Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers), 16040-16096 [E9-7545]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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



[[Page 16039]]

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

Part II





Department of Energy





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



10 CFR Part 430



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

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

[[Page 16040]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

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


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

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

[[Page 16041]]

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

I. Summary of the Final Rule

A. The Standard Levels

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

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

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

[[Page 16042]]

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

B. Current Federal Standards

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

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

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

C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of Cooking Products

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

[[Page 16043]]



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

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

D. Impact on Manufacturers

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

E. National Benefits

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

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

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

F. Conclusion

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

[[Page 16044]]

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

II. Introduction

A. Authority

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

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

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

[[Page 16045]]

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

B. Background

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

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

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

[[Page 16046]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 16047]]

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

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

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

[[Page 16048]]

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

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

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

III. General Discussion

A. Standby Power for Cooking Products

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

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

    Nonetheless, DOE has examined in this rulemaking whether to 
incorporate standby mode and off mode power consumption in its energy 
conservation standards for residential cooking products. 73 FR 62034, 
62041 (Oct. 17, 2008). Specifically, in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 
stated that it does not intend to pursue revision of its standards and 
test procedures to include standby power use by conventional cooking 
products at this time, because it lacks data indicating the potential 
for