Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-02008

Rule2024-02008

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

February 14, 2024

Effective

June 13, 2024

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer conventional cooking products. In this direct final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") is adopting new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. DOE has determined that the new and amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11434-11547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02008]

[[Page 11433]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 31

February 14, 2024

Part III

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Products; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 11434]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AF57

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products

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

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer
conventional cooking products. In this direct final rule, the U.S.
Department of Energy (``DOE'') is adopting new and amended energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. DOE
has determined that the new and amended energy conservation standards
for these products would result in significant conservation of energy,
and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is June 13, 2024. If adverse
comments are received by June 3, 2024 and DOE determines that such
comments may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct
final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), a timely withdrawal of this rule
will be published in the Federal Register. If no such adverse comments
are received, compliance with the new and amended standards established
for consumer conventional cooking products in this direct final rule is
required on and after January 31, 2028. Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the standards contained in this direct final rule
should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the
ADDRESSES section on or before March 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed
in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#622312120e0b030c01073116030c060310061133170711160b0d0c112207074c060d074c050d14">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input
from market participants and other interested persons with views on the
likely competitive impact of the standards contained in this direct
final rule. Interested persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddaaaaaaf3b8b3b8afbaa4f3aea9bcb3b9bcafb9ae9da8aeb9b2b7f3bab2ab">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or before the date specified in the
DATES section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email
the title and Docket Number of this direct final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-5649. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#206150504c49414e43457354414e44415244537155455354494f4e536045450e444f450e474f56">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 751-5157. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#531e363f323d3a367d1f323e23273c3d133b227d373c367d343c25">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final 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. Current Test Procedure
3. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products
4. The Joint Agreement
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
a. Portable Indoor Conventional Cooking Tops
2. Technology Options
a. Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops
b. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
c. Gas Cooking Tops
d. Conventional Ovens
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
b. Gas Cooking Tops
c. Conventional Ovens
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Electric Cooking Tops
b. Gas Cooking Tops
c. Conventional Ovens
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Comments From Interested Parties
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

[[Page 11435]]

2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
O. Regulatory Impact Analysis
P. Other Comments
1. Commerce Clause
2. Fuel Neutrality under EPCA
3. National Academy of Sciences Report
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. National Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
a. General Comments
b. Market Availability
c. High Input Rate Burners
d. Low Input Rate Burners
e. Cooking Time
f. Continuous Cast-Iron Grates
g. Conventional Ranges
h. Unit Width
i. Conclusion
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Products Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
1. Sampling and Test Procedure Repeatability
2. Single-Zone Conventional Cooking Tops
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer conventional cooking
products, the subject of this direct final rule. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule establishing and
amending energy conservation standards for consumer conventional
cooking products.
The adopted standard levels in this direct final rule were proposed
in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and
a utility. This letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023''
(hereafter, the ``Joint Agreement'' \3\), recommends specific energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products that,
in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42
U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently received letters of support from
States including New York, California, and Massachusetts \4\ and
utilities including San Diego Gas and Electric (``SDG&E'') and Southern
California Edison (``SCE'') \5\ advocating for the adoption of the
recommended standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ This document is available in the docket at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12811">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12811</a>.
\4\ This document is available in the docket at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12812">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12812</a>.
\5\ This document is available in the docket at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12813">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12813</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with the direct final rule provisions at 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the recommendations contained in
the Joint Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). As required
by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also simultaneously publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that contains identical
standards to those adopted in this direct final rule. Consistent with
the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the
direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any
comments received provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or any other applicable law,
DOE will publish the reasons for withdrawal and continue the rulemaking
under the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See section II.A of this
document for more details on DOE's statutory authority.
The new and amended standards that DOE is adopting in this direct
final rule are the efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Agreement
(shown in Table I.1 and Table I.2). They are performance-based
standards for conventional cooking tops and prescriptive standards for
conventional ovens. The standards for conventional cooking tops are
expressed in terms of integrated annual energy consumption (``IAEC''),
measured in thousand British thermal units per year (``kBtu/year'') for
gas cooking tops and in kilowatt-hours per year (``kWh/year'') for
electric cooking tops, as measured according to DOE's current
conventional cooking top test procedure codified at title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix I1
(``appendix I1'').
The Joint Agreement replaces the existing prescriptive standard for
gas cooking tops--which prohibits a constant burning pilot light--with
a performance standard that is expressed as the maximum IAEC as
determined in accordance with the appendix I1 test procedure. The Joint
Agreement excludes portable indoor conventional cooking tops (discussed
in section III.A of this document) from these amended standards, and
DOE is clarifying in this direct final rule that the existing
prohibition on constant burning pilot lights for gas portable indoor
conventional cooking tops will continue to be applicable. For electric
cooking tops, the Joint Agreement recommends

[[Page 11436]]

a performance standard that similarly is expressed as the maximum IAEC,
determined in accordance with the appendix I1 test procedure. For both
gas and electric cooking tops, the IAEC metric includes active mode,
standby mode, and off mode energy use. The Joint Agreement's standards
for conventional cooking tops apply to all products listed in Table I.1
and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on
January 31, 2028.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.000

DOE notes that none of the Department's energy conservation
standards limit a consumer's use of a covered product, including
consumer conventional cooking products. For example, the Joint
Agreement's performance standards for conventional cooking tops, which
are expressed as the maximum IAEC in kWh/year for electric cooking tops
and kBtu/year for gas cooking tops, do not limit consumers' use of a
conventional cooking top within the home. Rather, the IAEC metric is a
measure of the estimated energy usage for a given cooking top model for
a representative period of use (in this case, 1 year), as determined
according to the DOE test procedure. Expressing energy conservation
standards for conventional cooking tops in terms of the IAEC metric
provides a common point of comparison across all conventional cooking
top models, e.g., a conventional cooking top with a lower IAEC is more
energy efficient. And establishing a maximum IAEC ensures that all
conventional cooking tops meet at least a certain level of energy
efficiency, while not limiting a consumer's use of their conventional
cooking top.
This direct final rule also establishes a prescriptive design
requirement for conventional ovens that prohibits conventional ovens
from being equipped with a control system that uses a linear power
supply. (See Table I.2.) The new and amended standards recommended in
the Joint Agreement are represented as trial standard level (``TSL'') 1
in this document and are described in section V.A of this document.
These standards apply to all conventional ovens manufactured in, or
imported into, the United States starting on January 31, 2028, as
recommended by the Joint Agreement. DOE also notes that the current
prescriptive standards for gas ovens prohibiting constant burning pilot
lights will continue to be applicable. (10 CFR 430.32(j)) Table I.2
provides a summary of the standards for conventional ovens.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.001

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.3 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of
the adopted standards on consumers of consumer conventional cooking
products, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings
and the simple payback period (``PBP'').\6\ The average LCC savings are
positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average
lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products, which is estimated
to be 14.5 and 16.8 years for gas and electric cooking products,
respectively (see section IV.F of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).

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

[[Page 11437]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.002

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

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 (2024) through
the end of the analysis period, which is 30 years from the analyzed
compliance date.\7\ Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE
estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer conventional
cooking products in the case without new and amended standards is
$1,601 million.\8\ Under the adopted standards, which align with the
Recommended TSL for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE
estimates the change in INPV to range from -9.0 percent to -9.0
percent, which is approximately a change in INPV of -$144 million to -
$143 million, respectively. In order to bring products into compliance
with new and amended standards, it is estimated that industry will
incur total conversion costs of $66.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ DOE's analysis period extends 30 years from the compliance
year. The analysis period ranges from 2024-2056 for the no-new-
standards case and all TSLs, except for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL).
The analysis period for the Recommended TSL ranges from 2024-2057
due to the 2028 compliance year.
\8\ The no-new-standards case INPV of $1,601 million reflects
the sum of discounted free cash flows from 2024-2056 (from the
reference year to 30 years after the 2027 compliance date) plus a
discounted terminal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J and section V.B.2 of this
document.

C. National Benefits and Costs 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022
dollars. and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products would save a
significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new and
amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for consumer
conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended
standards (2028-2057), amount to 0.22 quadrillion British thermal units
(``Btu''), or quads.\10\ This represents a savings of approximately 2
percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case
without new or amended standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards
case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 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.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the standards for consumer conventional cooking products
ranges from $0.65 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $1.56
billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the
estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the
estimated increased product and installation costs for consumer
conventional cooking products purchased in 2028-2057.
In addition, the adopted standards for consumer conventional
cooking products are projected to yield significant environmental
benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative
emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of
3.99 million metric tons (``Mt'') \11\ of carbon dioxide
(``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 1.15 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 7.61 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 34.70 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.04 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.01 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\12\ The
estimated cumulative reduction in CO<INF>2</INF> emissions through 2030
amounts to 0.06 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from
the annual electricity use of more than 11 thousand homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\12\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022,
including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this
document for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that effect
air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit
per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\13\ The derivation of
these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $0.22
billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and
it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this
analysis uses values that are based on the Technical Support
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim
Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by
the IWG. (``Feb. 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates
from Environmental

[[Page 11438]]

Protection Agency,\14\ as discussed in section IV.L of this document.
DOE did not monetize the reduction in mercury emissions because the
quantity is very small. DOE estimated the present value of the health
benefits would be $0.16 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and
$0.42 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\15\ DOE is currently
only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine
particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) concentrations from two
precursors (SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>), and from changes in
ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO<INF>X</INF>), but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health
benefits from reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
Directly-Emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors and
Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors">www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors</a>.
\15\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the new and amended standards for consumer conventional
cooking products. There are other important unquantified effects,
including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public
health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other
emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional
effects, among others.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.003

[[Page 11439]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.004

The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, 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 2024. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of consumer
conventional cooking products shipped in 2028-2057. The benefits
associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted
standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of consumer
conventional cooking products shipped in 2028-2057. Total benefits for
both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average
GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of total
benefits are presented for all four SC-GHG discount rates in section
V.B.6 of this document.
Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the adopted standards, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted
in this rule is $3.9 million per year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are $68.1 million in reduced
equipment operating costs, $12.4 million in climate benefits, and $16.1
million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount
to $92.6 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the standards is $4.0 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $90.8 million
in reduced operating costs, $12.4 million in climate benefits, and
$23.5 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would
amount to $122.7 million per year.

[[Page 11440]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.005

[[Page 11441]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.006

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted jointly
by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points
of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering
the recommended standards and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE
has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary of Energy
(``Secretary'') has determined that the adoption of the recommended
standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and is
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the
recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has
determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the
burdens. The Secretary has further concluded that the recommended
standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive
NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary
value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings,
would yield benefits that outweigh the negative impacts on some
consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that
could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $3.9 million
per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $68.1 million in reduced product operating costs, $12.4
million in climate benefits, and $16.1 million in health benefits. The
net benefit amounts to $92.6 million per year. DOE notes that the net
benefits are substantial even in the absence of the climate
benefits,\17\ and DOE would adopt the same standards in the absence of
such benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The information on climate benefits is provided in
compliance with Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\18\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 0.22 quads FFC, the equivalent of
the primary annual energy use of 1.4 million homes. In addition, they
are projected to reduce cumulative CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 3.99 Mt.
Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the
standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are ``significant''
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed
discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the
remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support
document (``TSD'').\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is
issuing this direct final rule establishing and amending the energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products.
Consistent with this authority, DOE is also simultaneously publishing
elsewhere in this Federal Register a NOPR proposing standards that are
identical to those contained in this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)(i).

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
consumer conventional cooking products.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer
conventional cooking products, the subject of this document. (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 future
rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(h)(2)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after
the 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 including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program under EPCA, consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,

[[Page 11442]]

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular
State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
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.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test
procedures for conventional cooking tops appear at appendix I1. There
are currently no DOE test procedures for conventional ovens.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including consumer conventional
cooking products. Any new or amended standard for a covered product
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE
may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed
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
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable,
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from 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
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
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))
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 in 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))
EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy
conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for
a type or class of products that has 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. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
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))
Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, final rules 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
a single 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 conventional
cooking tops address standby mode and off mode energy use, as do the
new and amended standards adopted in this direct final rule.
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE
authority to issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final rule'')
establishing an energy conservation standard upon receipt of a
statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates),
as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with
respect to an energy or water conservation standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also
determine whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or
water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.

[[Page 11443]]

The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR
that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is
identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE
must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this
proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) While DOE typically provides a
comment period of 60 days on proposed standards, for a NOPR
accompanying a direct final rule, DOE provides a comment period of the
same length as the comment period on the direct final rule--i.e., 110
days. Based on the comments received during this period, the direct
final rule will either become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not
later than 120 days after its issuance if: (1) one or more adverse
comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those comments, when
viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final
rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final
rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an
alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the same manner. (Id.)
DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final
rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's ``Procedures,
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products'' at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A (``Process Rule'' or ``appendix A''), DOE noted
that it may issue standards recommended by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relative points of view as a direct final rule
when the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)
or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13,
2021). But the direct final rule provision in EPCA does not impose
additional requirements applicable to other standards rulemakings,
which is consistent with the unique circumstances of rules issued
through consensus agreements under DOE's direct final rule authority.
Id. DOE's discretion remains bounded by its statutory mandate to adopt
a standard that results in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency
that is technologically feasible and economically justified--a
requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. As such, DOE's review and
analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to whether the recommended
standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

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
consumer conventional cooking products that prohibit constant burning
pilot lights for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on and after
April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. These standards are set forth in DOE's
regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2).
2. Current Test Procedure
On August 22, 2022, DOE published a test procedure final rule
(``August 2022 TP Final Rule'') establishing a test procedure for
conventional cooking tops, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1,
``Uniform Test Method for the Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Conventional Cooking Products.'' 87 FR 51492. The test procedure
adopted the latest version of the relevant industry standard published
by the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC''), Standard
60350-2 (Edition 2.0 2017-08), ``Household electric cooking
appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance'' (``IEC
60350-2:2021''), for electric cooking tops with modifications including
adapting the test method to gas cooking tops, normalizing the energy
use of each test cycle to a consistent final water temperature, and
including a measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use. Id.
On February 7, 2023, DOE published correcting amendments to the
August 2022 TP Final Rule (``February 2023 Correcting Amendments''). 88
FR 7846. Neither the errors and omissions nor the corrections affected
the substance of the rulemaking, or any conclusions reached in support
of the August 2022 TP Final Rule. Id.
3. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1))
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)(2))
DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a
final rule on September 8, 1998 (``September 1998 Final Rule''), which
found that no standards were justified for conventional electric
cooking products at that time. 63 FR 48038. In addition, partially due
to the difficulty of conclusively demonstrating at that time that
elimination of standing pilot lights for gas cooking products without
an electrical supply cord was economically justified, DOE did not
include amended standards for gas cooking products in the September
1998 Final Rule. 63 FR 48038, 48039-48040. For the second cycle of
rulemakings, DOE published the April 2009 Final Rule amending the
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products to prohibit constant burning pilot lights for all gas cooking
products (i.e., gas cooking products 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, 16085.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 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 has since published a final rule
on June 20, 2023, adopting amended energy conservation standards for
microwave oven standby mode and off mode. 88 FR 39912. DOE is not
considering energy conservation standards for microwave ovens as
part of this direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The Joint Agreement
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (i.e., the
Joint Agreement) recommending standards for consumer conventional
cooking products that was submitted by groups representing
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and
a utility.\21\ In addition to the

[[Page 11444]]

recommended standards for consumer conventional cooking products, the
Joint Agreement also included separate recommendations for several
other covered products.\22\ And, while acknowledging that DOE may
implement these recommendations in separate rulemakings, the Joint
Agreement also stated that the recommendations were recommended as a
complete package and each recommendation is contingent upon the other
parts being implemented. DOE understands this to mean that the Joint
Agreement is contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to
adopt all of the recommended standards in the agreement. That is
distinguished from an agreement where issuance of an amended energy
conservation standard for a covered product is contingent on issuance
of amended energy conservation standards for the other covered
products. If the Joint Agreement were so construed, it would conflict
with the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it
would imply the possibility that, if DOE were unable to issue an
amended standard for a certain product, it would have to withdraw a
previously issued standard for one of the other products. The anti-
backsliding provision, however, prevents DOE from withdrawing or
amending an energy conservation standard to be less stringent. As a
result, DOE will be proceeding with individual rulemakings that will
evaluate each of the recommended standards separately under the
applicable statutory criteria. The Joint Agreement recommends new and
amended standard levels for consumer conventional cooking products as
presented in Table II.1. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) Details
of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products are provided
in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM''), American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected
products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB;
Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances
Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.;
Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier
Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr
USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances
Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick
Corporation; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp Electronics
Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby
Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool
Corporation.
\22\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for 6 covered
products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers;
clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking products; and
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
\23\ The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12811">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12811</a>.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.007

The Joint Agreement also stated that the signatories would propose
separately to DOE the inclusion of an alternative simmer calculation in
the DOE test procedure for use in certification. (Id.) The Joint
Agreement specified that, for enforcement purposes, DOE would rely on
the full simmer test, rather than the alternative simmer calculation
(which would be similar to the triangulation method used for
refrigerator/freezers at 10 CFR 429.134(b)(2)). (Id.) DOE received a
comment on the cooking top test procedure from the Joint Agreement
signatories \24\ on January 5, 2024, and will address the issues raised
in the comment in a separate test procedure rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ In the test procedure comment letter, only the following
Joint Agreement signatories were included: AHAM, Appliance Standards
Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice,
National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company. Furthermore, AHAM noted that it represents the
following companies who manufacture residential cooking products are
members of the AHAM Major Appliance Division: Arcelik A.S.; Beko US,
Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation;
Danby Products, Ltd.; De'Longhi America, Inc.; Electrolux Home
Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber S.p.A.; FOTILE America,
LLC; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; Gradient, Inc.; Hisense USA
Corporation; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea
America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation of America;
Samsung Electronics America Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation;
Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the Joint Agreement was submitted, DOE was conducting a
rulemaking to consider amending the standards for consumer conventional
cooking products. As part of that process, DOE published a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR'') and announced a public
meeting on February 1, 2023, (``February 2023 SNOPR'') seeking comment
on its proposed new and amended standards for consumer conventional
cooking products to inform its decision consistent with its obligations
under EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''). 88 FR 6818.
The February 2023 SNOPR proposed new and amended standards for consumer
conventional cooking products, consisting of maximum IAEC levels for
electric and gas cooking tops and design requirements for conventional
ovens. Id. Subsequently, on February 28, 2023, DOE published a
notification of data availability (``NODA'') providing additional
information to clarify the February 2023 SNOPR analysis for gas cooking
tops (``February 2023 NODA''). 88 FR 6818. Finally, on August 2, 2023,
DOE published a second NODA (``August 2023 NODA'') updating its
analysis for gas cooking tops based on the stakeholder data it received
in response to the February 2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 50810. The February 2023
SNOPR TSD is available at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0090">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0090</a>.
Although DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement as a direct final rule
and no longer proceeding with its own rulemaking, DOE did consider
relevant comments, data, and information obtained during that
rulemaking process

[[Page 11445]]

in determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint
Agreement are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of
comments, data, or information in this direct final rule that were
obtained during DOE's prior rulemaking will include a parenthetical
reference that provides the location of the item in the public
record.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, which is maintained at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references are arranged as follows:
(commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

DOE is issuing this direct final rule after determining that the
recommended standards submitted in the Joint Agreement meet the
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically, DOE has
determined that the recommended standards were submitted by interested
persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and
the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

A. Scope of Coverage

Before discussing how the Joint Agreement meets the requirements
for issuing a direct final rule, it is important to clarify the scope
of coverage for the recommended standards. DOE's regulations at 10 CFR
430.2 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 \26\
and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR 430.2. This direct
final rule covers consumer conventional cooking products, i.e., those
consumer cooking products that meet the definition of ``conventional
cooking top'' and ``conventional oven,'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
Industrial cooking equipment and microwave ovens are not in the scope
of this direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The term ``surface unit'' refers to burners for gas cooking
tops and electric resistance heating elements or inductive heating
elements for electric cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Joint Agreement, portable cooking products are excluded from
the Recommended TSL. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) However DOE
does not currently have a definition for portable cooking products, nor
does the Joint Agreement specify one.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE proposed to define a portable
conventional cooking top as a conventional cooking top designed to be
moved from place to place. 88 FR 6818, 6829. Using this definition, DOE
proposed that the proposed standards for conventional cooking tops
would apply to portable models according to their means of heating
(gas, electric open (coil) element, or electric smooth element). Id.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposed
definition for portable conventional cooking top and DOE's proposal to
include portable conventional cooking tops in the existing product
classes. Id. Stakeholder comments received in response to the February
2023 SNOPR regarding DOE's definition of portable conventional cooking
top and proposal to include portable conventional cooking tops in the
standards were consistent with the exclusion of portable cooking
products specified in the Joint Agreement.
AHAM stated its strong opposition to the inclusion of portable
cooking tops in the scope of energy conservation standards for cooking
tops because AHAM asserted DOE had done no analysis on this product
type and made little mention of them in the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM,
No. 2285 at pp. 28-29; AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 31-32) AHAM commented
that DOE's proposed definition is so vague that AHAM believes it could
include a wide array of products such as cooking tops in recreational
vehicles and tea kettles. (Id.) AHAM further requested that if portable
cooking products are included in the scope of this rule, DOE ensure it
provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on its
analysis and proposal. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it opposes including portable cooking tops in
the scope of the energy conservation standards for cooking tops. (AHAM,
No. 10116 at pp. 31-32) AHAM commented that there is inadequate data to
consider standards for portable cooking tops, given that the expanded
test sample contains only one portable cooking top with a single
cooking zone. (Id.) AHAM asserted that given the lack of repeatability
and reproducibility data on portable cooking top units, DOE should
account for at least a 5.6 percent variation between laboratories, as
shown for an electric unit in DOE's test procedure round robin testing,
resulting in an IAEC of 216 kWh/year for the tested portable unit that
does not meet the proposed standard for electric smooth element cooking
tops. (Id.) AHAM asserted that portable cooking tops may be eliminated
from the market if the proposed standard is finalized. (Id.)
Consumers' Research asserted that regulating the energy efficiency
of portable gas cooking tops under the same rules as stationary cooking
tops is unreasonable and recommended that DOE consider separate
rulemakings for each of these product categories. (Consumers' Research,
No. 2267 at p. 5) Consumers' Research noted that portable gas cooking
tops have a different range of manufacturing costs and constraints than
stationary gas cooking tops, they use different types of natural gas,
and the cost structure for manufacturing them is different. (Id.)
Consumers' Research further commented that portable gas cooking tops
account for only a tiny percentage of the energy consumed by all gas
cooking products and their exclusion would not substantially affect the
projected energy efficiency benefits of the proposed rule. (Id.)
DOE also received eight comments from individual commenters who
expressed concerns about the impact of the standards proposed in the
February 2023 SNOPR on barbecues and grills.
As discussed, the Joint Agreement does not specify a definition for
portable cooking tops. But, based on the comments received in response
to the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE has determined that additional clarity
is warranted regarding the definition of a portable conventional
cooking top. DOE notes that, as proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, a
portable conventional cooking top is a category of conventional cooking
top. DOE defines a ``conventional cooking top'' as a category of
cooking products that is a household cooking appliance consisting of a
horizontal surface containing one or more surface units that utilize a
gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating.
This includes any conventional cooking top component of a combined
cooking product. 10 CFR 430.2.
Furthermore, as defined, a conventional cooking top is a category
of cooking product. DOE defines ``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 and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR
430.2.

[[Page 11446]]

Therefore, in order for any product to be considered a portable
conventional cooking top, it must also satisfy the definition of
conventional cooking top and of cooking product, as defined in 10 CFR
430.2.
Specifically, DOE does not consider a tea kettle to be a major
household cooking appliance designed to cook or heat different types of
food. Therefore, a tea kettle does not meet the definition of a cooking
product and cannot be considered a portable conventional cooking top.
Regarding a cooking top in a recreational vehicle (``RV''), DOE
notes that EPCA excludes from coverage those consumer products designed
solely for use in RVs and other mobile equipment. 42 U.S.C. 6292(a).
For example, DOE is aware of gas cooking tops that incorporate an
ignition system that must be connected to 12 Volts of direct current
power, which is commonly used in RV battery systems and is not present
in U.S. households, and has determined that these products are designed
solely for use in RVs and therefore excluded from coverage. Regarding
the definition of portable cooking tops, DOE further notes that
although a cooking top that is not designed solely for use in RVs or
other mobile equipment may be installed within a vehicle, the product
itself is not necessarily designed to be moved from place to place
within the installed location. Therefore, the mere fact of installing a
cooking top in an RV does not classify the product as a portable
conventional cooking top.
Regarding barbecues and grills, DOE does not consider these
products to be used as the main sources of cooking within a household.
Therefore, DOE determines that barbecues and grills do not satisfy the
definition of cooking product.
To ensure clarity in this regard, in this direct final rule, DOE is
further specifying that portable cooking tops are portable indoor
conventional cooking tops and is defining ``portable indoor
conventional cooking top'' as a conventional cooking top designed (1)
for indoor use and (2) to be moved from place to place.
For these reasons, DOE has determined that portable indoor
conventional cooking tops are covered products. But as specified in the
Joint Agreement, DOE is not adopting standards for these products in
this direct final rule. However, gas portable indoor conventional
cooking tops, as gas cooking products, remain subject to the existing
prohibition on constant burning pilot lights. DOE may consider adopting
amended standards for portable indoor conventional cooking tops in a
future rulemaking.
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product
classes analyzed in this direct final rule.

B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View

Under the direct final rule provision in EPCA, recommended energy
conservation standards must be submitted by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates) as determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A))
With respect to this requirement, DOE notes that the Joint Agreement
included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 19 manufacturers
of consumer conventional cooking products. The Joint Agreement also
included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations,
consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric utility
company. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of the Joint
Agreement from the States of New York, California, and Massachusetts
(See comment No. 12812). DOE also received a letter in support of the
Joint Agreement from the gas and electric utility, SDG&E, and the
electric utility, SCE (See comment No. 12813). As a result, DOE has
determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons
who are fairly representative of relevant points of view.

C. 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. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the
Process Rule.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further 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; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Section 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document
discusses the results of the screening analysis for consumer
conventional cooking products, particularly the designs DOE considered,
those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards
considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening
analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule
TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt a new or 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(o)(2)(A))
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy
efficiency for consumer conventional cooking products, using the design
parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or
in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this
rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this document and in
chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to consumer conventional cooking
products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of
compliance with the new or amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs
except the Recommended TSL, i.e., TSL 1, and 2028-2057 for TSL 1).\27\
The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of consumer
conventional cooking 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
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a
product would likely

[[Page 11447]]

evolve in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential new or
amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products. The NIA
spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document)
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy
directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For
electricity, DOE reports 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 natural gas, the
primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy
savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. 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
conservation standards.\28\ 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 on FFC energy savings, see
section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended 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))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\29\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the
global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule
are projected to result in national energy savings of 0.22 quad, the
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 1.5 million homes. Based
on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions,
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined
the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct
final rule are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B).

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, 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)(I)(VII)) 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 potential new or amended standards on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. 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 (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2)
cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) 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 payback period (``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 consumer costs and benefits
expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the
impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
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.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating cost (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 discount rates appropriate for
consumers. 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.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy

[[Page 11448]]

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 of this
document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national
energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
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
adopted in this document 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 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 standard and to
transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days 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 direct final rule to the Attorney General with
a request that the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its
determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the
rule in determining whether to withdraw the direct final rule. DOE will
also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the Federal Register
in a separate notice.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
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 the adopted 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 of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The adopted standards 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
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value
of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as
discussed in section IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, ONE Gas commented that
economic justification should be based primarily upon consumer LCC
savings and that economic benefits associated with highly speculative
health benefits should play only a minor role. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at
pp. 8-9, 15).
As described in the preceding sections, consumer impacts are one of
seven factors listed in EPCA for DOE to consider when determining
whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically
justified. DOE has and will continue to consider all of these factors
in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified.
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 effect potential new or
amended 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 of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to consumer conventional cooking products.
Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses,
including relevant comments DOE received during its separate rulemaking
to amend the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional
cooking products prior to receiving the Joint Agreement.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential new or amended
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result 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 on the DOE website for this rulemaking: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document</a>. Additionally, DOE used output
from the latest version of the U.S. Energy Information Administration
(``EIA'') Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO'') for the emissions and utility
impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the

[[Page 11449]]

market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the
products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market
characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity
includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily
on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market
and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a
determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2)
manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs,
(4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6)
technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency
of consumer conventional cooking products. The key findings of DOE's
market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter
3 of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and
technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
The Joint Agreement specifies seven product classes for consumer
conventional cooking products. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) In
particular, the Joint Agreement recommends separate product classes for
ranges--a type of combined cooking product that combines a conventional
cooking top and a conventional oven--and standalone cooking tops for
both electric smooth element cooking tops and gas cooking tops. (Id.)
In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting the product classes from the
Joint Agreement, with updated nomenclature that clarifies that the
``range'' product classes refer to the cooking top component of any
combined cooking product, as listed in Table IV.1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.008

Because combined cooking products include a conventional cooking
top and/or a conventional oven, the conventional cooking top and
conventional oven standards apply to the individual components of the
combined cooking product.
DOE further notes that product classes established through EPCA's
direct final rule authority are not subject to the criteria specified
at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) for establishing product classes. Nevertheless,
in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)--which is applicable to direct
final rules--DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this
direct final rule will not result in the unavailability in any covered
product type (or class) of performance characteristics, features,
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those
generally available in the United States currently.\30\ DOE's findings
in this regard are discussed in detail in section V.B.4 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ EPCA specifies that DOE may not prescribe an amended or new
standard if the Secretary finds (and publishes such finding) that
interested persons have established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability
in the United States in 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 at the time of the
Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Portable Indoor Conventional Cooking Tops
As discussed, while DOE notes that portable indoor conventional
cooking tops are covered products, the Joint Agreement recommends
excluding portable cooking products from the conventional cooking top
and conventional oven product classes. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at
p. 10)
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE proposed standards for conventional
cooking tops that would apply to portable models according to their
means of heating (gas, electric open (coil) element, or electric smooth
element). 88 FR 6818, 6829.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE sought data and information on its
initial determination not to differentiate conventional cooking tops on
the basis of portability when considering product classes for the
February 2023 SNOPR analysis. Id.

[[Page 11450]]

AHAM commented that DOE has done no analysis on portable cooking
tops and made little mention of them in the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM,
No. 2285 at pp. 28-29) AHAM commented that DOE presents no data on
several critical aspects related to portable cooking tops: consumer
usage and the possibility that the use case for portable products is
likely different than for major appliances in terms of the frequency
and duration of use; the efficiency of portable products; test data for
portable products and their relative efficiency; the similarities and/
or differences between portable products and major appliances to show
that it has evaluated whether it is justified to apply the same
standard to both types of products or to allow commenters to make such
an evaluation; or how the test procedure would apply to portable
products, given that the pressure of butane and propane canisters do
not meet the specifications of appendix I1. (Id.) AHAM commented that
if portable cooking products are included in the scope of this rule,
they should be in a separate product class given their distinct utility
and (for electric products) differently rated voltage. (Id.)
As discussed in section III.A of this document, DOE is defining
``portable indoor conventional cooking top'' as a conventional cooking
top designed (1) for indoor use and (2) to be moved from place to
place. DOE considers this definition to apply mainly to ``hot plate''
style cooking products, which are typically electric cooking tops. As
such, DOE is aware of no reason that these products cannot be tested to
the appendix I1 test procedure. However, as discussed in section III.A
of this document, the Joint Agreement specifies that portable indoor
conventional cooking tops are not subject to the standards for
conventional cooking tops adopted in this direct final rule. DOE notes
however, that gas portable indoor conventional cooking tops, as gas
cooking products, remain subject to the existing prohibition on
constant burning pilot lights.
2. Technology Options
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE
identified technology options that would be expected to improve the
efficiency of conventional cooking tops and of conventional ovens.
These technologies encompass all those that DOE believes are
technologically feasible. Section 3.12 of chapter 3 of the TSD for this
direct final rule includes the detailed list and descriptions of all
technology options identified for consumer conventional cooking
products.
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule,
DOE has performed market research and evaluated available consumer
conventional cooking products to assess existing technology options to
improve efficiency. The results of this research are discussed in the
following sections and in chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final
rule.
a. Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops
The Joint Agreement recommends establishing no standards for
electric open (coil) element cooking tops. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811
at p. 10)
For electric open (coil) element cooking tops, in the February 2023
SNOPR, DOE did not identify any technology options for improving
efficiency. 88 FR 6818, 6840. DOE sought comment on any existing
technologies that improve the efficiency of electric open (coil)
element cooking tops. Id.
AHAM agreed with DOE's determination that there are no available
technology options for improving efficiency of electric open (coil)
element cooking tops and with DOE's decision not to include improved
contact conductance as a technology option based on data and
information AHAM provided related to pan warpage. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p.
31) AHAM commented that the unavailability of a viable technology
option to improve efficiency is enough on its own to support a
determination that a standard for this product class is not
technologically feasible. (Id.)
ASAP et al.\31\ recommended that DOE investigate the design
considerations that may drive differences in efficiency among open
element cooking tops. (ASAP et al., No. 2273 at p. 5) ASAP et al.
commented that, based on DOE's test data, which included a test unit
with an IAEC of 185 kWh/yr., they believe there may be potential
efficiency levels beyond the baseline level. (Id.) ASAP et al.
recommended that DOE further investigate what may be driving the
efficiency differences among electric open element models or consider
an efficiency-level approach for this product class. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ In this context ``ASAP et al.'' refers to a joint comment
from Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE acknowledges the range of IAEC values among the electric open
(coil) element cooking tops in the expanded test sample, but DOE notes
that it is unaware of any technology options that can be used to
improve these products' efficiency. Therefore, DOE did not identify any
incremental efficiency levels.
For these reasons, and in accordance with the recommendation in the
Joint Agreement, DOE did not evaluate electric open (coil) element
cooking tops as part of the efficiency analysis for this direct final
rule. For simplicity, many of the tables and headings in the following
sections of this document omit the designation that the electric
cooking tops for which energy conservation standards are being
considered have ``smooth elements.''
b. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
For electric smooth element cooking tops, considered the
technologies listed in Table IV.2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.009

[[Page 11451]]

DOE did not receive any comments regarding technology options for
electric smooth element cooking tops in response to the February 2023
SNOPR.
DOE additionally notes that, consistent with the design option
evaluated with the proposed EL 2 in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE has
evaluated improved resistance heating elements as a design option for
electric smooth element cooking tops. 88 FR 6818, 6846.
Consistent with the February 2023 SNOPR, in this direct final rule,
DOE considered the technologies listed in Table IV.3 for both electric
smooth element cooking top product classes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.010

c. Gas Cooking Tops
For gas cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE considered
the technologies listed in Table IV.4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.011

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE evaluated two versions of the
optimized burner and grate design option, representative of a minimum
of either four or one high input rate burners (``HIR burners'').\32\ 88
FR 6818, 6850-6851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ In this direct final rule, DOE defines an HIR burner as a
burner rated at or above 14,000 Btu per hour (``Btu/h'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the August 2023 NODA, DOE identified an additional type of
optimized burner and grate design, in which a burner with optimized
turndown capability can be implemented in place of a burner with ``non-
optimized'' turndown capability (i.e., the lowest available simmer
setting is more energy consumptive than necessary to hold the test load
in a constant simmer close to 90 degrees Celsius (``[deg]C''),
resulting in significantly higher energy consumption than for a burner
with a simmer setting that holds the test load close to that
temperature). 88 FR 50810, 50813.
For the reasons stated in the February 2023 SNOPR, in this direct
final rule, DOE considered the technologies listed in Table IV.5 for
both gas cooking top product classes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.012

d. Conventional Ovens
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it considers that
intermittent pilot ignition systems would not provide energy savings
and did not consider them as a technology option. 88 FR 6818, 6841. DOE
requested information on the potential energy savings associated with
intermittent pilot ignition systems. Id.
Strauch supported DOE's decision to not consider intermittent/
interrupted or intermittent pilot ignition systems as a technology
option for gas ovens, asserting that for DOE to conduct its own testing
on this matter would be a waste of taxpayer money. (Strauch, No. 2263
at p. 2)
For both gas and electric oven product classes, in this direct
final rule, DOE considered the technologies listed in Table IV.6,
consistent with the February 2023 SNOPR.

[[Page 11452]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.013

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following 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 commercially viable,
existing prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it
is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial
products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology
could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard,
then that technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or 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) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or
safety, it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving
a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to
the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
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
In conducting the screening analysis for this direct final rule,
DOE considered comments it had received in response to the screening
analysis conducted for the February 2023 SNOPR.
a. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE tentatively determined that it
would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service halogen
heating elements for electric smooth element cooking tops on the scale
necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective
date of a new standard, and screened out this technology from further
consideration. 88 FR 6818, 6842.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE also screened out a subset of low-
standby-loss electronic controls, namely those that use ``automatic
power-down'' because this type of low-standby-loss electronic controls
may negatively impact product utility. Id. In particular, it may result
in a loss in the utility of the continuous clock display for combined
cooking products, such as ranges. However, it should be noted that the
other low-standby-loss electronic controls such as switch-mode power
supplies (``SMPSs'') were still analyzed in the February 2023 SNOPR.
Id.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE additionally screened out reduced
air gap as a technology option because DOE is aware that the air gaps
in commercialized radiant heating elements are currently as small as is
practicable to manufacture on the scale necessary to serve the cooking
products market. Id. Furthermore, DOE stated that it is not aware of
the magnitude of potential energy savings from this technology. Id.
DOE requested comment on the magnitude of potential energy savings
that could result from the use of a reduced air gap as a technology
option. Id. DOE sought comment on its screening analysis for electric
smooth element cooking tops and whether any additional technology
options should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening
criteria in the February 2023 SNOPR.
AHAM stated agreement with DOE's determination to screen out
halogen elements in the screening analysis for electric smooth element
cooking tops based on its determination that it would not be
practicable to manufacture, install, and service halogen heating
elements on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market. (AHAM,
No. 2285 at p. 31) AHAM also stated agreement with DOE's determination
to screen out a subset of low-standby-loss electronic controls that use
``automatic power-down'' because they may result in the loss in the
utility of the continuous clock display for combined cooking products,
such as ranges. (Id.)
AHAM disagreed with DOE's continued inclusion of low-standby loss
electronic controls such as SMPS and urged DOE to screen out low-
standby-loss electronic controls as a technology option because such
controls ``switch the current at high frequencies'' according to DOE,
and ranges and cooking tops connected to a ground fault circuit
interrupter (``GFCI'') and operating at high frequencies contribute to
nuisance tripping, where power is removed from the appliance, even when
no electrical hazard exists. (Id. at pp. 32-35) AHAM requested that DOE
use its expertise and resources to properly investigate this
technological incompatibility and advised that if DOE

[[Page 11453]]

continues to consider low-standby-loss electronic controls as a
feasible technology option, the existing nuisance tripping problems
will get worse. (Id.)
Strauch commented that SMPSs are not as reliable as linear power
supplies, pointing to MIL-HDBK-217 \33\ and the Bellcore/Telcordia
reliability guide \34\ as evidence. (Strauch, No. 2263 at pp. 2-3)
Strauch commented that energy efficiency requirements are degrading
lifetimes due to more complex electronic controls, SMPSs, and light-
weighting. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ DOE interprets MIL-HDBK-217 as referring to Military
Handbook: Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment, last
updated in 1995. Available at <a href="http://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=MIL-HDBK-217&item_s_key=00058764">global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=MIL-HDBK-217&item_s_key=00058764</a>.
\34\ DOE interprets the Bellcore/Telcordia reliability guide as
referring to SR-332, Reliability Prediction Procedure for Electronic
Equipment, last updated in 2011. Available at <a href="http://telecom-info.njdepot.ericsson.net/site-cgi/ido/docs.cgi?ID=SEARCH&DOCUMENT=SR-332#ORD">telecom-info.njdepot.ericsson.net/site-cgi/ido/docs.cgi?ID=SEARCH&DOCUMENT=SR-332#ORD</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE emphasizes that it only considered design options that are
already demonstrated in cooking products available on the market. DOE
is aware of the potential for ``nuisance tripping'' of GFCI circuit
protectors by high-frequency components such as induction elements.
However, DOE understands that nuisance tripping can generally be
mitigated through the use of best practices for reducing leakage
current, such as minimizing electrical cable lengths and ensuring that
filtered and unfiltered cables are separated to whatever extent
possible to reduce leakage current. Additionally, optimizing the
variable-frequency controller power filter to reduce total leakage
current to levels below the GFCI detection limits can further prevent
GFCI tripping. To the extent that the use of additional electronic
components is needed in conjunction with the use of design options with
high-frequency components (e.g., induction elements), and to the extent
that such additional electronic components are provided in electric
cooking tops currently on the market that make use of such design
options, DOE's teardown analysis captures any additional cost
associated with such components.
DOE notes that despite the potential for nuisance tripping, a wide
range of appliances on the market today, including cooking products,
implement variable-frequency drives in their designs. The inclusion of
these variable-frequency drive designs in units on the market leads DOE
to conclude that they do not have a significant impact on the consumer
utility of these products.
ONE Gas commented that DOE should evaluate the potential health and
safety issues associated with consumer conventional cooking product
minimum efficiency standards by addressing electromagnetic field
emission hazards from induction cooking. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 9-
10)
It is not within DOE's purview to regulate health and safety. In
this direct final rule analysis, DOE has analyzed induction as a
technology option insofar as it is already widely available on the
market. Although DOE does not regulate electromagnetic field emissions,
the Federal Communications Commission requires industrial, scientific,
and medical equipment that emits electromagnetic energy on frequencies
within the radio frequency spectrum, including induction cooking tops,
to comply with its regulations at 47 CFR part 18 to prevent harmful
interference to authorized radio communication services. Additionally,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration specifies performance standards
for microwave and radio frequency emitting products, but coverage is
limited to microwave ovens and thus these standards do not apply to
consumer conventional cooking products, including induction cooking
tops. 21 CFR 1030.10.
For this direct final rule, DOE used the screening for electric
cooking top technology options considered in the February 2023 SNOPR
analysis.
b. Gas Cooking Tops
For gas cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE screened out
catalytic burners, radiant gas burners, reduced excess air at burner,
and reflective surfaces. 88 FR 6818, 6842.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it is aware of a wide
range of optimized burner and grate designs on the market, some of
which may reduce the consumer utility associated with HIR burners and
continuous cast-iron grates. Id. In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE
screened out any optimized burner and grate designs that would reduce
consumer utility by only including in its analysis gas cooking tops
that include at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron grates.
Id.
DOE sought comment on its screening analysis for gas cooking tops
and whether any additional technology options should be screened out on
the basis of any of the screening criteria in the February 2023 SNOPR.
Id. Section V.B.4 of this document summarizes comments that DOE
received regarding the utility provided by certain characteristics of
gas cooking tops.
The National Propane Gas Association (``NPGA'') commented that it
agrees with the American Public Gas Association (``APGA'') and the
American Gas Association's (``AGA'') comments, in which APGA and AGA
agreed with DOE's determination that no new standards were justified.
(NPGA, No. 2270 at pp. 2-3, 7-8) NPGA commented that it agrees with
AHAM's prior comments on this rulemaking, in which AHAM stated that no
significant changes have occurred to justify new standards since the
April 2009 Final Rule that determined energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products were not justified. (Id.) NPGA
commented that DOE fails to articulate or demonstrate technological
changes for gas cooking tops that would achieve higher efficiencies
since the April 2009 Final Rule and that would result in significant
conservation of energy as stated by EPCA. (Id.) AGA et al.\35\ echoed
these sentiments in response to the August 2023 NODA. (AGA et al., No.
10112 at pp. 3, 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ ``AGA et al.'' refers to a joint comment from AGA, APGA,
NOGA, Spire Inc., Spire Missouri Inc., and Spire Alabama Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGA commented that DOE's screening analysis is inconsistent and
inadequate for use as the primary factor determining the minimum
efficiency level for gas cooking tops. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 43-45) AGA
commented that gas cooking top design requires a complex engineering
process to ensure the consumer has a product that meets all safety
standards, meets its required purpose (to cook food), is reliable, long
lasting, and easy to maintain and clean, but DOE's language about
improving product efficiency through ``optimized burner/improved
grates'' is inadequate. (Id.) AGA commented that DOE suggests that
realigning gas burners or moving the gas burners closer to the cooking
utensils will optimize burners, but this raises concerns, such as the
impact on the combustion process, creating hot spots on cooking
utensils and electronic ignition systems, cleaning, and addressing
changes in fuel gas supply (for example, switching from natural gas to
propane). (Id.) AGA commented that more evaluation must be documented
before DOE's assumptions can be verified as ``efficiency
improvements.'' (Id.)
AGA et al. commented that gas cooking tops must meet national
consensus safety standards for proper operation (i.e., proper
combustion under gas pressure variation) and burner characteristics
(i.e., burner primary air openings, burner port sizing, variety of
input rates, balanced heat distribution on cooking vessels,
aesthetics). (AGA et al., No. 10112 at pp. 10-11) AGA et al. commented
that the features that DOE

[[Page 11454]]

identified as being responsible for increased efficiency (i.e., grate
weight, flame angle, distance from burner ports) should not be mandated
which would limit the freedom of the gas cooking top engineers to
design products that are safe and fit consumer needs. (Id.)
ONE Gas commented that DOE should evaluate the potential health and
safety issues associated with consumer conventional cooking product
minimum efficiency standards by addressing burn and cooking fire
hazards, which are likely to differ across design options and fuels,
and the potential magnitudes of such hazards as DOE projections of
market share shifts would suggest. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 9-10) ONE
Gas commented that these potential safety and health hazards fit well
within DOE's role in minimum efficiency standards rulemaking. (Id.)
Sub-Zero Group, Inc. (``Sub-Zero'') commented that burner spacing
between grate and vessel must be greater for HIR burners to meet
critical performance and safety requirements; specifically, heat
distribution and reduction of carbon monoxide. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at
p. 11) Sub-Zero commented that reducing burner spacing between burner
flame and testing vessel can increase efficiency, but flame
impingement/contact with the grate and vessel causes flame quenching
(cooling), which directly leads to an increase in carbon monoxide
levels and other combustion by-products. (Id.)
AHAM commented that moving the burner closer to the cookware--as
anticipated by DOE's ``optimize burners and grates'' technology
option--should be screened out based on a resulting reduction in
consumer utility and safety. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 22-23) AHAM
presented a boil-time graph showing that water can be brought to a boil
more efficiently, with a lower Btu/h, by moving the burner closer to
the cookware, but this design will be essentially useless when cooking
foods that require a spectrum of heat inputs as closer burners are
unable to adequately reduce heat input. (Id.) AHAM commented that
testing by one of its members showed that food cooked with only mid-
range input rate burners takes longer to cook and that mid-input rate
burners, for some foods, provide a lower quality of cooking than HIR
burners. (Id.) AHAM commented that consumers will lose utility
associated with quality of cooking and speed of cooking as
manufacturers are forced to homogenize their products and provide mid-
range burners to meet the standard. (Id.)
AHAM recommended that DOE not rely on European designs as it
evaluates whether ``burner and grate optimization'' is possible while
also complying with safety standards such as combustion limits as
European safety standard EN 30-1-1 ``Domestic cooking appliances burner
gas--Part 1-1: Safety--General'' generally has higher CO limits than
allowed in North America per American National Standards Institute
(``ANSI'') ``Household Cooking Gas Appliances'' (``ANSI Z21.1''), which
results in limits on-grate weight, flame angle, and distance from the
burner to the cookware. (Id. at p. 37)
AHAM commented that DOE did not provide sufficient descriptions of
the cooking tops in its test sample to allow AHAM to confirm that the
units in the test sample do not include any proprietary designs,
components, elements, materials, or other intellectual property. (AHAM,
No. 10116 at p. 10) AHAM asserted that DOE has deviated from the data
quality standards outlined in the Process Rule. (Id. at p. 12) AHAM
specifically asserted that DOE failed to eliminate problematic design
options, as identified by commenters; did not use transparent and
robust analytical methods; and did not evaluate safety pertaining to
the updated efficiency levels for gas cooking tops. (Id.) AHAM
commented that DOE should review these deviations from data quality
before issuing any final rule. (Id.)
AHAM commented that, per EPCA, DOE should not consider consumer-
valued features and/or performance attributes as technology options.
(Id. at pp. 12-13) AHAM commented that DOE does not have the authority
to establish standards that would require removal of such features and
attributes. (Id.)
AHAM asserted that over the course of this rulemaking, DOE has
countered itself several times regarding which EPCA-protected features
and performance could be eliminated or altered to achieve energy
reductions. (Id. at pp. 16-19) AHAM commented that, under EPCA, DOE
should not consider the removal or reduction of significant consumer-
valued features and performance attributes as technology options for
improving efficiency and that any technology options that would have
that impact should be screened out. (Id.)
As discussed, DOE has performed extensive research to evaluate
technology changes that have occurred since the April 2009 Final Rule,
and notes that updated analysis depends not only on changes in the
available technologies, but also on the relative costs and benefits of
implementing them.
DOE acknowledges the safety considerations associated with burner
spacing, emissions, and fire hazards, but reiterates that the only
optimized burner and grate designs evaluated in this direct final rule
analysis were those found through DOE's testing and analysis of a full
range of products available on the U.S. market to be implemented in
products already. DOE notes that ANSI Z21.1, required by many building
codes in the United States, specifies safety requirements for all
consumer gas cooking products.
In response to stakeholder comments that optimizing burner and
grate designs would reduce consumer utility, DOE has only included in
its direct final rule engineering analysis gas cooking tops that
include multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. DOE
further addresses comments related to the impact of the standards on
cooking top utility in section V.B.4 of this document.
For this direct final rule, DOE screened out from further
consideration catalytic burners, radiant gas burners, reduced excess
air at burner, and reflective surfaces for gas cooking tops, consistent
with the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.
c. Conventional Ovens
For the same reasons discussed in the SNOPR published on September
2, 2016 (``September 2016 SNOPR''), DOE screened out added insulation,
bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no oven door window, optimized
burner and cavity design, and reflective surfaces from further analysis
for conventional ovens in the February 2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 6818, 6843.
DOE also stated that it recognizes that the estimates for the
energy savings associated with improved insulation, improved door seals
and reduced vent rate may vary depending on the test procedure, and
thus screened out these technology options from further analysis of
conventional ovens in the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. DOE stated that it
will reevaluate the energy savings associated with these technology
options if it considers performance standards in a future rulemaking.
Id.
For the same reasons as discussed above for electric smooth element
cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE also screened out the use
of automatic power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls. Id. DOE
stated that it is aware that the use of automatic power-down low-
standby-loss electronic controls may negatively impact product utility.
Id. In particular, the use of automatic power-down low-standby-loss
electronic controls may result in a loss in the utility of the
continuous clock display for ovens.

[[Page 11455]]

However, it should be noted that the other low-standby-loss electronic
controls such as SMPSs were still analyzed.
DOE continued to seek comment on the technology options for
conventional ovens screened out in the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. DOE
sought comment on its screening analysis for conventional ovens and
whether any additional technology options should be screened out on the
basis of any of the screening criteria in the February 2023 SNOPR.
AHAM noted that additional high frequency power use beyond SMPSs in
an oven, such as low standby loss electronic controls, will exacerbate
GFCI nuisance tripping issues. (Id. at p. 38)
As discussed previously, DOE is aware of the potential for
``nuisance tripping'' of GFCI circuit protectors by high-frequency
components such as low standby loss electronic controls. However, DOE
understands that nuisance tripping can generally be mitigated through
the use of best practices. To the extent that the use of additional
electronic components is needed in conjunction with the use of design
options with high-frequency components (e.g., low standby loss
electronic controls), and to the extent that such additional electronic
components are provided in electric cooking tops currently on the
market that make use of such design options, DOE's teardown analysis
captures any additional cost associated with such components.
Strauch commented that DOE should not impose forced convection for
conventional ovens, because many consumers may never or rarely use this
feature. (Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 3)
AHAM reiterated its comments made in response to the September 2016
SNOPR that forced convection should be screened out because the motor
wattage could negate any potential energy savings. (Id.) AHAM further
commented that convection is not appropriate for cooking all food
types, noting that any covered food loads will not benefit from this
technology. (Id.)
DOE notes that the design option referred to in the February 2023
SNOPR as ``forced convection'' corresponds to a design option wherein
the conventional oven offers a convection mode to the user. Under this
design option, the user is not required to use the convection mode, for
instance when cooking covered food loads or cakes which do not benefit
from convection mode. However, the user would benefit from using the
convection mode when baking food loads that benefit from an even
distribution of heat, such as roasting vegetables or baking pies, and
because the use of convection mode results in lower energy use, as
measured by the conventional oven test procedure finalized in the test
procedure final rule published on July 2, 2015 (``July 2015 TP Final
Rule'').
However, to ensure full clarity regarding this design option and to
reflect the fact that the use of convection mode would not be required
by users, in this direct final rule, DOE is changing the name of this
design option to ``convection mode capability.'' In the following
sections where DOE evaluates convection mode capability as a
prescriptive design standard, the prescriptive design standard under
evaluation is a requirement for conventional ovens to offer a
convection mode.
AHAM also reiterated its comments made in response to the September
2016 SNOPR stating that oven separators should be screened out because
they are not a widely available feature. (Id.) AHAM commented that this
design option essentially relies on consumer use of the feature and
without knowing whether consumers do or will use the oven separator, it
is impossible to know whether the energy savings would be realized in
the field. (Id.)
Unless a technology option has proprietary protection or represents
a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, the fact that
oven separators are not widely available has no bearing on the
screening criteria analyzed by DOE and outlined in the Process Rule.
DOE has determined that multiple manufacturers offer oven separators
and therefore determines that oven separators do not represent a
proprietary technology. AHAM did not provide any information that
corresponds to DOE's screening criteria for technology options, and as
such DOE is retaining the oven separator technology in this direct
final rule.
AHAM reiterated other comments it made in response to the September
2016 SNOPR screening analysis for ovens, including: (1) improved door
seals should be screened out, as further improving door seals could
lead to a loss of performance due to a loss of sufficient airflow; and
(2) reduced vent rates should be screened out as energy gains are
negligible and DOE is relying on very old product designs and a test
procedure DOE has repealed. (Id.) AHAM stated agreement with DOE's
screening out of the other technology options. (Id. at pp. 38-39)
For this direct final rule, DOE screened out from further
consideration the same conventional oven technology options as in the
February 2023 SNOPR analysis. DOE notes that the concerns expressed by
AHAM regarding technology options for conventional ovens are not
applicable at the adopted standard levels as specified in the Joint
Agreement.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of
this document met all screening criteria to be examined further as
design options in DOE's direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did
not screen out the technology options listed in Table IV.7.

[[Page 11456]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.014

DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds
that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4
of the direct final rule TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer conventional
cooking products. There are two elements to consider in the engineering
analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the
``efficiency analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each
efficiency level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening
analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as
well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ``max-tech'' level (particularly
in cases where the ``max-tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency
level currently available on the market).
In defining the efficiency levels for this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it had received in response to the efficiency
levels proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR.
For this direct final rule, DOE is adopting a design-option
approach supported by testing and supplemented by reverse engineering
(i.e., 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. The
design-option approach is appropriate for consumer conventional cooking
products, given the lack of certification data to determine the market
distribution of existing products and to identify efficiency level
``clusters'' that already exist on the market. Following the request
for information (``RFI'') published on February 12, 2014 (``February
2014 RFI'') and the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE also conducted
interviews with manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products
to develop a deeper understanding of the various combinations of design
options used to increase product efficiency and their associated
manufacturing costs.
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 consumer
conventional cooking products, DOE selected test units based on
performance-related features and technologies advertised in product
literature.
For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a
reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The
baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of
a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
For each product class for both conventional cooking tops and
conventional ovens, DOE analyzed several efficiency levels. As part of
DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest
efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a
``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum possible
efficiency for a given product.

[[Page 11457]]

a. Conventional Cooking Tops
Testing
DOE's test sample for this direct final rule was originally tested
in support of the February 2023 SNOPR and February 2023 NODA and
included 13 electric smooth element cooking tops, the electric smooth
element cooking top portion of 7 conventional ranges, 16 gas cooking
tops, and the gas cooking top portion of 8 conventional ranges for a
total of 44 conventional cooking tops covering all of the product
classes considered in this analysis. The test unit characteristics and
appendix I1 test results are available in chapter 5 of the TSD for this
direct final rule. DOE's analysis did not include any energy
consumption associated with downdraft venting systems.
For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE developed performance-based
baseline efficiency levels for consumer conventional cooking tops using
the measured energy consumption of units in the DOE test sample. 88 FR
6818, 6844. DOE determined the cooking top IAEC for each cooking top in
the test sample based on the water heating test procedure adopted in
the August 2022 TP Final Rule. Id.
AGA et al. stated that it would be helpful for stakeholders to have
information regarding which cooking top units included in DOE's
analysis are currently available on the market. (AGA et al., No. 766 at
pp. 3-4) AGA et al. requested that DOE provide this information through
the unit identification (i.e., the ``SNOPR Unit ID'') for each cooking
top product included in DOE's analysis, which would allow stakeholders
to confirm that DOE's results accurately reflect the product
information. (Id.)
NPGA asserted that DOE is unable to confirm that the products
evaluated remain on the market, as testing occurred prior to April 2022
and products were purchased prior to May 2018. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 8)
NPGA asserted that it is not clear whether the tested products remain
available on the U.S. market. (Id.)
Spire Inc. (``Spire'') asserted that the sample of gas cooking
products tested by DOE is small and outdated and that there is no basis
to conclude that the products tested are representative of the market.
(Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 5-7) Spire further commented that the gas
cooking tops in DOE's test sample products were likely manufactured
between 2014 and 2018, based on their purchase dates. (Id.) Spire
stated its concern that DOE has not identified the tested products that
are still on the market. (Id.)
Whirlpool Corporation (``Whirlpool'') commented that DOE cannot
rely on data gathered from outdated and unavailable products that do
not represent the features, characteristics, and performance standards
consumers expect from gas cooking products. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp.
9-10) Whirlpool commented that DOE wrongly assumes that newer models
are similar to the tested older models; Whirlpool added that its own
catalog experiences substantial turnover in the course of just 5 to 10
years and its older models would likely perform differently than its
newer ones under DOE's test procedure. (Id.)
AHAM commented that DOE's test sample comprises several old models,
some of which are no longer commercially available and therefore would
not be considered technologically feasible per sections 6(b)(3)(i) and
7(b)(1) of the Process Rule. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 8-9) AHAM commented
that DOE's continued use of this old test sample conflicts with DOE's
statement that it considers commercially available products or working
prototypes in its evaluation. (Id.) AHAM stated disagreement with DOE's
statements in the February 2023 NODA that if a product was on the
market, it can be included in the analysis--that could be the case if
it can be shown that the model was replaced with a similar model that
retains similar efficiency performance and similar technology options.
(Id.) But, AHAM added, if a product is removed from the market and no
longer commercially available, it should be eliminated from the sample
because it may have been removed for reliability or quality issues or
consumer dissatisfaction. (Id.) AHAM commented that without data that
indicates why a particular model that is no longer commercially
available should remain in the test sample, DOE should remove the old
models from its test sample and ensure that the test sample informing
this analysis consists only of commercially available products (or
working prototypes). (Id.)
Although other models in DOE's test sample may no longer be on the
market, DOE notes that manufacturers of major home appliances update
their model numbers regularly, in some cases as frequently as every 1
to 2 years. In DOE's experience of regularly monitoring the market for
major home appliances, including consumer conventional cooking
products, the model number changes that occur from year to year in most
cases do not reflect technological changes that would impact the
product's measured energy consumption. Regardless, test results for
models that are discontinued over the course of a DOE rulemaking
timeline remain applicable in conducting the analysis in accordance
with EPCA requirements, because such models incorporate technologically
feasible design options that manufacturers may use to achieve the
corresponding efficiency levels in commercial products.
DOE cannot comment on whether the units in the AHAM test sample are
available on the market because AHAM did not provide DOE with model
number information. However, at the time of the direct final rule
analysis, 15 of the 30 units in the expanded test sample for which DOE
has model information and that meet the standards finalized in this
direct final rule, are available for purchase; DOE notes that 7 of
these 15 models have multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron
grates.
AHAM commented it found confusing the addition to DOE's test sample
of three new gas cooking top units that did not follow the same
criteria as in its February 2023 SNOPR analysis and the conflicting
statements and methodology DOE employed in the February 2023 NODA (and
in the media). (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 53-54)
As stated in the February 2023 NODA, the additional information was
intended to clarify the analysis. 88 FR 12603, 12604. Specifically, DOE
provided the IAEC values for the three additional units to substantiate
its statement that gas cooking tops that do not include HIR burners or
continuous cast-iron grates have efficiencies higher than the EL 2
level that DOE defined in the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. at 88 FR 12605.
Further, DOE published the August 2023 NODA to provide an updated
analysis of the gas cooking top market in light of the new data
provided by stakeholders in response to the February 2023 SNOPR and
February 2023 NODA.
AHAM requested information on whether DOE has additional data for
the units in its test sample that were tested as part of the test
procedure rulemaking and, if so, AHAM requested that DOE provide these
additional test results. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 9-10) AHAM commented
that such data could illuminate the relevance of test variation to
DOE's standards selection. (Id.)
In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE determined that its test
results demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of the
finalized test procedure. 87 FR 51492, 51497. To the extent that any
additional tests beyond those used in this direct final rule analysis
were conducted on a given cooking top, the results were used in the
analysis for the August 2022 TP Final

[[Page 11458]]

Rule. Test reports for these tests are available in the docket for that
rulemaking.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NPGA commented that it does not believe DOE's testing conducted in
support of the February 2023 SNOPR can be relied upon when it was
conducted prior to publishing the August 2022 TP Final Rule and the
February 2023 Correcting Amendments. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 8) NPGA
stated that by relying on testing methods adopted prior to these
changes, DOE's foundation for its test method must be called into
question. (Id.)
As discussed, all conventional cooking top testing conducted by DOE
in support of the February 2023 SNOPR, and of this direct final rule
was conducted according to the test procedure at appendix I1, as
finalized. Despite some of the testing occurring prior to the
publication of the August 2022 TP Final Rule, all testing was confirmed
to be compliant with appendix I1 as published prior to its
incorporation in the analysis. DOE further notes that neither the
errors and omissions nor the corrections in the February 2023
Correcting Amendments affected the substance of the rulemaking, or any
conclusions reached in support of the August 2022 TP Final Rule. 88 FR
7846.
Furthermore, as discussed in the August 2023 NODA and later in this
document, DOE received additional stakeholder test data which DOE
incorporated into its analysis as part of the ``expanded data set,''
which was used as the basis for the updated efficiency levels presented
in the August 2023 NODA and analyzed in this direct final rule.
AHAM requested that DOE explain why certain gas cooking tops in
DOE's test sample have different IAEC values in the August 2023 NODA
compared to the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 4-5) AHAM
commented that DOE should indicate if the updated analysis in the
August 2023 NODA was based on the updated IAEC values. (Id.) AHAM
requested that DOE publish a response on the docket, prior to a final
rule, as to whether the updated IAEC values are a result of test
variation, error, or additional testing, and provide opportunity for
stakeholder comment. (Id.)
DOE appreciates AHAM's comment and notes that as part of its review
of the engineering analysis for gas cooking tops prior to the
publication of the August 2023 NODA, DOE corrected a data processing
error that occurred in calculating the annual energy consumption
(``AEC'') of seven units in its test sample. At the time of the August
2023 NODA, DOE published the full expanded test sample for gas cooking
tops, including this calculation error correction. DOE confirms that
the analysis for the August 2023 NODA and for this direct final rule
was based upon the IAEC values published in the August 2023 NODA.
AGA et al. commented that the standard proposed in February 2023
SNOPR was based on limited product testing unsupported by any other
existing body of relevant product efficiency data. (AGA et al., No.
10112 at p. 6) AGA et al. commented that, given the impact of the
expanded data set on the baseline level analyzed in the August 2023
NODA, as compared to the February 2023 SNOPR, it is unclear how an even
further expanded data set would impact the efficiency levels for gas
cooking tops. (Id.)
DOE has performed extensive testing in support of the energy
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops. Furthermore,
DOE's analysis for this direct final rule takes into account all
additional stakeholder test data received in response to the February
2023 SNOPR. DOE determines that its expanded test data set is a
representative sample and sufficient to support its analysis for the
standards adopted in this direct final rule.
Electric Cooking Tops
The Joint Agreement recommended a standard level for both electric
smooth element cooking top product classes of 207 kWh/year that is
equivalent to the IAEC at EL 1 defined in the August 2023 NODA and
February 2023 SNOPR.
The baseline IAEC in this direct final rule was initially
established in the February 2023 SNOPR. To establish the baseline IAEC
values for electric cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE set
the baseline cooking top IAEC equal to the sum of the maximum cooking
top AEC observed in the dataset and the maximum annual combined low-
power mode energy consumption (``E<INF>TLP</INF>'') observed in the
dataset. 88 FR 6818, 6844.
DOE then reviewed the AEC and E<INF>TLP</INF> values for the
electric smooth element cooking tops in its test sample and identified
three higher efficiency levels that can be achieved without sacrificing
clock functionality. Id. at 88 FR 6845.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE defined EL 1 for electric smooth
element cooking tops based on the low-standby-loss electronic controls
design option. Id. As discussed above, DOE defined the baseline
efficiency assuming the highest AEC would be paired with the highest
E<INF>TLP</INF> observed in its test sample. Id. In the February 2023
SNOPR, DOE stated that it is aware of many methods employed by
manufacturers to achieve lower E<INF>TLP</INF>, including by changing
from a linear power supply to an SMPS, by dimming the control screen's
default brightness, by allowing the clock functionality to turn off
after a period of inactivity, and by removing the clock from the
cooking top altogether. Id. DOE defined EL 1 using the lowest measured
E<INF>TLP</INF> among the units in its test sample with clock
functionality, paired with the baseline AEC, to avoid any potential
loss of utility from setting a standard based on a unit without clock
functionality. Id.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE defined EL 2 for electric smooth
element cooking tops using the lowest measured AEC (highest efficiency)
among radiant cooking tops in its sample and the same E<INF>TLP</INF>
as EL 1. Id. DOE noted that, this AEC value can also be reached by
units using induction technology. Id.
To determine the highest measured efficiency for electric smooth
element cooking tops, ``max tech'' or EL 3 in the February 2023 SNOPR,
DOE calculated the sum of the lowest measured AEC in its test sample of
electric smooth element cooking tops, which represented induction
technology, and the same E<INF>TLP</INF> as EL 1. Id.
Table IV.8 shows the efficiency levels for electric smooth element
cooking tops proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR.

[[Page 11459]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.015

DOE sought comment on the methodology and results for the proposed
baseline and incremental efficiency levels for electric cooking tops.
Id. at 88 FR 6844-6845.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (``Samsung'') supported DOE's
methodology for analyzing AEC and E<INF>TLP</INF> separately when
determining the efficiency levels for baseline electric smooth element
cooking tops. (Samsung, No. 2291 at p. 2) Samsung supported DOE's
proposed efficiency levels for electric cooking tops. (Id.) Samsung
commented that standby power is typically consumed by specific features
(e.g., clocks, timers, electronic displays), and that because DOE
identified low-standby-loss electronic controls for EL 1, it is
reasonable to assume that manufacturers will use the lowest level of
E<INF>TLP</INF> to meet EL 1. (Id.) Samsung commented that EL 1 also
avoids consumer utility loss by maintaining the clock functionality.
(Id.)
AHAM commented that DOE's method for determining the baseline
efficiency levels for conventional cooking tops is flawed because it
adds active-mode energy use and standby-mode energy use from different
units, which is not a representative approach. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp.
30-31) AHAM commented that product design is holistic and theoretical
energy use should not be assumed based on tests from different units as
was DOE's method. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE should follow its
usual, more representative methodology of selecting the least efficient
single unit, despite the flaws resulting from the methodology's basis
on a test sample. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE can minimize this
inherent flaw by ensuring its test sample is as broad and
representative of the market as possible through the inclusion of
AHAM's data. (Id.) AHAM added that DOE should rectify the lack of
representativeness of its current sample, even with AHAM's test data
included, before proceeding to a final rule. (Id.)
DOE has determined that adding active-mode energy use and standby-
mode energy use from different units to determine baseline efficiency
levels for conventional cooking tops is warranted in order to evaluate
the most conservative baseline efficiency level so as to allow
manufacturers to preserve the utility associated with clock
functionality.
AHAM stated its opposition to DOE's proposed standard for smooth
electric cooking tops and added that it would oppose any proposed
standard more stringent than DOE's proposed level. (Id. at pp. 42-43)
However, AHAM commented that it does not oppose standards for these
products so long as the standard takes into account test procedure
variation and the reality that manufacturers will not certify products
at the tested values upon which DOE bases its analysis. (Id.) AHAM
suggested that DOE evaluate a gap-fill level for electric smooth
element cooking tops that is between EL 1 and the baseline, and
requested that DOE account for test variation and conservative rating
by applying an additional 5 percent to the evaluated efficiency level.
(Id.)
In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE determined that its test
results demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of the
finalized test procedure. 87 FR 51492, 51497. DOE notes that although
it is not including a ``buffer'' in its analysis, nothing in DOE's
analysis prevents manufacturers from choosing to design a buffer into
their own products' rated values.
Regarding AHAM's suggestion that DOE evaluate a gap-fill level, DOE
is not aware of any design options that would justify such an
efficiency level.
As discussed, DOE received additional electric smooth element
cooking top test data from AHAM and the Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (``PG&E'') in response to the February 2023 SNOPR. In the
August 2023 NODA, DOE stated that these additional data are consistent
with DOE's tentative determination in the February 2023 SNOPR regarding
efficiency levels for these products. 88 FR 50810, 50811. Therefore, in
the August 2023 NODA, DOE maintained the efficiency levels for electric
smooth element cooking tops that were proposed in the February 2023
SNOPR. Id.
DOE sought comment on the efficiency levels for electric smooth
element cooking tops in the August 2023 NODA. Id. DOE did not receive
any such comments.
For the reasons discussed in the February 2023 SNOPR and August
2023 NODA, and consistent with the recommendations in the Joint
Agreement, DOE analyzed for this direct final rule the efficiency
levels for both electric smooth element cooking top product classes
that were proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, as shown in Table IV.9.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.016

[[Page 11460]]

Gas Cooking Tops
The Joint Agreement recommended a standard level for both gas
cooking top product classes of 1,770 kBtu/year.
As discussed, to establish the baseline IAEC values for cooking
tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE set the baseline cooking top
integrated annual energy consumption (i.e., IAEC) equal to the sum of
the maximum cooking top active annual energy consumption (i.e., AEC)
observed in the dataset for the analyzed product class and the maximum
combined low-power mode annual energy consumption (i.e.,
E<INF>TLP</INF>) observed in the dataset for the analyzed product
class. 88 FR 6818, 6844.
DOE noted that the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops evaluated
in the February 2023 SNOPR would replace the current prescriptive
standards for gas cooking tops which prohibits the use of a constant
burning pilot light. Id. As such, DOE's proposed standard for gas
cooking tops would be only a performance standard. DOE noted that
constant burning pilot lights consume approximately 2,000 kBtu/year and
even the proposed baseline considered efficiency level of 1,775 kBtu/
year for gas cooking tops would not be achievable by products if they
were to incorporate a constant burning pilot light. Id. DOE further
notes that the updated baseline efficiency level of 1,900 kBtu/year for
gas cooking tops considered in the August 2023 NODA, as described later
in this section, would also not be achievable by products incorporating
a constant burning pilot light. Therefore, a new performance standard
for gas cooking tops would preclude the possibility of any product
designs with constant burning pilot lights. The existing prescriptive
standard would remain in place until the compliance date of the new and
amended standards finalized in this direct final rule.
For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE considered efficiency levels
associated with optimized burner and grate design, but only insofar as
the efficiency level was achievable with at least one HIR burner \37\
and continuous cast-iron grates. 88 FR 6818, 6845. DOE stated that it
is aware that some methods used by gas cooking top manufacturers to
achieve lower AEC can result in a smaller number of HIR burners. Id.
HIR burners provide unique consumer utility and allow consumers to
perform high heat cooking activities such as searing and stir-frying.
DOE stated that it is also aware that some consumers derive utility
from continuous cast-iron grates, such as the ability to use heavy
pans, or to shift cookware between burners without needing to lift
them. Id. Because of this, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE defined the
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops such that all efficiency levels
are achievable with at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron
grates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ As discussed, DOE defines a high input rate burner as a
burner with an input rate greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's testing showed that energy use was correlated to burner
design and cooking top configuration (e.g., grate weight, flame angle,
distance from burner ports to the cooking surface) and could be reduced
by optimizing the design of the burner and grate system. Id. DOE
reviewed the test data for the gas cooking tops in its test sample and
identified two efficiency levels associated with improving the burner
and grate design that corresponded to different design criteria. DOE
defined EL 1 and EL 2 for gas cooking tops using the same
E<INF>TLP</INF> as used for the baseline efficiency level.
Table IV.10 shows the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops
evaluated in the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. at 88 FR 6846.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.017

DOE sought comment on the methodology and results for the proposed
baseline and incremental efficiency levels for gas cooking tops in the
February 2023 SNOPR. Id. at 88 FR 6844-6845.
AGA et al. requested more information regarding DOE's proposal to
limit the EL 2 level to 1,204 kBtu/year, including the specific design
changes or enhancements to the gas cooking tops needed to attain EL 2,
the data and methodology used to propose EL 2 as the max-tech
efficiency level for gas cooking tops, and DOE's justification for the
proposed minimum requirement of 1,204 kBtu/year. (AGA et al., No. 766
at p. 3)
As noted in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE's testing showed that
energy use was correlated to burner design and cooking top
configuration (e.g., grate weight, flame angle, distance from burner
ports to the cooking surface) and could be reduced by optimizing the
design of the burner and grate system. DOE reviewed the test data for
the gas cooking tops in its test sample and identified two efficiency
levels associated with improving the burner and grate design that
corresponded to different design criteria. 88 FR 6818, 6845. The full
dataset for gas cooking tops may be found in chapter 5 of the direct
final rule TSD.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ DOE provided this response to AGA et al. on April 13, 2023.
See docket item No. 1069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGA asserted that the February 2023 SNOPR exceeds DOE's authority
by effectively imposing design requirements because cooking tops with
more than one HIR burner cannot comply with the proposal and there is
no real evidence that products with even one HIR burner and cast-iron
grates could satisfy the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR
based on issues with the test results. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 26-28) AGA
commented that EPCA allows DOE to issue a performance standard or a
design requirement, but not both. (Id.) AGA asserted that the February
2023 SNOPR's limitation on the number and types of burners is both a
design and a performance standard and is therefore unlawful. (Id.) AGA
stated that the D.C. Circuit adopted a similar rationale in Hearth,
Patio, & Barbecue Association v. DOE, which vacated and remanded DOE's
standards for direct heating equipment when the court rejected

[[Page 11461]]

DOE's pretextual argument that it had not imposed a design requirement
for a class of products that were ineligible for design requirements.
(Id.) AGA noted that the rule gave manufacturers the option of meeting
either DOE's efficiency standard or a third-party standard that would
have required elimination of constant burning pilot lights. (Id.)
DOE reiterates that the standard level recommended for gas cooking
tops in the Joint Agreement and established in this direct final rule
is a performance requirement and not a design standard. As stated, this
IAEC level can be met by a variety of cooking tops with a variety of
burner input rate configurations. Chapter 5 of the TSD for this direct
final rule includes examples of cooking tops in the expanded test
sample that meet the established performance standard.
AHAM commented that it noticed an error in DOE's standby power
analysis for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 30) AHAM commented
that to calculate highest measured efficiency, DOE added the lowest
measured active energy consumption to the highest standby energy
consumption of all units, but that DOE seemed to be adding values with
different units of measure (kBtu + kWh) and that a correct calculation
would result in an EL 2 of 1,277 kBtu/year. (Id.)
DOE appreciates AHAM's comment and notes that this error was
corrected in its analysis for the August 2023 NODA.
AHAM noted that it used DOE's definition of HIR burner--input rate
greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h--but questioned this as the
appropriate threshold for the definition since DOE provided no
justification for the selection in the form of consumer data or other
evidence. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 3) AHAM requested that DOE present the
data supporting this threshold to avoid its analysis being seen as
arbitrary. (Id.) AHAM commented that it presents data on consumer
preference that show that higher burner input rates have consumer
utility--specifically, HIR burners provide quicker times to boil, an
important consumer performance feature. (Id. at pp. 17-19)
Whirlpool requested that DOE provide data showing that gas cooking
tops and ranges with a single HIR burner of 14,000 Btu/h and above are
sufficient to meet consumers' cooking needs across all types of gas
cooking products (e.g., entry-level, mass-market, and high-output
products). (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 6-7) If this is not possible,
Whirlpool recommended that DOE reconsider the 14,000 Btu threshold
proposed, as Whirlpool asserts that DOE's own data reveal that this is
not representative of HIR burners on the market, noting that most
models in DOE's data set have at least one burner with an input rate
between 18,000 Btu/h and 25,000 Btu/h. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that
DOE's proposed definition of HIR burners would include models that may
not adequately perform certain types of cooking such as boiling, stir-
frying, and searing, that is more easily done at high temperatures.
Throughout the history of this rulemaking, starting with the
February 2014 RFI, DOE has considered HIR burners to be those rated at
or above 14,000 Btu/h. 79 FR 8337, 8340. DOE based this determination
on the April 2009 Final Rule and a report published as part of the
September 1998 Final Rule.\39\ 74 FR 16040; 16054 (Apr. 8, 2009). DOE
further notes that the cooking product industry has not standardized a
threshold for HIR burners within publicly available marketing material.
For example, Consumer Reports considers high-power burners to be those
rated above 11,000 Btu/h.\40\ According to Whirlpool's website, it
considers HIR burners to be rated above 12,000 Btu/h.\41\ DOE
additionally notes that in a comment submitted in response to the
February 2023 SNOPR, Whirlpool referred to large burners as those rated
above 15,000 Btu/h. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 7) Considering the
apparent lack of consensus regarding a threshold that constitutes an
HIR burner, and the range of possible thresholds apparent through
publicly available sources, DOE has determined the use of 14,000 Btu/h
to be a reasonable threshold for distinguishing HIR burners for the
purposes of its analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking
Products, Volume 2: Potential Impact of Alternative Efficiency
Levels for Residential Cooking Products. Available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD-0070-0004">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD-0070-0004</a>.
\40\ See <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org">www.consumerreports.org</a>.
\41\ ``How Many BTUs Are Needed for a Gas Range [verbar]
Whirlpool''. Available at <a href="http://www.whirlpool.com/blog/kitchen/how-many-btus-for-gas-range.html">www.whirlpool.com/blog/kitchen/how-many-btus-for-gas-range.html</a> (last accessed August 11, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHAM recommended that DOE evaluate additional gap-fill levels for
gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 44) AHAM commented that for
these gap-fill levels, DOE should also add 5 percent to the level to
account for test variation and conservative rating. (Id.)
Sub-Zero asserted that equity between electric and gas cooking top
standards cannot be attained without a gap fill between EL 1 and
baseline for gas cooking tops. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at p. 11)
As discussed, in response to the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE received
additional gas cooking top test data from AHAM and PG&E that prompted
DOE to review the engineering analysis--including the defined
efficiency levels--for gas cooking tops as presented in the February
2023 SNOPR. In the August 2023 NODA, DOE presented updated efficiency
levels for gas cooking tops based on its new expanded data set. 88 FR
50810, 50812. The following paragraphs summarize the key updates to the
analysis for gas cooking tops that DOE presented in the August 2023
NODA.
In the August 2023 NODA, the updates to the efficiency levels for
gas cooking tops included (1) an updated E<INF>TLP</INF> estimate at
each efficiency level for gas cooking tops, equal to the average of the
non-zero E<INF>TLP</INF> values measured in the expanded test sample;
(2) an updated definition of the baseline efficiency level, based on
the least efficient AEC value in the expanded test sample, which is
less efficient than the least efficient AEC in the February 2023 SNOPR
test sample; (3) an updated definition of EL 1, representing the most
energy efficient AEC among units with multiple HIR burners and
continuous cast-iron grates that would not preclude any combination of
other features mentioned by manufacturers (e.g., different nominal unit
widths, sealed burners, at least one low input rate burner (``LIR
burner''),\42\ multiple dual-stacked and/or multi-ring HIR burners, and
at least one extra-high input rate burner), as demonstrated by products
from multiple manufacturers in the expanded test sample; and (4) an
updated definition of the max-tech efficiency level based on the most
efficient AEC value in the expanded test sample, achievable with
multiple HIR burners (rather than a single HIR burner, used as the
basis for the February 2023 SNOPR) and continuous cast-iron grates. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ In this direct final rule, DOE defines an LIR burner as a
burner with an input rate below 6,500 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section IV.B of this document, to develop
incremental efficiency levels for gas cooking tops, DOE analyzed the
distribution of AEC values among only the cooking tops in the expanded
test sample that have multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron
grates. DOE did not consider any efficiency levels that would result in
the lack of multiple HIR burners or continuous cast-iron grates. In the
direct final rule TSD, DOE presents the results for all tested gas
cooking tops, because these results are also used to develop

[[Page 11462]]

the market share distributions (see section IV.F.8 of this document).
Table IV.11 shows the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops that
DOE evaluated for the August 2023 NODA. Id.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.018

DOE sought comment on the methodology and results for the
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops presented in the August 2023
NODA. Id. at 88 FR 50813.
ASAP et al.\43\ commented in support of DOE's updated analysis in
the August 2023 NODA. (ASAP et al., No. 10113 at p. 1) ASAP et al.
commented in support of the updated efficiency levels for gas cooking
tops to reflect the expanded test sample and to ensure the availability
of models with multiple HIR burners. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ In this context ``ASAP et al.'' refers to a joint comment
from Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, National Consumer Law Center, and Natural
Resources Defense Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WE ACT for Environmental Justice (``WE ACT'') commented that it
opposes removing the prescriptive standard that gas cooking products
not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (WE ACT, No. 10114
at p. 6) WE ACT commented that whether a gas cooking product has a
pilot light influences its fuel efficiency. (Id.) WE ACT commented that
because pilot lights burn constantly without producing usable heat,
half of the energy is lost. (Id.)
EPCA defines an energy conservation standard as either a
performance standard which prescribes a minimum energy efficiency
determined in accordance with a test procedure or a design requirement.
(42 U.S.C. 6291(6)) Furthermore, EPCA also contains 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)) As discussed, DOE notes that constant
burning pilot lights consume approximately 2,000 kBtu/year. 88 FR 6818,
6844. Therefore, a gas cooking top with a constant burning pilot light
cannot meet the maximum IAEC established as the baseline efficiency
level in this direct final rule of 1,900 kBtu/year, or the adopted
standard level of 1,770 kBtu/year. The Joint Agreement specifies a
performance standard for gas cooking tops, which replaces the existing
design requirement prohibiting the use of constant burning pilot lights
on gas cooking tops with or without an electrical supply cord.
AHAM requested that DOE clarify how it determined the 101 kBtu/year
E<INF>TLP</INF> value stated to be an outlier, and why it ignored the
E<INF>TLP</INF> value of 118 kBtu/year from PG&E Test Unit #5. (AHAM,
No. 10116 at p. 9)
DOE understands AHAM's comment to be referencing a statement in the
August 2023 NODA indicating that 101 kBtu/year was the largest
E<INF>TLP</INF> value in DOE's test sample. DOE notes that while PG&E
Test Unit #5 has a larger E<INF>TLP</INF> value, the statement in
question was referencing the DOE test sample analyzed in support of the
February 2023 SNOPR, which did not include PG&E Unit #5. DOE received
data from PG&E after publication of the February 2023 SNOPR.
Nonetheless, DOE's assessment that values of E<INF>TLP</INF> over 100
kBtu/year represent outliers remains valid when the analysis considers
the expanded dataset. In response to AHAM's request, DOE is clarifying
that in this case, DOE considers the E<INF>TLP</INF> values of 101
kBtu/year and 118 kBtu/year both to be outliers, as confirmed by the
interquartile method of identifying outliers in which any non-zero
value in the expanded dataset greater than 68 kBtu/year would be
considered an outlier. Furthermore, fewer than 5 percent of the
E<INF>TLP</INF> values in the expanded dataset are greater than 100
kBtu/year.
PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, jointly the California Investor-Owned
Utilities (``CA IOUs''), commented that DOE should revise the
E<INF>TLP</INF> allocated to each efficiency level for gas cooking tops
to more closely align with the methodology for electric smooth element
cooking tops, stating that this revision allows for the development of
more representative efficiency levels where the baseline efficiency
levels represent the maximum observed energy consumption while the
incremental efficiency levels represent annual standby energy use
improvements. (CA IOUs, No. 10106 at pp. 1-3)
As discussed, in response to the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE received
additional gas cooking top test data that prompted DOE to review the
engineering analysis for gas cooking tops. The updates to the
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops presented in the August 2023
NODA reflect this additional stakeholder data. DOE has determined that
the updated E<INF>TLP</INF> estimate at each efficiency level for gas
cooking tops, equal to the average of the non-zero E<INF>TLP</INF>
values measured in the expanded test sample, is a representative
allocation of the standby mode energy consumption at each efficiency
level for gas cooking tops. DOE notes that it analyzed efficiency
levels for gas cooking tops and electric cooking tops separately, in
accordance with the EPCA requirement that any new or amended energy
conservation standards be prescribed for each individual product class
in order to achieve the maximum energy efficiency for that product
class. (U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
AHAM commented that it opposes the methodology of combining burners
of different types from more than one unit in the test sample to
represent a theoretical unit that can meet the updated EL 1 for gas
cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 6) AHAM commented that this
methodology is not representative of the units in the test sample.
(Id.) AHAM further commented that it opposes combining the active mode
and standby mode energy consumption of different units to define
efficiency levels. (Id. at p. 9)
In this direct final rule, DOE determines that the methodology of
combining burners of different types from the units in its test sample
is an appropriate estimation of the potential breadth of gas cooking
top efficiencies available on the market. Although DOE acknowledges
that a cooking top redesign is performed at the product

[[Page 11463]]

level and not at the burner level, by combining burners of various
input rates and efficiencies in its analysis, DOE can simulate the
decisions manufacturers will need to make as they redesign their
cooking tops to meet new and amended standards.
The National Association of Home Builders (``NAHB'') commented that
DOE should further revise the updated efficiency levels to reflect
additional stakeholder feedback and data. (NAHB, No. 10115 at p. 2)
NAHB commented that the updated efficiency levels would still increase
costs for manufacturers, decrease product performance, and impact the
availability of product features that consumers want. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it is unclear how DOE defined efficiency levels
and how technology options could be employed to reach each efficiency
level presented in the August 2023 NODA. (AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 4) AHAM
commented that DOE has not provided descriptions of the combination of
features present in each unit in its test sample. (Id.) AHAM commented
that the updated efficiency level for gas cooking tops is sensitive to
variation in a limited number of test models. (Id. at pp. 6-7) AHAM
commented that only one gas cooking top in the test sample, DOE Test
Unit #18, meets the updated EL 1 and has multiple HIR burners,
continuous cast-iron grates, at least one LIR burner, multiple dual-
stacked and/or multi-ring HIR burners, and at least one extra-high
input rate burner. (Id.) AHAM requested that DOE explain how the
updated EL 1 for gas cooking tops does not preclude any combination of
certain features and allow opportunity to comment after such
explanation. (Id.)
The Joint Agreement recommended that DOE establish standards at an
efficiency level, corresponding to 1,770 kBtu/year, that was not
analyzed in either the February 2023 SNOPR or the August 2023 NODA. In
this direct final rule, DOE analyzed this recommended efficiency level
in place of the EL 1 defined in the August 2023 NODA and determined
that an IAEC of 1,770 Btu/year can be achieved by a gas cooking top
with multiple HIR burners, continuous cast-iron grates, at least one
LIR burner, and does not preclude any other combination of consumer-
desired features.
In this direct final rule, DOE analyzed the gas cooking top
efficiency levels for both gas cooking top product classes shown in
Table IV.12.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.019

Although these efficiency levels and the standards adopted in this
direct final rule are expressed in terms of IAEC, it is useful to
examine how these identified levels relate to performance at a per-
burner level to help illustrate the wide range of burner styles that
can be implemented in cooking tops that achieve the standards adopted
by this direct final rule. By ``backing out'' from each IAEC value the
number of annual cooking cycles and representative water load mass as
defined by the DOE test procedure, each IAEC value can be associated
with a corresponding average normalized gas energy consumption
representative of the Energy Test Cycle across all of the burners
(i.e., a corresponding ``average per-burner efficiency'' that
represents the average of the energy used per gram (g) of water tested,
expressed in Btu/g, among all of the burners on the cooking top).\44\
Table IV.13 shows the corresponding average per-burner efficiency
associated with each defined IAEC level. For both IEAC and the
corresponding average per-burner efficiency, lower values are
indicative of higher-efficiency performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides further
details on the methodology for determining the corresponding average
per-burner efficiency associated with each defined IAEC level.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.020

A wide range of burner styles can achieve these efficiency
performance thresholds at each of the defined efficiency levels.
Section 5.5.3.1 of chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD includes a
graph in which DOE presents the normalized gas energy consumption of
each gas burner in the expanded test sample. This graph demonstrates
that a

[[Page 11464]]

wide diversity of gas burner styles currently on the market meet the EL
1 and EL 2 efficiency thresholds shown in Table IV.13. Specifically,
burners meeting the EL 1 efficiency threshold (corresponding to the
finalized standard) span the whole range of tested burner input rates
(3,900-25,000 Btu/h). In other words, on a per-burner basis, EL 1
performance can be achieved using any combination of low input, medium
input, or high input rate burners.
DOE further emphasizes that gas cooking top efficiency is
calculated based on the average normalized gas energy consumption among
each of the burners required to be tested. As such, a gas cooking top
that achieves EL 1 performance (corresponding to the finalized
standard) may include individual burners whose normalized gas energy
consumption is greater than 1.46 Btu/g, provided that the overall
average performance across all tested burners is no greater than 1.46
Btu/g.
b. Conventional Ovens
Analyzed Product Types
As discussed, the Joint Agreement defines two product classes for
conventional ovens: electric ovens and gas ovens. For this direct final
rule, DOE analyzed four product types per conventional oven product
class, representing different energy use profiles and baseline cost, as
follows.
In the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE found that standard ovens and
ovens using a catalytic continuous-cleaning process use roughly the
same amount of energy. However, 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. Based on DOE's review of gas ovens available on the U.S.
market, and on manufacturer interviews and testing conducted as part of
the engineering analysis, DOE noted in the June 2015 NOPR that the
self-cleaning function of a self-clean oven may employ methods other
than a high-temperature pyrolytic cycle to perform the cleaning
action.\45\ 80 FR 33030, 33043. DOE clarified that a conventional self-
clean electric or gas 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. Id. As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
stated that it is not aware of any differences in consumer behavior in
terms of the frequency of use of the self-clean function that would be
predicated on the type of self-cleaning technology rather than on
cleaning habits or cooking usage patterns that are not dependent on the
type of technology. 81 FR 60784, 60804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ DOE noted that it 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In recent conventional oven test procedures, DOE has included
methods for measuring fan-only mode energy use.\46\ Based on DOE's
testing of freestanding, built-in, and slide-in gas and electric ovens,
DOE observed 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,
which corresponds to 0.25 to 7.6 kWh/year. Based on DOE's reverse
engineering analyses, DOE noted that built-in and slide-in products
incorporate an additional exhaust fan and vent assembly that is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For these reasons, in this direct final rule, DOE analyzed four
product types for each conventional oven product class: standard
freestanding oven, standard built-in/slide-in oven, self-clean
freestanding oven, and self-clean built-in/slide-in oven.\47\ However,
efficiency levels and incremental costs were analyzed at the product
class level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE described standard ovens as
including ovens with and without a catalytic line. For simplicity,
DOE is using the term ``standard oven'' in this direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potential Prescriptive Standards
There are no current test procedures for conventional ovens.
Therefore, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE considered only efficiency
levels corresponding to prescriptive design requirements as defined by
the design options developed as part of the screening analysis (see
section IV.B of this document): convection mode capability,\48\ the use
of an SMPS, and an oven separator (for electric ovens only). 88 FR
6818, 6846. DOE ordered the design options by ease of implementation.
Table IV.14 and Table IV.15 define the efficiency levels analyzed in
the February 2023 SNOPR for both electric and gas oven product classes,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ As discussed in section IV.B.1.c of this document, DOE
renamed the design option from ``forced convection'' to ``convection
mode capability,'' for clarity.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.021

[[Page 11465]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.022

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE assumed that a baseline
conventional oven uses a linear power supply, based on DOE's analysis
of these products. Id. A linear power supply typically produces
unregulated as well as regulated power. The main characteristic of an
unregulated power supply is that its output may contain significant
voltage ripple and that the output voltage will usually vary with the
current drawn. The voltages produced by regulated power supplies are
typically more stable, exhibiting less ripple than the output from an
unregulated power supply and maintaining a relatively constant voltage
within the specified current limits of the device(s) regulating the
power. The unregulated portion of a linear power supply typically
consists of a transformer that steps AC line voltage down, a voltage
rectifier circuit for AC to DC conversion, and a capacitor to produce
unregulated, DC output. However, there are other means of producing and
implementing an unregulated power supply such as transformer-less
capacitive and/or resistive rectification circuits. Within a linear
power supply, the unregulated output serves as an input into a single
or multiple voltage-regulating device. Such regulating devices include
Zener diodes, linear voltage regulators, or similar components which
produce a lower-potential, regulated power output from a higher-
potential DC input. This approach results in a rugged power supply
which is reliable but typically has an efficiency of about 40 percent.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE analyzed the use of an SMPS rather
than a linear power supply for EL 1. Id. at 88 FR 6847. An SMPS can
reduce the standby mode energy consumption for conventional ovens due
to their higher conversion efficiencies of up to 75 percent in
appliance applications for power supply sizes similar to those of
conventional ovens. An SMPS also reduces the no-load standby losses. In
the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it is considering EL 1 to
correspond to the prescriptive requirement that the conventional oven
not be equipped with a linear power supply. Id.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE analyzed the implementation of
convection mode capability for EL 2. Id. An oven in convection mode
uses a fan to distribute warm air evenly throughout the oven cavity.
The use of forced circulation can reduce fuel consumption by cooking
food more quickly, at lower temperatures, and in larger quantities than
a natural convection oven of the same size and rating. Ovens can use
convection heating elements in addition to resistance and other types
of elements to speed up the cooking process. By using different cooking
elements where they are most effective, such combination ovens can
reduce the time and energy consumption required to cook food. As
described further in chapter 5 of the TSD for this direct final rule,
DOE performed testing on consumer conventional ovens in support of this
rulemaking to determine the improvement in cooking efficiency
associated with convection mode. Included in the DOE test sample were
four gas ovens and two electric ovens equipped with a convection mode.
DOE compared the measured energy consumption of each oven in bake mode
to the average energy consumption of bake mode and convection mode
(including energy consumption due to the fan motor) as specified in the
test procedure. The relative decrease in active mode energy consumption
resulting from the implementation of a convection mode in consumer
conventional ovens ranged from 3.5 to 7.5 percent depending on the
product class. In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it is
considering EL 2 to correspond to the prescriptive requirement that the
conventional oven be equipped with a convection fan. Id. This
prescriptive requirement would not preclude a non-convection mode being
offered selectable by the consumer. Id.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, for EL 3, DOE analyzed the use of an
oven separator, for electric ovens only.\49\ Id. For loads that do not
require the entire oven volume, an oven separator can be used to reduce
the cavity volume that is used for cooking. With less oven volume to
heat, the energy used to cook an item would be reduced. The oven
separator considered here is the type that can be easily and quickly
installed by the user. The side walls of the oven cavity would be
fitted with ``slots'' that guide and hold the separator into position,
and a switch to indicate when the separator has been installed. The
oven would also require at least two separate heating elements to heat
the two cavities. Different pairs of ``slots'' would be spaced
throughout the oven cavity so that the user could select different
positions to place the separator. In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE
stated that it is considering EL 3 to correspond to the prescriptive
requirement that the electric oven be equipped with an oven separator.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ Oven separators are not used in gas ovens because they
would interfere with the combustion air flow and venting
requirements for the separate gas burners on the top and bottom of
the oven cavity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the February 2023 SNOPR and the August 2023 NODA, DOE sought
comment on the definitions of the proposed efficiency level for
conventional ovens. Id. at 88 FR 50810, 50813.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider a prescriptive
requirement for built-in and slide-in oven fan runtimes. (CA IOUs, No.
2278 at pp. 4-6) The CA IOUs commented that a strong correlation exists
between fan-only mode duration and energy use, and noted that DOE found
a considerable variation in fan run times and energy use, ranging from
4.5 to 69 minutes and 1 Wh to 32 Wh, respectively. (Id.) The CA IOUs
recommended that DOE set a prescriptive limit of fan-only mode run time
that could potentially save approximately 7 kWh/year per built-in/
slide-in oven, comparable to the 12 kWh/year that DOE's proposed
prescriptive standard would attain. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that
many commercially available ovens have fans that operate for a shorter
time while providing the same function as fans with a longer runtime.
(Id.) The CA IOUs asserted that a prescriptive standard limiting fan
runtime is technologically feasible and cost-effective for consumers,
because it requires only the implementation of a timer, and could yield
savings of up to $13 in lifetime operating costs. (Id.) The CA IOUs
also asserted that a

[[Page 11466]]

prescriptive runtime requirement is unlikely to increase manufacturer
impacts significantly because manufacturers can readily incorporate the
timer into any product redesign to comply with the proposed standards.
(Id.) The CA IOUs additionally recommended DOE consider relevant safety
standards and requirements when setting a fan runtime limit. (Id.)
DOE notes that limiting fan runtime in conventional ovens could
introduce a potential safety hazard for certain designs by limiting the
amount of cooling after a cooking cycle. DOE lacks sufficient data at
this time to characterize the design tradeoffs and energy consumption
impacts of specific fan runtimes to allow it to establish a
prescriptive requirement for fan runtimes.
In this direct final rule, DOE is analyzing, consistent with the
recommendations in the Joint Agreement, the efficiency levels for
conventional ovens that were proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. Table
IV.16 and Table IV.17 define the efficiency levels for the electric and
gas oven product classes, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.024

Energy Consumption of Each Efficiency Level
DOE's test sample for conventional ovens included one gas wall
oven, seven gas ranges, five electric wall ovens, and two electric
ranges for a total of 15 conventional ovens covering all of the
considered product types. DOE conducted testing according to the test
procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 6818, 6847.
However, as discussed previously, DOE is considering only efficiency
levels corresponding to prescriptive design requirements, consistent
with the Joint Agreement. In order to develop estimated energy
consumption rates for each efficiency level, in support of the Energy
Use analysis (see section IV.E of this document), DOE based its
analyses on the data measured using the now-repealed test procedure.
The integrated annual oven energy consumption (``IE<INF>AO</INF>''
\50\) for each consumer conventional oven in DOE's test sample was
broken down into its component parts: the energy of active cooking
mode, E<INF>AO</INF> (including any self-cleaning operation); fan-only
mode, for built-in/slide-in ovens as applicable; and combined low-power
mode, E<INF>TLP</INF> (including standby mode and off mode).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ In this direct final rule, DOE refers to the integrated
annual oven energy consumption using the abbreviation
IE<INF>AO</INF>, rather than IAEC, to emphasize the difference
between the IAEC values used for conventional cooking tops which
were measured according to appendix I1 and the energy use values
used for conventional ovens which were measured according to the
test procedure as finalized in the July 2015 TP Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because oven cooking efficiency and energy consumption depend on
cavity volume, DOE normalized IE<INF>AO</INF> to a representative
cavity volume of 4.3 cubic feet (``ft\3\'') using the relationship
between energy consumption and cavity volume discussed in chapter 5 of
the TSD for this direct final rule to allow for more direct comparison
between units in the test sample.
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed energy
consumption values for the baseline efficiency levels for conventional
ovens considering both data from the previous standards rulemaking and
the measured energy use for the test units. DOE conducted testing for
all units in its test sample to measure integrated annual energy
consumption, which included energy use in active mode (including fan-
only mode) and standby mode. 81 FR 60784, 60814. As discussed in the
September 2016 SNOPR, DOE augmented its analysis of electric standard
ovens by considering the energy use of the electric self-clean units in
its test sample, adjusted to account for the differences between
standard-clean and self-clean ovens. Augmenting the electric standard
oven dataset with self-clean models from the DOE test sample allowed
DOE to consider a wider range of cavity volumes in its analysis. 81 FR
60784, 60815. To establish the estimated energy consumption values for
the baseline efficiency levels for conventional ovens, DOE first
derived a relationship between energy consumption and cavity volume.
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 (including the oven
component of a combined cooking product) with the highest standby
energy consumption in DOE's test sample to maintain the full
functionality of controls for consumer utility. In response to the
September 2016 SNOPR, DOE did not receive comment on the baseline
efficiency

[[Page 11467]]

levels considered for conventional ovens. 85 FR 80982, 81011.
For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE expanded its sample size of
conventional ovens and ranges used to determine the baseline
E<INF>TLP</INF> value and calculated the baseline E<INF>TLP</INF> using
the highest combined low-power mode measured power on a conventional
range with a linear power supply. 88 FR 6818, 6848.
In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE developed the incremental
efficiency levels for each design option identified as a result of the
screening analysis. Id. at 88 FR 6849. DOE then developed estimated
energy consumption values for each efficiency level based on test data
collected according to the earlier version of the oven test procedure
established in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. Id.
DOE's testing of freestanding, built-in, and sl

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on February 14, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.