to cause manufacturers to incur 
conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product 
designs into compliance with the new and amended standards. For the 
MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) 
Capital conversion costs, and (2) product conversion costs. Capital 
conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment 
necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities such that 
new product designs can be fabricated and assembled. Product conversion 
costs are investments in research, development, testing, marketing, 
certification, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make 
product designs comply with new and amended standards.
    Using feedback from manufacturer interviews, DOE conducted a top-
down analysis to calculate the capital and product conversion costs for 
residential conventional oven manufacturers. DOE asked manufacturers 
during interviews to estimate the total capital and product conversion 
costs they would need to incur to be able to produce each residential 
conventional oven at specific ELs. DOE then summed these values 
provided by manufacturers to arrive at total top-down industry 
conversion cost for residential conventional ovens.
    See chapter 12 of this NOPR TSD for a complete description of DOE's 
assumptions for the capital and product conversion costs.
b. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficient residential conventional ovens is 
typically more expensive than manufacturing baseline products due to 
the need for more costly materials and components. The higher MPCs for 
these more efficient products can affect the revenue, gross margin, and 
the cash flows of residential conventional oven manufacturers. DOE 
developed MPCs for each representative unit at each EL analyzed. DOE 
purchased a number of units for each product class, then tested and 
tore down those units to create a unique bill of materials for the 
purchased unit. Using the bill of materials for each residential 
conventional oven, DOE was able to create an aggregated MPC based on 
the material costs from the bill of materials, the labor costs based on 
an average labor rate and the labor hours necessary to manufacture the 
residential conventional oven, and the overhead costs, including 
depreciation, based on a markup applied to the material and labor costs 
based on the materials used. For more information about MPCs, see 
section IV.C of this NOPR.
c. Shipment Scenarios
    INPV, the key GRIM output, depends on industry revenue, which 
depends on the quantity and prices of residential conventional ovens 
shipped in each year of the analysis period. Industry revenue 
calculations require forecasts of: (1) The total annual shipment volume 
of residential conventional ovens; (2) the distribution of shipments 
across product classes (because prices vary by product class); and (3) 
the distribution of shipments across efficiency levels (because prices 
vary with efficiency level).
    In the base case shipment analysis, DOE develops shipment 
projections based on historical data and an analysis of key market 
drivers for each product. In the standards case, DOE modeled a roll-up 
scenario. The roll-up scenario represents the case in which all 
shipments in the base case do not meet the new and amended standards 
shift to now meet the new and amended standard level but do not exceed 
the new and amended standard. Also, no shipments that meet or exceed 
the new and amended standards have an increase in efficiency due to the 
new and amended standards.
    For a complete description of the shipments used in the base and 
standards case see the shipments analysis discussion in section IV.G of 
this NOPR.
d. Markup Scenarios
    As discussed in the previous manufacturer production costs section, 
the MPCs for each of the product classes of residential conventional 
ovens are the manufacturers' factory costs for those units. These costs 
include materials, direct labor, depreciation, and overhead, which are 
collectively referred to as the cost of goods sold (COGS). The MSP is 
the price received by residential conventional oven manufacturers from 
their customers, typically retail outlets, regardless of the downstream 
distribution channel through which the residential conventional ovens 
are ultimately sold. The MSP is not the cost the end-user pays for 
residential conventional ovens because there are typically multiple 
sales along the distribution chain and various markups applied to each 
sale. The MSP equals the MPC multiplied by the manufacturer markup. The 
manufacturer markup covers all the residential conventional oven 
manufacturer's non-production costs (i.e., selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), research and development (R&D), and 
interest, etc.) as well as profit. Total industry revenue for 
residential conventional oven manufacturers equals the MSPs at each EL 
for each product class multiplied by the number of shipments at each EL 
for each product class.
    Modifying these manufacturer markups in the standards case yields a 
different set of impacts on residential conventional oven manufacturers 
than in the base case. For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards case 
markup scenarios for residential conventional ovens to represent the 
uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability 
for residential conventional oven manufacturers following the 
implementation of new energy conservation standards. The two scenarios 
are: (1) A preservation of gross margin markup scenario, and (2) a 
preservation of operating profit markup scenario. Each scenario leads 
to different manufacturer markup values, which, when applied to the 
inputted MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts on 
residential conventional oven manufacturers.
    The preservation of gross margin markup scenario assumes that the 
COGS for each residential conventional oven is marked up by a flat 
percentage to cover SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, interest expenses, and 
profit. This allows manufacturers to preserve the same gross margin 
percentage in the standards case as in the base case throughout the 
entire analysis period. This markup scenario represents the upper bound 
of the residential conventional oven industry profitability in the 
standards case because residential conventional oven manufacturers are 
able to fully pass through additional costs due to standards to their 
consumers.
    To derive the preservation of gross margin markup percentages for 
residential conventional ovens, DOE examined the SEC 10-Ks of all 
publicly

[[Page 33064]]

traded residential conventional oven manufacturers to estimate the 
industry average gross margin percentage. DOE estimated that the 
manufacturer markup for residential conventional ovens is 1.20 for all 
residential conventional ovens. Manufacturers were then asked about 
this industry gross margin percentage derived from SEC 10-Ks during 
interviews. Residential conventional oven manufacturers agreed that the 
1.20 average industry gross margin calculated from SEC 10-Ks was an 
appropriate estimate to use in the MIA. DOE seeks comment on the use of 
1.20 for all residential conventional ovens.
    DOE included an alternative markup scenario, the preservation of 
operating profit markup scenario, because manufacturers stated they do 
not expect to be able to markup the full cost of production in the 
standards case, given the highly competitive residential conventional 
oven market. The preservation of operating profit markup scenario 
assumes that manufacturers are able to maintain only the base case 
total operating profit in absolute dollars in the standards case, 
despite higher production costs and investment. The base case total 
operating profit is derived from marking up the COGS for each product 
by the preservation of gross margin markup previously described. In the 
standards case for the preservation of operating profit markup 
scenario, DOE adjusted the residential conventional oven manufacturer 
markups in the GRIM at each TSL to yield approximately the same 
earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case in the year 
after the compliance date of the new and amended standards as in the 
base case. Under this scenario, while manufacturers are not able to 
earn additional operating profit on higher per unit production costs 
and the increase in capital and product investments that are required 
to comply with new and amended energy conservation standards, they are 
able to maintain the same operating profit in absolute dollars in the 
standards case that was earned in the base case.
    The preservation of operating profit markup scenario represents the 
lower bound of industry profitability in the standards case. This is 
because manufacturers are not able to fully pass through the additional 
costs necessitated by new and amended energy conservation standards, as 
they are able to do in the preservation of gross margin markup 
scenario. Therefore, manufacturers earn less revenue in the 
preservation of operating profit markup scenario than they do in the 
preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
3. Discussion of Comments
    The February 2014 RFI did not focus on the MIA or specifically 
address any issues relating to the MIA. Therefore, DOE did not receive 
any MIA specific comments from the February 2014 RFI.
4. Manufacturer Interviews
    DOE conducted manufacturer interviews following publication of the 
February 2014 RFI in preparation for the NOPR analysis. In these 
interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major concerns 
with this residential conventional ovens rulemaking. The following 
section describes the key issues identified by residential conventional 
oven manufacturers during these interviews.
a. Premium Products Tend To Be Less Efficient
    Manufacturers stated that their premium products are usually less 
efficient than their baseline products. For example, premium ovens 
typically have bigger cavities with hidden heat sources under the floor 
of the cavity. This makes the heat source less direct, therefore 
decreasing the efficiency. On the other hand, baseline ovens tend to 
use direct heating sources which are more efficient. Manufacturers 
warned DOE that focusing only on the efficiency of residential 
conventional ovens could cause some manufacturers to redesign their 
products in a way that reduces consumer satisfaction as consumers tend 
to value premium features.
b. Product Utility
    Manufacturers stated that energy efficiency is not one of the most 
important aspects that consumers value when purchasing residential 
conventional ovens. Manufacturers state that there are several other 
factors, such as performance and durability, which consumers value more 
when purchasing residential conventional ovens. Forcing manufacturers 
to improve the efficiency of their products could lead to some 
manufacturers removing premium features that consumers desire from 
their products, reducing overall consumer utility.
c. Testing and Certification Burdens
    Several manufacturers expressed concern about the testing and 
recertification costs associated with new and amended energy 
conservation standards for residential conventional ovens. Because 
testing and certification costs are incurred on a per model basis, if a 
large number of models are required to be redesigned to meet new and 
amended standards, manufacturers would be forced to spend a significant 
amount of money testing and certifying products that were redesigned 
due to new and amended standards. Manufacturers stated that these 
testing and certification costs associated with residential 
conventional ovens could significantly strain their limited resources 
if these costs were all incurred in the three year time frame from the 
publication of a final rule to the implementation of the standards.

K. Emissions Analysis

    In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power 
sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and mercury (Hg) 
from potential energy conservation standards for conventional ovens. In 
addition, DOE estimated emissions impacts in production activities 
(extracting, processing, and transporting fuels) that provide the 
energy inputs to power plants. These are referred to as ``upstream'' 
emissions. Together, these emissions account for the FFC. In accordance 
with DOE's FFC Statement of Policy,\48\ the FFC analysis includes 
impacts on emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide 
(N2O), both of which are recognized as GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). DOE's FFC was amended in 2012 
for reasons unrelated to the inclusion of CH4 and 
N2O. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis of power sector emissions uses marginal emissions 
factors calculated using a methodology based on results published for 
the AEO 2014 reference case and a set of side cases that implement a 
variety of efficiency-related policies.\49\ The methodology is 
described in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ DOE did not use AEO 2015 for the emissions analysis because 
it does not provide the side cases that DOE uses to derive marginal 
emissions factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Combustion emissions of CH4 and N2O were 
estimated using emissions intensity factors published by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), GHG Emissions Factors Hub.\50\ 
Site emissions of CO2 and NOX (from gas 
combustion) were estimated using emissions intensity factors from an 
EPA publication.\51\ DOE developed separate emissions factors for power 
sector emissions and upstream emissions. The method that DOE used to 
derive

[[Page 33065]]

emissions factors is described in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/inventory/ghg-emissions.html.
    \51\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air 
Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: 
Stationary Point and Area Sources (1998) (Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated emissions 
reduction in tons and also in terms of units of carbon dioxide 
equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted to CO2eq 
by multiplying the physical units by the gas' global warming potential 
(GWP) over a 100-year time horizon. Based on the Fifth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,\52\ DOE used 
GWP values of 28 for CH4 and 265 for N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, 
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 
Chapter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the on-site operation of gas cooking products requires use 
of fossil fuels and results in emissions of CO2 and 
NOX at the sites where these appliances are used, DOE also 
accounted for the reduction in these site emissions and the associated 
upstream emissions due to potential standards. Site emissions were 
estimated using emissions intensity factors from an EPA 
publication.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air 
Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: 
Stationary Point and Area Sources (1998) (Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EIA prepares the Annual Energy Outlook using NEMS. Each annual 
version of NEMS incorporates the projected impacts of existing air 
quality regulations on emissions. AEO 2014 generally represents current 
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government 
actions, for which implementing regulations were available as of 
October 31, 2013.
    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade 
programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on 
SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous states and the 
District of Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern 
states and DC were also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR), which created an allowance-based trading program that operates 
along with the Title IV program. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR was 
remanded to the EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit but it remained in effect.\54\ In 2011, EPA issued a 
replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 
48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a 
decision to vacate CSAPR.\55\ The court ordered EPA to continue 
administering CAIR. On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed 
the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further 
proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.\56\ On October 
23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay of CSAPR.\57\ Pursuant to 
this action, CSAPR went into effect (and CAIR ceased to be in effect) 
as of January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \55\ See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 
(D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 
81 U.S.L.W. 3702 (U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12-1182).
    \56\ See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1610 
(U.S. 2014). The Supreme Court held in part that EPA's methodology 
for quantifying emissions that must be eliminated in certain States 
due to their impacts in other downwind States was based on a 
permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Clean Air 
Act provision that provides statutory authority for CSAPR.
    \57\ See Georgia v. EPA, Order (D.C. Cir. filed October 23, 
2014) (No. 11-1302).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because AEO 2014 was prepared prior to the Supreme Court's opinion, 
it assumed that CAIR remains a binding regulation through 2040. Thus, 
DOE's analysis used emissions factors that assume that CAIR, not CSAPR, 
is the regulation in force. However, the difference between CAIR and 
CSAPR is not relevant for the purpose of DOE's analysis of emissions 
impacts from energy conservation standards.
    The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs 
and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable 
permits. Beginning in 2016, however, SO2 emissions will 
decline significantly as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards (MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the 
final MATS rule, EPA established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a 
surrogate for acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and also 
established a standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an 
alternative equivalent surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same 
controls are used to reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, 
SO2 emissions will be reduced as a result of the control 
technologies installed on coal-fired power plants to comply with the 
MATS requirements for acid gas. AEO 2014 assumes that, in order to 
continue operating, coal plants must have either flue gas 
desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems installed by 2016. 
Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also 
reduce SO2 emissions. Under the MATS, emissions will be far 
below the cap established by CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess 
SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower 
electricity demand would be needed or used to permit offsetting 
increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. Therefore, 
DOE believes that energy efficiency standards will reduce 
SO2 emissions in 2016 and beyond.
    CAIR established a cap on NOX emissions in 28 eastern 
states and the District of Columbia.\58\ Energy conservation standards 
are expected to have little effect on NOX emissions in those 
states covered by CAIR because excess NOX emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to 
permit offsetting increases in NOX emissions. However, 
standards would be expected to reduce NOX emissions in the 
states not affected by the caps, so DOE estimated NOX 
emissions reductions from the standards considered in this proposed 
rule for these states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ CSAPR also applies to NOX, and it would 
supersede the regulation of NOX under CAIR. As stated 
previously, the current analysis assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is 
the regulation in force. The difference between CAIR and CSAPR with 
regard to DOE's analysis of NOX is slight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps. DOE estimated mercury emissions reduction using 
emissions factors based on AEO 2014, which incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this rule, DOE considered the 
estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of 
CO2 and NOX that are expected to result from each 
of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation similar to 
the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the 
reduced emissions expected to result over the lifetime of equipment 
shipped in the forecast period for each TSL. This section summarizes 
the basis for the monetary values used for each of these emissions and 
presents the values considered in this rulemaking.
    DOE is relying on a set of values for the SCC that was developed by 
an interagency process. A summary of the basis for these values is 
provided below, and a more detailed description of the methodologies 
used is provided as an appendix to chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an 
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is 
intended

[[Page 33066]]

to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural 
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, 
and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided 
in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC value is 
meant to reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting 
from a unit change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC 
value is meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.
    Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), agencies must, to 
the extent permitted by law, assess both the costs and the benefits of 
the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits 
are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is 
to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of 
reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of 
regulatory actions. The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement 
of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that 
they should be updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the 
science and economics of climate impacts.
    As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC 
estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular 
basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in 
relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main 
objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a 
defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific 
and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model 
differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC 
estimates used in the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of 
carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of challenges. A 
report from the National Research Council points out that any 
assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 
information about: (1) Future emissions of greenhouse gases; (2) the 
effects of past and future emissions on the climate system; (3) the 
impact of changes in climate on the physical and biological 
environment; and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts 
into economic damages.\59\ As a result, any effort to quantify and 
monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious 
questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as 
provisional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced 
Consequences of Energy Production and Use. National Academies Press: 
Washington, DC (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC 
estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing 
carbon dioxide emissions. The agency can estimate the benefits from 
reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by 
multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC values 
appropriate for that year. The NPV of the benefits can then be 
calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an 
appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years.
    It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is 
committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic 
understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves 
over time. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to 
explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments 
as part of the ongoing interagency process.
b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values
    In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a 
preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how 
benefits are evaluated across Federal agencies, the Administration 
sought to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically 
designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change 
damages from reduced CO2 emissions. The interagency group 
did not undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC 
estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a 
more comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the 
preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five 
interim values: global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, $33, 
$19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of CO2. These interim values 
represented the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. 
government to develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The 
results of this preliminary effort were presented in several proposed 
and final rules.
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    After the release of the interim values, the interagency group 
reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates. 
Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored 
the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group 
relied on three integrated assessment models commonly used to estimate 
the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently 
cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last 
assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 
Each model was given equal weight in the SCC values that were 
developed.
    Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes 
in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of 
the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the 
three models while respecting the different approaches to quantifying 
damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of 
the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 
for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions 
trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for 
climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In 
addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the 
socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. 
All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model 
developers' best estimates and judgments.
    In 2010, the interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for 
use in regulatory analyses.\60\ Three sets of values are based on the 
average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at discount rates 
of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which 
represents the 95th-percentile SCC estimate across all three models at 
a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-
expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the 
SCC distribution. The values grow in real terms over time. 
Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values 
from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to 
calculate

[[Page 33067]]

domestic effects,\61\ although preference is given to consideration of 
the global benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV-30 
presents the values in the 2010 interagency group report, which is 
reproduced in appendix 14-A of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Carbon, United States Government (February 2010) (Available at: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf).
    \61\ It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values 
is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There is no a 
priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 
net global damages over time.

                     Table IV-30--Annual SCC Values From 2010 Interagency Report, 2010-2050
                                      [In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Discount rate %
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         5               3              2.5              3
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................             4.7            21.4            35.1            64.9
2015............................................             5.7            23.8            38.4            72.8
2020............................................             6.8            26.3            41.7            80.7
2025............................................             8.2            29.6            45.9            90.4
2030............................................             9.7            32.8            50.0           100.0
2035............................................            11.2            36.0            54.2           109.7
2040............................................            12.7            39.2            58.4           119.3
2045............................................            14.2            42.1            61.7           127.8
2050............................................            15.7            44.9            65.0           136.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SCC values used were generated using the most recent versions 
of the three integrated assessment models that have been published in 
the peer-reviewed literature.\62\ Table IV-31 shows the updated sets of 
SCC estimates from the 2013 interagency update in five-year increments 
from 2010 to 2050. Appendix 14-B of the NOPR TSD provides the full set 
of values. The central value that emerges is the average SCC across 
models at 3-percent discount rate. However, for purposes of capturing 
the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, the 
interagency group emphasizes the importance of including all four sets 
of SCC values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 
Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government 
(May 2013; revised November 2013) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf).

                     Table IV-31--Annual SCC Values From 2013 Interagency Update, 2010-2050
                                      [In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Discount rate %
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         5               3              2.5              3
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................              11              32              51              89
2015............................................              11              37              57             109
2020............................................              12              43              64             128
2025............................................              14              47              69             143
2030............................................              16              52              75             159
2035............................................              19              56              80             175
2040............................................              21              61              86             191
2045............................................              24              66              92             206
2050............................................              26              71              97             220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM suggested that DOE rely on the 2010 estimates for SCC until it 
has resolved all comments on the derivation of the SCC estimates from 
the 2013 report. (AHAM, STD No. 9, at p. 8) The 2013 report provides an 
update of the SCC estimates based solely on the latest peer-reviewed 
version of the models, replacing model versions that were developed up 
to ten years ago in a rapidly evolving field. It does not revisit other 
assumptions with regard to the discount rate, reference case socio-
economic and emission scenarios, or equilibrium climate sensitivity. 
Improvements in the way damages are modeled are confined to those that 
have been incorporated into the latest versions of the models by the 
developers themselves in the peer-reviewed literature. Given the above, 
using the 2010 estimates would be inconsistent with DOE's objective of 
using the best available information in its analyses.
    It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties 
remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional 
and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and 
economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the 
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research 
Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between 
the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from 
an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to 
model these effects. There are a number of analytical challenges that 
are being addressed by the research community, including research 
programs housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the

[[Page 33068]]

interagency process to estimate the SCC. The interagency group intends 
to periodically review and revise those estimates to reflect increasing 
knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts, as well as 
improvements in modeling.
    In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting 
from reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the values from the 
2013 interagency report, adjusted to 2014$ using the Gross Domestic 
Product price deflator. For each of the four SCC cases specified, the 
values used for emissions in 2015 were $12.2, $41.2, $63.4, and $121 
per metric ton avoided (values expressed in 2014$). DOE derived values 
after 2050 using the relevant growth rates for the 2040-2050 period in 
the interagency update.
    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SCC value for that year in each of the four cases. To 
calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.
    DOE acknowledges the limitations of the SCC estimates, which are 
discussed in detail in the 2010 interagency group report. Specifically, 
uncertainties in the assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, as well 
as other model inputs such as economic growth and emissions 
trajectories, are discussed and the reasons for the specific input 
assumptions chosen are explained. However, the three integrated 
assessment models used to estimate the SCC are frequently cited in the 
peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the 
IPCC. In addition, new versions of the models that were used in 2013 to 
estimate revised SCC values were published in the peer-reviewed 
literature (see appendix 14B of the NOPR TSD for discussion). Although 
uncertainties remain, the revised estimates that were issued in 
November, 2013 are based on the best available scientific information 
on the impacts of climate change. The current estimates of the SCC have 
been developed over many years, using the best science available, and 
with input from the public. In November 2013, OMB announced a new 
opportunity for public comment on the interagency technical support 
document underlying the revised SCC estimates. 78 FR 70586 (Nov. 26, 
2013). OMB is reviewing comments and considering whether further 
revisions to the SCC estimates are warranted. DOE stands ready to work 
with OMB and the other members of the interagency working group on 
further review and revision of the SCC estimates as appropriate.
    In addition, it is important to note that the monetized benefits of 
carbon emission reductions are one factor that DOE considers in its 
evaluation of the economic justification of proposed standards. As 
shown in Table I.4, the benefits of these standards in terms of 
consumer operating cost savings exceed the incremental costs of the 
standards-compliant products. The benefits of CO2 emission 
reductions were considered by DOE, but were not determinative in DOE's 
decision to adopt these standards.
2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants
    As noted above, DOE has taken into account how amended energy 
conservation standards would reduce site NOX emissions 
nationwide and increase power sector NOX emissions in those 
22 States not affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the monetized value 
of net NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the 
TSLs considered for this NOPR based on estimates developed by EPA for 
2016, 2020, 2025, and 2030.\63\ The values reflect estimated mortality 
and morbidity per ton of directly emitted NOX reduced by 
electricity generating units. EPA developed estimates using a 3-percent 
and a 7-percent discount rate to discount future emissions-related 
costs. The values in 2016 are $5,562/ton using a 3-percent discount 
rate and $4,920/ton using a 7-percent discount rate (2014$). DOE 
extrapolated values after 2030 using the average annual rate of growth 
in 2016-2030. DOE multiplied the emissions reduction (tons) in each 
year by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series 
using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ http://www2.epa.gov/benmap/sector-based-pm25-benefit-ton-estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of avoided 
SO2 and Hg emissions in energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. It has not included monetization of these emissions in the 
current analysis. DOE requests comment on its approach to monetizing 
emissions reductions for cooking products (see issue 12 in section 
VII.E).

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the power 
generation industry that would result from the adoption of new or 
amended energy conservation standards. In the utility impact analysis, 
DOE analyzes the changes in installed electricity capacity and 
generation that would result for each TSL. The utility impact analysis 
is based on published output from the NEMS associated with AEO 2014. 
NEMS produces the AEO reference case as well as a number of side cases 
that estimate the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and 
demand. DOE uses those published side cases that incorporate 
efficiency-related policies to estimate the marginal impacts of reduced 
energy demand on the utility sector.\64\ The output of this analysis is 
a set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in 
electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity 
and power sector emissions due to a unit reduction in demand for a 
given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of 
energy savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected 
utility impacts of new or amended energy conservation standards. 
Chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD describes the utility impact analysis in 
further detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ DOE did not use AEO 2015 for the analysis because it does 
not provide the side cases that DOE uses to derive marginal impact 
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation 
standards include direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment 
impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of 
the equipment subject to standards; the MIA addresses those impacts. 
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that 
occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by 
the purchase and operation of more efficient equipment. 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 
equipment; and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the 
economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the 
number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different 
sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the 
economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS

[[Page 33069]]

indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer 
jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors 
of the economy. There are many reasons for these differences, including 
wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-
intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, based 
on the BLS data alone, DOE believes net national employment may 
increase because of shifts in economic activity resulting from amended 
standards.
    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. 
economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, Version 3.1.1 
(ImSET).\65\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. Benchmark 
National Input-Output'' (I-O) model, which was designed to estimate the 
national employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. 
The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model having 
structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among the 187 
sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ M.J. Scott, O.V. Livingston, P.J. Balducci, J.M. Roop, and 
R.W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL-
18412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (2009) (Available at: 
www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and understands the uncertainties involved in projecting 
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the 
analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the 
employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job 
impacts over the long run. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-
term timeframes, where these uncertainties are reduced. For more 
details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR 
TSD.

V. Analytical Results

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to potential energy conservation standards for 
conventional ovens. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE and the 
projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy 
conservation standards for conventional ovens. Additional details 
regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the NOPR TSD supporting this 
notice.

A. Trial Standard Levels

    DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three TSLs for 
conventional ovens. These TSLs were developed using combinations of 
efficiency levels for the product classes analyzed by DOE. DOE presents 
the results for those TSLs in this proposed rule. The results for all 
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the NOPR TSD.
    Table V-1. and Table V-2. presents the TSLs and the corresponding 
efficiency levels for conventional ovens.\66\ TSL 3 represents the 
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy 
efficiency for all product classes. TSL 2 comprises efficiency levels 
for all product classes providing the maximum NES with maximum NPV. TSL 
1 was configured with standby levels with maximum NES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ For the conventional oven product classes, the efficiency 
levels are based on an oven with a cavity volume of 3.9 ft. As 
discussed in section I.A.1.c, DOE developed slopes and intercepts to 
characterize the relationship between IEAC and cavity volume for 
each efficiency level.

                                             Table V-1--Summary of Trial Standard Levels for Ovens, Electric
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Electric standard ovens,   Electric standard ovens,     Electric self-clean       Electric self-clean
                                                       free-standing           built-in/slide-in        ovens, free-standing    ovens, built-in/slide-in
                      TSL                       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Efficiency  IAEC  (kWh/   Efficiency   IAEC  (kWh/   Efficiency  IAEC  (kWh/   Efficiency   IAEC (kWh/
                                                    level         yr)         level          yr)         level         yr)         level         yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................            1        284.6            1        291.4             1        345.1            1        351.0
2..............................................            3        259.2            3        265.4             1        345.1            1        351.0
3..............................................            7        207.3            7        212.2             4        278.1            4        282.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Table V-2--Summary of Trial Standard Levels for Ovens, Gas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Gas standard ovens,       Gas standard ovens,       Gas self-clean ovens,     Gas self-clean ovens,
                                                       free-standing           built-in/slide-in            free-standing           built-in/slide-in
                      TSL                       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Efficiency  IAEC  (kBtu/  Efficiency  IAEC  (kBtu/   Efficiency  IAEC  (kBtu/  Efficiency  IAEC  (kBtu/
                                                    level         yr)         level          yr)         level         yr)         level         yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................     Baseline      2,118.2     Baseline      2,128.1             1      1,848.2            1      1,858.0
2..............................................            4      1,414.8            4      1,421.5             2      1,668.7            2      1,677.5
3..............................................            7      1,347.0            7      1,353.3             4      1,591.0            4      1,599.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Table V-3 to Table V-6 illustrate the design and 
performance related changes that are assumed for each TSL for each 
product class.

[[Page 33070]]



           Table V-3--Summary of Trial Standard Levels and Design Options for Ovens, Electric Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Electric standard ovens, free-      Electric standard ovens, built-in/
                                                     standing                              slide-in
                 TSL                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Efficiency                             Efficiency
                                         level           Design option          level          Design option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................            1  1. SMPS.                            1  1. SMPS.
2...................................            3  1. SMPS.                            3  1. SMPS.
                                                   2. Reduced Vent Rate.                  2. Reduced Vent Rate.
                                                   3. Improved Insulation.                3. Improved
                                                                                           Insulation.
3...................................            7  1. SMPS.                            7  1. SMPS.
                                                   2. Reduced Vent Rate.                  2. Reduced Vent Rate.
                                                   3. Improved Insulation.                3. Improved
                                                                                           Insulation.
                                                   4. Improved Door Seals.                4. Improved Door
                                                                                           Seals.
                                                   5. Forced Convection.                  5. Forced Convection.
                                                   6. Oven Separator.                     6. Oven Separator.
                                                   7. Reduced Conduction                  7. Reduced Conduction
                                                    Losses.                                Losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table V-4--Summary of Trial Standard Levels and Design Options for Ovens, Electric Self-Clean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Electric self-clean ovens, free-    Electric self-clean ovens, built-in/
                                                     standing                              slide-in
                 TSL                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Efficiency                             Efficiency
                                         level           Design option          level          Design option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................            1  1. SMPS.                            1  1. SMPS.
2...................................            1  1. SMPS.                            1  1. SMPS.
3...................................            4  1. SMPS.                            4  1. SMPS.
                                                   2. Forced Convection.                  2. Forced Convection.
                                                   3. Oven Separator.                     3. Oven Separator.
                                                   4. Reduced Conduction                  4. Reduced Conduction
                                                    Losses.                                Losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


             Table V-5--Summary of Trial Standard Levels and Design Options for Ovens, Gas Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Gas standard ovens, free-standing    Gas standard ovens, built-in/slide-
                                     ---------------------------------------                  in
                 TSL                                                        ------------------------------------
                                       Efficiency        Design option        Efficiency
                                         level                                  level          Design option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................     Baseline  ........................     Baseline  ......................
2...................................            4  1. Optimized Burner/                4  1. Optimized Burner/
                                                    Cavity.                                Cavity.
                                                   2. SMPS.                               2. SMPS.
                                                   3. Electric Spark                      3. Electric Spark
                                                    Ignition.                              Ignition.
                                                   4. Improved Insulation.                4. Improved
                                                                                           Insulation.
3...................................            7  1. SMPS.                            7  1. SMPS.
                                                   2. Optimized Burner/                   2. Optimized Burner/
                                                    Cavity.                                Cavity.
                                                   3. Electric Spark                      3. Electric Spark
                                                    Ignition.                              Ignition.
                                                   4. Improved Insulation.                4. Improved
                                                   5. Improved Door Seals.                 Insulation.
                                                   6. Forced Convection.                  5. Improved Door
                                                   7. Reduced Conduction                   Seals.
                                                    Losses.                               6. Forced Convection.
                                                                                          7. Reduced Conduction
                                                                                           Losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Table V-6--Summary of Trial Standard Levels and Design Options for Ovens, Gas Self-Clean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Gas self-clean ovens, free-standing     Gas self-clean ovens, built-in/
                                     ---------------------------------------               slide-in
                 TSL                                                        ------------------------------------
                                       Efficiency        Design option        Efficiency
                                         level                                  level          Design option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................            1  1. SMPS.                            1  1. SMPS.
2...................................            2  1. SMPS.                            2  1. SMPS.
                                                   2. Electronic Spark                    2. Electronic Spark
                                                    Ignition.                              Ignition.
3...................................            4  1. SMPS.                            4  1. SMPS.
                                                   2. Electronic Spark                    2. Electronic Spark
                                                    Ignition.                              Ignition.
                                                   3. Forced Convection.                  3. Forced Convection.
                                                   4. Reduced Conduction                  4. Reduced Conduction
                                                    Losses.                                Losses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 33071]]

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on conventional oven consumers by 
looking at the effects potential amended standards would have on the 
LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards on 
consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed below.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) Purchase price increases, and (2) operating costs decrease. 
Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed 
costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and operating 
costs (i.e., annual energy savings, energy prices, energy price trends, 
repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also uses 
product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD 
provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Table V-7 through Table V-22 show the LCC and PBP results for all 
efficiency levels considered for each conventional oven product class. 
In the first of each pair of tables, the simple payback is measured 
relative to the baseline product. In the second table, the LCC savings 
are measured relative to the base-case efficiency distribution in the 
compliance year (see section IV.F.8 of this notice).

                        Table V-7--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for PC1 Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Average costs 2014$
                                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Efficiency                     First year's      Lifetime                         Simple
                                                               level      Installed cost     operating       operating          LCC       payback  years
                                                                                               cost            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................               1            $558             $16            $191            $748             0.9
2.......................................................               3             568              15             174             742             4.0
3.......................................................               7             653              12             142             795             7.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


   Table V-8--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for PC1 Electric Standard
                                              Ovens, Free-Standing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                                                                 Percentage  of      Average
                                                                   Efficiency       consumers       savings *
                              TSL                                     level           that      ----------------
                                                                                   experience
                                                                                ----------------      2014$
                                                                                    Net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................................               1               0          $13.96
2..............................................................               3              12           15.18
3..............................................................               7              82          (37.60)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact).


                      Table V-9--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for PC2 Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Average Costs 2014$
                                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Efficiency                     First year's      Lifetime                         Simple
                                                               level      Installed cost     operating       operating          LCC       payback  years
                                                                                               cost            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................               1            $584             $16            $190            $775             0.9
2.......................................................               3             594              15             174             768             4.0
3.......................................................               7             680              12             142             821            17.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


[[Page 33072]]


   Table V-10--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for PC2 Electric Standard
                                            Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                                                                 Percentage  of      Average
                                                                   Efficiency       consumers       savings *
                              TSL                                     level           that      ----------------
                                                                                   experience
                                                                                ----------------      2014$
                                                                                    Net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................................               1               0          $14.11
2..............................................................               3              12           15.25
3..............................................................               7              82          (37.64)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact).


                      Table V-11--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for PC3 Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Average costs 2014$
                                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Efficiency                     First year's      Lifetime                         Simple
                                                               level      Installed cost     operating       operating          LCC       payback  years
                                                                                               cost            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2.....................................................               1            $602             $22            $251            $853             0.9
3.......................................................               4             686              18             211             897            18.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


  Table V-12--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for PC3 Electric Self-Clean
                                              Ovens, Free-Standing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                                                                 Percentage  of      Average
                                                                   Efficiency       consumers       savings *
                              TSL                                     level           that      ----------------
                                                                                   experience
                                                                                ----------------      2014$
                                                                                    Net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2............................................................               1               0          $14.10
3..............................................................               4              76          (27.79)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact).


                    Table V-13--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for PC4 Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Average costs 2014$
                                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Efficiency                     First year's      Lifetime                         Simple
                                                               level      Installed cost     operating       operating          LCC       payback  years
                                                                                               cost            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2.....................................................               1            $628             $22            $252            $880             0.9
3.......................................................               4             712              18             212             924            18.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


[[Page 33073]]


  Table V-14 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for PC4 Electric Self-Clean
                                            Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                                                                 Percentage  of      Average
                                                                   Efficiency       consumers       savings *
                              TSL                                     level           that      ----------------
                                                                                   experience
                                                                                ----------------      2014$
                                                                                    Net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2............................................................               1               0          $14.20
3..............................................................               4              76          (27.80)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact).


                          Table V-15--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for PC5 Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Average costs 2014$
                                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Efficiency                     First year's      Lifetime                         Simple
                                                               level      Installed cost     operating       operating          LCC       payback  years
                                                                                               cost            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................        Baseline            $602             $20            $600          $1,202  ..............
2.......................................................               4             619               9             277             896             1.7
3.......................................................               7             656               9             277             933             5.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


  Table V-16--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for PC5 Gas Standard Ovens,
                                                  Free-Standing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                                                                 Percentage  of      Average
                                                                   Efficiency       consumers       savings *
                              TSL                                     level           that      ----------------
                                                                                   experience
                                                                                ----------------      2014$
                                                                                    Net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................................        Baseline              0%  ...............
2..............................................................               4               0         $289.73
3..............................................................               7              24          178.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact).


                        Table V-17--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for PC6 Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Average costs 2014$
                                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Efficiency                     First year's      Lifetime                         Simple
                                                               level      Installed cost     operating       operating          LCC       payback  years
                                                                                               cost            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................        Baseline            $628             $20            $600          $1,228  ..............
2.......................................................               4             645               9             277             922             1.7
3.......................................................               7             682               9             277             959             5.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


[[Page 33074]]


  Table V-18--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for PC6 Gas Standard Ovens,
                                                Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                                                                 Percentage  of      Average
                                                                   Efficiency       consumers       savings *
                              TSL                                     level           that      ----------------
                                                                                   experience
                                                                                ----------------      2014$
                                                                                    Net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................................        Baseline               0  ...............
2..............................................................               4               0         $289.77
3..............................................................               7              24          178.92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact).


                         Table V-19--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for PC7 Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Average costs 2014$
                                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Efficiency                     First year's      Lifetime                         Simple
                                                               level      Installed cost     operating       operating          LCC       payback  years
                                                                                               cost            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................               1            $718             $20            $612          $1,329             0.8
2.......................................................               2             726              13             334           1,060             1.2
3.......................................................               4             762              13             333           1,094             5.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


 Table V-20--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for PC7 Gas Self-Clean Ovens,
                                                  Free-Standing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                                                                 Percentage  of      Average
                                                                   Efficiency       consumers       savings *
                              TSL                                     level           that      ----------------
                                                                                   experience
                                                                                ----------------      2014$
                                                                                    Net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................................               1               0          $18.02
2..............................................................               2               0          282.80
3..............................................................               4              27          165.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact).


                       Table V-21--Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for PC8 Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Average costs 2014$
                                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Efficiency                     First year's      Lifetime                         Simple
                                                               level      Installed cost     operating       operating          LCC       payback  years
                                                                                               cost            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................               1            $744             $20            $612          $1,355             0.8
2.......................................................               2             752              13             334           1,086             1.2
3.......................................................               4             788              13             333           1,120             5.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


[[Page 33075]]


 Table V-22--Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution for PC8 Gas Self-Clean Ovens,
                                                Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                                                                                    Percent of        Average
                               TSL                                  Efficiency    consumers that     savings *
                                                                       level        experience   ---------------
                                                                                 ----------------
                                                                                     Net cost          2014$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................               1               0          $18.03
2...............................................................               2               0          282.85
3...............................................................               4              27          165.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact).

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    As described in section IV.I of this notice, DOE determined the 
impact of the considered TSLs on low-income households and senior-only 
households. Table V-23 through Table V-30 compare the average LCC 
savings and PBP at each efficiency level for the two consumer 
subgroups, along with the average LCC savings for the entire sample. In 
most cases, the average LCC savings and PBP for low-income households 
and senior-only households at the considered efficiency levels are not 
substantially different from the average for all households. Chapter 11 
of the NOPR TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the 
subgroups.

         Table V-23--Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for PC1 Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Average life-cycle cost savings  (2014$)              Simple payback  period  (years)
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         TSL                              Low-income      Senior-only                       Low-income      Senior-only
                                                          households       households     All households    households      households    All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................          $13.88           $14.00           $13.96              0.9             0.9             0.9
2....................................................           18.70            12.28            15.18              3.6             4.4             4.0
3....................................................          (28.75)          (45.09)          (37.60)            14.9            20.6            17.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


       Table V-24--Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for PC2 Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Average life-cycle cost savings  (2014$)              Simple payback period  (years)
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         TSL                              Low-income      Senior-only                       Low-income      Senior-only
                                                          households       households     All households    households      households    All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................          $14.06           $14.11           $14.11              0.9             0.9             0.9
2....................................................           18.79            12.34            15.25              3.6             4.4             4.0
3....................................................          (28.80)          (45.13)          (37.64)            14.9            20.6            17.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table V-25--Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households PC3 Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Average life-cycle cost savings  (2014$)              Simple payback period  (years)
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         TSL                              Low-income      Senior-only                       Low-income      Senior-only
                                                          households       households     All households    households      households    All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................................          $13.98           $14.19           $14.10              0.9             0.9             0.9
3....................................................          (18.98)          (32.84)          (27.79)            15.2            20.3            18.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 33076]]


        Table V-26--Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households PC4 Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Average life-cycle cost savings  (2014$)              Simple payback period  (years)
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         TSL                              Low-income      Senior-only                       Low-income      Senior-only
                                                          households       households     All households    households      households    All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................................          $14.11           $14.27           $14.20              0.9             0.9             0.9
3....................................................          (18.99)          (32.84)          (27.80)            15.2            20.3            18.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              Table V-27--Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households PC5 Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Average life-cycle cost savings  (2014$)             Simple payback period  (years)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Low-income      Senior-only                     Low-income      Senior-only
                                                            households      households    All households    households      households    All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00  ..............  ..............  ..............
2.......................................................          314.79          282.03          289.73             1.4             1.8             1.7
3.......................................................          197.33          173.10          178.91             4.4             5.7             5.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table V-28--Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for PC6 Gas Standard Oven, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Average life-cycle cost savings  (2014$)             Simple payback period  (years)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Low-income      Senior-only                     Low-income      Senior-only
                                                            households      households    All households    households      households    All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00  ..............  ..............  ..............
2.......................................................          314.84          282.07          289.77             1.4             1.8             1.7
3.......................................................          197.34          173.11          178.92             4.4             5.7             5.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table V-29--Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for PC7 Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Average life-cycle cost savings  (2014$)             Simple payback period  (years)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Low-income      Senior-only                     Low-income      Senior-only
                                                            households      households    All households    households      households    All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................          $17.28          $18.39          $18.02             0.8             0.7             0.8
2.......................................................          298.61          278.34          282.80             1.0             1.3             1.2
3.......................................................          176.87          162.47          165.73             4.7             5.7             5.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Table V-30--Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households for PC8 Gas Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Average life-cycle cost savings  (2014$)             Simple payback period  (years)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           TSL                              Low-income      Senior-only                     Low-income      Senior-only
                                                            households      households    All households    households      households    All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................          $17.30          $18.40          $18.03             0.8             0.7             0.8
2.......................................................          298.68          278.39          282.85             1.0             1.3             1.2
3.......................................................          176.89          162.48          165.75             4.7             5.7             5.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

    As discussed above, EPCA provides a rebuttable presumption that an 
energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased 
purchase cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three 
times the value of the first-year energy savings resulting from the 
standard. In calculating a rebuttable presumption payback period for 
the considered standard levels, DOE used discrete values rather than 
distributions for input values, and, as required by EPCA, based the 
energy use calculation on the DOE test procedures for conventional 
cooking products. As a result, DOE calculated a single rebuttable 
presumption payback value,

[[Page 33077]]

and not a distribution of payback periods, for each efficiency level.
    Table V-31 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for 
the considered TSLs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption 
criterion, it considered whether the standard levels considered for 
this rulemaking are economically justified through a more detailed 
analysis of the economic impacts of those levels pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of that analysis serve as the basis for 
DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard 
level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary 
determination of economic justification).

             Table V-31--Conventional Ovens: Rebuttable PBPs
                                 (Years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Trial standard level
          Product class           --------------------------------------
                                        1            2            3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: Electric Standard Ovens,              0.9          2.3          8.5
 Free-Standing...................
PC2: Electric Standard Ovens,              0.8          2.3          8.3
 Built-In/Slide-In...............
PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens,            0.9          0.9          8.4
 Free-Standing...................
PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens,            0.9          0.9          8.3
 Built-In/Slide-In...............
PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-     ...........          2.4          7.0
 Standing........................
PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/ ...........          2.4          6.9
 Slide-In........................
PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-           3.1          4.6         15.3
 Standing........................
PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-          3.1          4.6         15.2
 In/Slide-In.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new and amended 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of residential 
conventional ovens. The following sections describe the expected 
impacts on residential conventional oven manufacturers at each TSL. 
Chapter 12 of this NOPR TSD explains the MIA in further detail.
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    Table V-32 through Table V-33 depict the financial impacts 
(represented by changes in INPV) of new and amended energy conservation 
standards on residential conventional oven manufacturers as well as the 
conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers would incur at each 
TSL. To evaluate the range of cash flow impacts on the residential 
conventional oven industry, DOE modeled two markup scenarios that 
correspond to the range of anticipated market responses to new and 
amended standards. Each markup scenario results in a unique set of cash 
flows and corresponding industry values at each TSL.
    In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the 
difference in industry value between the base case and the standards 
case that result from the sum of discounted cash flows from the base 
year (2015) through the end of the analysis period. The results also 
discuss the difference in cash flows between the base case and the 
standards case in the year before the compliance date for new and 
amended energy conservation standards. This figure represents the size 
of the required conversion costs relative to the cash flow generated by 
the residential conventional oven industry in the absence of new and 
amended energy conservation standards. In the engineering analysis, DOE 
enumerates common technology options that achieve the efficiencies for 
each of the product classes. For descriptions of these technology 
options and the required efficiencies at each TSL, see section IV.C and 
section V.A respectively of this NOPR.
    To assess the upper (less severe) end of the range of potential 
impacts on residential conventional oven manufacturers, DOE modeled a 
preservation of gross margin markup scenario. This scenario assumes 
that in the standards case, manufacturers would be able to pass along 
all the higher production costs required for more efficient products to 
their consumers. Specifically, the industry would be able to maintain 
its average base case gross margin (as a percentage of revenue) despite 
the higher product costs in the standards case. In general, the larger 
the product price increases, the less likely manufacturers are to 
achieve the cash flow from operations calculated in this scenario 
because it is less likely that manufacturers would be able to fully 
mark up these larger cost increases.
    To assess the lower (more severe) end of the range of potential 
impacts on the residential conventional oven manufacturers, DOE modeled 
the preservation of operating profit markup scenario. This scenario 
represents the lower end of the range of potential impacts on 
manufacturers because no additional operating profit is earned on the 
higher product costs, eroding profit margins as a percentage of total 
revenue.
    Table V-32 and Table V-33 present the projected results for 
residential conventional ovens under the preservation of gross margin 
and preservation of operating profit markup scenarios. DOE examined 
results for all product classes together since most manufacturers 
produce both gas and electric ovens.

Table V-32--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Conventional Ovens--Preservation of Gross Margin Markup
                                                    Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Trial standard level
                                   Units          Base case   --------------------------------------------------
                                                                      1                2                3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV........................  (2014$                    783.5           762.8            702.6            140.6
                               millions).
Change in INPV..............  (2014$           ..............           (20.7)           (80.9)          (642.9)
                               millions).
                              (%)............  ..............            (2.6)           (10.3)           (82.0)
Product Conversion Costs....  (2014$           ..............             4.3             67.9            401.5
                               millions).
Capital Conversion Costs....  (2014$           ..............             9.0             42.0            528.0
                               millions).

[[Page 33078]]

 
Total Conversion Costs......  (2014$           ..............            13.3            109.9            929.5
                               millions).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.


  Table V-33--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Conventional Ovens--Preservation of Operating Profit
                                                 Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Trial standard level
                                   Units          Base case   --------------------------------------------------
                                                                      1                2                3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV........................  (2014$                    783.5           762.1            697.1             56.0
                               millions).
Change in INPV..............  (2014$           ..............           (21.4)           (86.4)          (727.5)
                               millions).
                              (%)............  ..............            (2.7)           (11.0)           (92.9)
Product Conversion Costs....  (2014$           ..............             4.3             67.9            401.5
                               millions).
Capital Conversion Costs....  (2014$           ..............             9.0             42.0            528.0
                               millions).
Total Conversion Costs......  (2014$           ..............            13.3            109.9            929.5
                               millions).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSL 1 sets the efficiency level at baseline for two product classes 
(gas standard ovens, free-standing; and gas standard ovens, built-in/
slide-in), and EL 1 for six product classes (electric standard ovens, 
free-standing; electric standard ovens, built-in/slide-in; electric 
self-clean ovens, free-standing; electric self-clean ovens, built-in/
slide-in; gas self-clean ovens, free-standing; and gas self-clean 
ovens, built-in/slide-in). At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV 
range from -$21.4 million to -$20.7 million, or a change in INPV of -
2.7 percent to -2.6 percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash flow 
(operating cash flow minus capital expenditures) is estimated to 
decrease to $52.1 million, or a drop of 14.3 percent, compared to the 
base-case value of $60.8 million in 2018, the year leading up to new 
and amended energy conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly negative at TSL 1. DOE does 
not anticipate that manufacturers would lose a significant portion of 
their INPV at this TSL. DOE projects that in the expected year of 
compliance (2019), 100 percent of gas standard oven, free-standing 
shipments; and gas standard oven, built-in/slide-in shipments would 
meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 1. Meanwhile in 
2019, 60 percent of electric standard oven, free-standing shipments; 60 
percent of electric standard oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 53 
percent of electric self-clean oven, free-standing shipments; 53 
electric self-clean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 52 percent of 
gas self-clean oven, free-standing shipments; and 52 percent of gas 
self-clean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments would meet the efficiency 
levels at TSL 1.
    DOE expects conversion costs to be small at TSL 1 because the 
design changes prescribed at this TSL only affect standby mode power 
consumption and do not apply to active mode power consumption. DOE 
expects residential conventional oven manufacturers to incur $4.3 
million in product conversion costs for product redesigns that will 
convert residential conventional ovens from using linear power supply 
to switch mode power supply to reduce standby power consumption. DOE 
expects $9.0 million in capital conversion costs for manufacturers to 
upgrade production lines and retool equipment associated with achieving 
this reduction in standby power.
    At TSL 1, under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario, 
the shipment-weighted average MPC increases very slightly by 
approximately 0.1 percent relative to the base-case MPC. This extremely 
slight price increase is outweighed by the $13.3 million in conversion 
costs estimated at TSL 1, resulting in slightly negative INPV impacts 
at TSL 1 under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, 
manufacturers earn the same nominal operating profit as would be earned 
in the base case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from 
their investments. The very slight increase in the shipment weighted-
average MPC is again outweighed by a slightly lower average 
manufacturer markup (slightly smaller than the 1.20 manufacturer markup 
used in the base case) and $13.3 million in conversion costs, resulting 
in slightly negative impacts at TSL 1.
    TSL 2 sets the efficiency level at EL 1 for two product classes 
(electric self-clean ovens, free-standing; and electric self-clean 
ovens, built-in/slide-in), EL 2 for two product classes (gas self-clean 
ovens, free-standing; and gas self-clean ovens, built-in/slide-in), EL 
3 for two product classes (electric standard ovens, free-standing and 
electric standard ovens, built-in/slide-in); and EL 4 for two product 
classes (gas standard ovens, free-standing and gas standard ovens, 
built-in/slide-in). At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range 
from -$86.4 million to -$80.9 million, or a change in INPV of -11.0 
percent to -10.3 percent. At this standard level, industry free cash 
flow is estimated to decrease to $17.6, or a drop of 71.0 percent, 
compared to the base-case value of $60.8 million in 2018.
    Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at TSL 2. While 
the $109.9 million in industry conversion costs represent a significant 
investment for manufacturers, DOE does not anticipate that 
manufacturers would lose a significant portion of their INPV at this 
TSL since the base case INPV for manufacturers is slightly less than 
$800 million. DOE projects that in 2019, 40 percent of electric 
standard oven, free-standing shipments; 40 percent of electric standard 
oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 53 percent of electric self-clean 
oven, free-standing shipments; 53 percent of electric self-clean oven, 
built-in/slide-in shipments; 32 percent of gas standard oven, free-
standing shipments; 32 percent of gas standard oven, built-in/slide-in 
shipments; 39 percent of gas

[[Page 33079]]

self-clean oven, free-standing shipments; and 39 percent of gas self-
clean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments would meet or exceed the 
efficiency levels at TSL 2.
    While DOE expects conversion costs to be a large investment at TSL 
2, the much larger base case INPV reduces the overall INPV impact on a 
percentage basis at TSL 2. DOE expects that product conversion costs 
will significantly rise from $4.3 million at TSL 1 to $67.9 million at 
TSL 2 for extensive product redesigns and testing. Capital conversion 
costs will also significantly increase from $9.0 million at TSL 1 to 
$42.0 million at TSL 2 to upgrade production equipment to accommodate 
for added or redesigned features in each product class. The large 
conversion costs at TSL 2 are driven by reduce vent rate and improve 
insulation in the electric oven product classes, and conversion from 
glo-bar to electronic spark ignition systems in the gas oven product 
classes.
    At TSL 2, under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario, 
the shipment weighted-average MPC only slightly increases by 0.9 
percent, relative to the base-case MPC. In this scenario, INPV impacts 
are moderately negative because manufacturers incur sizable conversion 
costs ($109.9 million) and are not able to recover much of those 
conversion costs through the slight increase in the shipment weighted-
average MPC at TSL 2.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 0.9 
percent shipment weighted-average MPC increase is outweighed by a 
slightly lower average manufacturer markup (slightly smaller than the 
1.20 manufacturer markup used in the base case) and $109.9 million in 
conversion costs, resulting in moderately negative INPV impacts at TSL 
2.
    TSL 3 sets the efficiency level at max tech for all product 
classes. At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$727.5 
million to -$642.9 million, or a change in INPV of -92.9 percent to -
82.0 percent. At this standard level, industry free cash flow is 
estimated to decrease by approximately 635.3 percent to -$325.5 
million, compared to the base-case value of $60.8 million in 2018.
    At TSL 3 conversion costs significantly increase causing free cash 
flow to become significantly negative in the year leading up to energy 
conservation standards and cause manufacturers to loss a substantial 
amount of INPV. Also, the percent change in INPV at TSL 3 is 
significantly negative due to the extremely large conversion costs. 
Manufacturers at this TSL would have a very difficult time in the short 
term to make the necessary investments to comply with new and amended 
energy conservation standards prior to when standards went into effect. 
Also, the long-term profitability of residential conventional oven 
manufacturers could be seriously jeopardized as some manufacturers 
would struggle to comply with standards at this TSL.
    A high percentage of total shipments will need to be redesigned to 
meet efficiency levels prescribed at TSL 3. DOE projects that in 2019, 
only 7 percent of electric standard oven, free-standing shipments; 7 
percent of electric standard oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 12 
percent of electric self-clean oven, free-standing shipments; 12 
percent of electric self-clean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 8 
percent of gas standard oven, free-standing shipments; 8 percent of gas 
standard oven, built-in/slide-in shipments; 13 percent of gas self-
clean oven, free-standing shipments; and 13 percent of gas self-clean 
oven, built-in/slide-in shipments would meet the efficiency levels 
prescribed at TSL 3.
    DOE expects significant conversion costs at TSL 3, which represents 
max tech. DOE expects product conversion costs to significantly 
increase from $67.9 million at TSL 2 to $401.5 million at TSL 3. Large 
increases in product conversion are due to the vast majority of 
shipments needing extensive redesign as well as a significant increase 
in testing and recertification for redesigned products. DOE estimates 
that capital conversion costs will also significantly increase from 
$42.0 million at TSL 2 to $528.0 million at TSL 3. Capital conversion 
costs are driven by investments in production equipment to accommodate 
for forced convection and reduced conduction losses in the electric and 
gas oven product classes.
    At TSL 3, under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario, 
the shipment weighted-average MPC increases by 12.7 percent relative to 
the base-case MPC. In this scenario, INPV impacts are significantly 
negative because the $929.5 million in conversion costs significantly 
outweighs the modest increase in shipment weighted-average MPC.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 
12.7 percent MPC increase is again significantly outweighed by a lower 
average manufacturer markup of 1.19 (compared to 1.20 used in the base 
case) and $929.5 million in conversion costs, resulting in 
significantly negative impacts at TSL 3.
b. Impacts on Employment
    DOE quantitatively assessed the impacts of new and amended energy 
conservation standards on direct employment. DOE used the GRIM to 
estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of domestic 
production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2019 to 2048. 
DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 Annual 
Survey of Manufacturers (ASM), the results of the engineering analysis, 
and interviews with manufacturers to determine the inputs necessary to 
calculate industry-wide labor expenditures and domestic employment 
levels. Labor expenditures involved with the manufacturing of the 
products are a function of the labor intensity of the products, the 
sales volume, and an assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms 
over time.
    In the GRIM, DOE used the labor content of the MPCs to estimate the 
annual labor expenditures in the industry. DOE used census data and 
interviews with manufacturers to estimate the portion of the total 
labor expenditures that is attributable to domestic labor.
    The production worker estimates in this section cover only workers 
up to the line-supervisor level directly involved in fabricating and 
assembling a product within a manufacturing facility. Workers 
performing services that are closely associated with production 
operations, such as material handing with a forklift, are also included 
as production labor. DOE's estimates account for production workers who 
manufacture only the specific products covered in this rulemaking.
    The employment impacts shown in Table V-34 represent the potential 
production employment that could result following new and amended 
energy conservation standards. The upper bound of the results estimates 
the maximum change in the number of production workers that could occur 
after compliance with new and amended energy conservation standards 
when assuming that manufacturers continue to produce the same scope of 
covered products in the same production facilities. It also assumes 
that domestic production does not shift to lower labor-cost countries. 
Because there is a real risk of manufacturers evaluating sourcing 
decisions in response to new and amended energy conservation standards, 
the lower bound of the employment results includes the estimated total 
number of U.S. production workers in the industry who could lose their 
jobs if some or all

[[Page 33080]]

existing production were moved outside of the United States. While the 
results present a range of employment impacts following 2019, the 
following sections also include qualitative discussions of the 
likelihood of negative employment impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, 
the employment impacts shown are independent of the employment impacts 
from the broader U.S. economy, documented in chapter 17 of the NOPR 
TSD.
    Using 2011 ASM data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE 
estimates that approximately 60 percent of the residential conventional 
ovens sold in the United States are manufactured domestically. With 
this assumption, DOE estimates that in the absence of new and amended 
energy conservation standards, there would be approximately 6,564 
domestic production workers involved in manufacturing residential 
conventional ovens in 2019. Table V-34 shows the range of the impacts 
of new and amended energy conservation standards on U.S. production 
workers in the residential conventional oven industry.

 Table V-34--Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic Residential Conventional Ovens Production Workers
                                                     in 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                     Base case   -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in             6,564           6,571           6,622           7,397
 2019 (without changes in production locations).
Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers  ..............             0-7      (1,641)-58     (3,282)-833
 in 2019 *......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.

    At the upper end of the range, all examined TSLs show a slight 
increase in the number of domestic employment for residential 
conventional ovens. DOE believes that manufacturers would increase 
production hiring due to the increase in the labor associated with 
adding the required components to make residential conventional ovens 
more efficient. However, as previously stated, this assumes that in 
addition to hiring more production employees, all existing domestic 
production would remain in the United States and not shift to lower 
labor-cost countries.
    DOE does not expect any significant changes in domestic employment 
at TSL 1 because standards would only affect standby mode power 
consumption at this TSL. Most manufacturers stated that this TSL would 
not require significant design changes and therefore would not have a 
significant impact on domestic employment decisions.
    At TSLs 2 and 3, all product classes would require higher 
efficiency standards and therefore most manufacturers would be required 
to make modifications to their existing production lines. However, 
manufacturers stated that due to the larger size of most residential 
conventional ovens very few units are shipped from far distances such 
as Asia or Europe. The vast majority of residential conventional ovens 
are currently made in North America. Some manufacturers stated that 
even significant changes to production line would not cause them to 
shift their production to lower labor-cost countries, as several 
manufacturers either only produce residential conventional ovens 
domestically or have recently made significant investments to continue 
to produce a portion of their residential conventional ovens 
domestically. DOE estimates that at most 25 percent of the domestic 
labor for residential conventional ovens could move to other countries 
in response to the standards proposed at TSL 2. However, DOE believes 
this to be a high upper bound estimate as most manufacturers would not 
significantly alter their production locations at the efficiency levels 
prescribed at TSL 2.
    At TSL 3, manufacturers could alter production locations in 
response to standards since all product classes would be required to 
meet max tech. DOE estimated that at most 50 percent of the domestic 
labor for residential conventional ovens could move to other countries 
in response to the standards prescribed at TSL 3.
    DOE seeks comment on the potential domestic employment impacts to 
residential conventional oven manufacturers at the proposed efficiency 
levels.
c. Impacts on Manufacturer Capacity
    Residential conventional oven manufacturers stated that they did 
not anticipate any capacity constraints for the efficiency levels 
analyzed for either electric or gas residential conventional ovens.
    DOE requests comment on any potential manufacturer capacity 
constraints caused by the proposed standards in this NOPR, TSL 2.
d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers
    Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow 
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among 
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche product 
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures 
substantially different from the industry average could be affected 
disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts to small businesses in 
section VI.B and did not identify any other adversely impacted 
subgroups for residential conventional ovens for this rulemaking based 
on the results of the industry characterization.
    DOE requests comment on manufacturer subgroups that DOE should 
analyze and/or types of residential conventional oven manufacturers for 
the subgroup analysis.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on 
manufacturers, the combined effects of recent or impending regulations 
may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of 
manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single 
regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition 
to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly 
affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations 
affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies 
to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns 
than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts a cumulative 
regulatory burden analysis as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.
    DOE acknowledges that most residential conventional oven 
manufacturers also make appliances that are or could be subject to 
future

[[Page 33081]]

energy conservation standards implemented by DOE. DOE is aware of 
several other energy conservations that could also affect residential 
conventional oven manufacturers. These energy conservation standards 
include residential refrigerators and freezers that have a compliance 
date in 2014,\67\ residential clothes dryers that have a compliance 
date in 2015,\68\ residential clothes washers that have a compliance 
date in 2015 and in 2018,\69\ and microwave ovens that have a 
compliance date in 2016.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Energy conservation standards for residential 
refrigerators, refrigerators-freezers, and freezers became effective 
on September 14, 2014. 76 FR 57516 [Docket Number EE-2008-BT-STD-
0012]
    \68\ Energy conservation standards for residential clothes 
dryers became effective on January 1, 2015. 76 FR 52854 [Docket 
Number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010]
    \69\ The first round of prescribed energy conservation standards 
for residential clothes washers became effective on March 7, 2015. 
The second round of standards will go into effect on January 1, 
2018. 77 FR 59719 [Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019]
    \70\ Energy conservation standards for microwave oven operating 
in standby mode and off mode will go into effect on June 17, 2016. 
78 FR 36316 [Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0048]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The compliance years and expected industry conversion costs of 
relevant amended energy conservation standards are indicated in Table 
V-35.

Table V-35--Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal
  Energy Conservation Standards Affecting Residential Conventional Oven
                              Manufacturers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Estimated total
   Federal energy conservation                              industry
            standards               Compliance date        conversion
                                                            expense
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Refrigerators and     2014...............    $1,243M (2009$)
 Freezers--76 FR 57516
 (September 15, 2011).
Residential Clothes Dryers--76    2015...............        95M (2009$)
 FR 52854 (April 21, 2011).
Residential Clothes Washers--77   2015--First Round..     418.5M (2010$)
 FR 59719 (May 31, 2012).         2018--Second Round.
Microwave Ovens--78 FR 36316      2016...............      43.1M (2011$)
 (June 17, 2013).
Residential Cooking Tops........  2020 *.............             N/A **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The date listed is an approximation. The exact date is pending final
  DOE action.
** For energy conservation standards awaiting DOE final action. DOE does
  not have finalized estimated total industry conversion expenses.

    DOE discusses these and other requirements and includes the full 
details of the cumulative regulatory burden analysis in chapter 12 of 
the NOPR TSD. DOE seeks comment on the compliance costs of any other 
regulations residential conventional oven manufacturers must make, 
especially if compliance with those regulations is required three years 
before or after the estimated compliance date of this proposed standard 
(2019).
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential standards 
for conventional ovens, DOE compared the energy consumption of those 
products under the base case to their anticipated energy consumption 
under each TSL. Table V-36 and Table V-37 present DOE's projections of 
the national energy savings for each TSL considered for conventional 
ovens. The savings were calculated using the approach described in 
section IV.H.1 of this notice.

  Table V-36--Conventional Ovens: Cumulative Primary National Energy Savings for Products Shipped in 2019-2048
                                                     (quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Product class                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing.....................           0.023           0.057           0.161
PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.................           0.000           0.001           0.003
PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing...................           0.071           0.071           0.372
PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In...............           0.021           0.021           0.108
PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing..........................           0.000           0.204           0.209
PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In......................           0.000           0.038           0.039
PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing........................           0.038           0.268           0.282
PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In....................           0.002           0.014           0.014
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total (All Products)........................................           0.156           0.673           1.188
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table V-37--Conventional Ovens: Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings for Products Shipped in 2019-2048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Product class                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing.....................           0.024           0.060           0.168
PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.................           0.000           0.001           0.003
PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing...................           0.074           0.074           0.389
PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In...............           0.022           0.022           0.113
PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing..........................           0.000           0.216           0.223
PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In......................           0.000           0.041           0.042
PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing........................           0.040           0.281           0.297

[[Page 33082]]

 
PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In....................           0.002           0.014           0.015
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total (All Products)........................................           0.163           0.709           1.251
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \71\ requires agencies to present analytical 
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and 
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using nine, rather than 30, years 
of product shipments. The choice of a nine-year period is a proxy for 
the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 
standards.\72\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing 
cycles, or other factors specific to conventional ovens. Thus, such 
results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES 
sensitivity analysis results based on a nine-year analytical period are 
presented in Table V-38. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of 
conventional ovens purchased in 2019-2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, ``Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis'' (Sept. 17, 2003) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/).
    \72\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards 
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before 
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards 
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous 
standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews 
at any time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year compliance 
date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may 
not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing 
of standards reviews and the fact that for some consumer products, 
the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

    Table V-38--Conventional Ovens: Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings for Products Shipped in 2019-2027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Product class                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing.....................           0.007           0.016           0.046
PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.................           0.000           0.001           0.002
PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing...................           0.018           0.018           0.102
PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In...............           0.006           0.006           0.033
PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing..........................           0.000           0.070           0.072
PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In......................           0.000           0.013           0.013
PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing........................           0.012           0.081           0.085
PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In....................           0.001           0.004           0.004
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total (All Products)........................................           0.044           0.210           0.358
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to the nation of the total costs 
and savings for consumers that would result from particular standard 
levels for conventional ovens. In accordance with the OMB's guidelines 
on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, section E, September 17, 
2003),\73\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent 
real discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4. 
Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V-39. shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE 
considered for conventional ovens. The impacts are counted over the 
lifetime of products purchased in 2019-2048.

 Table V-39--Conventional Ovens: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Products Shipped in 2019-
                                                      2048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                 Equipment type                   Discount rate  -----------------------------------------------
                                                        %                1               2              3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing....               3%            0.17            0.31          (0.57)
                                                              7%            0.07            0.11          (0.49)
PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In               3%            0.00            0.01          (0.02)
                                                              7%            0.00            0.00          (0.01)
PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing..               3%            0.52            0.52          (1.02)
                                                              7%            0.21            0.21          (0.96)

[[Page 33083]]

 
PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-               3%            0.16            0.16          (0.32)
 In............................................               7%            0.07            0.07          (0.30)
PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing.........               3%            0.00            3.59            3.06
                                                              7%            0.00            1.55            1.24
PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.....               3%            0.00            0.67            0.57
                                                              7%            0.00            0.29            0.23
PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing.......               3%            0.28            5.48            4.72
                                                              7%            0.12            2.31            1.87
PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In...               3%            0.01            0.28            0.24
                                                              7%            0.01            0.12            0.10
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (All Products).......................               3%            1.15           11.02            6.67
                                                              7%            0.48            4.66            1.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in Table V-40. The impacts are counted over the 
lifetime of products purchased in 2019-2027. As mentioned previously, 
such results are presented for informational purposes only and is not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision 
criteria.

 Table V-40--Conventional Ovens: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Products Shipped in 2019-
                                                      2027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  (Billion 2014$)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                 Equipment type                   Discount rate                Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2              3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing....               3%            0.06            0.10          (0.28)
                                                              7%            0.03            0.05          (0.28)
PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In               3%            0.00            0.00          (0.01)
                                                              7%            0.00            0.00          (0.01)
PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing..               3%            0.16            0.16          (0.53)
                                                              7%            0.09            0.09          (0.55)
PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-               3%            0.05            0.05          (0.17)
 In............................................               7%            0.03            0.03          (0.18)
PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing.........               3%            0.00            1.47            1.22
                                                              7%            0.00            0.83            0.65
PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.....               3%            0.00            0.27            0.22
                                                              7%            0.00            0.15            0.12
PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing.......               3%            0.10            2.02            1.71
                                                              7%            0.06            1.16            0.92
PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In...               3%            0.01            0.11            0.09
                                                              7%            0.00            0.06            0.05
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (All Products).......................               3%            0.38            4.18            2.26
                                                              7%            0.22            2.38            0.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

    The above results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate 
the change in price for conventional ovens over the analysis period 
(see section IV.F.1 of this notice). DOE also conducted a sensitivity 
analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate of price 
decline than the reference case and one scenario with a higher rate of 
price decline than the reference case. The results of these alternative 
cases are presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. In the high price 
decline case, the NPV is higher than in the default case. In the low 
price decline case, the NPV is lower than in the default case.
c. Impacts on Employment
    DOE expects energy conservation standards for conventional ovens to 
reduce energy bills for consumers of those products, and the resulting 
net savings to be redirected to other forms of economic activity. These 
expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the 
demand for labor. As described in section IV.N of this notice, DOE used 
an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect 
employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking. 
DOE understands that there are uncertainties involved in projecting 
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the 
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes, 
where these uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the proposed standards are likely to have 
negligible

[[Page 33084]]

impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net change in 
jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national labor 
statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on 
employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed results.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    Based on testing conducted in support of this proposed rule, 
discussed in section IV.C.2 of this notice, DOE concluded that the 
standards proposed in this NOPR would not reduce the utility or 
performance of the conventional ovens under consideration in this 
rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that 
meet or exceed the proposed standards.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely 
to result from the proposed standards. The Attorney General determines 
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 
from a proposed standard, and transmits such determination to DOE, 
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))
    DOE will transmit a copy of this NOPR and the accompanying TSD to 
the Attorney General, requesting that the DOJ provide its determination 
on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in 
determining whether to proceed with the proposed energy conservation 
standards. DOE will also publish and respond to DOJ's comments in the 
Federal Register.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts of energy production. Reduced electricity demand 
due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost 
of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, particularly 
during peak-load periods. As a measure of this reduced demand, chapter 
15 in the NOPR TSD presents the estimated reduction in generating 
capacity for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
    Energy savings from proposed standards for conventional ovens are 
expected to yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced 
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V-41. provides 
DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions reductions to result from the 
TSLs considered in this rulemaking. DOE reports annual emissions 
reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

        Table V-41--Conventional Ovens: Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Products Shipped in 2019-2048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................................            9.0            38.6            68.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 (thousand tons).............................................            7.4            29.1            51.8
NOX (thousand tons).............................................            6.9            32.2            56.7
Hg (tons).......................................................            0.02            0.09            0.16
CH4 (thousand tons).............................................            0.88            3.51            6.22
N2O (thousand tons).............................................            0.13            0.50            0.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................................            0.52            2.52            4.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 (thousand tons).............................................            0.09            0.36            0.63
NOX (thousand tons).............................................            7.5            36.6            64.2
Hg (tons).......................................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
CH4 (thousand tons).............................................           43.6           218             381
N2O (thousand tons).............................................            0.00            0.02            0.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................................            9.5            41.1            72.6
SO2 (thousand tons).............................................            7.5            29.5            52.4
NOX (thousand tons).............................................           14.4            68.8           120.9
Hg (tons).......................................................            0.02            0.09            0.16
CH4 (thousand tons).............................................           44.4           221.2           387.5
CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq) *.....................................        1,244           6,195          10,849
N2O (thousand tons).............................................            0.13            0.52            0.92
N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) *.....................................           34.6           137.0           243.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.

    As part of the analysis for this proposed rule, DOE estimated 
monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of 
CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for each of the 
considered TSLs. As discussed in section IV.L of this notice, for 
CO2, DOE used the most recent values for the SCC developed 
by an interagency process. The four sets of SCC values for 
CO2 emissions reductions in 2015 resulting from that process 
(expressed in 2014$) are represented by $12.2/metric ton (the average 
value from a distribution that uses a 5-percent discount rate), $41.2/
metric ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 
discount rate), $63.4/metric ton (the

[[Page 33085]]

average value from a distribution that uses a 2.5-percent discount 
rate), and $121/metric ton (the 95th-percentile value from a 
distribution that uses a 3-percent discount rate). The values for later 
years are higher due to increasing damages (emissions-related costs) as 
the projected magnitude of climate change increases.
    Table V-42. presents the global value of CO2 emissions 
reductions at each TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE calculated a 
present value of the stream of annual values using the same discount 
rate as was used in the studies upon which the dollar-per-ton values 
are based. DOE calculated domestic values as a range from 7 percent to 
23 percent of the global values; these results are presented in chapter 
14 of the NOPR TSD.

    Table V-42--Conventional Ovens: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Products
                                              Shipped in 2019-2048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        (Million 2014$)
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          SCC case *
                     TSL                     -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   3% discount
                                                5% discount      3% discount     2.5% discount      rate, 95th
                                               rate, average    rate, average    rate, average      percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................             62.0            288.2            458.0            892.8
2...........................................            266.7          1,238.9          1,968.8          3,836.7
3...........................................            473.1          2,194.1          3,485.5          6,794.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................              3.5             16.6             26.5             51.5
2...........................................             17.1             80.0            127.4            248.0
3...........................................             30.0            140.6            223.8            435.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................             65.5            304.8            484.5            944.3
2...........................................            283.8          1,319.0          2,096.1          4,084.7
3...........................................            503.1          2,334.7          3,709.3          7,230.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed on 
reducing CO2 emissions in this rulemaking is subject to 
change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will continue to 
review various methodologies for estimating the monetary value of 
reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 
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. However, consistent with DOE's 
legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved 
with this particular issue, DOE has included in this proposed rule the 
most recent values and analyses resulting from the interagency process.
    DOE also estimated the cumulative monetary value of the economic 
benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for conventional ovens. 
The dollar-per-ton value that DOE used is discussed in section IV.L of 
this notice. Table V-43. presents the cumulative present values for 
each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates.

    Table V-43--Conventional Ovens: Estimates of Present Value of NOX
          Emissions Reduction for Products Shipped in 2019-2048
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       (Million 2014$)
                                                   ---------------------
                        TSL                             3%         7%
                                                     discount   discount
                                                       rate       rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Power Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................       24.6        9.7
2.................................................      113.8       45.2
3.................................................      200.9       80.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................       25.9        9.7
2.................................................      127.1       48.4
3.................................................      223.2       85.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total FFC Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................       50.4       19.4
2.................................................      240.9       93.5
3.................................................      424.1      165.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions 
reductions can be viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer 
savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking.
    Table V-44. presents the NPV values that result from adding the 
estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced 
CO2 and NOX emissions in each of four valuation 
scenarios to the NPV of consumer savings calculated for each TSL 
considered in this rulemaking, at both a 7-percent and 3-percent 
discount rate. The CO2 values used in the columns of each 
table correspond to the four sets of SCC values discussed above.

[[Page 33086]]



   Table V-44--Conventional Ovens: Net Present Value of Consumer Savings Combined With Present Value of Monetized Benefits From CO2 and NOX Emissions
                                                                       Reductions
                                                                     (Billion 2014$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with:
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         TSL                           SCC case $12.2/t  and    SCC case $41.2/t  and    SCC case $63.4/t  and     SCC case $121/t  and
                                                         medium  NOX value        medium  NOX value        medium  NOX value        medium  NOX value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................                      1.3                      1.5                      1.7                      2.1
2...................................................                     11.5                     12.6                     13.4                     15.3
3...................................................                      7.6                      9.4                     10.8                     14.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with:
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         TSL                           SCC case $12.2/t  and    SCC case $41.2/t  and    SCC case $63.4/t  and     SCC case $121/t  and
                                                         medium  NOX value        medium  NOX value        medium  NOX value        medium  NOX value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................                      0.6                      0.8                      1.0                      1.4
2...................................................                      5.0                      6.1                      6.9                      8.8
3...................................................                      2.3                      4.2                      5.5                      9.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of 
emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should 
be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic 
U.S. monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, 
while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global 
value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and the SCC 
are performed with different methods that use different time frames for 
analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the 
lifetime of equipment shipped in 2019 to 2048. Because CO2 
emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere,\74\ the 
SCC values in future years reflect future climate-related impacts 
resulting from the emission of CO2 that continue well beyond 
2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of 
the order of 30-95 years. Jacobson, MZ (2005). ``Correction to 
``Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic 
matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global 
warming.'' '' J. Geophys. Res. 110. pp. D14105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) DOE 
did not consider any other factors for this NOPR.

C. Conclusion

    When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy 
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of 
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, 
considering to the greatest extent practicable the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in a significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    The Department considered the impacts of standards at each TSL, 
beginning with a maximum technologically feasible level, to determine 
whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level 
was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level 
and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest 
efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically 
justified and saves a significant amount of energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each trial standard level, tables present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. Those include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section V.B.1 of 
this notice presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these 
subgroups.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. This undervaluation suggests that 
regulation that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net 
private gains (as well as producing social gains by, for example, 
reducing pollution). There is evidence that consumers undervalue future 
energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a lack of 
sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack 
of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases; (4) 
excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent 
weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns 
on other investments; (5) computational or other difficulties 
associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a 
divergence in incentives (between renters and owners, or builders and 
purchasers). Having less than perfect foresight and a high degree of 
uncertainty about the future, consumers may trade off these types of 
investments at a higher than expected rate between current consumption 
and uncertain future energy cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways: First, if consumers forego a 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this

[[Page 33087]]

decreases sales for product manufacturers, and the impact on 
manufacturers attributed to lost revenue is included in the MIA. 
Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products 
actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a regulatory 
option decreases the number of products used by consumers, this 
decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation 
standard. DOE provides estimates of shipments and changes in the volume 
of product purchases in chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD. However, DOE's 
current analysis does not explicitly control for heterogeneity in 
consumer preferences, preferences across subcategories of products or 
specific features, or consumer price sensitivity variation according to 
household income.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies (2005) 72, 853-883.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy efficiency 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\76\ DOE 
welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of 
energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify 
this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. 2010. Available online at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Conventional Ovens
    Table V-45. and Table V-46. summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for conventional ovens. The efficiency levels 
contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of this notice.

                           Table V-45--Conventional Ovens: Summary of National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                        TSL 1                      TSL 2                     TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Cumulative FFC Energy Savings (quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   0.163....................  0.709...................  1.251.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                NPV of Consumer Costs and Benefits 2014$ billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate.................  1.2......................  11.0....................  6.7.
7% discount rate.................  0.5......................  4.7.....................  1.7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 million metric tons..........  9.5......................  41.1....................  72.6.
SO2 thousand tons................  7.5......................  29.5....................  52.4.
NOX thousand tons................  14.4.....................  68.8....................  120.9.
Hg tons..........................  0.02.....................  0.09....................  0.16.
CH4 thousand tons................  44.4.....................  221.2...................  387.5.
CH4 thousand tons CO 2 eq *......  1,244....................  6,195...................  10,849.
N2O thousand tons................  0.13.....................  0.52....................  0.92.
N2O thousand tons CO 2 eq *......  34.6.....................  137.0...................  243.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Value of Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 2014$ million **.............  66 to 944................  284 to 4,085............  503 to 7,230.
NOX--3% discount rate 2014$        50.4.....................  240.9...................  424.1.
 million.
NOX--7% discount rate 2014$        19.4.....................  93.5....................  165.2.
 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.
** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2
  emissions.


                  Table V-46--Conventional Ovens: Summary of Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category                       TSL 1              TSL 2              TSL 3*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2014$ million) (Base            762.1-762.8        697.1-702.6         56.0-140.6
 Case INPV = $783.5)..................
Industry NPV (% change)...............        (2.7)-(2.6)      (11.0)-(10.3)      (92.9)-(82.0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Consumer Average LCC Savings (2014$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-                $13.96             $15.18           ($37.60)
 Standing.............................
PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-in/             14.11              15.25            (37.64)
 Slide-in.............................
PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-               14.10              14.10            (27.79)
 Standing.............................
PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-              14.20              14.20            (27.80)
 in/Slide-in..........................
PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing               0.00             289.73             178.91
PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/                   0.00             289.77             178.92
 Slide-In.............................
PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-                    18.02             282.80             165.73
 Standing.............................

[[Page 33088]]

 
PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/                18.03             282.85             165.75
 Slide-In.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-                   0.9                4.0               17.5
 Standing.............................
PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-in/               0.9                4.0               17.5
 Slide-in.............................
PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-                 0.9                0.9               18.1
 Standing.............................
PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-                0.9                0.9               18.1
 in/Slide-in..........................
PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing  .................                1.7                5.3
PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/      .................                1.7                5.3
 Slide-In.............................
PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-                      0.8                1.2                5.4
 Standing.............................
PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/                  0.8                1.2                5.4
 Slide-In.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            % of Consumers That Experience Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-                     0                 12                 82
 Standing.............................
PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-in/                 0                 12                 82
 Slide-in.............................
PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-                   0                  0                 76
 Standing.............................
PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-                  0                  0                 76
 in/Slide-in..........................
PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing                  0                  0                 24
PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/                      0                  0                 24
 Slide-In.............................
PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-                        0                  0                 27
 Standing.............................
PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/                    0                  0                 27
 Slide-In.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

    DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 3 would save 1.25 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. TSL 3 has an estimated NPV of consumer benefit 
of 1.7 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 6.7 billion 
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 72.6 Mt of 
CO2, 120.9 thousand tons of NOX, 52.4 thousand 
tons of SO2, 0.2 ton of Hg, 387.5 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.92 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at TSL 3 
ranges from $503 million to $7,230 million.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings ranging from -$37.64 
for PC2 (Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In) to $178.92 for 
product class 6 (Gas Standard Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in). The simple 
payback period ranges from 5 years for PC5, PC6, PC7, and PC8 (Gas 
Standard Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In, and Gas Self-Clean 
Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In) to 18 years for PC1, PC2, 
PC3, and PC4 (Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In and Free-
Standing and Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In and Free-
Standing). The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC net cost 
ranges from 24 percent for PC5 and PC6 (Gas Standard Ovens, Free-
Standing and Built-In/Slide-In) to 82 percent for PC1 and PC2 (Electric 
Standard Oven, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In).
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$727.5 million to a decrease of $642.9 million, equivalent to a loss of 
92.9 percent and a loss of 82.0 percent, respectively.
    Products that meet the efficiency standards specified by this TSL 
are forecast to represent 11 percent of shipments in the year leading 
up to new and amended standards. As such, manufacturers would have to 
redesign the vast majority of their products by the 2019 compliance 
date to meet demand. Redesigning all these units to meet the current 
max-tech efficiency levels would require considerable capital and 
equipment conversion expenditures. At TSL 3, the capital conversion 
costs total $528.0 million, 4.3 times the industry annual capital 
expenditure in the year leading up to new and amended standards. DOE 
estimates that complete platform redesigns would cost the industry 
$401.5 million in product conversion costs. These conversion costs 
largely relate to the research programs required to develop new 
products that meet the efficiency standards set forth by TSL 3. These 
costs are equivalent to 4.5 times the industry annual budget for 
research and development. Total capital and product conversion costs 
associated with the changes in products and manufacturing facilities 
required at TSL 3 would require significant use of manufacturers' 
financial reserves, impacting other areas of business that compete for 
these resources, and significantly reducing INPV. In addition, 
manufacturers could face a substantial impact on profitability at TSL 
3. Because manufacturers are more likely to reduce their margins to 
maintain a price-competitive product at higher TSLs, DOE expects that 
TSL 3 would yield impacts closer to the high end of the range of INPV 
impacts. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE 
expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 92.9 percent in INPV to 
residential conventional oven manufacturers. As a result, at TSL 3, DOE 
expects that some companies could be forced to exit the residential 
conventional oven market or shift production abroad, both of which 
would negatively impact domestic manufacturing capacity and employment.
    In view of the foregoing, DOE concludes that, at TSL 3 for 
conventional ovens, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of 
total customer benefits, customer LCC savings for four of the eight 
product classes, emission reductions and the estimated monetary value 
of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative 
customer impacts for product classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Electric Standard 
Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In and Electric Self-Clean 
Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In), the significant reduction 
in industry value at TSL 3, as well as the potential for loss of 
domestic manufacturing. Consequently, DOE has concluded that TSL 3 is 
not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.71 quads of energy, 
an

[[Page 33089]]

amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the estimated NPV of 
consumer benefit is $4.7 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, 
and $11.0 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 41.1 Mt of 
CO2, 68.8 thousand tons of NOX, 29.5 thousand 
tons of SO2, 0.09 tons of Hg, 221.2 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.52 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at TSL 2 
ranges from $284 million to $4,085 million.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings ranging from $14.10 
for PC3 (Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing) to $289.77 for PC6 
(Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-in). The simple payback period 
ranges from 1 year for PC3, PC4, PC7, and PC8 (Electric Self-Clean 
Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In and Gas Self-Clean Ovens, 
Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In) to 4 years for PC1 and PC2 
(Electric Standard Ovens Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In). The 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC net cost ranges from zero 
percent for PC3 through PC8 (Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing 
and Built-In/Slide-In, Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/
Slide-In, and Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-
In) to 12 percent for PC1 and PC2 (Electric Standard Ovens, Free-
Standing and Built-In/Slide-In).
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$86.4 million to a decrease of $80.9 million, equivalent to a loss of 
11.0 percent and a loss of 10.3 percent, respectively. Products that 
meet the efficiency standards specified by this TSL are forecast to 
represent 46 percent of shipments in the year leading up to new and 
amended standards. DOE estimates that compliance with TSL 2 would 
require manufacturers to make an estimated $42.0 million in capital 
conversion costs. This represents a 0.3 times increase in the annual 
capital expenditure budget in the year leading up to new and amended 
standards. TSL 2 will also require manufacturers to make an estimated 
$67.9 million in product conversion costs primarily relating to the 
research and development programs needed to improve upon existing 
platforms to meet the specified efficiency levels. This represents 0.8 
times the industry budget for research and development in the year 
leading up to new and amended standards. The substantial reduction in 
conversion costs corresponding to compliance with TSL 2 greatly 
mitigates the operational risk and impact on INPV.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for residential 
conventional ovens, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of 
consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary 
value of the CO2 emissions reductions, and positive average 
LCC savings would outweigh the negative impacts on some consumers and 
on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that would result in a 
reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
    After considering the analysis and the benefits and burdens of TSL 
2, DOE has tentatively concluded that this TSL will offer the maximum 
improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and will result in significant conservation of 
energy. Therefore, DOE proposes TSL 2 for conventional ovens. The 
proposed energy conservation standards for conventional ovens are shown 
in Table V-47.

     Table V-47--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for
                           Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Compliance Date: January 1, 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Integrated annual energy consumption
                                                  (IAEC)
                                 ---------------------------------------
          Product class               Electricity
                                  consumption  (kWh/    Gas consumption
                                         year)            (kBtu/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard Ovens, Free-    122.5 + (31.8 x     ..................
 Standing.                         Rated Cavity
                                   Volume).
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-   128.6 + (31.8 x     ..................
 in/Slide-in.                      Rated Cavity
                                   Volume).
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-  163.2 + (42.3 x     ..................
 Standing.                         Rated Cavity
                                   Volume).
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built- 169.1 + (42.3 x     ..................
 in/Slide-in.                      Rated Cavity
                                   Volume).
Gas Standard Ovens, Free-         ..................  492.9 + (214.4 x
 Standing.                                             Rated Cavity
                                                       Volume).
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-in/     ..................  499.5 + (214.4 x
 Slide-in.                                             Rated Cavity
                                                       Volume).
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-       ..................  746.7 + (214.4 x
 Standing.                                             Rated Cavity
                                                       Volume).
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/   ..................  755.5 + (214.4 x
 Slide-in.                                             Rated Cavity
                                                       Volume).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The Rated Cavity Volume is the volume of the oven cavity in cubic
  feet as measured using the final DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part
  430, subpart B, appendix I.

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values 
are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus 
increases in product purchase costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits 
of CO2 and NOX emission reductions.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2014, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(2020, 2030, etc.), and then discounted the present value from each 
year to 2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent 
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates. Using 
the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over 
a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year that yields the 
same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V-48 shows the annualized values for conventional ovens under 
TSL 2, expressed in 2014$. The results under the primary estimate are 
as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs 
other than CO2 reductions, for which DOE used a 3-percent 
discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of 
$41.2/ton in 2015 (in 2014$), the cost of the standards for 
conventional ovens in today's rule is $33.5 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are $494 
million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $74 million in 
CO2 reductions,

[[Page 33090]]

and $9 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 
net benefit amounts to $543 million per year. Using a 3-percent 
discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series 
corresponding to a value of $41.2/ton in 2015 (in 2014$), the cost of 
the standards for conventional ovens in today's rule is $33.1 million 
per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $648 
million per year in reduced operating costs, $74 million in 
CO2 reductions, and $13 million in reduced NOX 
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $701 million per 
year.

                Table V-48--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Amended Standards (TSL 2) for Conventional Ovens Sold in 2019-2048
                                                                  (Million 2014$/year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Low net benefits estimate      High net benefits
                                                Discount rate                Primary  estimate *                 *                     estimate *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....  7%.................................  494......................  457......................  542.
                                     3%.................................  648......................  593......................  719.
CO2 Reduction at $12.2/t **........  5%.................................  21.......................  20.......................  24.
CO2 Reduction at $41.2/t **........  3%.................................  74.......................  68.......................  81.
CO2 Reduction at $63.4/t **........  2.5%...............................  108......................  100......................  119.
CO2 Reduction at $121/t **.........  3%.................................  228......................  211......................  252.
NOX Reduction [dagger].............  7%.................................  9.24.....................  8.66.....................  10.11.
                                     3%.................................  13.43....................  12.46....................  14.80.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total [dagger][dagger].........  7% plus CO2 range..................  524 to 731...............  485 to 677...............  576 to 804.
                                     7%.................................  577......................  534......................  634.
                                     3% plus CO2 range..................  682 to 889...............  625 to 817...............  758 to 986.
                                     3%.................................  734......................  674......................  815.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs.  7%.................................  34.......................  34.......................  33.
                                     3%.................................  33.......................  34.......................  33.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total [dagger][dagger].........  7% plus CO2 range..................  491 to 697...............  451 to 642...............  543 to 771.
                                     7%.................................  543......................  499......................  601.
                                     3% plus CO2 range..................  649 to 856...............  592 to 783...............  725 to 953.
                                     3%.................................  701......................  640......................  783.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from products purchased from 2019 through 2048. Costs incurred by manufacturers,
  some of which may be incurred prior to 2019 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental
  equipment costs. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO 2015
  Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected
  product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate.
  The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1 of this notice.
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2014$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2015 under several scenarios. The values of $12.2, $41.2,
  and $63.4 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $121 per ton
  represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate.
[dagger] The $/ton values used for NOX are described in section IV.L.2.
[dagger][dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $41.2/ton in
  2015 (2014$). In the rows labeled as ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the
  labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify 
the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable, 
the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new 
agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. 
The problems that the proposed standards address are as follows:
    (1) Insufficient information and the high costs of gathering and 
analyzing relevant information leads some consumers to miss 
opportunities to make cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.
    (2) In some cases the benefits of more efficient products are not 
realized due to misaligned incentives between purchasers and users. An 
example of such a case is when the products purchase decision is made 
by a building contractor or building owner who does not pay the energy 
costs.
    (3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy 
efficiency of appliances that are not captured by the users of such 
equipment. These benefits include externalities related to public 
health, environmental protection, and national security that are not 
reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of air pollutants 
and greenhouse gases that impact human health and global warming.
    In addition, DOE has determined that this regulatory action is an 
``economically significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866. DOE presented to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB for review the draft rule and other documents 
prepared for this rulemaking, including a regulatory impact analysis 
(RIA), and has included these documents in the rulemaking record. The 
assessments prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can

[[Page 33091]]

be found in the technical support document for this rulemaking.
    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 
13563. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is 
supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, 
and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive 
Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by 
Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing 
that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with 
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative 
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent 
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; 
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present 
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its 
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
DOE believes that the NOPR is consistent with these principles, 
including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, 
benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.

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, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
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://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE 
has prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject 
of this rulemaking.
1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    For manufacturers of residential conventional ovens, the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines 
those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of 
the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to 
determine whether any small entities would be subject to the 
requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended 
at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (September 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 
121. The size standards are listed by North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are 
available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Residential conventional oven manufacturing 
is classified under NAICS 335221, ``Household Cooking Appliance 
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or fewer for 
an entity to be considered a small business for this category.
    DOE reviewed the potential standard levels considered in this NOPR 
under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 
procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. To better 
assess the potential impacts of this rulemaking on small entities, DOE 
conducted a more focused inquiry of the companies that could be small 
business manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking. During 
its market survey, DOE used available public information to identify 
potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved industry trade 
association membership directories (e.g., AHAM), information from 
previous rulemakings, individual company Web sites, and market research 
tools (e.g., Hoover's reports) to create a list of companies that 
manufacture or sell residential conventional ovens covered by this 
rulemaking.

                Table VI-1--Sources Used To Identify Residential Conventional Oven Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of large              Number of small
                        Source                            manufacturers identified     manufacturers identified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM Trade Association Directory......................                           10                            1
Previous Rulemaking...................................                            2                            3
Market Research.......................................                            0                            3
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................................                           12                            7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also asked stakeholders and industry representatives if they 
were aware of any additional small manufacturers during manufacturer 
interviews and at DOE public meetings. DOE reviewed publicly available 
data and contacted various companies on its complete list of 
manufacturers, as necessary, to determine whether they met the SBA's 
definition of a small business manufacturer. DOE screened out companies 
that do not offer products impacted by this rulemaking, do not meet the 
definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated.
    DOE identified 19 companies that either manufacture or sell 
residential conventional ovens that would be affected by this proposal. 
Of these 19 companies, DOE identified seven that met the SBA's 
definition of a small business.
b. Manufacturer Participation
    DOE contacted identified businesses to invite them to take part in 
a

[[Page 33092]]

manufacturer impact analysis interview. Of the businesses contacted, 
DOE was able to reach and discuss potential standards with one small 
business. DOE also obtained information about small businesses and 
potential impacts on small businesses while interviewing large 
manufacturers.
c. Residential Conventional Oven Industry Structure and Nature of 
Competition
    Three major manufacturers supply approximately 85 percent of the 
market for residential conventional ovens. DOE estimates that the 
remaining 15 percent of the market is served by a combination of small 
businesses and large businesses. None of the three major manufacturers 
of residential conventional ovens affected by this rulemaking is a 
small business.
d. Comparison Between Large and Small Manufacturers
    In general, small manufacturers differ from large manufacturers in 
several ways that affect the extent to which a manufacturer may be 
impacted by proposed standards. Characteristics of small manufacturers 
typically include: Lower production volumes, fewer engineering 
resources, and less access to capital. Lower production volumes in 
particular may place small manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage 
relative to large manufacturers as they convert products and facilities 
to comply with new and amended standards. When producing at lower 
volumes, a small manufacturer's conversion costs must be spread over 
fewer units than a larger competitor's. Therefore, unless a small 
manufacturer can differentiate its products in order to earn a price 
premium, the small manufacturer may experience a disproportionate cost 
penalty as it spreads one-time conversion costs over fewer unit sales. 
Additionally, when producing at lower volumes, small manufacturers may 
lack the purchasing power of their larger competitors and may therefore 
face higher costs when sourcing components for more efficient products. 
Disadvantages tied to lower production volumes may be further 
exacerbated by the fact that small manufacturers often have more 
limited engineering resources than their larger competitors, thereby 
complicating the redesign effort required to comply with new and 
amended standards. Finally, small manufacturers often have less access 
to capital, which may be needed to cover the conversion costs 
associated with new and amended standards. Combined, these factors may 
entail a disproportionate burden on small manufacturers.
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    At TSL 1 DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $0.3 million and 
product conversion costs of $0.1 million for an average small 
manufacturer. For an average large manufacturer, DOE estimates capital 
conversion costs of $0.6 million and product conversion costs of $0.3 
million.
    At TSL 2, the level proposed here, DOE estimates capital conversion 
costs of $1.3 million and product conversion costs of $4.1 million for 
an average small manufacturer. For an average large manufacturer, DOE 
estimates capital conversion costs of $2.7 million and product 
conversion costs of $3.3 million. Table VI-2 presents the estimated 
conversion costs as a percentage of annual revenue for an average small 
manufacturer relative to an average large manufacturer.

        Table VI-2--Conversion Costs Facing an Average Small Manufacturer Versus an Average Large Manufacturer of Residential Conventional Ovens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Capital conversion costs     Product conversion costs    Total conversion costs  as
                                                                    as a percentage of  annual   as a percentage of  annual    a percentage of  annual
                                                                             revenue                      revenue                      revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Small Manufacturer.......................................                            2                            6                            8
Average Large Manufacturer.......................................                            1                            1                            1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At TSL 3, DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $16.5 million 
and product conversion costs of $19.2 million for an average small 
manufacturer. For an average large manufacturer, DOE estimates capital 
conversion costs of $34.4 million and product conversion costs of $22.2 
million.
    As the results for TSL 2 indicate, new and amended energy 
conservation standards could potentially impact small businesses 
disproportionately. Although estimated conversion costs at TSL 2 are 
higher for an average large manufacturer than an average small 
manufacturer, the relative impacts of conversion costs on large 
manufacturers will likely be offset by higher annual revenues. This is 
consistent with the dynamic previously described, whereby large 
manufacturers tend to have larger production and sales volumes over 
which to spread costs and may also enjoy a competitive advantage due to 
their size and ability to access capital that may not be available to 
small manufacturers. Since the proposed standards could cause 
competitive concerns for small manufacturers, DOE cannot certify that 
the proposed standards would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small businesses.
    DOE requests comments on the number of small businesses identified 
and on the impacts of new and amended energy conservation standards on 
small businesses.
3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being proposed.
4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from DOE's new and amended standards. In 
reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined energy 
conservation standards set at higher and lower efficiency levels, TSL 3 
and TSL1, respectively. As discussed in section VI.B.2, compared to TSL 
3, DOE estimates that the capital conversion costs and product 
conversion costs for an average small manufacturer at TSL 2 would be 92 
and 79 percent lower, respectively. The substantial reduction in small 
manufacturer capital and product conversion costs corresponding to TSL 
2 compared to TSL 3 greatly mitigates the operational risk and the 
impact of the standard on INPV.
    While TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on small business 
manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a significant reduction 
in energy savings and NPV benefits to consumers, achieving 75 percent 
lower energy savings and 84 percent less NPV benefits to consumers 
compared to the

[[Page 33093]]

energy savings and NPV benefits at TSL 2.
    DOE believes that establishing standards at TSL 2 balances the 
benefits of the energy savings and the NPV benefits to consumers 
created at TSL 2 with the potential burdens placed on residential 
conventional oven manufacturers, including small business 
manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt one of the other 
TSLs considered above, or the other policy alternatives detailed as 
part of the regulatory impacts analysis included in Chapter 17 of this 
NOPR TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. For example, individual manufacturers may petition for a waiver 
of the applicable test procedure. (See 10 CFR 431.401.) Further, EPCA 
provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue from all of its 
operations does not exceed $8,000,000 may apply for an exemption from 
all or part of an energy conservation standard for a period not longer 
than 24 months after the effective date of a final rule establishing 
the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (t)). DOE estimates that two of the seven 
small manufacturers could potentially petition for a waiver based on 
their annual gross revenue not exceeding $8 million. Additionally, 
Section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 
7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued 
under EPCA in order to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or unfair 
distribution of burdens'' that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a 
result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart E, and part 1003 for additional details.
    DOE continues to seek input from businesses that would be affected 
by this rulemaking and will consider comments received in the 
development of any final rule (See section VII.E. that solicits 
specific data as well as input on the results of the analyses contained 
in this section VI.B.4).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of covered products must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In 
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according 
to the applicable DOE test procedure, including any amendments adopted 
for that test procedure. DOE has established regulations for the 
certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer 
products and commercial equipment, including conventional cooking 
products. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information 
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to 
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated 
to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 
DOE has determined that the proposed rule fits within the category of 
actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets 
the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, 
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The proposed rule fits 
within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that 
establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or 
industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified 
in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for 
this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed rule. 
DOE's CX determination for this proposed rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on Federal 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. EPCA governs and 
prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No 
further action is required by 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,'' 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. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 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, this proposed rule 
meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a

[[Page 33094]]

proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause 
the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy 
statement is also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    Although the proposed rule does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million 
or more on the private sector. Specifically, the proposed rule will 
likely result in a final rule that could require expenditures of $100 
million or more. Such expenditures may include: (1) Investment in 
research and development and in capital expenditures by conventional 
cooking product manufacturers in the years between the final rule and 
the compliance date for the new standards, and (2) incremental 
additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency 
conventional cooking products, starting at the compliance date for the 
applicable standard.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the NOPR and the ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for this proposed rule respond to 
those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes 
an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. This proposed rule would 
establish energy conservation standards for conventional cooking 
products that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible 
and economically justified. A full discussion of the alternatives 
considered by DOE is presented in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' 
section of the TSD for the proposed rule.

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

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), that this regulation would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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 Federal 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 62446 (Oct. 7, 
2002). DOE has reviewed the NOPR 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 
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant 
energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action 
by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of 
a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which 
sets forth energy conservation standards for conventional cooking 
products, is not a significant energy action because the proposed 
standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as 
such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed rule.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 
2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as scientific information the 
agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and 
substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions. 70 FR 2667.

[[Page 33095]]

    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress 
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process 
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this 
report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using 
objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 
judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or 
anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness 
of programs and/or projects. The ``Energy Conservation Standards 
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been 
disseminated and is available at the following Web site: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

    The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in 
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this notice. If 
you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at (202) 586-2945 or [email protected]. Please note that 
foreign nationals participating in the public meeting are subject to 
advance security screening procedures which require advance notice 
prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes 
to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this fact as 
soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 
or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary 
procedures can be completed.
    Please also note that those wishing to bring laptops into the 
Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors 
should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes.
    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID 
requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from 
specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the 
following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry 
and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required. DHS 
has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the 
following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE 
facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. 
Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or 
Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued 
by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses 
issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's 
License); a military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID 
card.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=85. Participants are 
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar 
software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement 
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at 
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an 
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), 
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to 
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 
of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be 
received at least one week before the public meeting and may be 
emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive 
requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone 
number to enable DOE staff to make follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The 
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but 
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may 
submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of 
the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed 
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), 
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time 
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general 
statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE 
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public 
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those 
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any 
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that 
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the 
transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other 
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web 
page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.

[[Page 33096]]

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section 
below.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail. 
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also 
will be posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal 
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your 
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is 
not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: 
one copy of the document marked confidential including all the 
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document 
marked non-confidential with the information believed to be 
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if 
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    1. DOE seeks comment on its proposal to develop two distinct 
component standards under separate timetables, and whether issues of 
product design and development, consumer utility and more broadly, 
cumulative regulatory burden concerns would arise as a result of its 
proposal (see section III.A of this notice).
    2. DOE requests comment on its decision to defer the consideration 
of adopting energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops 
until a representative, repeatable and reproducible test method for 
cooking tops is finalized. DOE invites data and information that will 
allow it to further conduct the analysis of cooking tops, particularly 
when using a water-heating method to evaluate energy consumption. (see 
section III.B of this notice).
    3. DOE requests comment on the proposed product classes for 
residential conventional cooking products. DOE requests comment on 
establishing separate product classes for freestanding and built-in/
slide-in ovens. DOE also welcomes comment and data on the determination 
that conventional gas cooking products with higher input rates do not 
warrant establishing a separate product class. (see section IV.A.2 of 
this notice).
    4. DOE seeks data that characterize the energy consumption of 
residential steam ovens currently available on the market and requests 
comment regarding whether a test procedure that accurately measures the 
energy of a steam cooking mode exists. DOE also seeks comment on the 
use of optimized burner and cavity design (and other options listed in 
Table IV-5) to meet the proposed efficiency levels discussed in section 
I.A.1.b (see section IV.A.3 of this notice).
    5. DOE requests comment and data regarding additional design 
options or variants of the considered design options that can increase 
the range of considered efficiency improvements for conventional 
cooking products, including design options that may not yet be found in 
the market (see section IV.B.2 of this notice).
    6. DOE requests comment on the proposed baseline and incremental 
efficiency levels. DOE specifically requests inputs and test data on 
the efficiency improvements associated with the design options 
identified at each incremental efficiency level that were determined 
based on either the analysis from the 2009 TSD or updated based on 
testing and reverse engineering analyses for this NOPR. DOE also seeks 
comment and data on the proposed slopes and intercepts used to 
characterize the relationship between IAEC and oven cavity volume for 
each

[[Page 33097]]

conventional oven product class (see section IV.C.3 of this notice).
    7. DOE requests input and data on the proposed incremental 
manufacturing production costs for each efficiency level analyzed that 
were determined based on either the analysis from the 2009 TSD adjusted 
to reflect changes in the PPI or costs determined based on testing and 
reverse engineering analyses conducted for this NOPR (see section 
IV.C.4 of this notice).
    8. DOE seeks comment on the tentative determination that the 
proposed efficiency levels and design options would not impact the 
consumer utility of conventional ovens (see section IV.C.5 of this 
notice).
    9. DOE requests comments on repair costs and frequency of repair 
incurred by gas standard and self-clean ovens with Glo-bar ignition and 
electronic spark ignition technologies. In this NOPR, DOE used data 
from 2008 provided by the industry (see section IV.E.5 of this notice 
for details).
    10. DOE requests data that would allow for use of different price 
trend projections for electric and gas cooking products. (see section 
IV.H.3.b of this notice)
    11. To estimate the impact on shipments of the price increase for 
the considered efficiency levels, DOE determined that the overall 
market will be inelastic to price changes and will not impact 
shipments. DOE welcomes stakeholder input on the effect of amended 
standards on impacts across products within the same fuel class and 
equipment. (see section IV.G of this notice).
    12. DOE requests comment on the reasonableness of the approach DOE 
has used to consider the rebound effect with higher-efficiency cooking 
products. (see section IV.F.3 of this notice)
    13. DOE requests comment on DOE's approach for estimating monetary 
benefits associated with emissions reductions. (see section IV.L of 
this notice).
    14. DOE seeks comment on the proposed manufacturer markup of 1.20 
for all residential conventional ovens (see section IV.J.2).
    15. DOE seeks comment on the potential domestic employment impacts 
to residential conventional oven manufacturers at the proposed 
efficiency levels (see section V.B.2).
    16. DOE requests comment on any potential manufacturer capacity 
constraints caused by the proposed standards in the NOPR, TSL 2 (see 
section V.B.2).
    17. DOE requests comment on manufacturer subgroups that DOE should 
analyze and/or types of residential conventional oven manufacturers for 
the subgroup analysis (see section V.B.2).
    18. DOE seeks comment on the compliance costs of any other 
regulations residential conventional oven manufacturers must make, 
especially if compliance with those regulations is required three years 
before or after the estimated compliance date of this proposed standard 
(2019) (see section V.B.2).
    19. DOE requests comments on the number of small businesses 
identified and on the impacts of new and amended energy conservation 
standards on small businesses (see section VI.B).

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, and Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 2015.
David T. Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, 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. In Sec.  430.2 revise the definitions of ``conventional cooking 
top'' and ``conventional oven'' to read as follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Conventional cooking top means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens 
which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a horizontal 
surface containing one or more surface units which include either a gas 
flame or electric resistance heating. This includes the conventional 
cooking top portion of a conventional range.
    Conventional oven means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which 
is a household cooking appliance consisting of one or more compartments 
intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of either a gas 
flame or electric resistance heating. It does not include portable or 
countertop ovens which use electric resistance heating for the cooking 
or heating of food and are designed for an electrical supply of 
approximately 120 volts. This includes the conventional oven(s) portion 
of a conventional range.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  430.32 revise paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (j) Cooking Products.
    (1) Gas cooking products with an electrical supply cord 
manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, shall not be equipped with a 
constant burning pilot light.
    (2) Gas cooking products without an electrical supply cord 
manufactured on or after April 9, 2012, shall not be equipped with a 
constant burning pilot light.
    (3) Conventional ovens manufactured on or after [INSERT DATE 3 
YEARS AFTER FINAL RULE Federal Register PUBLICATION] shall have an 
integrated annual energy consumption no greater than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Integrated annual energy
             Product class                         consumption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard Oven, Free-standing..  122.5 + (31.8 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Electric Standard Oven, Built-In/Slide-  128.6 + (31.8 x Rated Cavity
 In.                                      Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Electric Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing  163.2 + (42.3 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Electric Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/      169.1 + (42.3 x Rated Cavity
 Slide-In.                                Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Gas Standard Oven, Free-Standing.......  492.9 + (214.4 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Gas Standard Oven, Built-In/Slide-In...  499.5 + (214.4 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
Gas Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing.....  746.7 + (214.4 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.

[[Page 33098]]

 
Gas Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/Slide-In.  755.5 + (214.4 x Rated Cavity
                                          Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The Rated Cavity Volume is the volume of the oven cavity in cubic
  feet as measured using the final DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part
  430, subpart B, appendix I.

    (4) Microwave-only ovens and countertop convection microwave ovens 
manufactured on or after June 17, 2016 shall have an average standby 
power not more than 1.0 watt. Built-in and over-the-range convection 
microwave ovens manufactured on or after June 17, 2016 shall have an 
average standby power not more than 2.2 watts.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-13764 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P