List of Subjects
- Confidential business information
- Energy conservation
- Household appliances
- Intergovernmental relations
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Small businesses
10 CFR Part 430
- Confidential business information
- Energy conservation
- Household appliances
- Intergovernmental relations
- Small businesses
End List of Subjects
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday, January 31, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII of this document, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes a “significant regulatory action within the scope of section 3(f)(1)” of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support document for this rulemaking.
Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. (
See13 CFR part 121.) The size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) code and industry description and are available at
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.
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)) This rulemaking is in accordance with DOE’s obligations under EPCA.
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 publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notification of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) This rulemaking is also in accordance with the six-year review required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1).
Description of Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
Based on DOE’s analysis, DOE identified 34 companies potentially manufacturing consumer conventional cooking products covered by this rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that have more than 1,500 total employees or are entirely foreign owned and operated, and therefore do not meet SBA’s requirements to be considered a small entity. Of the 34 companies DOE identified as manufacturing consumer conventional cooking products sold in the United States, 15 were identified as potential small businesses.
Start Printed Page 6897
Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
DOE is proposing TSL 2 in this SNOPR. For all oven product classes, TSL 2 requires that the ovens not be equipped with a linear power supply. Based on DOE’s shipment analysis more than 95 percent of ovens use a switch mode power supply 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 switch mode power supplies for the ovens they manufacturer. If any small businesses do still use linear power supplies in their ovens, there would be minimal conversion costs to these small businesses, as switch mode power supplies can be purchased as a separate component and would most likely not require a significant redesign to incorporate these switch mode power supplies. The remainder of this cost analysis focuses on the costs associated with complying with the proposed cooking top energy conservation standards.
As stated in the previous section, DOE identified 15 potential small manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products. All 15 of these small businesses manufacture cooking tops. These 15 small businesses can be grouped into two manufacturing groups: those that manufacture entry level cooking tops and those that manufacture premium cooking tops.
Gas cooking top entry level products typically have thinner non-continuous grates with only one burner above 14,000 BTUs (although some of these small businesses may offer a limited number of models with thicker continuous grates and more than one burner above 14,000 BTUs). Electric cooking top entry level products typically have electric 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 entry level small businesses usually compete on price in the market.
Gas cooking top premium products typically have thicker continuous grates with multiple burners above 14,000 BTUs. Electric cooking top premium products use smooth element, typically with induction technology. Small businesses manufacturing premium products do not offer electric 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 entry level products.
Based on data from each small business’s websites, DOE estimated the number of basic models each small business offers.
Table VI.2—Number of Unique Basic Models for Each Small Business
ManufacturerSmall business typeNumber of cooking top basic models
(by product class)
elementOpen (coil) element
Small Business 1Entry Level44
Small Business 2Entry Level1413
Small Business 3Entry Level323
Small Business 4Entry Level30
Small Business 5Entry Level2413
Small Business 6Entry Level271328
Small Business 7Premium14
Small Business 8Premium42
Small Business 9Premium16
Small Business 10Premium245
Small Business 11Premium12
Small Business 12Premium11
Small Business 13Premium13
Small Business 14Premium141
Small Business 15Premium207
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 this document. 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. Felix Storch commented in response to the September 2016 SNOPR that small manufacturers often lack the staff with expertise to fully understand the test procedures, complexities and nuances of the regulations. (Felix Storch, No. 62 at p. 2) Additionally, Felix Storch commented that small manufacturers pay substantially more and have longer lead times for energy testing. (Felix Storch, No. 62 at p. 3) In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE estimated a lower per unit testing costs for testing done in-house and a more costly third-party lab per unit testing cost. For this IRFA, DOE assumed all small businesses would incur the more costly third-party lab 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 RD, 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 cooking tops since DOE is proposing to establish a new energy conservation standard for cooking tops. Therefore, even products that meet the proposed energy conservation standard would incur testing costs to test these cooking tops to demonstrate compliance with the proposed energy conservation
Start Printed Page 6898
standards. However, manufacturers would only incur RD product conversion costs and capital conversion costs if they have products that do not meet the energy conservation standards.
Table VI.3—Estimated Conversion Costs and Annual Revenue for Each Small Business
ManufacturerSmall business typeTotal
costs as a %
of 3-years of annual
Small Business 1Entry Level$358,000$950,00013
Small Business 2Entry Level814,0008,780,0003
Small Business 3Entry Level945,40058,630,0001
Small Business 4Entry Level303,40031,370,0001
Small Business 5Entry Level221,40023,980,0001
Small Business 6Entry Level336,800107,350,0001
Small Business 7Premium2,227,0502,730,00027
Small Business 8Premium4,021,2005,000,00027
Small Business 9Premium3,612,6008,800,00014
Small Business 10Premium2,784,8007,990,00012
Small Business 11Premium2,830,5008,648,00011
Small Business 12Premium2,338,60010,970,0007
Small Business 13Premium5,685,10032,600,0006
Small Business 14Premium2,450,15019,800,0004
Small Business 15Premium2,561,70023,730,0004
Average Small Business2,099,38023,421,8673
Based on Table VI.3 there are two premium small businesses manufacturers that could be significantly impacted by this proposed rulemaking, if finalized as proposed.
DOE requests comment on its findings that there are 15 domestic small businesses that manufacture conventional cooking products and its estimate of the potential impacts on these small businesses. Additionally, DOE requests comment on the potential for any small businesses to exit the consumer conventional cooking products market in response to the proposed energy conservation standards.
Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered.
Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small businesses that would result from DOE’s proposed rule, represented by TSL 2. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. DOE estimates that manufacturers, including small businesses, would have to spend approximately 43 percent less conversion costs at TSL 1 compared to TSL 2. While TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on small business manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a reduction in energy savings and consumer savings. TSL 1 achieves 39 percent lower energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 2. Additionally, TSL 1 achieves 44 percent lower consumer NPV at 3 percent and 49 percent lower consumer NPV at 7 percent compared to the consumer NPV achieved at TSL 2.
Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2 balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential burdens placed on consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers, including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
DOE seeks comment on the policy alternatives presented in the regulatory impact analysis and data that can be used to estimate the manufacturer response to Federal credits.
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.
Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless that
Start Printed Page 6899
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered equipment, including consumer conventional cooking products.
Revised certification data would be required for gas cooking tops and conventional gas ovens were this SNOPR to be finalized as proposed. New certification data would be required for electric cooking tops and conventional electric ovens were this SNOPR to be finalized as proposed. However, DOE is not proposing new or amended certification or reporting requirements for consumer conventional cooking products in this SNOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish certification requirements and reporting for consumer conventional cooking products under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”) and DOE’s NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE’s regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion.
See10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final rule.
Review Under Executive Order 13132
Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital expenditures by consumer conventional cooking products manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency consumer conventional cooking products, starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The
section of this SNOPR and the TSD for this proposed rule respond to those requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), this proposed rule would establish new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and economically justified, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for this proposed rule.
Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (“the Bulletin”). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government’s scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” 70 FR 2664, 2667.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
Start List of Subjects
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.
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 VII of this document.
The docket for this activity, which includes
notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
All documents in the docket are listed in the
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
The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments through
Start Further Info