# Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-29077

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** December 16, 2016
- **Citation:** 81 FR 91418

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013]
RIN 1904-AC71
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On August 22, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the test procedure for conventional cooking products. That proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for this final rule. Specifically, this final rule amends DOE's test procedure for conventional electric cooking tops to incorporate by reference the relevant sections from European standard EN 60350-2:2013 “Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance” (EN 60350-2:2013). This final rule also includes methods for testing non-circular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction cooking tops based on EN 60350-2:2013. In addition, DOE extends the test methods in EN 60350-2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including input rates that exceed 14,000 British thermal units per hour. This final rule also includes methods to calculate annual energy consumption and integrated annual energy consumption for conventional cooking tops based on the water-heating test method and provides updates to the sampling plan requirements. The final rule includes minor technical clarifications to the gas heating value correction and other grammatical changes to the regulatory text in the cooking products test procedure that do not alter the substance of the existing test methods. This final rule also repeals the regulatory provisions establishing the test procedure for conventional ovens under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. DOE has determined that the conventional oven test procedure does not accurately represent consumer use as it favors conventional ovens with low thermal mass and does not capture cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal mass of the oven cavity.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is January 17, 2017. The final rule changes will be mandatory for representations of energy or power consumption of cooking products on or after June 14, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register
as of January 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket, which includes
Federal Register
notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 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, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013.
The docket Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Ashley Armstrong, 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) 586-6590. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Ms. Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 256-7432. Email:
Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule incorporates by reference certain sections of the following industry standard into 10 CFR part 430:

(1) EN 60350-2:2013 “Household electric cooking appliances, Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance”, July 2013.

• Copies of EN 60350-2:2013, a European standard approved by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), can be obtained from the British Standards Institute (BSI Group), 389 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 4AL, United Kingdom, or by going to
http://shop.bsigroup.com/.

See section IV.N for a further discussion of this standard.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

B. Background

1. The January 2013 TP NOPR

2. The December 2014 TP SNOPR

3. The August 2016 TP SNOPR

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

III. Discussion

A. Scope

1. Induction Cooking Tops

2. Combined Cooking Products

3. Gas Cooking Tops With High Input Rates

B. Repeal of the Conventional Oven Test Procedure

C. Water Heating Test Method

1. Incorporation by Reference of EN 60350-2:2013

2. Multi-Ring and Non-Circular Surface Units

3. Gas Cooking Tops

D. Annual Energy Consumption

1. Conventional Cooking Top Annual Energy Consumption

2. Combined Cooking Products

3. Full Fuel Cycle Metric

E. Installation Test Conditions

F. Technical Clarification to the Correction of the Gas Heating Value

G. Grammatical Changes to Certain Sections of Appendix I

H. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

M. Congressional Notification

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Conventional cooking products are included in the list of “covered products” for which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for conventional cooking products are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(j) and 10 CFR 430.23(i), respectively. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for conventional cooking products and

relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.

A. Authority

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291,
et seq.;
“EPCA” or, “the Act”)
1

sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” These include cooking products,
2

and specifically conventional cooking tops
3

and conventional ovens,
4

the primary subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))

1
All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

2
DOE's regulations define “cooking products” as one of the following classes: Conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges and other cooking products. (10 CFR 430.2)

3
Conventional cooking top means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a horizontal surface containing one or more surface units which include either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. (10 CFR 430.2)

4
Conventional oven means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of one or more compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. It does not include portable or countertop ovens which use electric resistance heating for the cooking or heating of food and are designed for an electrical supply of approximately 120 volts. (10 CFR 430.2)

Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish a proposed test procedure and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on it. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2))

Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) DOE recognizes that the test procedure amendments adopted in this final rule will affect the measured energy use of some conventional cooking products. However, the current energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products are a prescriptive design standard prohibiting constant burning pilots for all gas cooking products manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. (10 CFR 430.32(j)) Because there are currently no performance-based standards for conventional cooking products, the EPCA provisions discussed in this preamble do not apply to this rulemaking.

DOE is currently considering amendments to the existing Federal energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products in a concurrent rulemaking, (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005). DOE will use the test procedure amendments adopted in this final rule as the basis for standards development in the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking.

DOE is establishing in this final rule that use of the amended test procedure for compliance with DOE energy conservation standards or representations with respect to energy consumption of conventional cooking products is required on the compliance date of any revised energy conservation standards, which are being considered in a concurrent rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005). The existing test procedure for conventional cooking products must be used for any representations related to standby mode and off mode energy consumption of conventional cooking tops, but not including combined cooking products. Any representation related to energy or power consumption of cooking products made 180 days after the publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register
, including for combined cooking products, must be based upon results generated under the amended test procedure.

This final rule fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its next evaluation of this test procedure will occur in a manner consistent with the timeline set out in this provision.

B. Background

DOE's test procedures for conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens are codified at appendix I to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (appendix I).

DOE established the test procedures for conventional cooking products in a final rule published in the
Federal Register
on May 10, 1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120-20128. DOE revised its test procedures for cooking products to more accurately measure their efficiency and energy use, and published the revisions as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 (Oct. 3, 1997). These test procedure amendments included: (1) A reduction in the annual useful cooking energy; (2) a reduction in the number of self-cleaning oven cycles per year; and (3) incorporation of portions of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 705-1988, “Methods for measuring the performance of microwave ovens for household and similar purposes,” and Amendment 2-1993 for the testing of microwave ovens.
Id.
The test procedures for conventional cooking products establish provisions for determining estimated annual operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the ratio of cooking energy output to cooking energy input), and energy factor (defined as the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to total annual energy input). 10 CFR 430.23(i); appendix I. These provisions for conventional cooking products are not currently used for compliance with any energy conservation standards because the present standards are design requirements; in addition, there is no EnergyGuide
5

labeling program for cooking products.

5
For more information on the EnergyGuide labeling program, see:
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/16cfr305_00.html.

DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off mode energy consumption, as well as

certain active mode testing provisions, for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and conventional cooking products. DOE published a final rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, the October 2012 Final Rule), adopting standby and off mode provisions that satisfy the EPCA requirement that DOE include measures of standby mode and off mode power in its test procedures for residential products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))

1. The January 2013 TP NOPR

On January 30, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) (78 FR 6232, the January 2013 TP NOPR) proposing amendments to appendix I that would allow for measuring the active mode energy consumption of induction cooking products (
i.e.,
conventional cooking tops equipped with induction heating technology for one or more surface units
6

on the cooking top). DOE proposed to incorporate induction cooking tops by amending the definition of “conventional cooking top” to include induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE proposed to require for all cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with induction technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the solid aluminum test blocks currently specified in the test procedure for cooking tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: an aluminum body and a stainless steel base. In the January 2013 TP NOPR, DOE also proposed amendments to include a clarification that the test block size be determined using the smallest dimension of the electric surface unit. 78 FR 6232, 6234 (Jan. 30, 2013).

6
The term surface unit refers to burners for gas cooking tops, electric resistance heating elements for electric cooking tops, and inductive heating elements for induction cooking tops.

2. The December 2014 TP SNOPR

On December 3, 2014, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) (79 FR 71894, the December 2014 TP SNOPR), modifying its proposal from the January 2013 TP NOPR for measuring the energy efficiency of induction cooking tops. DOE proposed to add a layer of thermal grease between the stainless steel base and aluminum body of the hybrid test block to facilitate heat transfer between the two pieces. DOE also proposed additional test equipment for electric surface units with large diameters (both induction and electric resistance) and gas cooking top burners with high input rates. 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). In addition, DOE proposed methods to test non-circular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction cooking tops.
Id.

In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed to incorporate methods for measuring conventional oven volume, clarify that the existing oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input rate, and provide a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). On July 3, 2015, DOE published a final rule addressing the test procedure amendments for conventional ovens only. (80 FR 37954, the July 2015 TP Final Rule).

3. The August 2016 TP SNOPR

On August 22, 2016, DOE published an additional SNOPR (81 FR 57374, the August 2016 TP SNOPR) in which DOE modified its proposal from the December 2014 TP SNOPR for testing conventional cooking tops. Based on review of the public comments received in response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR and a series of manufacturer interviews conducted in February and March 2015 to discuss key concerns regarding the hybrid test block method proposed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its proposal for testing conventional cooking tops with a hybrid test block. Instead, DOE proposed to amend its test procedure for conventional electric cooking tops to incorporate by reference the relevant selections from European standard EN 60350-2:2013 “Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance” (EN 60350-2:2013). DOE also revised its proposals for testing non-circular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction cooking tops. In addition, DOE proposed to extend the test methods in EN 60350-2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including input rates that exceed 14,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h). DOE also proposed to modify the calculations of conventional cooking top annual energy consumption (AEC) and integrated annual energy consumption (IAEC) to account for the proposed water-heating test method. Additionally, in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference certain test structures for conventional cooking tops contained in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z21.1-2016 “Household cooking gas appliances” (ANSI Z21.1-2016) and addressed minor technical changes that did not alter the substance of the existing test methods. 81 FR 57374, 57376-57377 (Aug. 22, 2016).

With regard to conventional ovens, DOE determined that, based on further review of public comments and data provided by manufacturers, the conventional oven test procedure does not accurately represent consumer use as it favors conventional ovens with low thermal mass and does not capture cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal mass of the oven cavity. As a result, DOE also proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to repeal the regulatory provisions establishing the test procedures of conventional ovens. 81 FR 57374, 57376 (Aug. 22, 2016).

In response to the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE received multiple comments urging it to extend the comment period. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) commented that the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR is completely different from DOE's previously proposed versions, and that a 30-day comment period does not provide sufficient time for interested parties to comment. AHAM stated that because DOE's proposal is completely new, it should be treated as a NOPR pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2) with no less than 60 days for public comment, including the opportunity to provide oral comments. AHAM also opposed the development of test procedures and proposed standards in parallel, and commented that DOE should finalize the test procedure before continuing with proposed standards. According to AHAM, manufacturers were required to divide their resources to address the concurrent proposals, and thus were given insufficient time to respond to either. AHAM stated that, as a result, DOE has denied interested parties the opportunity to evaluate the accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility and test burden of the proposed test procedure, which AHAM claimed DOE has not assessed itself. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 2, 3, 6, 7)

AHAM also asserted that the brief comment period does not provide interested parties with enough time to identify potential ambiguities in the test procedure, which it believes would lead to numerous requests for guidance after the test procedure is finalized, some of which could impact the measured energy use and DOE's interpretation of the anti-backsliding rule (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). AHAM also cautioned DOE about enforcement challenges due to manufacturers and third-party

laboratories different interpretations of the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 4-5, 7)

AHAM described conducting a round robin testing program to understand and evaluate the water-heating test method in the draft version of IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2.0 “Household electric cooking appliances-Part 2: Hobs-Method for measuring performance” (IEC 60350-2),
7

which is similar to the water-heating test method DOE has proposed. AHAM noted that the round robin testing for electric cooking tops was scheduled to be completed by December 2016. AHAM also noted that it further plans to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of DOE's proposed test procedure for gas cooking tops, and expects to complete a smaller-scale round robin testing program for gas cooking tops by mid-January 2017. AHAM does not expect this testing to be completed in the comment period provided in the August 2016 TP SNOPR and requested that DOE extend the comment period until January 31, 2017. AHAM also noted that because DOE's proposed test procedure differs from the international version of the water-heating test procedure that was used in AHAM's round robin testing program, AHAM's results cannot evaluate to what extent DOE's modifications to the test method will add variation to test results. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 1, 4-5, 6; AHAM, No. 30 at p. 3)

7
DOE notes that the test methods in EN 60350-2:2013 are based on the same test methods in the latest draft version of IEC 60350-2. Based on the few comments received during the development of the draft, DOE expects that the IEC procedure, once finalized, will retain the same basic test method as currently contained in EN 60350-2:2013.

Furthermore, AHAM stated that if DOE continues to develop the test procedure and standards in parallel, DOE should issue a notice of data availability and/or supplemental proposed test procedure to address AHAM's comments, conduct additional testing, and gather more information. AHAM stated that DOE should provide no fewer than 30 days to comment on that notice, and preferably 60 days if changes are significant. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 2, 8)

GE Appliances, a Haier Company (GE), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and Sub-Zero Group, Inc. (Sub-Zero) supported AHAM's comments. (GE, No. 31 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 29 at p. 1; Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 1) Sub-Zero added that requiring interested parties to substantively comment concurrently on both a new test procedure and a proposed standard for previously unregulated products is significantly burdensome to the industry. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 1) GE also commented that at the time it submitted comments on the August 2016 TP SNOPR, it had been able to obtain results for only approximately 25 percent of its models, for reasons including the lack of availability of test vessels and difficulty in obtaining valid test runs. GE commented that DOE should pause the rulemaking process and engage in additional outreach with manufacturers to ensure that the issues raised by AHAM are appropriately evaluated and addressed. (GE, No. 31 at pp. 1-2)

Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) (collectively, the Southern California investor-owned utilities (SoCal IOUs)) also commented that the proposed water-heating test method represents a significant change from DOE's previously proposed hybrid block test method and, as a result, DOE should extend the comment period to allow time for interested parties to evaluate the test procedure. (SoCal IOUs, No. 27 at p. 3) The American Gas Association (AGA) and American Public Gas Association (APGA) similarly stated that their comments will not be as comprehensive as they would have been if DOE had extended the comment period. (AGA and APGA, No. 26 at pp. 1-2)

DOE considered and evaluated water-heating test methods based on the IEC test procedure as part of the January 2013 TP NOPR and December 2014 TP SNOPR. 78 FR 6232, 6239-6241 (Jan. 30, 2013); 79 FR 71894, 71900-71903 (Dec. 3, 2014). As a result, DOE does not consider its proposal in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to be completely new and warranting treatment as a NOPR.

As discussed in section III.C.2 of this final rule, DOE is not requiring that each setting of the multi-ring surface unit be tested independently. Instead, DOE is aligning the test provisions with EN 60350-2:2013 to require testing of the largest measured diameter of multi-ring surface units only, unless an additional test vessel category is needed to meet the test vessel selection requirements in section 7.1.Z3 of EN 60350-2:2013, as explained in III.C.1. In that case, one of the smaller-diameter settings of the multi-ring surface unit that matches the next best-fitting test vessel diameter must be tested. As a result, the test procedure adopted in this final rule is equivalent to the test procedure considered and used in AHAM's round robin testing program.

As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, multiple manufacturers that produce and sell products in both the United States and Europe supported the use of the water-heating test method in IEC 60350-2. BSH Home Appliances Corporation (BSH) specifically noted that this test procedure is applied in Europe for its Energy Conservation Program and that international test laboratories and manufacturers have successfully used this test method. 81 FR 57374, 57382 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE agrees that manufacturers that also produce and sell conventional cooking tops in Europe are likely to already have experience with the water-heating test method adopted in this final rule. DOE further observes that because AHAM and other manufacturers also participate in the development of IEC 60350-2,
8

these interested parties are likely already familiar with the repeatability, reproducibility and test burden associated with the provisions from EN 60350-2:2013 adopted in this final rule. Accordingly, DOE does not find that a comment period extension for the test procedure is warranted.

8
IEC committee members for IEC 60350-2 are listed online at:
http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:14:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:2420,25
, and
https://ansi.org/standards_activities/iec_programs/governance_committees/gen_info.aspx?menuid=3
.

With respect to the process of establishing test procedures and standards for a given product, DOE notes that, while not legally obligated to do so, it generally follows the approach laid out in guidance found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products). That guidance provides, among other things, that, when necessary, DOE will issue final, modified test procedures for a given product prior to publication of the NOPR proposing energy conservation standards for that product. While DOE strives to follow the procedural steps outlined in its guidance, there may be circumstances in which it may be necessary or appropriate to deviate from it. In such instances, the guidance indicates that DOE will provide notice and an explanation for the deviation. For this test procedure rulemaking, DOE issued a supplemental proposed rulemaking (the August 2016 TP SNOPR) conventional cooking products which is not contemplated by the process rule, but DOE believed was necessary due to the significant comments regarding the test procedures for both induction cooking tops and commercial-style cooking products. With this action, DOE is finalizing the test procedure as its next regulatory

action for cooking products, as commenters suggested.

DOE appreciates AHAM's willingness to conduct a round robin testing program to inform the rulemaking and other interested parties, as well as AHAM's comments that derive from the round robin testing that has been completed. DOE requested the test data from AHAM's round robin testing program so that it could further evaluate for this final rule the concerns raised by interested parties, but has not received any such data. However, DOE conducted its own additional testing on both electric and gas cooking tops after the August 2016 TP SNOPR to evaluate the variability in testing results using the proposed water-heating test methods and to address specific issues raised by interested parties regarding the water-heating test method, as discussed in section III.C of this document. The results from DOE's testing are presented and discussed in relevant sections of this final rule.

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR 430 Appendix I, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products,” as follows:

• Repeals the provisions in the existing cooking products test procedure relating to conventional ovens;

• Incorporates by reference the relevant sections of EN 60350-2:2013, which uses a water-heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric cooking tops;

• Extends the water-heating test method specified in EN 60350-2:2013 to gas cooking tops by correlating the burner input rate and test vessel diameters specified in EN 30-2-1:1998
Domestic cooking appliances burning gas—Part 2-1: Rational use of energy—General
(EN 30-2-1) to the test vessel diameters and water loads already included in EN 60350-2:2013;

• Adopts a modified water quantity, different than the quantity specified in EN 60350-2:2013, used to normalize the total energy consumption of the cooking top to estimate a representative AEC for the U.S. market;

• Clarifies that for all cooking tops, specialty surface units such as bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles are not covered by appendix I;

• Clarifies that the 20-minute simmering period starts when the water temperature first reaches 90 °C and does not drop below 90 °C for more than 20 seconds after initially reaching 90 °C;

• Adopts a calculation of the AEC and IAEC of conventional cooking tops;

• Defines the term “combined cooking product” as a cooking product that combines a conventional cooking product with other appliance functionality, which may or may not include another cooking product;

• Clarifies that the active mode test procedures in appendix I applies to the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product and includes a method to apportion the combined low-power mode energy consumption measured for the combined cooking product to the individual cooking top component of the combined cooking product;

• Clarifies that the measurement of the heating value of natural gas or propane specified in section 2.9.4 of appendix I be corrected to standard pressure and temperature conditions in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938; and

• Corrects grammatical errors in certain sections of appendix I that serve as clarifications and do not change the substance of the test method.

In this final rule, DOE is also modifying the requirements in 10 CFR 430.23 to align with the changes adopted for appendix I, clarifying test procedures for the measurement of energy consumption for cooking tops.

Finally, DOE amends the sampling plan requirements in 10 CFR 429.23 “Conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens” to include AEC and IAEC for conventional cooking tops.

III. Discussion

In this test procedure final rule, DOE is amending the test procedures for conventional cooking products contained in the relevant sections of part 430 of Title 10 of the CFR. The test procedures established in this final rule provide a measure of conventional cooking top energy consumption under representative conditions, which are discussed further in sections III.C, III.D, III.E, and III.F of this final rule, and repeals provisions in the existing cooking products test procedure relating to conventional ovens.

A. Scope

As discussed in section I.A of this document, DOE has the authority to amend test procedures for covered products. EPCA identifies kitchen ranges and ovens as a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) In a final rule published on September 8, 1998 (63 FR 48038), DOE amended its regulations in certain places to substitute the term “kitchen ranges and ovens” with “cooking products.” DOE regulations currently define “cooking products” as consumer products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments, and must be one of the following classes: Conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges and other cooking products. 10 CFR 430.2

In this final rule, DOE is addressing test procedures for conventional cooking tops and is repealing the test procedures for conventional ovens. In addition, because DOE regulations currently continue to use the term “kitchen ranges and ovens” and other terms in certain places to describe the products that are the subject of this rulemaking, DOE is amending its regulations codified at 10 CFR 430 to consistently refer to the products as “cooking products.”

1. Induction Cooking Tops

As discussed in section I of this final rule, the test procedures currently specified in appendix I do not apply to induction cooking products. In the January 2013 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the definition of “conventional cooking top” to include products that feature electric inductive heating surface units. 78 FR 6232, 6234-6235 (Jan. 30, 2013). DOE similarly proposed in the January 2013 TP NOPR to revise the definition of “active mode” included in appendix I to account for electric inductive heating, consistent with the proposed definition of “conventional cooking top.”
Id.
In comments on the January 2013 TP NOPR, manufacturers did not oppose amended definitions to include induction cooking. 79 FR 71894, 71897 (Dec. 3, 2014). Additionally, DOE did not receive any comments on its proposal to revise the definitions in the December 2014 TP SNOPR and August 2016 TP SNOPR. As a result, DOE is amending the definitions of “conventional cooking top” and “active mode” in this final rule to account for induction technology, as discussed above.

2. Combined Cooking Products

Certain residential household cooking appliances combine a conventional cooking product component with other appliance functionality, which may or may not perform a cooking-related function. Examples of such “combined cooking products” include a

conventional range, which combines a conventional cooking top and one or more conventional ovens; a microwave/conventional cooking top, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional cooking top; a microwave/conventional oven, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional oven; and a microwave/conventional range, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional oven in separate compartments and a conventional cooking top. Because combined cooking products may consist of multiple classes of cooking products, any potential conventional cooking top or oven energy conservation standard would apply to the individual components of the combined cooking product. Thus, DOE stated in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that the proposed cooking top test procedures would also apply to the individual conventional cooking top portion of a combined cooking product. 81 FR 57374, 57378 (Aug. 22, 2016). Because combined cooking products are a kind of cooking product that combines a conventional cooking product with other appliance functionality and not a distinct product class, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to remove the definitions of the various kinds of combined cooking products currently included in 10 CFR 430.2, and then proposed to add a definition of “combined cooking product” to appendix I, as this definition would be related to the test of combined cooking products and is not a unique product class itself.
Id.
DOE also noted that the definitions of “conventional cooking top,” “conventional oven,” “microwave oven,” and “other cooking products” refer to these products as classes of cooking products. Because these are more general product categories and not specific product classes, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to amend the definitions of conventional cooking top, conventional oven, microwave oven, and other cooking products in 10 CFR 430.2 to reflect this clarification.
Id.

DOE did not receive any comments on its proposal to revise the definitions related to combined cooking products and cooking product categories. For the reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting these amended definitions in this final rule.

As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE observed that for combined cooking products, the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption can only be measured for the combined cooking product and not the individual components. 81 FR 57374, 57378 (Aug. 22, 2016). As discussed in section III.D.2 of this document, DOE is adopting the methods proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to calculate the IAEC of the conventional cooking top component separately by allocating a portion of the combined low-power mode energy consumption measured for the combined cooking product to the conventional cooking top component using the estimated annual cooking hours for the given components comprising the combined cooking product. Similarly for microwave ovens, DOE is adopting the methods proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to allocate a portion of the combined low-power mode energy consumption measured for the combined cooking product to the microwave oven component, based on the estimated annual cooking hours for the given components comprising the combined cooking product.

3. Gas Cooking Tops With High Input Rates

In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to amend the conventional cooking top test procedure in appendix I to measure the energy use of gas surface units with high input rates and noted that the current definition for “conventional cooking top” in 10 CFR 430.2 already covers conventional gas cooking products with higher input rates (including commercial-style gas cooking products), as these products are household cooking appliances with surface units or compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of a gas flame. DOE considers a cooking top burner with a high input rate to be a burner rated greater than 14,000 Btu/h. 79 FR 71894, 71897 (Dec. 3, 2014). DOE did not receive any comments on this interpretation of the definition of “conventional cooking top.” In addition, as discussed in section III.C.3 of this document, DOE is adopting test methods to measure the energy consumption of conventional gas cooking tops that use a range of test vessel diameters and water loads that are selected based on the input rate of the burner, including those with burners having input rates greater than 14,000 Btu/h (including commercial-style gas cooking tops). As a result, DOE maintains the interpretation for this final rule that the definition for “conventional cooking top” in 10 CFR 430.2 covers conventional gas cooking products with higher input rates, including commercial-style cooking tops.

B. Repeal of the Conventional Oven Test Procedure

As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that commercial-style ovens typically incorporate design features (
e.g.,
heavier-gauge cavity construction, high input rate burners, extension racks) that result in inherently lower efficiencies than for residential-style ovens with comparable cavity sizes, due to the greater thermal mass of the cavity and racks when measured using the test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. 81 FR 57374, 57379 (Aug. 22, 2016). Furthermore, DOE concluded that certain additional factors that are not currently addressed in the test procedure, such as the impact of door openings on thermal recovery, could, if included in the test procedure, alter the efficiencies of commercial-style ovens relative to the efficiencies of residential-style ovens. For these reasons, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to repeal the provisions in appendix I for measuring conventional oven IAEC. In addition, because DOE proposed to repeal the provisions for measuring conventional oven IAEC, DOE also proposed to remove the reference to AHAM OV-1-2011 “Procedures for the Determination and Expression of the Volume of Household Microwave and Conventional Ovens” contained in 10 CFR 430.3.
Id.

AHAM supported DOE's proposal to repeal the provisions in appendix I for measuring conventional oven IAEC. AHAM asserted that, in general, test procedures should be adopted and revised to accommodate products on the market. AHAM stated that products should not have to adapt to the test procedure, which could result in a loss of consumer utility, as would be the case with the existing test procedure for conventional ovens. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 18) The Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council (collectively, the Joint Efficiency Advocates) and the SoCal IOUs encouraged DOE to initiate work to develop a test procedure for conventional ovens. The Joint Efficiency Advocates added that a test procedure for conventional ovens would allow DOE to set performance standards for ovens in the future that could achieve significant energy savings and provide information to consumers about the cooking efficiency of conventional

ovens. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at pp. 1-2; SoCal IOUs, No. 27 at p. 3)

Because DOE did not receive any objections to its proposal, and for the reasons stated, DOE is repealing the test procedures pertaining to conventional ovens in this final rule.

C. Water Heating Test Method

In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the relevant sections from EN 60350-2:2013 for measuring electric cooking top energy consumption. DOE is also extending the testing methods in EN 60350-2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate. These amendments are discussed in the following sections.

1. Incorporation by Reference of EN 60350-2:2013

The test method to measure the energy consumption of each electric cooking top surface unit provided in EN 60350-2:2013 consists of two phases. The first phase of the EN 60350-2 test requires heating a water-filled test vessel on a surface unit to a calculated “turndown temperature” at the maximum energy input setting. During the second phase of the test, the power input is reduced to a setting that will maintain the water temperature above 90 °C (a simmering temperature) but as close to 90 °C as possible without additional adjustment of the low-power setting.
9

The test ends 20 minutes after the temperature first increases above 90 °C.

9
At first, the lowest power setting is selected. If the temperature of the water is less than 90 °C during the simmering time, the test has to be repeated with an increased power setting.

To determine the turndown temperature, T
c
, EN 60350-2:2013 requires an initial test to determine the number of degrees that the temperature continues to rise after turning the unit off from the maximum energy input setting. This initial measurement involves heating the water-filled test vessel at the maximum energy input setting until the water temperature reaches 70 °C, T
70
, at which point the power is switched off.
10

The water temperature is measured as it continues to rise after the power is switched off. The temperature overshoot, ΔT
0
, is calculated as the highest measured water temperature minus T
70
. T
c
is then calculated as 93 °C minus ΔT
0
.

10
To obtain a higher accuracy of the temperature measurement, T
70
is determined by the average of the recorded temperature between the time to reach 70 °C, t
70
, minus 10 seconds, and t
70
plus 10 seconds. If the result is within the tolerance of 70 °C ± 0.5 °C, then this temperature is noted. If not, the test is repeated.

For the test load, EN 60350-2:2013 specifies a quantity of water to be heated in a standardized test vessel. The test vessel consists of a thin-walled stainless steel cylinder attached to a flat, stainless steel 430 base plate. The test method also specifies an aluminum lid with vent holes and a small center hole to fix the thermocouple in the center of the pot. There are eight standardized cooking vessel diameters ranging from 4.7 inches to 13 inches and the amount of water varies with the test vessel diameter. One cooking vessel is chosen to test a given surface unit based on the diameter of the surface unit. Table III.1 lists the full range of test vessel diameters, water loads, and the corresponding surface unit diameters as specified in EN 60350-2:2013 for electric cooking tops. EN 60350-2:2013 also groups the specified test vessels into categories representing different cookware types.

Table III.1—EN 60350-2:2013 Test Vessel Diameter and Water Load

Test vessel diameter
inches (mm)

Mass of the water load
lbs (kg)

Corresponding surface unit diameter
inches (mm)

Standard cookware
category

4.72 (120)
1.43 (0.65)
3.93 ≤ × 14,331 (4.2)

11.81 (300)
9.35 (4.24)

AHAM commented that the design of gas cooking top burners (
i.e.,
shape, whether it is open versus sealed, or stacked) and grates (
i.e.,
size, weight, material, distance from burner to grate, and whether the grates are continuous to allow a pot to be moved from one burner to another without lifting it) vary from one product to another and offer different consumer utility. AHAM also commented that each burner or grate design element affects how the test load is heated and the measured energy consumption. AHAM urged DOE to evaluate these design differences and their effect on the test procedure, including the resulting effect on repeatability and reproducibility, so that the test procedure does not dictate future design of burners and grates and result in a loss of consumer utility. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 15-16)

The test procedure is designed to measure energy consumption that is representative of consumer use. As noted in Table III.12, DOE's test sample included products with a range of burner types (stacked, sealed, and open), burner input rates, grate materials (steel wire and cast iron), and continuous and non-continuous grates. As shown in Table III.13, DOE's testing demonstrated that the water-heating test method produces repeatable and reproducible results for gas cooking tops. DOE did not observe that any single design feature produced significant variation in test results. DOE recognizes that certain design features relating to the burner and grate design may impact the measured energy use. DOE considers any consumer utility provided by different design features that may impact energy use as part of the energy conservation standards rulemaking when evaluating product classes and proposed standards.

Sub-Zero expressed concern that limitations of the test procedure would unfairly impact the consumer utility offered by high performance commercial-style cooking products in a rulemaking to establish standards for these products. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 1) Sub-Zero commented that the commercial-style cooking top market segment appeals to consumers that demand performance similar to that found in restaurant equipment at a safety and convenience level that are necessary for residential use. Sub-Zero stated that these consumers use their products in a way that is often different from the typical household user. For example, Sub-Zero noted that users of commercial-style gas cooking tops often sauté at very high burner outputs, manipulate the pans to mix the ingredients like professional chefs, flame the contents, and operate most of the cooking top burners simultaneously. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at pp. 1-2)

Sub-Zero opposed DOE's proposal to test all gas cooking tops in the same manner despite commercial-style products differing markedly in construction and usage. Sub-Zero commented that gas burner design attributes such as safety, performance, efficiency are systematic, and that a change to one attribute significantly affects the others. Sub-Zero noted that specific design features associated with commercial-style gas cooking tops that impact efficiency include:

• High input rate burners with large diameters and high controllability of the flame, for quicker heat-up times as well as the ability to simmer foods such as chocolates and sauces;

• Heavy cast iron grates for better heat distribution and strength to support large loads;

• Greater distance from the burner to the grate for heat distribution and reduction of carbon monoxide; and

• Larger open area for primary and secondary air for combustion and exhaust of combustion byproducts. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at pp. 2-3)

Sub-Zero requested that DOE reconsider the impact that the proposed test procedure will have on small, niche market, commercial-style cooking product manufacturers. Sub-Zero expressed concern that a single regulatory approach would not allow companies like Sub-Zero to adequately serve their customer base and would negatively impact consumer utility. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 3)

In its testing of commercial-style gas cooking products, DOE did not identify any provisions of the test method that

would be more difficult for commercial-style products to meet than residential-style products. Because the test procedure adopted in this final rule specifies a water-heating test method, DOE determined that the test procedure is representative of how consumers would use any gas cooking top, regardless of whether the cooking top is marketed as commercial-style. By correlating burner input rate to test vessel and water load size, the test method properly accounts for the grates' ability to support large loads. Furthermore, DOE expects that benefits resulting from the improved controllability of the flame, high input rates for quicker heat-up times, and the design of the burner for low simmering settings, features cited by Sub-Zero as factors differentiating commercial-style cooking tops on the market, would be captured by the test method. Specifically, if the higher input rates result in faster heat-up times and the burner design allow for more precise simmering control, DOE expects that the cooking top may use less energy consumption during both the heat-up and simmering phase of the test as compared to other commercial-style cooking tops not equipped with these features.

For the reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting its proposal from the August 2016 TP SNOPR for the test of gas cooking tops. The adopted test procedure for gas cooking tops uses the same test vessels and water loads as specified for electric cooking tops, but correlates them to the nominal burner input rate. The adopted test procedure follows the same general test methods proposed in EN 60350-2:2103 and incorporates the minor modifications originally proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, as clarified above, that are necessary to adapt the electric cooking top test procedure to the gas fuel type.

D. Annual Energy Consumption

In this final rule, DOE amends the cooking top test procedure to include a method to calculate both AEC and IAEC using the average of the test energy consumption measured for each surface unit of the cooking top, normalized to a representative water load size. DOE is also including a method to allocate a portion of the combined low-power mode energy consumption for combined cooking products to the conventional cooking top component. These amendments are discussed in the following sections.

1. Conventional Cooking Top Annual Energy Consumption

In section 4.2.2 of the existing test procedure in appendix I, the AEC for electric and gas cooking tops and ovens is specified as the ratio of the annual useful cooking energy output to the cooking efficiency measured with an aluminum test block. The cooking efficiency is the average of the surface unit efficiencies measured for the cooking top. The annual useful cooking energy output was determined during the initial development of the cooking products test procedure. It correlated cooking field data to results obtained using the aluminum test block method and the DOE test procedure. In subsequent analyses for cooking products energy conservation standards and updates to the test procedure, the annual useful cooking energy output was scaled to adjust for changes in consumer cooking habits.

In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE pointed out that, unlike the existing test procedure in appendix I, EN 60350-2:2013 does not include a method to determine surface unit efficiency and the total cooking top efficiency. DOE also identified several issues associated with specifying an efficiency metric for a water-heating test method. As a result, DOE proposed to include a method to calculate both AEC and IAEC. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016).

Section 7.1.Z7.2 of EN 60350-2:2013 specifies that the energy consumption of the cooking top be normalized to 1,000 g of water. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that 1,000 g of water, which is associated with a test vessel diameter of approximately 6 inches, may not be representative of the average load used with cooking tops found in the U.S. market. To determine the representative load size for both electric and gas cooking tops, DOE reviewed the surface unit diameters and input rates for cooking tops (including those incorporated into combined cooking products) available on the market. Using the methodology in 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350-2 for selecting test vessel diameters, DOE determined that the average water load size for both electric and gas cooking top models available on the U.S. market was 2,853 g. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016).

In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to calculate the normalized cooking top energy consumption for electric products as

ER16DE16.026

and the normalized cooking top energy consumption for gas product as

ER16DE16.027

Where:

E
CTE
is the energy consumption of an electric cooking top calculated per 2,853 g of water, in Wh;

E
CTG
is the energy consumption of a gas cooking top calculated per 2,853 g of water, in Wh;

E
tv
is the energy consumption measured for a given test vessel, tv, in Wh;

m
tv
is the mass of water in the test vessel, in g; and,

n
tv
is the number of test vessels used to test the complete cooking top.

Id.

To extrapolate the cooking top's normalized test energy consumption to an annual energy consumption, DOE considered the cooking top usage data regarding the frequency of cooking events from the 2009 DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(
RECS
),
17

presented in Table III.15.

17
Available online at:
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/.

Table III.15—
RECS
2009 Usage Data for Conventional Cooking Tops

Cooking top type

RECS average cooking frequency
(meals per day)

Annual cooking frequency
(meals per year)

Electric
1.21
441.5

Smooth Electric
a

1.21
441.5

Gas
1.25
456.3

a
Smooth Electric as listed here includes both smooth electric radiant and induction cooking tops.

However, because
RECS
does not provide details about the cooking load (
e.g.,
load size or composition) nor the duration of the cooking event, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to normalize the number of cooking cycles to account for differences between the duration of a cooking event represented in the
RECS
data and DOE's proposed test load for measuring the energy consumption of the cooking top to calculate the AEC. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016). Based on DOE's review of recent field energy consumption survey data of residential cooking
18

19

and analysis of energy consumption using test data from the DOE test sample and the
RECS
data presented above, DOE observed a significant difference between the AEC determined using the proposed test procedure and the
RECS
cooking frequency compared to the field energy consumption data. As a result, DOE determined that the number of cooking cycles per year used in the AEC calculation needs to be adjusted. 81 FR 57374, 57387-57388 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE used the average ratio between the maximum AEC measured in the DOE test sample and the estimated field energy use of both gas and electric cooking tops to determine a normalization factor of 0.47, which DOE proposed to apply to the number of cycles per year such that,

N
CE
= 441.5 × 0.47 = 207.5 cooking cycles per year, the average number of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking event estimated for electric cooking tops.

18
California Energy Commission. 2009
California Residential Appliance Saturation Study,
October 2010. Prepared for the California Energy Commission by KEMA, Inc. Contract No. 200-2010-004.

19
FSEC 2010. Updated Miscellaneous Electricity Loads and Appliance Energy Usage Profiles for Use in Home Energy Ratings, the Building America Benchmark and Related Calculations. Published as FSEC-CR-1837-10, Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa, FL.

N
CG
= 456.3 × 0.47 = 214.5 cooking cycles per year, the average number of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking event estimated for gas cooking tops.

81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 22, 2016).

The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE's proposal for calculating AEC for cooking tops appears to be reasonable. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at p. 2) AHAM did not support DOE's proposal to normalize the test energy consumption using a water load size of 2,853 g. AHAM stated that DOE did not provide its review of the cooking tops available on the market for interested parties to evaluate, and that it was unclear whether DOE considered only cooking tops in its test sample or all cooking tops available on the market. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 18)

In determining the water load size used to normalize the test energy consumption, DOE surveyed 335 electric cooking tops and 283 gas cooking tops available on the market in the United States.
20

Using the rated electric surface unit diameter or gas burner input rate for each model, DOE determined the test vessel diameters and water load sizes that would be required to test each cooking top model. Based on this extensive review of cooking top models available on the market, DOE concludes that the water load size of 2,853 g used to normalize the test energy consumption is appropriate. For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting in this final rule its proposal to calculate the AEC of a conventional cooking top by multiplying the normalized test energy consumption of the cooking top by the normalized cooking frequency and the number of days in a year (365). IAEC for the cooking top is in turn calculated by adding the annual conventional cooking top combined low-power mode energy consumption.

20
DOE's survey of cooking top surface units and corresponding test vessel sizes is available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013-0033.

2. Combined Cooking Products

As noted in section III.A.1 of this document, DOE's test procedures apply to conventional cooking tops, including the individual cooking top component of a combined cooking product. However, in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption can only be measured for the combined cooking product as a whole and not for the individual components. To determine the IAEC of only the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, DOE proposed to allocate a portion of the measured combined low-power mode energy consumption for the combined cooking product to the conventional cooking top component based on the ratio of the annual cooking hours for the cooking top to the sum of the annual cooking hours for all components making up the combined cooking product. DOE also proposed to use the same apportioning method to determine the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. 81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 22, 2016).

As part of the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to use the following annual cooking hours to apportion the measured combined low-power mode energy consumption for combined cooking products. For conventional cooking tops, DOE determined the annual cooking hours to be 213.1 hours based on the total inactive mode and off mode hours specified in the current version of appendix I, sections 4.2.2.1.2 and 4.2.2.2.2. For conventional ovens, DOE similarly determined the annual cooking hours to be 219.9, based on the total inactive mode and off mode hours specified in the current version of appendix I, section 4.1.2.3, and using the annual hours already established for a conventional oven. For microwave ovens, DOE determined the number of annual cooking hours to be 44.9 hours, based on consumer usage data presented in a February 4, 2013 NOPR proposing active mode test procedures for microwave ovens. 81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 22, 2016).

In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to calculate the IAEC for the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product as the sum of the AEC and the portion of the combined cooking product's annual combined low-power mode energy consumption allocated to the cooking top component. Because appendix I currently contains test procedures for microwave ovens that measure only standby mode and off mode test energy consumption, DOE also proposed to include an annual combined low-power mode energy consumption calculation for the microwave oven component of a combined cooking product.
Id.

The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE's proposal to apportion the combined low-power mode energy consumption of combined cooking products appears to be reasonable. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at pp. 2-3)

AHAM opposed the proposed apportionment approach, claiming that it would effectively set new standby power standards for conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19) AHAM commented that if the combined cooking product under test was a microwave/conventional range with two cavities consuming a total measured standby power of 4 Watts, standby mode energy use would be apportioned to both the microwave oven and conventional range components. AHAM and GE commented that third-

party laboratories would not know the inner workings of the appliance, and could not measure the standby power of only one portion of the product because many products have only one power cord and control panel. AHAM stated, therefore, that this approach would make it impossible for third-party laboratories to perform verification testing. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19; GE, No. 31 at p. 4)

GE expressed concern that the DOE's proposed amendments for combined cooking product standby power would inappropriately compare energy usage between products in a manner that would not represent actual consumer use. GE noted that apportioning standby power to the cooking top on a combined cooking product negatively impacts the cooking top IAEC. However, GE noted that on a majority of combined cooking products, the cooking tops controls consist of electromechanical switches that have no standby power. GE stated that, as a result, when comparing the IAEC between an electromechanically controlled stand-alone cooking top and a similarly controlled combined cooking product that has a cooking top, the combined product's cooking top will appear to use more energy. (GE, No. 31 at p. 4)

GE commented that rather than apportioning energy consumption, DOE should instead adopt the same prescriptive approach for cooking tops and combined cooking products that it has proposed for conventional oven energy conservation standards, to require that electronically controlled products be equipped with a switch-mode power supply to manage the unit's standby power. GE noted that this would enable consumers to accurately compare the energy use of cooking tops across combined and stand-alone cooking tops. In addition, GE stated that this approach would avoid effectively setting a new standard for conventional ovens through a test procedure change, and preclude any verification issues. (GE, No. 31 at p. 4)

The proposed methodology to calculate the IAEC for the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product does not require a testing laboratory to understand the inner design or functionality of the product to conduct verification testing. As discussed above, the total measured standby energy consumption of the combined cooking product would be apportioned based on the ratio of the annual cooking hours for the cooking top to the sum of the annual cooking hours for all components making up the combined cooking product.

As part of the concurrent standards rulemaking for conventional cooking products, DOE proposed standards for conventional cooking tops based on the IAEC metric. 81 FR 60784, 60785 (September 30, 2016). DOE is not proposing standards to include prescriptive standby power design requirements for the individual components of a combined cooking product. DOE also notes that the current standby power standard levels for microwave ovens apply only to standalone microwave ovens and did not include combined cooking products. 78 FR 36316, 36328 (June 17, 2013). DOE may consider the effects of setting prescriptive standby power design requirements for microwave ovens that are a part of a combined cooking product as part of a future rulemaking to consider standards for these products.

DOE will consider how the methods for calculating the IAEC that are adopted in this final rule will impact stand-alone cooking tops and combined cooking products that include a cooking top as part of the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking for conventional cooking products. DOE will also consider as part of the standards rulemaking the merits of the approach of adopting a prescriptive standard for the power supply for conventional cooking tops.

As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE is repealing the test procedures for conventional ovens in this final rule. As a result, DOE is not incorporating methods to calculate the IEAC for the conventional oven component of a combined cooking product.

DOE is also modifying the test procedures codified at 10 CFR 430.23 that measure the energy consumption of combined cooking products to reflect the amendments adopted for appendix I in this final rule.

3. Full Fuel Cycle Metric

In response to the August 2016 TP SNOPR, AGA and APGA commented that DOE should consider a full fuel cycle (FFC) energy use metric for measuring the total energy consumption of fuel gas and electricity for cooking products. AGA and APGA stated that, compared to a site energy use metric, an FFC metric that uses a correction factor provides a more comprehensive measurement that complies with the DOE policy to incorporate FFC in its appliance efficiency programs. AGA and APGA commented that direct comparisons of baseline and proposed efficiency standard levels are needed to inform all interested parties of the FFC implications of standards proposals, which can only be accomplished where energy savings opportunities are expressed in both site energy and FFC energy. (AGA and APGA, No. 28 at p. 3)

As DOE has noted for other products, such as residential furnaces and boilers (81 FR 2628, 2638-2639 (Jan. 15, 2016)), DOE does not believe the test procedure is the appropriate vehicle for deriving an FFC energy use metric for cooking products. As discussed in the Notice of Policy Amendment Regarding Full-Fuel Cycle Analyses, DOE intends to use the
National Energy Modeling System
(
NEMS
) as the basis for deriving the energy and emission multipliers used to conduct FFC analyses in support of energy conservation standards rulemakings. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). DOE also uses
NEMS
to derive factors to convert site electricity use or savings to primary energy consumption by the electric power sector.
NEMS
is updated annually in association with the preparation of the EIA's
Annual Energy Outlook.
Based on its experience to date, DOE expects that the energy and emission multipliers used to conduct FFC analyses will change each year. If DOE were to include a secondary FFC energy descriptor as part of the cooking products test procedure, DOE would need to update the test procedure annually. As part of the concurrent energy conservation standard rulemaking for conventional cooking products, DOE estimated the FFC energy savings and took those savings into account in proposing amended standards. 81 FR 60784, 60798, 60831-60832 (Sept. 2, 2016).

E. Installation Test Conditions

In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to amend section 2.1 of the current appendix I, which defines installation test conditions for cooking products, to incorporate by reference the following test structures specified in ANSI Z21.1-2016 sections 5.1 and 5.19 for both gas and electric conventional cooking products:

• Figure 7, “Test structure for built-in top surface cooking units and open top broiler units;”

• Figure 5, “Test structure for floor-supported units not having elevated cooking sections;” and

• Figure 6, “Test structure for floor-supported units having elevated cooking sections.”

81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 22, 2016).

AGA and APGA supported incorporating by reference the test structure requirements in ANSI Z21.1. (AGA and AGPA, No. 28 at p. 3) AHAM opposed DOE's proposal to require ANSI Z21.1 test structures for both gas

and electric cooking products. AHAM asserted that this would increase testing burden for laboratories, requiring them to procure additional test structures if the products are not ANSI-listed. AHAM stated that if the cooking top is a UL-listed product, the UL specified test structure should be used, and that if the cooking top is covered by ANSI Z21.1, the ANSI specified test structure should be used. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19)

DOE recognizes that requiring the test structures in ANSI Z21.1 for all conventional cooking products may increase testing burden. DOE notes that ANSI Z21.1 and UL 858 “Standard for Household Electric Ranges” include specific safety requirements for gas and electric cooking products, respectively. Because these standards include specific test structures for safety testing, which may be intended to represent worst-case installation configurations and operating conditions, DOE is not aware of data demonstrating that these test structures are representative of typical consumer use. For example, section 59.4 and 59.5 in UL 858 specify that the side walls of the test enclosures, including the walls that extend above the cooking surface, be installed as closely as possible to the side of the appliance. However, DOE notes that manufacturer's installation instructions typically specify minimum clearances of walls and other structures surrounding the product when installing products in homes. DOE is also not aware of data showing how these test structures affect measured energy use. For these reasons, in this final rule, DOE is not including a requirement to install gas and electric conventional cooking products in accordance with the test structures specified in ANSI Z21.1. Instead, DOE is maintaining the existing installation requirements in appendix I. DOE notes these requirements do not preclude the use of any testing structures, as long as those structures comply with the installation requirements in appendix I.

In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify its definition of “built-in” and “freestanding” cooking products based on the definitions of installation configurations included in ANSI Z21.1. DOE proposed to clarify that “built-in” means a product that is enclosed in surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures on at least three sides, and that can be supported by surrounding cabinetry (
e.g.,
drop-in cooking tops) or the floor (
e.g.,
slide-in conventional ranges). DOE also proposed to clarify that “freestanding” means a product that is supported by the floor and is not designed to be enclosed by surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures. 81 FR 57374, 57388-57389. DOE did not receive any comments on the proposed clarifications to the definitions of “built-in” and “freestanding.” DOE is adopting these clarified definitions in this final rule.

In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that in general, where the test procedure references manufacturer instructions used to determine the installation conditions for the unit under test, those instructions must be those normally shipped with the product, or if only available online, the version of the instructions available online at the time of test. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE also noted that some manufacturer's instructions may specify that the cooking product may be used in multiple installation conditions, such as built-in and freestanding. DOE stated that because built-in products are installed in configurations with more surrounding cabinetry that may limit airflow and venting compared to freestanding products, products capable of built-in installation configurations may require additional features such as exhaust fans or added insulation to meet the same safety requirements (
e.g.,
surface temperature requirements specified in Table 12 of ANSI Z21.1) that impact energy use of the unit. As a result, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that if the manufacturer's instructions specify that the cooking product may be used in multiple installation conditions, it should be installed according to the built-in configuration.
Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on these proposed clarifications. As a result, and for the reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting these clarifications regarding manufacturer's instructions and installation requirements in this final rule.

DOE also notes that some manufacturer instructions may specify multiple installation conditions for cooking tops (
i.e.,
installed in a countertop up against a rear wall or in an island countertop with no rear wall.) Because the countertop with a rear wall may limit airflow and venting compared to an island installation, and as a result impact the energy use of the unit, DOE is clarifying in this final rule that if the manufacturer's instructions specify that the cooking top may be used in multiple installation conditions, it shall be tested against, or as near as possible to, a rear wall.

F. Technical Clarification to the Correction of the Gas Heating Value

As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify in section 2.9.4 in the existing test procedure in appendix I that the measurement of the heating value of natural gas or propane specified in appendix I be corrected to standard pressure and temperature conditions in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938. DOE noted that this clarification would ensure that the same correction methods are used by all operators of the test. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016).

AGA and APGA supported the technical clarification to require that the gas heating value be corrected to standard and temperature conditions in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417. AGA and APGA stated that this would help ensure consistent test results in various testing laboratories. (AGA and APGA, No. 28 at p. 3) Because DOE did not receive any objections to its proposal, and for the reasons stated above, DOE is adopting the clarification that the measurement of the heating value of natural gas or propane specified in appendix I be corrected to standard pressure and temperature conditions in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938.

G. Grammatical Changes to Certain Sections of Appendix I

In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed minor grammatical corrections or modifications to clarify the text in certain sections of appendix I and proposed to remove the watt meter requirements specified in section 2.9.1.2 of appendix I, which are no longer used in the test procedure. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE did not receive comment on these proposals, and as a result, adopts these grammatical changes as part of this final rule. DOE notes that these minor modifications do not change the substance of the test methods or descriptions provided in these sections.

H. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

EPCA requires that any new or amended test procedures for consumer products must be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that the proposed amendments to the test procedure would produce test results that measure the energy consumption of conventional cooking tops during representative use, and that the test procedures would not

be unduly burdensome to conduct. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016).

DOE stated in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that, although the proposed test procedures differ from the method currently included in appendix I for testing cooking tops, the essential method of test which includes an initial temperature rise of the test load and a simmering phase, is performed in approximately the same amount of time as the existing test procedure in appendix I. DOE noted that the existing test equipment in appendix I would be replaced with the eight test vessels described in section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350-2:2013. DOE estimated that current testing represents a cost of roughly $700 per test for labor, with a one-time investment of $2,000 for test equipment ($1,000 for test blocks and $1,000 for instrumentation). DOE also noted that the proposed reusable test vessels would represent an additional one-time expense of $5,000 for the test vessels. DOE also noted in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that the only additional instrumentation required would be an absolute pressure transducer to measure the ambient air pressure of the test room. DOE estimated the cost of this transducer to be $100 or less for a model compatible with typical existing data collection systems used by the manufacturer. DOE noted that the allowable range of room air pressure specified in EN 60350-2:2013 is wide enough that a pressurized test chamber would not be required. Air pressure at elevations less than 3,000 feet above sea level falls within the range. DOE stated that it does not believe this additional cost represents an excessive burden for test laboratories or manufacturers given the significant investments necessary to manufacture, test and market consumer appliances. Given the similarities (in terms of the test equipment, test method, the time needed to perform the test, and the calculations necessary to determine IAEC), DOE stated in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that the proposed amendments to test procedure for cooking tops would not be unreasonably burdensome to conduct as compared to the existing test procedure in appendix I. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016).

AHAM commented that it has not been able to fully evaluate the proposed test procedure to determine whether it is unduly burdensome to conduct. However, AHAM stated that based on its testing conducted at the time of its comments, the overall test is burdensome and there may be ways that DOE can reduce the test burden. AHAM stated that determining the appropriate simmering setting requires trial and error to meet the tolerances of the test procedure, which may require multiple test runs. Because of this, and because only one surface unit can be tested at a time and then must be cooled to ambient room temperature, testing time is variable and may increase substantially for a test laboratory that is unfamiliar with a unit or if a unit has more than the typical four surface units to test. AHAM added that DOE's proposal to require testing of each individual each diameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit is overly burdensome, noting that a cooking top with dual- and tri-ring surface units would require seven tests, instead of four. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 5)

GE commented that DOE's proposed additional test procedure requirements beyond those in the Canadian and European test procedures make testing more burdensome while introducing more variability into test results. GE commented that DOE's proposed test procedure would require approximately 25 separate tests and approximately 3 weeks for a standard unit, compared to four tests and approximately 2 days to test a standard unit for Canada. (GE, No. 31 at p. 2)

DOE recognizes that the water-heating test procedure will typically require several repetitions of the test cycle to determine the appropriate setting for the simmering phase of the test. However, based on DOE's testing, in cases where the water temperature falls below the minimum allowable simmering temperature of 90 °C, this typically occurs near the beginning of the simmering phase of the test. As a result, the test can be immediately stopped to conserve testing time. Additionally, by providing guidance on the acceptable oscillation of the water temperature about 90 °C during the first 20 seconds of the simmering phase of the test, as discussed in section III.C.1 of this document, the uncertainty regarding whether a test will pass or fail is reasonably reduced. DOE also observed from its testing that after conducting a few tests on a model, a test laboratory is able to better predict the appropriate simmering setting for other surface units on that cooking top, based on the ratio of simmer energy consumption to total energy consumption. As a result, DOE expects that as manufacturers and test laboratories conduct tests and become familiar with models, the time required for subsequent tests on a given model should decrease. Furthermore, DOE notes that the preliminary test to determine the turndown temperature does not need to be rerun prior to the next energy consumption test cycle on the same surface unit.

With regard to the time required to cool the appliance in between tests to achieve the normal non-operating temperature, section 5.5 of EN 60350-2:2013 specifies that forced cooling may be used to assist in reducing the temperature of the appliance. DOE notes that this reduces the time to cool the appliance in between tests. In this final rule, DOE is clarifying that forced cooling may be used to reduce the temperature of the appliance to achieve the normal non-operating temperature as specified in section 5.5 of EN 60350-2:2013. During its investigative testing conducted in support of this final rule, DOE observed that forced air cooling can reduce the time between tests by almost half for electric smooth-radiant cooking tops, electric coil cooking tops, and gas cooking tops. Because induction cooking tops directly heat the test vessel, minimizing heat transfer to the glass ceramic surface of the cooking top, the time to cool an induction cooking top is typically much shorter than for other cooking top types.

In addition, as discussed in section III.C.2 of this final rule, DOE is not requiring that each setting of the multi-ring surface unit be tested independently and is instead aligning the test provisions with EN 60350-2:2013 and the draft IEC 60350-2 to require testing of the largest measured diameter of multi-ring surface units only, unless an additional test vessel category is needed to meet the requirements of the test procedure. In that case, one of the smaller-diameter settings of the multi-ring surface that matches the next best-fitting test vessel diameter must be tested. As a result, DOE's amended test procedure will in most cases require only one full test cycle (including the preliminary turndown test and energy cycle test) per surface unit or burner, and is equivalent to the number of tests required under EN 60350-2:2013. Using the example provided by AHAM of a cooking top with dual- and tri-ring surface units, DOE's amended test procedure will require only four full test cycles, instead of seven.

Based on the discussion above and DOE's experience conducting tests using the amended test procedure, DOE estimates that testing of a cooking top model would require on average 2 to 3 days depending on the number of surface units or burners. As a result, DOE does not consider the amended test procedure to be unduly burdensome to conduct.

DOE also notes that the test procedure used in Canada is equivalent to the existing DOE test procedure in appendix I, which involves heating a solid

aluminum test block on each surface unit of the cooking top. That test procedure includes only one test block size for gas cooking tops and two test block sizes for electric cooking tops. DOE also notes that the aluminum test block is not compatible with induction cooking tops. The test method involves heating the test block at the maximum energy input setting. After the test block temperature increases by 144 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), the surface unit is immediately reduced to 25 percent ± 5 percent of the maximum power input for 15 ± 0.1 minutes. Based on DOE's experience conducting tests using this test procedure, the second phase of the test requires trial and error to determine the appropriate simmering setting to achieve 25 percent ± 5 percent of the maximum power input because most electric cooking tops cycle the heating element on and off rather than fully modulating the input power. Therefore, the setting that achieves, on average, 25 percent ± 5 percent of the maximum power input will not be clear to a test technician at the start of the test and the setting selected must be evaluated after the test is complete test to determine if it meets the requirements. As a result, testing under the Canadian test procedure imposes a similar test burden as the water-heating test method adopted in this final rule.

DOE previously noted that the reusable test vessels would represent a one-time expense of $5,000. As the test vessels are heated and cooled over time, it is possible that the test vessels bottoms will no longer meet the allowable tolerances for flatness. Based on discussions with test vessel suppliers, DOE notes that test vessels may need to be repaired or replaced after a few years of use, depending on their frequency of use. Certain test vessel diameters will be used more frequently than others, as certain surface unit diameters are more common in cooking tops on the U.S. market than others. Thus, DOE anticipates that the entire set of cookware would not need to be replaced or repaired at the same frequency.

For the reasons discussed above, DOE has determined that the amended test procedure adopted in this final rule produces test results that measure the energy consumption of conventional cooking tops during representative use, and that the test procedures are not unduly burdensome to conduct.

In the concurrent rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products, DOE proposed in an SNOPR published on September 2, 2016 to update the sampling plan requirements for cooking products in 10 CFR 429.23(a) to include the AEC and IAEC metrics for conventional gas and electric cooking tops. 81 FR 60784, 60799. DOE did not receive any comments on this proposal in response to the September 2016 SNOPR. In this final rule, DOE is adopting these amendments to the sampling plan requirements for the selection of units for testing, as well as calculation procedures for determining a basic model's represented rating in 10 CFR 429.23(a) for cooking products to include the AEC and IAEC metrics for conventional gas and electric cooking tops.
21

Changes to the certification requirements in 10 CFR 429.23(b) will be addressed in the concurrent standards rulemaking.

21
In the September 2016 SNOPR for the concurrent standards rulemaking for conventional cooking products, the first sentence of 10 CFR 429.23(a)(2)(i), “(i) The mean of the sample, where:”, was unintentionally left out of the
Federal Register
publication. DOE is including this language in the amendments adopted in this final rule.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
) requires that when an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site:
http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. This final rule would amend the test method for measuring the energy efficiency of conventional cooking tops, including methods applicable to induction cooking products and gas cooking tops with higher input rates. DOE has concluded that the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows:

The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers or earns less than the average annual receipts specified in 13 CFR part 121. The threshold values set forth in these regulations use size standards and codes established by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) that are available at:
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
The threshold number for NAICS classification code 335221, titled “Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing,” is 1,500 employees or fewer; this classification includes manufacturers of residential conventional cooking products.

As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE surveyed the AHAM member directory to identify manufacturers of residential conventional cooking tops. 81 FR 57374, 57390 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE also consulted publicly-available data, purchased company reports from vendors such as Dun and Bradstreet, and contacted manufacturers, where needed, to determine if they meet the SBA's definition of a “small business manufacturing facility” and have their manufacturing facilities located within the United States. Based on the 2016 threshold number of workers for small business, DOE estimates that there are ten small businesses that manufacture conventional cooking products covered by the test procedure amendments. This number represents an increase from nine small businesses analyzed as part of the August 2016 TP SNOPR due to a change in the SBA's threshold number of workers for NAICS classification code 335221 since the time of the SNOPR analysis.
22

DOE further estimates that eight of these ten small businesses actually manufacture the products they sell. The other two are rebranders and

do not manufacture the products they sell.

22
The SBA's threshold number of workers for NAICS classification code 335221 changed from 750 at the time of the August 2016 TP SNOPR to 1,500 for this final rule.

In August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE concluded that the proposed test procedures for cooking tops that incorporate provisions from EN 60350-2:2013 to address active mode energy consumption for all conventional cooking top technology types, including induction surface units and surface units with higher input rates, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 81 FR 57374, 57390 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE's estimates for the cost of testing and of new test equipment, have not changed from the August 2016 TP SNOPR. The amended test procedure would be used to develop and test compliance with any future energy conservation standards for cooking tops that may be established by DOE. The test procedure amendments involve the measurement of active mode energy consumption through the use of a water-heating test method that requires different test equipment than previously specified for conventional cooking tops. The test equipment consists of a set of eight stainless steel test vessels. DOE estimates the cost for this new equipment to be approximately $5,000-$10,000, depending on the number of sets the manufacturer wishes to procure.

DOE estimates a cost of approximately $46,288 for an average small manufacturer to test a full product line of induction surface units and surface units with high input rates not currently covered by the existing test procedure in appendix I. DOE updated this estimate to reflect the most recent changes to the small business classification, which includes the identification of an additional small manufacturer and the determination that two of the small businesses are rebranders and do not manufacture the products they sell. This updated estimate assumes $700 per test for labor with up to 66 total tests per manufacturer needed, assuming 21 models
23

with either four or six individual surface unit tests per cooking top model. This cost is small (0.07 percent) compared to the average annual revenue of the eight identified small businesses that manufacture cooking products in the United States, which DOE estimates to be over $162 million.
24

23
DOE considered different configurations of the same basic model (where surface units were placed in different positions on the cooking top) as unique models.

24
Based on publicly available information from online sources such as Hoovers, Cortera, and Glassdoor.

In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that the proposed modification to the calculation of the IEAC of the cooking top portion of a combined cooking product requires the same methodology, test equipment, and test facilities used to measure the combined low-power mode energy consumption of stand-alone cooking products and would not result in any additional facility or testing costs. Additionally, DOE determined that its proposal to incorporate test structures from ANSI Z21.1 by reference to standardize the installation conditions used during the test of conventional cooking tops would not significantly impact small manufacturers under the applicable provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
25

81 FR 57374, 57390 (Aug. 22, 2016).

25
DOE estimated a cost of $500 for an average small manufacturer to fabricate the test structures for the test of cooking tops and combined cooking products, which is negligible when compared to the average annual revenue of the eight identified small manufacturers.

As discussed in section III.E of this document, in this final rule, DOE is no longer including a requirement to install gas and electric conventional cooking products in accordance with the test structures specified in ANSI Z21.1. Instead, DOE is maintaining the existing installation requirements in appendix I. DOE notes these requirements would not preclude the use of any testing structures, as long as those structures comply with the installation requirements in appendix I. Because DOE is not changing the existing installation requirements, DOE concludes that these requirements will not significantly impact small manufacturers.

After estimating the potential impacts to the updated list of small business and considering feedback from interested parties regarding test burdens, DOE concludes that the cost effects accruing from the final rule would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE has submitted a certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Manufacturers of conventional cooking products must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including conventional cooking products. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for conventional cooking products. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.
) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion

of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.

The amendments to the test procedure for conventional cooking products adopted in this final rule incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the commercial standard, EN 60350-2:2013 “Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance.” While the amended test procedure is not exclusively based on the provisions in this industry standard, many components of the test procedure have been adopted without amendment. DOE has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (
i.e.,
whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference certain sections of the test standard published by CENELEC, titled “Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance,” EN 60350-2:2013. EN 60350-2:2013 is an industry accepted European test procedure that measures cooking top energy consumption and performance. DOE has determined that EN 60350-2:2013, with the clarifications discussed in sections III.C.2, III.C.3 and III.D of this document, provides test methods for determining the annual energy use metrics and are applicable to all residential conventional cooking tops sold in the United States. The test procedure adopted in this final rule references various sections of EN 60350-2:2013 that address test setup, instrumentation, test conduct, and measurement procedure. EN 60350-2:2013 is readily available on the British Standards Institute's Web site at
http://shop.bsigroup.com/.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429
Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 22, 2016.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2. Section 429.23 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 429.23
Cooking products.

(a)
Sampling plan for selection of units for testing.
(1) The requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to cooking products; and

(2) For each basic model of cooking products a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that any represented value of estimated annual operating cost, standby mode power consumption, off mode power consumption, annual energy consumption, integrated annual energy consumption, or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:

(i) The mean of the sample, where:

ER16DE16.028

and

x

is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and x
i
is the i
th
sample;

Or,

(ii) The upper 97
1/2
percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.05, where:

ER16DE16.041

And

x

is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the number of samples; and
t
0.975
is the t statistic for a 97.5% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from appendix A).

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

Authority:

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

4. Section 430.2 is amended by:
a. Revising the definitions for “Conventional cooking top” and “Conventional oven”;
b. Removing the definition of “Conventional range”;
c. Revising the definition of “Cooking products”;
d. Removing the definitions of “Microwave/conventional cooking top”, “Microwave/conventional oven”, and “Microwave/conventional range”; and
e. Revising the definitions of “Microwave oven” and “Other cooking products”.
The revisions read as follows:

§ 430.2
Definitions.

Conventional cooking top
means a category of cooking products which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a horizontal surface containing one or more surface units that utilize a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating. This includes any conventional cooking top

component of a combined cooking product.

Conventional oven
means a category of cooking products which is a household cooking appliance consisting of one or more compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. It does not include portable or countertop ovens which use electric resistance heating for the cooking or heating of food and are designed for an electrical supply of approximately 120 volts. This includes any conventional oven(s) component of a combined cooking product.

Cooking products
means consumer products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments.

Microwave oven
means a category of cooking products which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a compartment designed to cook or heat food by means of microwave energy, including microwave ovens with or without thermal elements designed for surface browning of food and convection microwave ovens. This includes any microwave oven(s) component of a combined cooking product.

Other cooking products
means any category of cooking products other than conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens.

5. Section 430.3 is amended by:
a. Removing paragraphs (i)(6) and (i)(8);
b. Redesignating paragraphs (i)(7) and (i)(9) as (i)(6) and (i)(7);
c. Redesignating paragraphs (l) through (u) as paragraphs (m) through (v), respectively; and
d. Adding new paragraph (l).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 430.3
Materials incorporated by reference.

(l)
CENELEC.
European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, 17, Avenue Marnix, B-1000 Brussels, phone: +32 2 519 68 71, available from the HIS Standards Store,
https://www.ihs.com/products/cenelec-standards.html

(1) EN 60350-2:2013, (“EN 60350-2:2013”),
Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance,
(June 3, 2013), IBR approved for appendix I to subpart B, as follows:

(i) Section 5—General conditions for the measurements, (excluding 5.4);

(ii) Section 6—Dimensions and mass, Section 6.2—Cooking zones per hob;

(iii) Section 7—Cooking zones and cooking areas, Section 7.1—Energy consumption and heating up time, (excluding 7.1.Z1, 7.1.Z5, 7.1.Z7);

(iv)Annex ZA—Further requirements for measuring the energy consumption and heating up time for cooking areas;

(v) Annex ZB—Aids for measuring the energy consumption;

(vi)Annex ZC—Examples how to select and position a cookware set for measuring the heating up time (7.1.Z5) and energy consumption (7.1.Z6);

(vii) Annex ZD—Example—Multiple zones; and

(viii) Annex ZF—Normative references to international publications with their corresponding European publications.

(2) [Reserved]

6. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

§ 430.23
Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water consumption.

(i)
Cooking products.
(1) Determine the integrated annual electrical energy consumption for conventional electric cooking tops, including any integrated annual electrical energy consumption for combined cooking products according to sections 4.1.2.1.2 and 4.2.2.1 of appendix I to this subpart. For conventional gas cooking tops, the integrated annual electrical energy consumption shall be equal to the sum of the conventional cooking top annual electrical energy consumption, E
CCE,
as defined in section 4.1.2.2.2 or 4.2.2.2 of appendix I to this subpart, and the conventional cooking top annual combined low-power mode energy consumption, E
CTSO
, as defined in section 4.1.2.2.3 appendix I to this subpart, or the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, E
CCTLP
, as defined in section 4.2.2.2 of appendix I to this subpart.

(2) Determine the annual gas energy consumption for conventional gas cooking tops according to section 4.1.2.2.1 of appendix I to this subpart.

(3) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption for conventional cooking tops according to sections 4.1.2.1.2, 4.1.2.2.2, 4.2.2.1, and 4.2.2.2, respectively, of appendix I to this subpart. Round the integrated annual energy consumption to one significant digit.

(4) The estimated annual operating cost corresponding to the energy consumption of a conventional cooking top, shall be the sum of the following products:

(i) The integrated annual electrical energy consumption for any electric energy usage, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, as determined in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section, times the representativ

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-29077. Public record. Not legal advice.