Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products, 11548-11563 [2024-02007]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11548-11563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02007]



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

[[Page 11548]]


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

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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 notice of proposed rulemaking 
(``NOPR''), the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes new and 
amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products identical to those set forth in a direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. If DOE receives 
adverse comment and determines that such comment may provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule, DOE will 
publish a notice of withdrawal and will proceed with this proposed 
rule.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
NOPR no later than June 3, 2024. Comments regarding the likely 
competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the 
Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or 
before March 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: See section IV of this document, ``Public Participation,'' 
for details. If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere 
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting 
to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish 
notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number 
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by 
docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, by any of the following methods:
    (1) Email: [email protected]. Include the 
docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005 in the subject line of the message.
    (2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    (3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section IV of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 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 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section IV of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. 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 proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Antitrust Division at 
[email protected] 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 proposed rulemaking.

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: 
[email protected].
    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: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
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. Proposed Standards
    A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer 
Conventional Cooking Product Standards
    B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Public Meeting
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed 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\

[[Page 11549]]

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 proposed 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 proposing this rule establishing and amending the 
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products and is concurrently issuing a direct final rule elsewhere in 
this issue of the Federal Register. DOE will proceed with this NOPR 
only if it determines it must withdraw the direct final rule pursuant 
to the criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). The new and amended 
standard levels in the proposed rule and 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 and Southern California 
Edison \5\ advocating for the adoption of the recommended standards. As 
discussed in more detail in the accompanying direct final rule and in 
accordance with the provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has 
determined that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement 
comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation 
standards that 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'').
    Table I.1 presents the proposed new and amended standards for 
conventional cooking tops. Table I.2 presents the proposed new and 
amended standards for conventional ovens. These proposed new and 
amended standards would exclude portable cooking products. The proposed 
standards are the same as those recommended by the Joint Agreement. 
These standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on 
January 31, 2028, as recommended in the Joint Agreement.

    Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Performance Standards for
                        Conventional Cooking Tops
                 [Compliance starting January 31, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Maximum integrated annual energy
            Product class                      consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking   No standard.
 Tops.
Electric Smooth Element Standalone     207 kWh/year.
 Cooking Tops.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top    207 kWh/year.
 Component of Combined Cooking
 Products.
Gas Standalone Cooking Tops..........  1,770 kBtu/year.
Gas Cooking Top Component of Combined  1,770 kBtu/year.
 Cooking Products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table I.2--Proposed Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for
                           Conventional Ovens
                 [Compliance starting January 31, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Product class                  New and amended standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Ovens...................  Shall not be equipped with a control
                                    system that uses linear power
                                    supply.*
Gas Ovens........................  The control system for gas ovens
                                    shall:
                                   (1) Not be equipped with a constant
                                    burning pilot light; and
                                   (2) Not be equipped with a linear
                                    power supply.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A linear power supply produces unregulated as well as regulated power.
  The unregulated portion of a linear power supply typically consists of
  a transformer that steps alternating current (``AC'') line voltage
  down, a voltage rectifier circuit for AC to direct current (``DC'')
  conversion, and a capacitor to produce unregulated, direct current
  output. Linear power supplies are described in section IV.C.1.b of the
  direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
  Register.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed 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

[[Page 11550]]

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, 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

[[Page 11551]]

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 standards proposed in 
this NOPR.
    Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE 
authority to directly 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.
    A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must 
be published simultaneously with 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)) 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.) After 
withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the NOPR 
published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the 
Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn. 
(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, 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, under which this proposed rule 
is issued, 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. 
The standard levels proposed in this NOPR are based on the IAEC metric 
as measured according to appendix I1.
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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of 
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The Joint Agreement
    On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (i.e., the 
Joint Agreement) recommending standards for consumer conventional 
cooking

[[Page 11552]]

products that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, 
energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\7\ 
In addition to the recommended standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products, the Joint Agreement also included separate 
recommendations for several other covered products.\8\ 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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.
    \8\ 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.
    \9\ The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12811.

  Table II.1--Recommended New and Amended Energy Conservation Standards
               for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Product class             Standard level      Compliance date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Coil...................  No standard.......  January 31, 2028.
Propose new class: Electric       207 kWh/year......
 smooth Cooktop *.
Propose new Class: Electric       207 kWh/year......
 smooth range *.
Propose new class: Gas cooktop *  1,770 kBtu/year...
Propose new class: Gas range *..  1,770 kBtu/year...
Ovens (Electric and Gas) *......  Electric: Baseline
                                   + SMPS.
                                  Gas: Baseline +
                                   SMPS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes portable cooking products.

    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 \10\ on January 5, 2024, and will address the issues raised 
in the comment in a separate test procedure rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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 consumer conventional 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has evaluated the Joint Agreement and believes that it meets 
the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct final rule. As a result, 
DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that 
may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct 
final rule, DOE will consider those comments and any other comments 
received in determining how to proceed with this proposed rule.
    For further background information on these proposed standards and 
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. That document and the 
accompanying technical support document (``TSD'') contain an in-depth 
discussion of the analyses conducted in evaluating the Joint Agreement, 
the methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the 
analytical results.
    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

[[Page 11553]]

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. 88 FR 6818. Finally, on August 2, 2023, DOE published a second 
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: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0090.

III. Proposed Standards

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    DOE considered the impacts of new and amended standards for 
consumer conventional cooking products at each trial standard level 
(``TSL''), beginning with the maximum technologically feasible (``max-
tech'') level, to determine whether that level was economically 
justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then 
considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same 
evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both 
technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a 
significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this process as the ``walk-
down'' analysis.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between 
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than 
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than 
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy 
cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forgo the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA''). 
Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products 
actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a standard 
decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this decreases 
the potential energy savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE 
provides estimates of shipments and changes in the volume of product 
purchases in chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD \11\ available in 
the docket for this rulemaking. However, DOE's current analysis does 
not explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 
preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or 
consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document.
    \12\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\13\ DOE 
welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of 
energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify 
this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Sanstad, A. H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed November 2, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Conventional 
Cooking Product Standards

    Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for consumer conventional cooking products. The 
national impacts are measured over the lifetime of consumer 
conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended 
standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1, i.e., the ``Recommended 
TSL'' for consumer conventional cooking products, and 2028-2057 for TSL 
1). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions 
reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') results. DOE is 
presenting monetized benefits of greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions 
reductions in accordance with the applicable Executive Orders and would

[[Page 11554]]

reach the same conclusion presented in this NOPR in the absence of the 
social cost of greenhouse gases, including the Interim Estimates 
presented by the Interagency Working Group. The efficiency levels 
contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final 
rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

  Table III.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings:
    Quads.......................................................            0.22            0.66            1.52
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction:
    CO2 (million metric tons)...................................            3.99           21.16           36.69
    CH4 (thousand tons).........................................           34.70          235.42          366.22
    N2O (thousand tons).........................................            0.04            0.10            0.25
    SO2 (thousand tons).........................................            1.15            2.26            6.96
    NOX (thousand tons).........................................            7.61           51.14           80.03
    Hg (tons)...................................................            0.01            0.01            0.05
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion
 2022$):
    Consumer Operating Cost Savings.............................            1.63            4.30            3.97
    Climate Benefits *..........................................            0.22            1.28            2.16
    Health Benefits **..........................................            0.42            2.15            3.85
        Total Benefits [dagger].................................            2.27            7.73            9.99
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].................            0.07            3.96           47.86
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Consumer Net Benefits.......................................            1.56            0.34         (43.89)
        Total Net Benefits......................................            2.20            3.77         (37.87)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion
 2022$):
    Consumer Operating Cost Savings.............................            0.69            1.90            0.86
    Climate Benefits *..........................................            0.22            1.28            2.16
    Health Benefits **..........................................            0.16            0.87            1.56
        Total Benefits [dagger].................................            1.07            4.04            4.58
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]                                 0.04            2.30           27.21
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Consumer Net Benefits.......................................            0.65          (0.40)         (26.34)
        Total Net Benefits......................................            1.03            1.74         (22.62)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
  during the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs except for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) and 2028-2057 for TSL 1. These
  results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped during the period 2027-
  2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 and 2057 from the products shipped during the period 2028-2057 for TSL 1.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
  these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
  with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG
  point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates
  presented in 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.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the
  importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.


  Table III.2--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products TSLs: Manufacturer and
                                               Consumer Impacts *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts:
    Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-new-standards case INPV =       1,457-1,458     1,042-1,078      (302)-(25)
     1,601).....................................................
    Industry NPV (% change).....................................     (9.0)-(9.0)   (34.9)-(32.6)  (118.9)-(101.6
                                                                                                               )
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$):
    Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops.............           62.80            8.54        (638.87)
    Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a Component of a                62.80            8.54        (638.87)
     Combined Cooking Product...................................
    Gas Standalone Cooking Tops.................................            3.09          (1.03)          (1.03)
    Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product            3.09          (1.03)          (1.03)
    Electric Ovens..............................................           16.23         (39.55)         (24.87)
    Gas Ovens...................................................           15.17         (24.16)         (24.16)
    Shipment-Weighted Average \**\..............................           23.34         (17.72)        (153.51)
Consumer Simple Payback Period (years):
    Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops.............             0.6             4.0           170.4
    Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a Component of a                  0.6             4.0           170.4
     Combined Cooking Product...................................

[[Page 11555]]

 
    Gas Standalone Cooking Tops.................................             6.6            10.5            10.5
    Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product             6.6            10.5            10.5
    Electric Ovens..............................................             2.1            25.4            20.8
    Gas Ovens...................................................             1.9            18.0            18.0
    Shipment-Weighted Average \**\..............................             2.7            16.1            50.7
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost:
    Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops.............               0              52             100
    Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a Component of a                    0              52             100
     Combined Cooking Product...................................
    Gas Standalone Cooking Tops.................................               1              38              38
    Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product               1              38              38
    Electric Ovens..............................................               0              27              81
    Gas Ovens...................................................               0              21              21
    Shipment-Weighted Average \**\..............................               0              34              64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of
  2028.
** Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2022.

    DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.52 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the net present value 
(``NPV'') of consumer benefit would decrease compared to the no-new-
standards case by $26.34 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, 
and $43.89 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 36.69 million 
metric tons (``Mt'') \14\ of carbon dioxide (``CO2''), 6.96 
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (``SO2''), 80.03 thousand 
tons of nitrogen oxides (``NOX''), 0.05 tons of mercury 
(``Hg''),\15\ 366.22 thousand tons of methane (``CH4''), and 
0.25 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (``N2O''). The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average social cost of GHG (``SC-GHG'') at a 3-
percent discount rate) at TSL 3 is $2.2 billion. The estimated monetary 
value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and 
NOX emissions at TSL 3 is $1.6 billion using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $3.9 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \15\ 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 the 
direct final rule published elsewhere in in this issue of the 
Federal Register for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that 
effect air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $22.6 
billion less than the no-new-standards case. Using a 3-percent discount 
rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is 
$37.9 billion less than the no-new-standards case. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 3, the average life-cycle costs (``LCC'') impact is a loss 
of $638.87 for electric smooth element cooking top product classes, a 
loss $1.03 for gas cooking top product classes, a shipments-weighted 
average loss of $24.87 for electric ovens, and a shipment-weighted 
average loss of $24.16 for gas ovens. The simple payback period is 
170.5 years for electric smooth element cooking top product classes, 
10.5 years for gas cooking top product classes, 20.8 years for electric 
ovens, and 18.0 years for gas ovens. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is 100 percent for electric smooth element 
cooking top product classes, 38 percent for gas cooking top product 
classes, 81 percent for electric ovens, and 21 percent for gas ovens.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in industry net present value 
(``INPV'') ranges from a decrease of $1,903 million to a decrease of 
$1,626 million, which corresponds to decreases of 118.9 percent and 
101.6 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest 
$2,069.2 million to comply with standards set at TSL 3. DOE estimates 
that less than 1 percent of electric smooth element cooking top 
(standalone and component of a combined cooking product) shipments, 41 
percent of gas cooking top (standalone and component of a combined 
cooking product) shipments, zero percent of electric standard oven 
(freestanding and built-in) shipments, zero percent of electric self-
clean oven (freestanding) shipments, 2 percent of electric self-clean 
oven (built-in) shipments, 62 percent of gas standard oven 
(freestanding) shipments, 38 percent of gas standard oven (built-in) 
shipments, 93 percent of gas self-clean oven (freestanding) shipments, 
and 77 percent of gas self-clean oven (built-in) shipments would 
already meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 2027.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for consumer 
conventional cooking products, the benefits of energy savings, emission 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer 
benefits, the economic burden on many consumers (e.g., negative LCC 
savings across all product classes), and the significant impacts on 
manufacturers, including the large conversion costs and the significant 
reduction in INPV. A significant fraction of consumers across all 
product classes would experience a net LCC cost and negative LCC 
savings. The consumer NPV is negative at both 3 and 7 percent. The 
potential reduction in INPV could be as high as 118.9 percent. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE next considered TSL 2, which represents EL 2 for all product 
classes. TSL 2 would save an estimated 0.66 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit 
would decrease compared to the no-new-

[[Page 11556]]

standards case by $0.40 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
increase compared to the no-new-standards case by $0.34 billion using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 21.16 Mt of 
CO2, 2.26 thousand tons of SO2, 51.14 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 235.42 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.10 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 2 is $1.3 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 2 is $0.9 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $2.1 billion 
using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $1.7 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $3.8 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $8.54 for electric 
smooth element cooking top product classes, a loss of $1.03 for gas 
cooking top product classes, a shipments-weighted average loss of 
$39.55 for electric ovens, and a shipment-weighted average loss of 
$24.16 for gas ovens. The simple payback period is 4.0 years for 
electric smooth element cooking top product classes, 10.5 years for gas 
cooking top product classes, 25.4 years for electric ovens, and 18.0 
years for gas ovens. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC 
cost is 52 percent for electric smooth element cooking top product 
classes, 38 percent for gas cooking top product classes, 27 percent for 
electric ovens, and 21 percent for gas ovens.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$559 million to a decrease of $522 million, which corresponds to 
decreases of 34.9 percent and 32.6 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that industry must invest $576.5 million to comply with standards set 
at TSL 2. DOE estimates that approximately 15 percent of electric 
smooth element cooking top (standalone and component of a combined 
cooking product) shipments, 41 percent of gas cooking top (standalone 
and component of a combined cooking product) shipments, 38 percent of 
electric standard oven (freestanding) shipments, 30 percent of electric 
standard oven (built-in) shipments, 77 percent of electric self-clean 
oven (freestanding) shipments, 88 percent of electric self-clean ovens 
(built-in) shipments, 62 percent of gas standard oven (freestanding) 
shipments, 38 percent of gas standard oven (built-in), 93 percent of 
gas self-clean oven (freestanding) shipments, and 77 percent of gas 
self-clean oven (built-in) shipments would already meet or exceed the 
efficiency levels required at TSL 2 in 2027.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for consumer 
conventional cooking products, the benefits of energy savings, emission 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer 
benefits, the economic burden on many consumers, and the significant 
impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion costs and the 
significant reduction in INPV. At TSL 2, consumers, on average, would 
experience a negative LCC savings for gas cooking tops, electric ovens, 
and gas ovens. For electric cooking tops, 52 percent of consumers would 
experience a net cost. At TSL 2, the simple payback period for electric 
and gas ovens would exceed the average product lifetime. Additionally, 
the consumer NPV is negative at 7 percent. The potential reduction in 
INPV could be as high as 34.9 percent. Consequently, the Secretary has 
tentatively concluded that TSL 2 is not economically justified.
    DOE next considered TSL 1, which corresponds to the TSL recommended 
in the Joint Agreement (the ``Recommended TSL'') and which represents 
EL 1 for all product classes. The Recommended TSL would save an 
estimated 0.22 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. 
Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.65 
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.56 billion using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL are 3.99 
Mt of CO2, 1.15 thousand tons of SO2, 7.61 
thousand tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 34.70 thousand tons 
of CH4, and 0.04 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG 
emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount 
rate) at the Recommended TSL is $0.22 billion. The estimated monetary 
value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and 
NOX emissions at the Recommended TSL is $0.16 billion using 
a 7-percent discount rate and $0.42 billion using a 3-percent discount 
rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended 
TSL is $1.03 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 
and costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL is $2.20 
billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for additional 
information, however DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer 
benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is 
economically justified.
    At the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact is a savings of 
$62.80 for electric smooth element cooking top product classes, a 
savings of $3.09 for gas cooking top product classes, a shipments-
weighted average savings of $16.23 for electric ovens, and a shipment-
weighted average savings of $15.17 for gas ovens. The simple payback 
period is 0.6 years for electric smooth element cooking top product 
classes, 6.6 years for gas cooking top product classes, 2.1 years for 
electric ovens, and 1.9 years for gas ovens. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is 0 percent for electric smooth element 
cooking top product classes, 1 percent for gas cooking top product 
classes, 0 percent for electric ovens, and 0 percent for gas ovens.
    At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a 
decrease of $144 million to a decrease of $143 million, which 
corresponds to decreases of 9.0 percent and 9.0 percent, respectively. 
DOE estimates that industry must invest $66.7 million to comply with 
standards set at the Recommended TSL. DOE estimates that approximately 
77 percent of electric smooth element cooking top (standalone and 
component of a combined cooking product) shipments, 97 percent of gas 
cooking top (standalone and component of a combined cooking product) 
shipments, 95 percent of electric standard oven (freestanding and 
built-in) shipments, 95 percent of electric self-clean oven 
(freestanding and built-in) shipments, 96 percent of gas standard oven 
(freestanding and built-in) shipments, and 96 percent of gas self-clean 
oven (freestanding and built-in) shipments would already meet or exceed 
the efficiency levels required at the Recommended TSL in 2028.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that

[[Page 11557]]

at a standard set at the Recommended TSL for consumer conventional 
cooking products would be economically justified. At this TSL, the 
average LCC savings for all consumer conventional cooking product 
consumers is positive. A shipment-weighted 0 percent of conventional 
cooking product consumers experience a net cost, with the largest 
impact being 1 percent net cost for gas cooking top product classes. 
The FFC national energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer 
benefits is positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount 
rate. Notably, the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to 
manufacturers. At the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits, 
even measured at the more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is 
over 4 times higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in 
INPV. The standard levels at the Recommended TSL are economically 
justified even without weighing the estimated monetary value of 
emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are included--
representing $0.22 billion in climate benefits (associated with the 
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $0.42 billion (using 
a 3-percent discount rate) or $0.16 billion (using a 7-percent discount 
rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes stronger still.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative 
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of 
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically 
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908. 
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the new 
and amended energy conservation standards, DOE notes that the 
Recommended TSL has higher average LCC savings, a shorter average 
payback period, a lower fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC 
cost, and higher consumer net present values compared to TSL 2 and 3.
    Although DOE considered new and amended standard levels for 
consumer conventional cooking products by grouping the efficiency 
levels for each product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed 
efficiency levels in its analysis. For electric smooth element cooking 
top product classes, the Recommended TSL corresponds to efficiency 
level (``EL'') 1, which incorporates low-standby-loss electronic 
controls. Setting a standard at EL 2 or EL 3 would result in a majority 
of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost and longer payback periods 
relative to EL 1. For gas cooking top product classes, the Recommended 
TSL corresponds to EL 1, which represents the efficiency level defined 
in the Joint Agreement and which would not preclude any combination of 
other features mentioned by manufacturers (e.g., multiple high input 
rate burners (``HIR burners''),\16\ continuous cast-iron grates, 
different nominal unit widths, sealed burners, at least one low input 
rate burner (``LIR burner''),\17\ 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. Setting a standard at EL 2 would result in an average net 
LCC cost and a higher payback period relative to EL 1. For electric and 
gas ovens, the Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 1, which incorporates 
switch mode power supplies (``SMPSs''). A standard at EL 2 or EL 3 for 
electric ovens would result in a significantly higher percentage of 
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost and longer payback periods 
relative to EL 1. Similarly, for gas ovens, a standard at EL 2 would 
result in a larger percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost 
and longer payback periods relative to EL 1. The proposed levels at the 
Recommended TSL result in positive LCC savings for all product classes 
and a lower percentage of consumers experiencing a net cost to the 
point where DOE has tentatively concluded that they are economically 
justified, as discussed for the Recommended TSL in the preceding 
paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In this analysis, DOE defines an HIR burner as a burner 
rated at or above 14,000 Btu per hour (``Btu/h'').
    \17\ In this analysis, DOE defines an LIR burner as a burner 
with an input rate below 6,500 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Secretary tentatively concludes that the 
Recommended TSL would offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that 
is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result 
in the significant conservation of energy.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to 
adopt the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products at the Recommended TSL.
    The proposed new and amended energy conservation standards for 
consumer conventional cooking products, excluding portable cooking 
products, are shown in Table III.3 and Table III.4.

 Table III.3--Proposed New and Amended Energy Conservation Standards for
                        Conventional Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Maximum integrated annual energy
            Product class                      consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking   No standard.
 Tops.
Electric Smooth Element Standalone     207 kWh/year.
 Cooking Tops.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top    207 kWh/year.
 Component of a Combined Cooking
 Product.
Gas Standalone Cooking Tops..........  1,770 kBtu/year.
Gas Cooking Top Component of a         1,770 kBtu/year.
 Combined Cooking Product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table III.4--Proposed New and Amended Prescriptive Energy Conservation
                    Standards for Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Product class                  New and amended standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Ovens...................  Shall not be equipped with a control
                                    system that uses linear power
                                    supply.*

[[Page 11558]]

 
Gas Ovens........................  The control system for gas ovens
                                    shall:
                                   (1) Not be equipped with a constant
                                    burning pilot light; and
                                   (2) Not be equipped with a linear
                                    power supply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Secretary also tentatively concludes that an amended standard 
is not technologically feasible and economically justified for electric 
open (coil) element cooking tops. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any 
energy conservation standards for electric open (coil) element cooking 
tops.

B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less 
energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits.
    Table III.5 shows the annualized values for consumer conventional 
cooking products under the Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The 
results under the primary estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $3.9 
million per year in increased equipment installed costs, while the 
estimated annual benefits are $68.1 million from reduced equipment 
operating costs, $12.4 million in GHG reductions, and $16.1 million 
from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case, 
the net benefit amounts to $92.6 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products 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 from GHG reductions, and $23.5 million 
from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case, 
the net benefit amounts to $122.7 million per year.

  Table III.5--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (Recommended TSL) for Consumer Conventional
                                                Cooking Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Million 2022$/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                      Primary        benefits        benefits
                                                                     estimate        estimate        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................            90.8            84.0            95.6
Climate Benefits *..............................................            12.4            11.9            12.5
Health Benefits **..............................................            23.5            22.6            23.8
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].....................................           126.7           118.4           131.9
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................             4.0             4.1             3.8
Net Benefits....................................................           122.7           114.3           128.1
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])............          (13.8)          (13.8)          (13.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................            68.1            63.3            71.5
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...........................            12.4            11.9            12.5
Health Benefits **..............................................            16.1            15.5            16.3
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].....................................            96.6            90.7           100.3
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................             3.9             4.0             3.8
Net Benefits....................................................            92.6            86.7            96.5
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])............          (13.8)          (13.8)          (13.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
  in 2028-2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the
  products shipped in 2028-2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize
  projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic
  Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the
  Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net
  Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and
  IV.H.2 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Note that the
  Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of the
  direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). For presentational purposes of
  this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown,
  but 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. To monetize the benefits of
  reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in 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.

[[Page 11559]]

 
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
  Register for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life-cycle costs analysis and national
  impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of the direct final rule published
  elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE's national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both
  costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to
  manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately
  conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of the direct final
  rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers'
  pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cash flow, and margins. The
  MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the
  present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital
  expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry
  weighted average cost of capital value of 9.1 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis
  (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost
  of capital). For consumer conventional cooking products, the annualized change in INPV is -$13.8 million. DOE
  accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a trial standard level is economically
  justified. See section V.C of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
  DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross
  Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost
  Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers
  would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production
  costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA
  explained further in section IV.J of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
  Register to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of the proposed rule to society,
  including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and
  E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for the proposed rule,
  the annualized net benefits would be $108.9 million at 3-percent discount rate and would be $78.8 million at 7-
  percent discount rate. Parentheses () indicate negative values.

IV. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule on the date provided in the DATES section at the 
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit 
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. 
Comments relating to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register should be submitted as instructed 
therein.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information

[[Page 11560]]

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own 
determination about the confidential status of the information and 
treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

B. Public Meeting

    As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for 
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of 
any meeting in the Federal Register.

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are 
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Please see the direct 
final rule for further details.

A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and 
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of 
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the 
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and 
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website 
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the 
following IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rulemaking.
    For manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products, the 
SBA has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified 
as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the 
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small 
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR 
part 121.) The size standards are listed by North American Industry 
Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry description and are 
available at www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. 
Manufacturing of consumer conventional cooking products is classified 
under NAICS 335220, ``Major Household Appliance Manufacturing.'' The 
SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be 
considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for consumer 
conventional cooking products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and directs 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)) DOE is proposing 
amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products in accordance with DOE's obligations under EPCA.
    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must 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 the requirements under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(A)-(B), DOE is issuing this NOPR proposing energy 
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. 
These standard levels were submitted jointly to DOE on September 25, 
2023, by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental 
advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\18\ The Joint Agreement 
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include 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 manufacture 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.; 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    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)) EPCA 
additionally requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance 
of a final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish 
either 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))
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers 
of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE used the SBA's small 
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would 
be subject to the requirements of the rule. The size standards are 
listed by NAICS code as well as by industry description and are 
available at www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. 
Manufacturing of consumer conventional cooking products is classified 
under NAICS 335220, ``major household appliance manufacturing.'' The 
SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be 
considered as a small business for this category. DOE used available 
public information to identify potential small

[[Page 11561]]

manufacturers. DOE accessed the Compliance Certification Database \19\ 
(``CCD''), the Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System \20\ 
(``MAEDbS''), and the National Resources Canada database \21\ 
(``NRCan'') to create a list of companies that import or otherwise 
manufacture the products covered by this NOPR. Once DOE created a list 
of potential manufacturers, DOE used market research tools to determine 
whether any companies met SBA's definition of a small entity--based on 
the total number of employees for each company including parent, 
subsidiary, and sister entities--and gather annual revenue estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification 
Management System, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
    \20\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance 
Efficiency Database System, available at: 
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx.
    \21\ Natural Resources Canada searchable product list, available 
at: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on DOE's analysis, DOE identified 35 companies that 
manufacture consumer conventional cooking products covered by this 
rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that have more than 1,500 total 
employees, are not original equipment manufacturers (i.e., do not 
manufacture the products they sell), or are entirely foreign owned and 
operated, and therefore do not meet SBA's requirements to be considered 
a small entity. Of the 35 companies DOE identified as manufacturers of 
consumer conventional cooking products sold in the United States, 15 
were identified as small businesses.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    DOE is proposing TSL 1 in this NOPR. For all conventional oven 
product classes, TSL 1 requires that the conventional ovens not be 
equipped with a linear power supply. Based on DOE's shipments analysis, 
more than 95 percent of conventional ovens use an SMPS and therefore 
are not equipped with a linear power supply. Based on DOE's shipment 
analysis, DOE assumed most, if not all, small businesses already use 
SMPSs for the conventional ovens they manufacture. If any small 
businesses do still use linear power supplies in their conventional 
ovens, there would be minimal conversion costs to these small 
businesses, as SMPSs can be purchased as a separate component and would 
most likely not require a significant redesign to incorporate these 
SMPSs. The remainder of this cost analysis focuses on the costs 
associated with complying with the proposed conventional cooking top 
energy conservation standards.
    As stated in the previous section, DOE identified 15 small 
manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products. All 15 of 
these small businesses manufacture conventional cooking tops. These 15 
small businesses can be grouped into two manufacturing groups: those 
that manufacture premium cooking tops and those that manufacture non-
premium cooking tops.
    Gas cooking top non-premium products typically have thinner non-
continuous grates with one or no HIR burner (although some of these 
small businesses may offer a limited number of models with thicker 
continuous grates). Electric cooking top non-premium products mostly 
have electric open (coil) element cooking tops (although a few small 
businesses may have up to 25 percent of their electric ranges or 
electric cooking tops using electric smooth element cooking tops). 
These non-premium small businesses usually compete on price in the 
market.
    Gas cooking top premium products typically have thicker continuous 
grates with multiple HIR burners. Electric cooking top premium products 
use smooth elements, typically with induction technology. Small 
businesses manufacturing premium products do not offer electric open 
(coil) element cooking tops. Lastly, small businesses manufacturing 
premium products typically compete on the high quality and professional 
look and design of their products. These ranges or cooking tops are 
typically significantly more expensive than non-premium products.
    Based on data from each small business's websites, DOE estimated 
the number of basic models each small business offers.

                        Table V.1--Number of Unique Basic Models for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of cooking top basic models
                                                                                     (by product class)
                Manufacturer                      Small business type      -------------------------------------
                                                                                                Electric--smooth
                                                                                   Gas              element
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1...........................  Non-Premium..................                  4                  4
Small Business 2...........................  Non-Premium..................  .................                 30
Small Business 3...........................  Non-Premium..................                 27                 13
Small Business 4...........................  Non-Premium..................                 24  .................
Small Business 5...........................  Non-Premium..................                 14  .................
Small Business 6...........................  Non-Premium..................                  3                  2
Small Business 7...........................  Premium......................                 11  .................
Small Business 8...........................  Premium......................                 24                  5
Small Business 9...........................  Premium......................                 20                  7
Small Business 10..........................  Premium......................                 16  .................
Small Business 11..........................  Premium......................                 14                  1
Small Business 12..........................  Premium......................                 12  .................
Small Business 13..........................  Premium......................                 42  .................
Small Business 14..........................  Premium......................                 13  .................
Small Business 15..........................  Premium......................                 14  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the small business conversion costs and testing costs 
using the same methodology used to estimate the industry conversion 
costs, described in section IV.J.2.c of the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. There are two types of 
conversion costs that small businesses could incur due to the proposed 
standards: product conversion costs (including any testing costs) and 
capital conversion costs. In the August 2022 TP

[[Page 11562]]

Final Rule, DOE estimated a lower per-unit testing cost for testing 
done in-house and a more-costly third-party laboratory per-unit testing 
cost. For this IRFA, DOE assumed all small businesses would incur the 
more costly third-party laboratory per-unit testing cost, as most small 
businesses do not have in-house testing capabilities or capacity to 
test all their products in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
    Product conversion costs are investments in research and 
development (``R&D''), testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized 
costs necessary to make product designs comply with new and amended 
energy conservation standards. Capital conversion costs are investments 
in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing 
production facilities such that new compliant product designs can be 
fabricated and assembled. Manufacturers would have to incur testing 
costs for all gas cooking tops and all electric smooth element cooking 
tops since DOE is proposing new performance-based energy conservation 
standards for cooking tops. Therefore, even products that meet the 
proposed energy conservation standards would incur testing costs to 
test these gas cooking tops and electric smooth element cooking tops to 
demonstrate compliance with the proposed energy conservation standards. 
However, manufacturers would only incur R&D product conversion costs 
and capital conversion costs if they have products that do not meet the 
proposed energy conservation standards.
    Based on the estimated model counts for each conventional cooking 
top product class shown in Table V.1 and the conversion cost and 
testing cost methodology used to calculate industry conversion costs, 
DOE estimated the conversion costs and testing costs for each small 
business, displayed in Table V.2. DOE then used D&B Hoovers to estimate 
the annual revenue for each small business. DOE presents the estimated 
conversion costs and testing costs as a percent of the estimated 4 
years of annual revenue for each small business.

                Table V.2--Estimated Conversion Costs and Annual Revenue for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Conversion
                                                                       Total                      cost as a % of
             Manufacturer                  Small business type    conversion and  Annual revenue    4-years of
                                                                   testing costs                  annual revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1......................  Non-Premium.............        $326,600        $950,000               9
Small Business 2......................  Non-Premium.............         573,002       8,780,000               2
Small Business 3......................  Non-Premium.............         611,001      58,630,000              <1
Small Business 4......................  Non-Premium.............         196,800      31,370,000              <1
Small Business 5......................  Non-Premium.............         114,800      23,980,000              <1
Small Business 6......................  Non-Premium.............         302,000     107,350,000              <1
Small Business 7......................  Premium.................         733,204       2,730,000               7
Small Business 8......................  Premium.................       1,224,306       5,000,000               6
Small Business 9......................  Premium.................       1,136,404       8,800,000               3
Small Business 10.....................  Premium.................         774,204       7,990,000               2
Small Business 11.....................  Premium.................       1,027,004       8,648,000               3
Small Business 12.....................  Premium.................         741,404      10,970,000               2
Small Business 13.....................  Premium.................       1,201,909      32,600,000               1
Small Business 14.....................  Premium.................         749,604      19,800,000               1
Small Business 15.....................  Premium.................         757,804      23,730,000               1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from the proposed standards, represented 
by TSL 1. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed standards, DOE 
examined not setting energy conservation standards for consumer 
conventional cooking products. While not setting energy conservation 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products would reduce the 
impacts on small business manufacturers, it would come at the expense 
of 0.22 quads of energy savings and between $1.56 billion to $0.65 
billion in consumer net benefits.
    Establishing standards at TSL 1 would balance the benefits of the 
energy savings and consumer net benefits at TSL 1 with the potential 
burdens placed on consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers, 
including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE is proposing 
to adopt TSL 1 and is not proposing any of the other policy 
alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact analysis and 
included in chapter 17 of the direct final rule TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, 
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to 
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain 
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

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

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 26, 
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to

[[Page 11563]]

delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with 
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way 
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  430.2 by adding in alphabetical order, the definition of 
``Portable indoor conventional cooking top'' to read as follows:


Sec.  430.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Portable indoor conventional cooking top means a conventional 
cooking top designed--
    (1) For indoor use; and
    (2) To be moved from place to place.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  430.32 by revising paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) and the 
heading to paragraph (j)(3) introductory text to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) Conventional cooking tops. (i) Gas cooking tops, other than gas 
portable indoor conventional cooking tops, manufactured on or after 
April 9, 2012, and before January 31, 2028, shall not be equipped with 
a constant burning pilot light.
    (ii) Gas portable indoor conventional cooking tops, manufactured on 
or after April 9, 2012, shall not be equipped with a constant burning 
pilot light.
    (iii) Conventional cooking tops, other than portable indoor 
conventional cooking tops, manufactured on or after January 31, 2028, 
shall have an integrated annual energy consumption (IAEC), excluding 
any downdraft venting system energy consumption, no greater than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Maximum integrated annual energy
            Product class                      consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Electric Smooth Element            207 kWh/year.
 Standalone Cooking Tops.
(B) Electric Smooth Element Cooking    207 kWh/year.
 Top Component of Combined Cooking
 Products.
(C) Gas Standalone Cooking Tops......  1,770 kBtu/year.
(D) Gas Cooking Top Component of       1,770 kBtu/year.
 Combined Cooking Products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Conventional ovens. The control system of a conventional oven 
shall:
    (i) Not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light, for gas 
ovens manufactured on or after April 9, 2012; and
    (ii) Not be equipped with a linear power supply, for electric and 
gas ovens manufactured on or after January 31, 2028.
    (3) Microwave ovens. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-02007 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P