Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-23330

Proposed Rule2021-23330

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products

Primary source

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

Published

November 4, 2021

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") proposes to establish a test procedure for a category of cooking products, i.e., conventional cooking tops, under a proposed new appendix. The proposed test procedure would adopt the latest version of the relevant industry standard with modifications to adapt the test method to gas cooking tops, offer an optional method for burden reduction, normalize the energy use of each test cycle, include measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use, update certain test conditions, and provide certain clarifying language. This NOPR also proposes to retitle the existing cooking products test procedure for microwave ovens only. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the proposal.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 211 (Thursday, November 4, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 211 (Thursday, November 4, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60974-61014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23330]

[[Page 60973]]

Vol. 86

Thursday,

No. 211

November 4, 2021

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products;
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 211 / Thursday, November 4, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 60974]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023]
RIN 1904-AF18

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') and announcement of
public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to establish
a test procedure for a category of cooking products, i.e., conventional
cooking tops, under a proposed new appendix. The proposed test
procedure would adopt the latest version of the relevant industry
standard with modifications to adapt the test method to gas cooking
tops, offer an optional method for burden reduction, normalize the
energy use of each test cycle, include measurement of standby mode and
off mode energy use, update certain test conditions, and provide
certain clarifying language. This NOPR also proposes to retitle the
existing cooking products test procedure for microwave ovens only. DOE
is seeking comment from interested parties on the proposal.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than January 3, 2022. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Wednesday,
December 15, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants. If no participants register for the webinar, it
will be cancelled.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023,
by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f7b498989c9e9990a785989382948384c5c7c5c6a3a7c7c7c5c4b79292d9939892d9909881">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include docket
number EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing corona virus 2019 (``COVID-19'') pandemic. DOE is currently
suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202)
586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the
COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a public meeting is held),
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed
in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section V for information on how to submit comments through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1943. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d594a5a5b9bcb4bbb6b086a1b4bbb1b4a7b1a684a0b0a6a1bcbabba695b0b0fbb1bab0fbb2baa3">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7f4d2dbded699e4dfd2c5f7dfc699d3d8d299d0d8c1">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if
one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97d6e7e7fbfef6f9f4f2c4e3f6f9f3f6e5f3e4c6e2f2e4e3fef8f9e4d7f2f2b9f3f8f2b9f0f8e1">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to maintain previously approved
incorporations by reference and incorporate by reference the following
industry standard into 10 CFR part 430:

International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard
62301 (``IEC 62301''), ``Household electrical appliances--
Measurement of standby power'' (first edition, June 2005).
International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 62301 (``IEC
62301''), ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby
power.'' (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60350-2:2017,
(``IEC 60350-2:2017''), ``Household electric cooking appliances Part
2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance.''

Copies of IEC 62301 First Edition, IEC 62301 Second Edition and IEC
60350-2:2017 can be obtained from the International Electrotechnical
Commission at 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, or by
going to <a href="http://webstore.ansi.org">webstore.ansi.org</a>.
See section IV.M of this document for further discussion of these
standards.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 60350-2:2017 for Measuring
Energy Consumption
1. Water-Heating Test Methodology
2. IEC 60350-2:2017
C. Modifications to IEC 60350-2:2017 Methodology To Reduce
Testing Burden
1. Test Vessel Selection for Electric Cooking Tops
2. Temperature Specifications
3. Optional Potential Simmering Setting Pre-Selection Test
4. Determination of the Simmering Setting
5. Normalizing Per-Cycle Energy Use for the Final Water
Temperature
D. Extension of Methodology to Gas Cooking Tops
1. Gas Test Conditions
2. Gas Supply Instrumentation
3. Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops
4. Burner Heat Input Rate Adjustment
5. Target Power Density for Optional Potential Simmering Setting
Pre-Selection Test
6. Product Temperature Measurement for Gas Cooking Tops
E. Definitions and Clarifications
1. Operating Modes
2. Product Configuration and Installation Requirements
3. Power Settings

[[Page 60975]]

4. Specialty Cooking Zone
5. Target Turndown Temperature
F. Test Conditions and Instrumentation
1. Electrical Supply
2. Water Load Mass Tolerance
3. Test Vessel Flatness
G. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption
1. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 62301
2. Standby Power Measurement for Cooking Tops With Varying Power
as a Function of Clock Time
H. Metrics
1. Annual Active Mode Energy Consumption
2. Combined Low-Power Mode Hours
3. Annual Combined Low-Power Mode Energy
4. Integrated Annual Energy Consumption
5. Annual Energy Consumption and Annual Cost
I. Alternate Proposals
1. Separate Boiling and Simmering Tests
2. Replacing the Simmering Test With a Simmering Usage Factor
3. Changing the Setting Used To Calculate Simmering Energy
4. Industry Test Procedures
J. Representations
1. Sampling Plan
2. Convertible Cooking Appliances
K. Reporting
L. Test Procedure Costs
M. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
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. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Submission of Comments
C. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Kitchen ranges and ovens are included in the list of ``covered
products'' for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy
conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
DOE's regulations at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR'') 430.2 include definitions for ``cooking products,'' \1\ which
cover cooking appliances that use gas, electricity, or microwave energy
as the source of heat; as well as specific categories of cooking
products, including conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens,
microwave ovens, and other cooking products. DOE's energy conservation
standards and test procedure for cooking products are currently
prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(j) and 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix I
(``appendix I''). Currently only microwave oven test procedures are
specified in appendix I. DOE is proposing to create a new test
procedure at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix I1 (``appendix I1'')
that would establish a conventional cooking top test procedure. The
following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish a test
procedure for conventional cooking tops and relevant background
information regarding DOE's consideration of a test procedure for this
product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ DOE established the regulatory term ``cooking products'' in
lieu of the statutory term ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10)) having determined that the latter is obsolete and does
accurately describe the products considered, which include microwave
ovens, conventional ranges, cooktops, and ovens. 63 FR 48038, 48052
(Sep. 8, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\2\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \3\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These
products include cooking products, and specifically conventional
cooking tops, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6296)
The Federal 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 pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer
products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
DOE follows an early assessment review process to conduct a more
focused analysis that would allow DOE to determine, based on statutory
criteria, whether an amended test procedure is warranted. 10 CFR part
430, subpart C, appendix A section 8(a).
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 requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section 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 not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Standby mode and off
mode energy consumption must be incorporated into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each
covered product unless the current test procedures already account for
and incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption or such
integration is technically infeasible. If an integrated test procedure
is

[[Page 60976]]

technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode and
off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if
technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) Any such amendment
must consider the most current versions of the International
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 62301 \4\ and IEC
Standard 62087 \5\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\5\ IEC 62087, Methods of measurement for the power consumption
of audio, video, and related equipment (Edition 3.0, 2011-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product, including cooking
products, to determine whether an amended test procedure would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedure
to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to
produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and
estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register a proposed test procedure and afford interested
persons an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and
arguments with respect to such procedure. The comment period on a
proposed rule to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and
may not exceed 270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure,
the Secretary shall take into account such information as the Secretary
determines relevant to such procedure, including technological
developments relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type
(or class) of covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) If DOE
determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must
publish its determination not to amend the test procedure.
DOE is publishing this NOPR in satisfaction of the statutory
authority specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE determined
that it was not necessary to do an early assessment request for
information prior to initiating this NOPR, as the requirement in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 8(a) to do an early assessment
applies only when DOE is considering amending a test procedure, not
establishing one. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to establish a new
test procedure for conventional cooking tops. Establishing performance-
based test procedures for conventional cooking tops is necessary prior
to establishing performance-based energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking tops, which DOE is required to evaluate under
EPCA. Thus, an early assessment as to whether to move forward with a
proposal to establish a test procedure for conventional cooking tops is
not necessary. Additionally, in the case of conventional cooking tops,
DOE has established a detailed administrative record in previous
dockets relating to test procedures for conventional cooking tops,
which included expansive product testing, data from that testing,
detailed test set up requirements, stakeholder input, and robust public
comment. This NOPR builds off of that prior work on developing a test
procedure for conventional cooking tops, which also obviates the need
for an early assessment for this rulemaking.

B. Background

As stated, DOE's existing test procedure for cooking products
appears at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I (``Uniform Test
Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Cooking Products''). The
current Federal test procedure provides for the testing of standby
power of microwave ovens, but currently there is not a Federal test
procedure applicable to conventional cooking tops.
DOE originally established test procedures for cooking products in
a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1978 (``May
1978 Final Rule''). 43 FR 20108, 20120-20128. In the years following,
DOE amended the test procedure for conventional cooking tops on several
occasions. Those amendments included the adoption of standby and off
mode provisions in a final rule published on October 31, 2012 (77 FR
65942, the ``October 2012 Final Rule'') that satisfied 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))
In a final rule published December 16, 2016 (``December 2016 Final
Rule''), DOE amended 10 CFR part 430 to incorporate by reference, for
use in the conventional cooking tops test procedure, the relevant
sections of Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
(``CENELEC'') Standard 60350-2:2013, ``Household electric appliances--
Part 2: Hobs--Method for measuring performance'' (``EN 60350-2:2013''),
which uses a water-heating test method to measure the energy
consumption of electric cooking tops, and extended the water-heating
test method specified in EN 60350-2:2013 to gas cooking tops. 81 FR
91418.
On August 18, 2020, DOE published a final rule (``August 2020 Final
Rule'') withdrawing the test procedure for conventional cooking tops.
85 FR 50757. DOE initiated the rulemaking for the August 2020 Final
Rule in response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') in which AHAM
asserted that the then-current test procedure for gas cooking tops was
not representative, and, for both gas and electric cooking tops, had
such a high level of variation that it did not produce accurate results
for certification and enforcement purposes and did not assist consumers
in making purchasing decisions based on energy efficiency (``AHAM
petition''). 85 FR 50757, 50760; see also 80 FR 17944 (Apr. 25, 2018).
At the time of the AHAM petition, the Federal test procedure for
cooking tops measured the integrated annual energy consumption of both
gas and electric cooking tops based on EN 60350-2:2013.\6\ See,
appendix I of 10 CFR part 430 subpart B edition revised as of January
1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The EN 60350-2:2013 test method was based on the same test
methods in the draft version of IEC 60350-2 Second Edition, at the
time of publication of the final rule adopting EN 60350-2:2013.
Based on the few comments received during the development of the
draft, DOE stated in the December 2016 Final Rule that it expected
the IEC procedure, once finalized, would retain the same basic test
method as contained in EN 60350-2:2013, and incorporated EN 60350-
2:2013 by reference in appendix I. 81 FR 91418, 91421 (Dec. 16,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE withdrew the test procedure for conventional cooking tops based
on test data submitted by outside parties. 85 FR 50757, 50760. Although
not all of the test results submitted by outside parties were from
testing that completely followed the DOE test procedure, these data
indicated that the test procedure for conventional cooking tops yielded
inconsistent results. Id. DOE's test data for electric cooking tops
from testing conducted as a single laboratory showed small variations.
Lab-to-lab test results submitted by AHAM showed high levels of
variation for gas and electric cooking tops. 85 FR 50757, 50763. DOE
determined that the inconsistency in results of such testing showed the
results to be unreliable, and at that time DOE determined it unduly
burdensome to leave that test procedure in place and require cooking
top tests be conducted

[[Page 60977]]

using that test method without further study to resolve those
inconsistencies. 85 FR 50757, 50760.
In January 2020, DOE initiated a round robin test program to
further investigate the water-heating approach and the issues raised in
the AHAM petition. This testing was on-going as of the August 2020
Final Rule and its results are discussed in section III of this NOPR.
Following the August 2020 Final Rule, DOE initiated an additional round
robin test program that is on-going at this time.

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to establish a new test procedure at 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, ``Uniform Test Method for the
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products.''
For use in appendix I1, DOE would also amend 10 CFR part 430 to
incorporate by reference the current version of the applicable industry
standard--IEC 60350-2 (Edition 2.0 2017-08), ``Household electric
cooking appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance''
(``IEC 60350-2:2017''). Appendix I1 would:

(1) Reduce the test burden and improve the repeatability and
reproducibility of IEC 60350-2:2017 by:
(a) Simplifying the test vessel selection process for electrical
cooking tops;
(b) Modifying the room temperature, product temperature, and
starting water temperature requirements;
(c) Providing an optional method for determining the initial
power setting to be used for measuring energy consumption of cooking
tops during the simmering period, based on a draft updated version
of IEC 60350-2;
(d) Providing criteria for determination of the simmering
setting during energy testing; and
(e) Normalizing the per-cycle energy use to account for the
water temperature at the end of the simmering period;
(2) Apply IEC 60350-2:2017 to the measurement of gas cooking
tops by including:
(a) Specifications for gas supply instrumentation and test
conditions;
(b) Test vessel selection based on nominal heat input rate;
(c) Adjustment methods and specifications for the maximum heat
input rate; and
(d) Target power density for the optional potential simmering
setting pre-selection test;
(3) Provide additional specifications, including:
(a) Definitions for operating modes, product configurations,
test settings, and instrumentation;
(b) Test conditions, including electrical supply characteristics
and water load mass tolerance;
(c) Instructions for product installation according to product
configuration; and
(d) Instructions for determining power settings for multi-ring
cooking zones and cooking zones with infinite power settings and
rotating knobs;
(4) Provide means for measuring cooking top annual energy use in
standby mode and off mode by:
(a) Applying IEC 62301 (First Edition 2005-06), ``Household
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power'' (``IEC 62301
First Edition'') and IEC 62301 (Edition 2.0 2011-01), ``Household
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power'' (``IEC 62301
Second Edition'');
(b) Defining the number of hours spent in combined low-power
mode; and
(c) Defining the allocation of combined low-power mode hours to
the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking
product; and
(5) Define the integrated annual energy use metric by specifying
the representative water load mass and the number of annual cooking
top cycles.

DOE is also proposing to add calculations of annual energy
consumption and estimated annual operating cost to 10 CFR 430.23(i);
and rename the test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I
(``appendix I'') to ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy
Consumption of Microwave Ovens.'' Table II.1 summarizes DOE's proposed
changes for the cooking tops test procedure compared to the current
industry test procedure, as well as the reasons for the proposed
provisions. DOE's proposed reorganization of appendix I is summarized
in Table II.2.

Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure for
Conventional Cooking Products Relative to the Industry Test Procedure
Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEC 60350-2:2017 test Proposed test
procedure procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addresses only electric Addresses both Include all
cooking tops. electric and gas covered cooking
cooking tops, tops.
including new
provisions specific
to gas test
conditions,
instrumentation, and
test conduct.
Includes an incomplete list of Includes definitions Improve
definitions. of operating modes, readability of
product test procedure.
configurations, power
settings, and
specialty cooking
zone.
Installation instructions Provides additional Improve
specify only that the cooking detail for the readability of
product is to be installed in installation test procedure.
accordance with manufacturer instructions, by
instructions. product
configuration, as
well as definitions
of those
configurations.
Does not include provisions Incorporates EPCA
for measuring standby mode provisions of IEC requirement.
and off mode energy. 62301 to measure
standby mode and off
mode power and
calculate annual
combined low-power
mode energy.
Specifies a room and product Specifies a room and Decrease test
temperature of 23 <plus- product temperature burden.
minus> 2 [deg]C. of 25 <plus-minus> 5
[deg]C. Specifies
that the temperature
must be stable,
defines stable
temperature, and
specifies how to
measure the product
temperature.
Specifies a starting water Specifies a starting Decrease test
temperature of 15 <plus- water temperature of burden.
minus> 0.5 [deg]C. 25 <plus-minus> 0.5
[deg]C.
Specifies complex requirements Requires the use of Improve
for determining test vessel the cookware that is readability of
sizes for cooking tops with 4 closest in size to test procedure
or more cooking zones, the heating element and decrease
requiring that the set of diameter, without test burden.
vessels comprise at least 3 consideration of
of 4 defined cookware size cookware size
categories. categories.
Does not include a tolerance Specifies a 0.5g Improve
on the mass of the water load. tolerance on the mass repeatability
of the water load. and
reproducibility
.
Requires the measurement of Offers the option of a Decrease test
all power settings spanning ``potential simmering burden.
the lowest available through setting pre-
the identified Energy Test selection'' test to
Cycle setting. reduce number of test
cycles needed to
identify the Energy
Test Cycle. Further
offers the option of
starting testing at a
known potential
simmering setting.

[[Page 60978]]

The measured energy The energy consumption Improve
consumption of the simmering of the simmering representativen
period is not normalized to period is normalized ess of test
account for a final water to represent a final results.
temperature above the nominal water temperature of
90 [deg]C. exactly 90 [deg]C.
Uses a 1000g water load to Uses a 2853g water Improve
normalize energy consumption. load to normalize representativen
energy consumption. ess of test
results.
Does not calculate annual Calculates annual Provide a
energy use. energy use based on representative
418 cooking cycles measure of
per year and 31 annual energy
minutes per cycle. consumption
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table II.2--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure for Microwave
Ovens Relative to Current Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed test
Current DOE test procedure procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix I title covers all Appendix I title Improve
cooking products, but refers only to readability of
includes test procedures only microwave ovens. test procedure.
for microwave ovens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed test procedure
described in section III of this NOPR would, if made final, produce
measurements of energy use that are representative of an average use
cycle and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Discussion of DOE's
proposed actions are addressed in detail in section III of this NOPR.
Additionally, DOE provides initial estimates of the cost of testing for
industry in section III.L of this document. DOE notes that there are
currently no performance-based energy conservation standards prescribed
for conventional cooking tops. Manufacturers would not be required to
conduct the proposed test procedure, if made final, until such time as
compliance is required with any future applicable standards that are
established, unless manufacturers voluntarily choose to make
representations as to the energy use or energy efficiency of a
conventional cooking top.

III. Discussion

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to establish a new test procedure
for conventional cooking tops in a proposed new appendix I1. The
proposed test procedure is based primarily on an industry standard for
measuring the energy consumption of electric cooking tops, IEC 60350-
2:2017, with certain adjustments and clarifications as discussed in the
following sections of this document. Whereas IEC 60350-2:2017 applies
only to electric cooking tops, the proposed methodology is extended to
gas cooking tops by means of additional instrumentation and test setup
provisions to allow for testing of this heating technology.
DOE is also proposing to rename existing appendix I to ``Uniform
Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Microwave Ovens''
to clarify that it applies only to microwave ovens.

A. Scope of Applicability

This rulemaking applies to conventional cooking tops, a category of
cooking products which are household cooking appliances consisting of a
horizontal surface containing one or more surface units that utilize a
gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating.
10 CFR 430.2. A conventional cooking top includes any conventional
cooking top component of a combined cooking product. 10 CFR 430.2.
As discussed in section I.A of this document, DOE has the authority
to establish and 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. Cooking
products are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or
more of the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave
energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing
one or more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments. 10
CFR 430.2.
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 established energy
conservation standard applies to each individual component of the
combined cooking product. As determined in the December 2016 Final
Rule, DOE proposes in this NOPR that the cooking top test procedures
would apply to the individual conventional cooking top portion of a
combined cooking product. See 81 FR 91418, 91423.
As discussed in the December 2016 Final Rule, 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 91418, 91423 (Dec. 16, 2016). As
discussed in section III.H.3 of this document, DOE is proposing similar
methods to those adopted in the December 2016 Final Rule to calculate
the integrated annual energy consumption of the conventional cooking
top component separately by allocating a portion of the combined low-
power mode energy consumption

[[Page 60979]]

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.

B. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 60350-2:2017 for Measuring Energy
Consumption

1. Water-Heating Test Methodology
As discussed previously, DOE is proposing to create a new appendix
I1 that would generally adopt the test procedure in IEC 60350-2:2017,
which is an industry test procedure that measures the energy
consumption of a cooking top using a water-heating method. In the IEC
60350-2:2017 test method, each heating element is tested individually
by heating a specified water load in a standardized test vessel at the
maximum power setting until the temperature of the water, including any
overshoot after reducing the input power, reaches 90 [deg]C (i.e., the
``heat-up period'').\7\ At that time, the power is reduced to a lower
setting so that the water temperature remains as close to 90 [deg]C as
possible, without dropping below that temperature threshold, for a 20-
minute period (i.e., the ``simmering period''). Energy consumption is
measured over the entire duration of the initial heat-up period and 20-
minute simmering period, which together comprise the Energy Test Cycle
for that heating element. The energy consumption for each heating
element is normalized by the weight of the tested water load and
averaged among all tested heating elements to obtain an average energy
consumption value for the cooking top, as discussed in section III.H.1
of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ See discussion of the turndown temperature in sections
III.B.2.a and III.E.5 of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both DOE's proposed new appendix I1 and IEC 60350-2:2017 on which
it is based are similar to the approach used in the earlier DOE test
procedure as established in the December 2016 Final Rule, which
incorporated certain provisions from EN 60350-2:2013. A more detailed
comparison of IEC 60350-2:2017 and EN 60350-2:2013 is provided in
section III.B.2 of this NOPR.
As discussed in the NOPR preceding the December 2016 Final Rule,
published on June 10, 2015 (``June 2015 NOPR''), manufacturers that
produce and sell products in Europe supported the use of a water-
heating test method and harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 \8\ for
measuring the energy consumption of electric cooking tops. 80 FR 33030,
33039-33040. Efficiency advocates also supported a water-heating test
method to produce a measure of cooking efficiency for conventional
cooking tops. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ At the time of the June 2015 NOPR, the second edition of the
IEC Standard 60350-2 was still in draft form. The second edition
published in August 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In January 2020, DOE commenced an initial round robin test program
to further investigate the suitability of the water-heating approach in
the then-current version of appendix I and to evaluate issues raised in
the AHAM petition. Ten cooking top units were tested according to the
then-current version of appendix I at three third-party certified
laboratories \9\ as well as one non-certified laboratory \10\ to
investigate the repeatability and reproducibility of the test
procedure. Each laboratory conducted three tests of each unit \11\ to
measure the annual energy consumption (excluding combined low-power
mode energy), yielding a coefficient of variation (``COV'') that can be
used to assess the repeatability of results. The averages between the
laboratories were also compared to determine a COV of reproducibility.
The results of this initial round robin testing are shown in Table
III.1 and Table III.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Three of the ten cooking tops were tested at two of the
three third-party certified laboratories, whereas the remaining
seven were tested at all three third-party certified laboratories.
\10\ Only the five electric cooking tops were tested at the non-
certified laboratory.
\11\ After reviewing data from Laboratory C and Laboratory D,
DOE has determined that not all tests were conducted according to
the now-withdrawn Appendix I test procedure. These tests were
removed from consideration, leaving some elements with only one or
two valid tests, instead of three. In these cases, Annual Energy Use
values were calculated using only the valid tests on each element.
Annual Energy Use values that are based on fewer than three valid
tests are marked with an asterisk in Table III.1.

Table III.1--Summary of Initial Round Robin Testing: Average Annual Energy Use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual energy use
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit No. Type Certified laboratory Certified laboratory Certified laboratory
A B C \12\ Laboratory D Overall average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ Electric-Coil..... 108.3 kWh............ 107.4 kWh............ n/a.................. 101.9 kWh............ 105.9 kWh
2................ Electric-Smooth 102.0 kWh............ 105.9 kWh............ n/a.................. 101.6 kWh **......... 103.2 kWh
(Radiant).
3................ Electric-Smooth 106.9 kWh............ 107.7 kWh............ 105.9 kWh *.......... 102.9 kWh **......... 105.8 kWh
(Radiant).
4................ Electric-Smooth 98.1 kWh............. 98.6 kWh............. 101.6 kWh **......... 101.0 kWh............ 99.8 kWh
(Induction).
5................ Electric-Smooth 97.7 kWh............. 98.3 kWh............. 99.8 kWh *........... 101.8 kWh **......... 98.4 kWh
(Induction).
6................ Gas............... 565 kBtu............. 648 kBtu............. 629 kBtu **.......... n/a.................. 614 kBtu
7................ Gas............... 724 kBtu............. 899 kBtu............. 789 kBtu............. n/a.................. 804 kBtu
8................ Gas............... 841 kBtu............. 913 kBtu............. n/a.................. n/a.................. 877 kBtu
9................ Gas............... 866 kBtu............. 937 kBtu............. 950 kBtu............. n/a.................. 918 kBtu
10............... Gas............... 869 kBtu............. 948 kBtu............. 997 kBtu............. n/a.................. 938 kBtu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only one valid test cycle, see footnote 11.
** Only two valid test cycles, see footnote 11.
``n/a'' represents units that were not tested at the laboratory in question.

[[Page 60980]]

Table III.2--Summary of Initial Round Robin Testing: Coefficients of Variation Assessing Repeatability and Reproducibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatability COV Reproducibility
---------------------------------------------------------------- COV among Reproducibility
Unit No. Type certified COV among all
Certified lab Certified lab Certified lab Lab D laboratories laboratories
A (%) B (%) C (%) (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................ Electric-Coil.............. 0.7 0.7 n/a 0.4 0.4 2.7
2........................ Electric-Smooth (Radiant).. 0.4 1.5 n/a ** 0.3 1.9 1.9
3........................ Electric-Smooth (Radiant).. 1.0 0.4 * ** 0.1 0.7 1.7
4........................ Electric-Smooth (Induction) 0.3 0.2 ** 1.4 0.5 1.6 1.5
5........................ Electric-Smooth (Induction) 0.6 1.2 * ** 0.9 0.9 1.6
6........................ Gas........................ 2.1 0.6 ** 1.1 n/a 5.8 ...............
7........................ Gas........................ 1.3 3.7 1.6 n/a 8.9 ...............
8........................ Gas........................ 0.3 0.7 n/a n/a 4.1 ...............
9........................ Gas........................ 1.1 1.4 2.3 n/a 4.0 ...............
10....................... Gas........................ 1.3 2.4 0.7 n/a 5.6 ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only one valid test cycle, see footnote 11.
** Only two valid test cycles, see footnote 11.
``n/a'' represents units that were not tested at the laboratory in question.

These initial round robin test results showed repeatability and
reproducibility COVs under 2 percent for electric cooking tops tested
at the certified laboratories. A COV of 2 percent has previously been
considered by some stakeholders to be an acceptable threshold for
repeatability and reproducibility. (AHAM, EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004, No. 25
at p. 4) \13\ As discussed, the test method employed (i.e., the then-
current DOE test procedure) relied generally on the methodology in EN
60350-2:2013. DOE also observed that, when extended to gas cooking
tops, this test methodology provided results with repeatability COVs
for gas cooking tops of 0.3-3.7 percent, and with reproducibility COVs
ranging from 4.0 to 8.9 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ The gas data at Laboratory C was measured using a
volumetric gas meter that must be read manually at the start and end
of the test instead of recording measurements continuously during
the test. In instances in which the start and end of the simmer
period were not identified during the test conduct, two manually-
recorded gas volume measurements at and near the end of the test
were recorded and used later to interpolate the gas volume used
during the Energy Test Cycle.
\13\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking regarding test
procedures for conventional cooking tops. The references are
arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page
of that document). (Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004, which is
maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results of the initial round robin test program were not
available for consideration at the time of the August 2020 Final Rule.
Since the August 2020 Final Rule, DOE has initiated further testing. In
particular, DOE initiated a second round robin in May 2021 in response
to changes to electric cooking tops on the market and to evaluate
variability in testing gas cooking tops.
In response to AHAM's petition, Whirlpool submitted comments
regarding the frequency of heating element cycling, stating that the
introduction of a ``coil surface unit cooking oil ignition test'' to
the 16th edition of the Underwriters Laboratory (``UL'') standard 858,
``Household Electric Ranges Standard for Safety'' (``UL 858'') resulted
in manufacturers making design changes to electric-coil cooking tops
that increased cycling frequency over shorter durations in order to
maintain a constant temperature. (Whirlpool, EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004, No.
20 at pp. 2-3)
The 16th edition of UL 858 published on November 7, 2014. On June
18, 2015, UL issued a revision to UL 858 that added a new performance
requirement for electric-coil cooking tops intended to address
unattended cooking, the ``Abnormal Operation--Coil Surface Unit Cooking
Oil Ignition Test.'' This revision had an effective date of April 4,
2019. Because the electric-coil cooking top in DOE's initial round
robin testing was purchased prior to that effective date, DOE could not
be certain whether that test unit contained design features that would
meet the performance specifications in the updated UL 858. To address
the lack of test data on electric-coil cooking tops that comply with
the UL 858 safety standard, DOE included one electric-coil cooking top
meeting the revised UL 858 safety standard in its second round robin,
which is being conducted according to the test procedure proposed in
this NOPR.
To address the reproducibility concerns with the prior gas cooking
top test results, DOE is also testing four gas cooking tops, according
to the test procedure proposed in this NOPR. As discussed in the
following sections, several of the test procedure provisions proposed
in this NOPR are intended to specifically reduce the testing
variability for gas cooking tops. The second round robin test program
is on-going at this time. Once complete, the results will be made
available for comment and summarized for inclusion in the docket for
this rulemaking.
DOE proposes to use a water-heating method, based primarily on IEC
60350-2:2017, to measure cooking top energy consumption, but with
modifications to extend the test methodology to gas cooking tops and to
reduce the variability of test results, as discussed in sections III.C
through III.E of this NOPR.
2. IEC 60350-2:2017
After the publication of the December 2016 Final Rule, IEC issued
the 2017 version of IEC 60350-2. This updated edition included
informative methodology for significantly reducing testing burden
during the determination of the simmering setting. This updated version
retains substantively the same provisions for the water-heating
methodology evaluated in the first round robin testing and provides the
basis for the test procedure being evaluated in the second round robin
testing, with certain modifications. DOE proposes in this NOPR to
incorporate certain provisions of IEC 60350-2:2017 for measuring the
energy consumption of cooking tops. DOE further proposes certain
modifications and clarifications to the referenced sections of IEC
60350-2:2017. The relevant provisions of IEC 60350-2:2017 and the
proposed modifications to the industry standard are discussed in the
following sections.

[[Page 60981]]

a. Temperature Averaging
In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE discussed that the water
temperature may occasionally oscillate slightly above and below 90
[deg]C due to minor fluctuations (i.e., ``noise'') in the temperature
measurement. 81 FR 91418, 91430. These temperature oscillations may
cause difficulty in determining when the 20-minute simmering period
starts after the water temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C. EN 60350-
2:2013 did not contain provisions that addressed issues of temperature
oscillations. In contrast, IEC 60350-2:2017 introduces the use of
``smoothened'' temperature measurements to minimize the effect of minor
temperature oscillations in determining the water temperature. The
smoothened water temperature is calculated as a 40-second moving-
average over the period 20 seconds before to 20 seconds after each
instantaneous temperature measurement.
DOE has evaluated the impact of implementing ``smoothened'' water
temperature averaging on two aspects of the test procedure: (1)
Validating that the water temperature at which the power setting is
reduced during the energy test (i.e., the ``turndown temperature'') was
within a certain defined tolerance; and (2) the determination of the
start of the 20-minute simmering period.
Regarding validation of the turndown temperature, Section 7.5.2.1
of IEC 60350-2:2017 provides a methodology for conducting a preliminary
test to determine the water temperature at which the power setting will
be reduced to the ``simmering setting'' during the subsequent energy
test (i.e., the ``target'' turndown temperature). Section 7.5.3 of IEC
60350-2:2017 specifies that while conducting the energy test, the water
temperature when the power setting is reduced (i.e., the ``measured''
turndown temperature) must be recorded. Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-
2:2017 provides a methodology for validating that the measured turndown
temperature was within a tolerance of +1 [deg]C/-0.5 [deg]C of the
target turndown temperature. Section 7.5.4.1 requires that this
validation be performed based on the smoothened water temperature (as
described previously) rather than using the instantaneous measured
water temperature.
DOE testing suggests that using the smoothened water temperature
measurement, rather than the instantaneous water temperature
measurement, to validate that the measured turndown temperature was
within the specified tolerance of the target turndown temperature could
introduce unnecessary test burden by invalidating test cycles that
otherwise would have been valid if the instantaneous water temperature
measurement had been used instead (as was previously required by EN
60350-2:2013). The potential for this to occur is highest for cooking
top types that have particularly fast water temperature response times
to changes in input power; e.g., electric-smooth radiant and induction
types. On such products, the rate at which the water temperature rises
begins to quickly drop (i.e., the temperature rise ``flattens'' out)
within a few seconds after the power setting is turned down to the
simmering setting. Because the smoothened water temperature calculation
incorporates 20 seconds of forward-looking data into the average during
which time the temperature curve is flattening out, the smoothened
turndown temperature can be a few degrees lower than the instantaneous
turndown temperature. This can result in a measured turndown
temperature that is within the allowable tolerance of the target
turndown temperature based on the instantaneous water temperature, but
below the allowable tolerance when determined based on the smoothened
average method (and thus invalid). On such products, using the
instantaneous water temperature, rather than the smoothened water
temperature, would provide a more accurate and representative
validation that the measured turndown temperature was within the
specified tolerance of the target turndown temperature.
To illustrate this, DOE conducted an analysis to evaluate the use
of the smoothened water temperature to validate whether the measured
turndown temperature was within the allowable tolerance of the target
turndown temperature for test cycles that were deemed valid using the
instantaneous water temperature. DOE used water temperature data from
tests conducted according to the now-withdrawn DOE test procedure for
cooking tops that was smoothened post-test for the purpose of this
analysis. Table III.3 presents a summary of the percentage of test
cycles previously validated with the instantaneous water temperature
measurements that did not remain within the specified tolerance when
evaluated based on the smoothened water temperature.

Table III.3--Percentage of Test Cycles Deemed Valid Using Instantaneous Water Temperature That Would Be Deemed
Invalid Using Smoothened Water Temperature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
invalid test
Unit # Type Number of test cycles based on
cycles evaluated smoothened
temperature (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... Electric-Coil..................... 48 0
2....................................... Electric-Smooth (Radiant)......... 48 13
3....................................... Electric-Smooth (Radiant)......... 60 5
4....................................... Electric-Smooth (Induction)....... 48 52
5....................................... Electric-Smooth (Induction)....... 48 27
6....................................... Gas............................... 48 0
7....................................... Gas............................... 48 0
8....................................... Gas............................... 45 0
9....................................... Gas............................... 48 0
10...................................... Gas............................... 48 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As indicated in Table III.3, all four electric-smooth cooking tops
exhibited test cycles for which the measured turndown temperature was
within the allowable tolerance of the target turndown temperature based
on the instantaneous water temperature, but below the allowable
tolerance (and thus invalid) when determined based on the

[[Page 60982]]

smoothened water temperature. DOE has tentatively determined that the
requirement in IEC 60350-2:2017 to use the smoothened water temperature
measurement, rather than the instantaneous water temperature
measurement, to validate that the measured turndown temperature was
within the specified tolerance of the target turndown temperature may
be unduly burdensome, particularly for electric-smooth radiant and
induction cooking tops. Therefore, proposed new appendix I1 specifies
that the instantaneous water temperature measurement (rather than the
smoothened water temperature measurement) be used to validate that the
measured turndown temperature was within +1 [deg]C/-0.5 [deg]C of the
target turndown temperature.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that the
instantaneous, rather than the smoothened, water temperature at which
the power setting is reduced during the energy test be within +1
[deg]C/-0.5 [deg]C of the target turndown temperature.
Regarding the determination of the start of the 20-minute simmering
period, DOE analyzed approaches for determining the start of the
simmering period that account for water temperature fluctuations.
Section 7.5.3 of IEC 60350-2:2017 specifies that the start of the 20-
minute simmering period is when the water temperature first meets or
exceeds 90 [deg]C. The 2016 version of appendix I \14\ allowed for a
brief ``grace period'' after the water temperature initially reached 90
[deg]C, during which temperature fluctuations below 90 [deg]C for up to
20 seconds were permitted without changing the determination of whether
the power setting under test met the requirements for a simmering
setting (namely, maintaining the water temperature above 90 [deg]C for
20 minutes). For this NOPR analysis, DOE analyzed test data from the
initial January 2020 round robin test program and observed that none of
the test cycles that had required such a ``grace period'' when
evaluating the start of the simmering period using the instantaneous
water temperature needed such an allowance when using the smoothened
water temperature approach described in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-
2:2017; that is, for those test cycles, the smoothened water
temperature did not drop below 90 [deg]C after the initial time it
reached that temperature. Therefore, DOE is proposing in proposed new
appendix I1 to determine the start of the simmering period as defined
in Sections 7.5.3 and 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017, using the smoothened
water temperature and without further qualification (i.e., not
including any ``grace period''). DOE tentatively concludes that a grace
period is unnecessary when relying on smoothened water temperature and
such a provision could cause confusion regarding the start time of the
20-minute simmering period, which in turn could reduce repeatability
and reproducibility of the test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ The term ``the 2016 version of appendix I'' refers to the
version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comment on its proposal to include the requirement to
evaluate the start of the simmering period as the time that the 40-
second ``smoothened'' average water temperature first meets or exceeds
90 [deg]C.
To add further clarity, DOE is proposing to add a definition of
``smoothened water temperature'' to section 1 of proposed new appendix
I1, which would specify that the averaged values be rounded to the
nearest 0.1 [deg]C, in accordance with the resolution requirements of
IEC 60350-2:2017. DOE is proposing to define smoothened water
temperature as ``the 40-second moving-average temperature as calculated
in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017, rounded to the nearest 0.1
degree Celsius.''
DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of smoothened water
temperature as well as its proposal to require the smoothened water
temperature be rounded to the nearest 0.1 [deg]C.
Water Hardness
Section 7.1.Z6.1 of EN 60350-2:2013 and Section 7.6 of IEC 60350-
2:2017 specify that the test water shall be potable, while Section
7.5.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017 further states that distilled water may be
used to avoid lime sediment. Based on DOE's January 2020 round robin
test results that showed high reproducibility among three certified
test laboratories with different water supplies that were not subject
to specific tolerances on water hardness (see Table III.2), DOE does
not expect the use of distilled water to significantly affect the
energy use of the cooking top in comparison to test results that would
be obtained using water with a hardness within potable limits.\15\ DOE
has also tentatively determined that a reduction in lime sediment could
extend the lifetime of the test vessels. Therefore, DOE proposes to
allow the use of distilled water in proposed new appendix I1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ While the United States does not regulate the water
hardness of drinking water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'') has established non-mandatory Secondary Drinking Water
Standards that provide limits on contaminants that may cause
cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic
effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. These
secondary standards specify a maximum limit of 500 milligrams/liter
of total dissolved solids. The table of secondary standards is
available at: <a href="http://www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals#table">www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals#table</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow the use of distilled
water for testing in the proposed new appendix I1.
Cooking Top Preparation
Section 7.1.Z6.1 of EN 60350-2:2013 specifies that before the
energy consumption measurement is conducted, the cooking top shall be
operated for at least 10 minutes to ensure that residual water in the
components is vaporized. (Residual water may accumulate in the
components during the manufacturing process, shipping, or storage of a
unit.) In the past, DOE received questions from test laboratories on
how frequently this cooking top pre-test preparation should be
conducted. Section 7.5.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017 includes a similar
requirement and clarifies that this vaporization process need only be
run once per tested unit. As DOE would expect that conducting the
vaporization process once would be sufficient to eliminate residual
water, DOE is proposing that the vaporization process need only be run
once per tested unit by adopting the provision in IEC 60350-2:2017 in
proposed new appendix I1.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to include the cooking top
preparation requirements for water vaporization from IEC 60350-2:2017
in its proposed new appendix I1.

C. Modifications to IEC 60350-2:2017 Methodology To Reduce Testing
Burden

1. Test Vessel Selection for Electric Cooking Tops
Section 5.6.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017 specifies a set of standardized
cylindrical test vessels and respective lids of varying diameters,
measured in millimeters (``mm'') that must be used for conducting the
cooking top energy consumption tests. Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC
60350-2:2017 defines four ``standardized cookware categories \16\''

[[Page 60983]]

that are used to group test vessels by diameter range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The four categories are defined as A, B, C, and D. The
vessel diameters associated with each category are as follows:
Category A: 120 mm and 150 mm; Category B: 180 mm; Category C: 210
mm and 240 mm; and Category D: 270 mm, 300 mm, and 330 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sections 6.3 and 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2017 specify a procedure to
select the set of test vessels necessary to conduct testing for an
electric cooking top. The process requires determining the number of
cooking zones based on the number of controls that can be operated
independently at the same time. For cooking tops without limitative
markings, Annex A of IEC 60350-2:2017 defines the set of test vessels
to be used for testing all of the cooking zones on the cooking top,
based on the number of cooking zones.
For electric cooking tops with limitative markings (the most
common), an initial test vessel selection is made based on matching the
outermost diameter of the markings to the outer diameter of a
corresponding test vessel, using Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC
60350-2:2017. IEC 60350-2:2017 specifies in Table 4 of Section 7.3 that
for electric cooking tops with four or more controls, the set of test
vessels used to test the cooking top must comprise at least three of
the standardized cookware categories. If the initially selected test
vessel set does not meet this criterion, a substitution must be made
using the next best-fitting test vessel from one of the other
standardized cookware categories. If a selected test vessel size is out
of the range of the sizes allowed by the user manual, the closest
compatible diameter is to be used.
DOE has tentatively determined through a market survey of electric
cooking tops that the typical difference in diameter between the
initial test vessel selection and the substituted test vessel is less
than 30 mm, suggesting that the energy consumption using the
substituted test vessel compared to using the test vessel whose
diameter is closest to the heating element diameter will not
substantially differ, and that any corresponding difference in measured
energy consumption for the entire cooking top will be even more
minimal. DOE has also observed through testing conducted in support of
the December 2016 Final Rule that the complex test vessel selection
process has, in some cases, resulted in electric cooking tops being
tested with the wrong set of test vessels.
To reduce the burden of implementing the complex test vessel
selection procedure and to thereby improve test procedure
reproducibility, DOE is proposing to require much simpler test vessel
selection criteria for proposed new appendix I1. Specifically, DOE
proposes that for electric cooking tops with limitative markings, each
cooking zone would be tested with the test vessel that most closely
matches the outer diameter of the marking, from among the test vessels
defined in Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC 60350-2:2017. Table A.1 in
Annex A of IEC 60350-2:2017 would be used to determine the set of test
vessels required for electric cooking tops without limitative markings,
for which such matching of test vessel diameter to limitative marking
diameter is not possible. To ensure that these approaches are properly
implemented, DOE is additionally proposing to explicitly exclude the
provisions from Section 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2017 in proposed new
appendix I1. DOE is further proposing that if a selected test vessel
cannot be centered on the cooking zone due to interference with a
structural component of the cooking top (for example, a raised outer
border), the test vessel with the largest diameter that can be centered
on the cooking zone be used instead. This process of vessel selection
would reflect expected consumer practice of matching cookware to the
size of a heating element (i.e., cookware is placed on the burner that
is the closest in size to the cookware).
DOE requests comment on its proposal to exclude the provisions from
Section 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2017 and instead require that each cooking
zone be tested with the test vessel that most closely matches the outer
diameter of the marking for electric cooking tops with limitative
markings; and that Table A.1 of Annex A of IEC 60350-2:2017 be used to
define the test vessels for electric cooking tops without limitative
markings. DOE also requests comment on its proposal to substitute the
largest test vessel that can be centered on the cooking zone in the
case where a structural component of the cooking top interferes with
the test vessel.
2. Temperature Specifications
a. Room Temperature
Section 5.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017 specifies an ambient room
temperature of 23 <plus-minus> 2 [deg]C for the tests conducted under
proposed new appendix I1. From discussions with cooking top
manufacturers as part of a task force that AHAM assembled to update its
cooking product test procedures,\17\ DOE is aware that conducting
energy testing on cooking tops in the same conditioned space that
safety testing is conducted could significantly reduce testing burden.
Section 40 of UL 858, a relevant safety standard for cooking tops,
requires a room temperature of 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C for certain
safety testing that manufacturers are likely conducting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The AHAM cooking product task force includes AHAM member
manufacturers, a representative of the Appliance Standard Awareness
Project, and DOE members and contractors. The task force's first
meeting was in January 2021. The task force has been developing test
procedures for electric and gas cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IEC ambient room temperature specifications (23 <plus-minus> 2
[deg]C) are within the range allowed by UL 858 (25 <plus-minus> 5
[deg]C). Based on its understanding of the primary heat transfer
mechanisms to the water load (i.e., by conduction to the test vessel
for electric-coil and electric-smooth cooking tops other than induction
type; by joule heating in the test vessel itself by induced eddy
currents for electric-smooth induction cooking tops; and by convective
heat transfer from the flames and conduction from the grates for gas
cooking tops), DOE does not expect that the slightly different nominal
value and larger tolerance on the ambient room temperature
(corresponding to the range allowed by UL 858) would significantly
impact the measured cooking top energy consumption. In consideration of
this relatively minimal impact on testing results and the potential for
significant reduction in test burden on manufacturers, DOE has
tentatively determined that expanding the ambient temperature tolerance
to match that used for safety testing (i.e., 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C)
would be warranted and would not impact repeatability or
reproducibility of the test procedure. To address concerns raised by
manufacturers in the AHAM task force that test laboratories could
consistently test at the extremes of the temperature tolerances, DOE is
proposing to specify that the target ambient room temperature is the
nominal midpoint of the temperature range. Therefore, DOE is proposing
in proposed new appendix I1 to specify an ambient room temperature of
25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C, with a target temperature of 25 [deg]C.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify an ambient room
temperature of 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C.
Product Temperature
Section 5.5 of IEC 60350-2:2017 specifies that the product shall be
at the laboratory's ambient temperature at the beginning of each test,
and that forced cooling may be used to assist in reducing the
temperature from a prior test. This provision ensures a repeatable
starting temperature of the cooking top prior to testing. A cooking top
that is warmer or colder than the ambient temperature would consume a
different amount of energy during testing. Section 5.5 of IEC 60350-
2:2017 does not specify how to measure the temperature of the product
prior to each test.

[[Page 60984]]

DOE is proposing to require that the product temperature must be
stable, which DOE is proposing to define as ``a temperature that does
not vary by more than 1 [deg]C over a 5-minute period.'' DOE is also
proposing to specify that forced cooling must not be used during the
period of time used to assess temperature stability.
DOE is further proposing to specify where to measure the
temperature of the product. Prior to any active mode testing, the
product temperature would be measured at the center of the cooking zone
under test. Prior to the standby mode and off mode power test, the
product temperature would be measured as the average of the temperature
measured at the center of each cooking zone.
DOE requests comments on its proposal to require that the product
temperature be stable, its proposed definition of a stable temperature,
and its proposed methods for measuring the product temperature for
active mode testing as well as standby mode and off mode power testing.
Initial Water Temperature
Section 7.5.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017 specifies an initial water
temperature of 15 <plus-minus> 0.5 [deg]C, and that the test vessel
should not be stored in a refrigerator to avoid the rims getting ``too
cold.'' As part of conversations within the AHAM task force in which
DOE has participated, manufacturers have expressed concerns regarding
the test burden of maintaining a supply of water for test loads that is
colder than the ambient temperature, especially when the test vessels
cannot be placed in a refrigerator prior to testing.
As discussed, DOE is proposing to specify an ambient room
temperature of 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C. DOE expects that using an
initial nominal temperature of 25 [deg]C, rather than the currently
specified 15 [deg]C, would not impact the repeatability and
reproducibility of the test procedure. Furthermore, DOE expects that an
initial nominal temperature of 25 [deg]C may more accurately represent
an average temperature of food or water loads with which consumers
would fill their cookware prior to the start of a cooking cycle. DOE
surmises that consumers would be expected to fill cookware not only
with refrigerated foods or water from the cold water supply (i.e., food
and water loads at 15 [deg]C or lower), but also with water from the
hot water supply and food items at room temperature (i.e., food and
water loads at 25 [deg]C or higher).
DOE tentatively determines, however, that it is critical to
maintain the tolerance of <plus-minus> 0.5 [deg]C on the initial water
temperature as specified by IEC 60350-2:2017 so that the energy
consumption during the initial heat-up phase to 90 [deg]C is repeatable
and reproducible. DOE has tentatively determined that it is not
feasible to normalize the measured energy consumption to reflect
different starting water temperatures due to the non-linearity of the
water temperature curve during the initial portion of the test. As
shown in Figure III.1, the rate of temperature rise of the water during
the initial minutes of the test is significantly lower than during the
remainder of the heat-up phase because in the initial minutes of the
test, the cooking top itself and the test vessel are both heating up,
such that a substantive portion of the input power is not transferred
directly to the water load. The specific shape of the non-linear water
temperature rise during this initial portion of the test is highly
dependent on multiple factors, including heating technology, thermal
mass of the cooking top, and, for gas cooking tops, the design of the
burner system. DOE does not have sufficient data at this time to
determine whether a single methodology for normalizing the energy use
could be developed to accommodate the wide variety of cooktop heating
technologies and designs. For these reasons, DOE proposes to maintain a
tolerance of <plus-minus> 0.5 [deg]C on the initial water temperature
as specified by IEC 60350-2:2017.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04NO21.000

In summary, DOE is proposing to specify in proposed new appendix I1
that the water must have an initial temperature of 25 <plus-minus> 0.5
[deg]C.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify an initial water
temperature of 25 <plus-minus> 0.5 [deg]C.

[[Page 60985]]

3. Optional Potential Simmering Setting Pre-Selection Test
As discussed, DOE is proposing to adopt the water-heating
methodology in IEC 60350-2:2017, which consists of measuring energy
consumption during an initial heat-up period and a subsequent 20-minute
simmering period, which together comprise the Energy Test Cycle.
Conducting the IEC 60350-2:2017 test method requires the determination
of the simmering setting by means of repeated test cycles, each with a
successively higher input power setting after turndown, starting with
the lowest input setting. This methodology can require a laboratory to
conduct numerous test cycles before identifying the one in which the
simmering period criteria are met.
In March of 2021, IEC released to its associated committee members
a Final Draft International Standard (``IEC 60350-2:FDIS'') amendment
to IEC 60350-2:2017, which was approved by the members in April 2021.
Although an amended version of the IEC test method has not yet
published, DOE is proposing to include several of the relevant changes
into proposed new appendix I1. If IEC were to publish the amended
version of the standard that includes these amendments prior to the
publication of any final rule, DOE would consider incorporating by
reference the updated version of the IEC test method instead of
including each of these specific provisions in proposed new appendix
I1.
Annex H of IEC 60350-2:FDIS provides an informative test method for
determining the potential simmering setting (i.e., the first setting
used to conduct a simmering test in order to determine the simmering
setting). Annex H states that, for electric cooking tops, empirical
test data show that the power density of the minimum-above-threshold
power setting (i.e., simmering setting) is close to 0.8 watts per
square centimeter (``W/cm\2\'').\18\ The method in Annex H provides a
means to determine which power setting is closest to the target power
density, and thus to more easily identify the first power setting that
may be used for determining which power setting will be used for the
Energy Test Cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The power density is defined as the average wattage of the
power setting divided by the area of the cookware bottom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to manufacturer concerns regarding the test burden of
IEC 60350-2:2017, DOE is proposing to include the procedure from Annex
H of IEC 60350-2:FDIS in its proposed new appendix I1. In DOE's testing
experience, using this ``pre-selection test'' can significantly reduce
the test burden associated with determining the simmering setting to be
used for the Energy Test Cycle. Although this would represent an
additional procedure, performing the potential simmering setting pre-
selection test can reduce the number of tests cycles necessary to
determine the Energy Test Cycle from as many as 12 to as few as two;
thus, the net overall testing time for a cooking top may be
substantially shorter.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The potential simmering setting pre-selection tests takes
10 minutes per power setting tested (with no cool-down required
between each test), whereas testing each setting as described in IEC
60350-2:2017 takes approximately 1 hour per power setting tested
(including cool-down time between each test).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with Annex H of IEC 60350-2:FDIS, DOE is proposing that
during the potential simmering setting pre-selection test, the power
density measurement be repeated for each successively higher power
setting until the measured power density exceeds the specified
threshold power density. Of the last two power settings tested (i.e.,
the last one that results in a power density below the threshold and
the first one that results in a power density above the threshold), the
potential simmering setting would be the power setting that produces a
power density closest to the threshold value. The closest power density
may be higher or lower than the applicable threshold value.
DOE is further proposing to make the potential simmering setting
pre-selection test optional. If the tester has prior knowledge of the
unit's operation and has previously determined through a different
method which power setting is the potential simmering setting, DOE
proposes that the tester may use that setting as the initial power
setting for the test cycles. Irrespective of the method used for
determining the potential simmering setting, a valid test shall confirm
whether the power setting under test meets the requirements of an
Energy Test Cycle (see section III.C.4 of this NOPR). If a tester
decides to use a different method to select the potential simmering
setting, and chooses an incorrect power setting, the tester may then be
required to conduct additional simmering tests until finding the power
setting that meets the requirements of an Energy Test Cycle.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to include the potential
simmering setting pre-selection test specified in Annex H of IEC 60350-
2:FDIS as an optional test in proposed new appendix I1. DOE also
requests comment on its proposal to allow that if the tester has prior
knowledge of the unit's operation and has previously determined through
a different method which power setting is the potential simmering
setting, the tester may use that setting as the initial power setting
for the test cycles.
4. Determination of the Simmering Setting
IEC 60350-2:FDIS adds a clause to Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-
2:2017 stating that if the smoothened water temperature is measured to
be below 90 [deg]C during the simmering period, the energy consumption
measurement shall be repeated with an increased power setting. The new
clause also adds that if the smoothened water temperature is measured
to be above 91 [deg]C during the simmering period, the test cycle is
repeated using next lower power setting and checked in order to
guarantee that the lowest possible power setting that remains above 90
[deg]C is identified for the Energy Test Cycle. DOE infers from this
new clause that if the smoothened water temperature does not drop below
90 [deg]C or rise above 91 [deg]C during the simmering period, no
additional testing is needed. This new clause provides clarity as to
what setting is ``as close to 90 [deg]C as possible,'' as required in
Section 7.5.2.2 of IEC 60350-2:2017, and therefore improves the
reproducibility of the simmering setting determination.
DOE is proposing to define the ``maximum-below-threshold power
setting'' as ``the power setting on a conventional cooking top that is
the highest power setting that results in smoothened water temperature
data that does not meet the evaluation criteria specified in Section
7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017;'' and to defined the ``minimum-above-
threshold power setting'' as ``the power setting on a conventional
cooking top that is the lowest power setting that results in smoothened
water temperature data that meet the evaluation criteria specified in
Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017. This power setting is also
referred to as the simmering setting.''
DOE is proposing to include a flow chart in proposed new Appendix
I1 that would require that any valid \20\ simmering test conducted
according to Section 7.5.2 of IEC 60350-2:2017 to be evaluated as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ DOE proposes to define a valid simmering test as one where
the test conditions in section 2 of Appendix I1 are met and the
measured water temperature at the time the power setting is reduced,
Tc, must be within -0.5 [deg]C and +1 [deg]C of the target turndown
temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) If the smoothened temperature does not exceed 91 [deg]C or drop
below 90 [deg]C at any time in the 20-minute period

[[Page 60986]]

following t90,the power setting under test is considered to be the
simmering setting, and no further evaluation or testing is required.
The test is considered the Energy Test Cycle.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ t90 is the start of the simmering period and is defined as
the time at which the smoothened water temperature first meets or
exceeds 90 [deg]C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) If the smoothened temperature exceeds 91 [deg]C and does not
drop below 90 [deg]C at any time in the 20-minute period following t90,
the power setting under test is considered to be above the threshold
power setting. The simmering test is repeated using the next lower
power setting, after allowing the product temperature to return to
ambient conditions, until two consecutive power settings have been
determined to be above the threshold power setting and below the
threshold power setting, respectively. These power settings are
considered to be the minimum-above-threshold power setting and the
maximum-below-threshold power setting, respectively. The energy
consumption representative of an Energy Test Cycle is calculated based
on an interpolation of the energy use of both of these cycles, as
discussed in section III.C.5 of this NOPR.
(3) If the smoothened temperature drops below 90 [deg]C at any time
in the 20-minute period following t90, the power setting under test is
considered to be below the threshold power setting. The simmering test
is repeated using the next higher power setting, after allowing the
product temperature to return to ambient conditions, until two
consecutive power settings have been determined to be above the
threshold power setting and below the threshold power setting,
respectively. These power settings are considered to be the minimum-
above-threshold power setting and the maximum-below-threshold power
setting, respectively. The energy consumption representative of an
Energy Test Cycle is calculated based on an interpolation of the energy
use of both of these cycles, as discussed in section III.C.5 of this
NOPR.
DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of the minimum-
above-threshold power setting and the maximum-below-threshold power
setting, and on its proposed methodology for determining the simmering
setting.
5. Normalizing Per-Cycle Energy Use for the Final Water Temperature
As discussed, the test conduct can conclude with either a single
Energy Test Cycle wherein the smoothened water temperature during the
simmering period remains between 90 [deg]C and 91 [deg]C, or with a
pair of cycles designated as the minimum-above-threshold cycle (wherein
the smoothened water temperature during the simmering period remains
above 90 [deg]C, and for a portion of the time exceeds 91 [deg]C) and
the maximum-below-threshold cycle (wherein the smoothened water
temperature during the simmering period does not remain above 90
[deg]C). In IEC 60350-2:2017, energy use is calculated based on the
minimum-above-threshold cycle, regardless of whether the smoothened
water temperature exceeds 91 [deg]C during the simmering period.
In conversations as part of the AHAM task force in which DOE has
participated, some manufacturers have expressed concerns that a test
cycle with a water temperature at the end of the simmering period that
is above 91 [deg]C may not be comparable to a test cycle with a water
temperature at the end of the simmering period that is closer to 90
[deg]C, particularly because there is no limit on how far above 91
[deg]C the final water temperature may be (so long as the setting is
the minimum-above-threshold cycle). This concern is particularly
relevant to cooking tops with a small number of discrete power settings
that result in relatively large differences in simmering temperature
between each setting. In addition, repeatably identifying the minimum-
above-threshold cycle is particularly challenging for cooking tops with
continuous (i.e., infinite) power settings.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See section III.E.3 of this NOPR for further discussion of
the proposed methodology for cooking tops with infinite power
settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to reduce test burden on cooking tops with infinite power
settings, and to provide comparable energy use for all cooking tops
including those with discrete power settings, DOE is proposing to
normalize the energy use of the minimum-above-threshold cycle to
represent an Energy Test Cycle with a final water temperature of
exactly 90 [deg]C, using an interpolation of the energy use of the
maximum-below-threshold cycle and the respective final smoothened water
temperatures. DOE is proposing to not perform this normalization on
test cycles where the smoothened water temperature during the simmering
period does not exceed 91 [deg]C, because IEC 60350-2:2017 does not
require the next lowest power setting to be tested under these
circumstances, and DOE has tentatively determined the extra test burden
would not be warranted by the resulting small adjustment to the energy
use.
DOE is further proposing that if the minimum-above-threshold power
setting is the lowest available power setting on the heating element
under test, or if the smoothened water temperature during the maximum-
below-threshold power setting does not meet or exceed 90 [deg]C during
a 20-minute period following the time the power setting is reduced, a
normalization calculation would not be possible. Under these
circumstances, DOE proposes that the minimum-above-threshold power
setting test is the Energy Test Cycle.
DOE is considering whether the smoothened final water temperature
is the most appropriate measurement to perform this normalization and
may consider using a different metric as the basis for normalization,
such as the average temperature of the water during the 20-minute
simmering period or the maximum smoothened water temperature during the
20-minute simmering period. DOE may also consider other methods of
normalizing the energy use of a heating element to provide comparable
energy use for all cooking tops including those with discrete power
settings.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to normalize the energy use of
the tested cycle if the smoothened water temperature exceeds 91 [deg]C
during the simmering period, to represent an Energy Test Cycle with a
final water of 90 [deg]C. DOE specifically requests comment on its
proposal to use the smoothened final water temperature to perform this
normalization and on whether a different normalization method would be
more appropriate. DOE also requests comment on its proposal to not
require the normalization when the smoothened water temperature remains
between 90 [deg]C and 91 [deg]C during the simmering period, when the
minimum-above-threshold power setting is the lowest available power
setting on the heating element under test, or when the smoothened water
temperature during the maximum-below-threshold power setting does not
meet or exceed 90 [deg]C during a 20-minute period following the time
the power setting is reduced.

D. Extension of Methodology to Gas Cooking Tops

The IEC 60350-2:2017 test method is designed for testing the energy
consumption of electric cooking tops. DOE extended this methodology to
gas cooking tops in the December 2016 Final Rule, based on the
incorporation of test provisions in the European Standard EN 30-2-
1:1998, ``Domestic cooking appliances burning gas--Part 2-

[[Page 60987]]

1: Rational use of energy--General'' (``EN 30-2-1''). After further
consideration for this NOPR, similar to the prior DOE test procedure
for gas cooking tops, DOE is proposing to include certain
specifications for testing gas cooking tops based on EN 30-2-1, but
with additional provisions to clarify testing requirements and improve
the reproducibility of test results for gas cooking tops. Round robin
testing of gas cooking tops, as presented in section III.B.1 of this
NOPR and additional analysis described in the following sections
suggest that a test procedure based on IEC 60350-2:2017 and EN 30-2-1,
with modification as proposed in this NOPR, would provide test results
with acceptable repeatability and reproducibility for gas cooking tops.
1. Gas Test Conditions
DOE is proposing that the supply pressure immediately ahead of all
controls of the gas cooking top under test must be between 7 and 10
inches of water column for testing with natural gas, and between 11 and
13 inches of water column for testing with propane. DOE is further
proposing to specify that the higher heating value of natural gas be
approximately 1,025 British thermal units (``Btu'') per standard cubic
foot, and that the higher heating value of propane be approximately
2,500 Btu per standard cubic foot. These values are consistent with
industry standards, and other DOE test procedure for gas-fired
appliances.
DOE is also proposing to define a standard cubic foot of gas as
``the quantity of gas that occupies 1 cubic foot when saturated with
water vapor at a temperature of 60 [deg]F and a pressure of 14.73
pounds per square inch (101.6 kPa).'' Standard cubic feet are used to
measure the energy use of a gas appliance in a repeatable manner
despite potential variation in the gas line conditions.
DOE requests comment on its proposed test conditions for gas
cooking tops, and its proposed definition of a standard cubic foot of
gas.
2. Gas Supply Instrumentation
DOE is proposing to specify in proposed new appendix I1 a gas meter
for testing gas cooking tops using the same specifications as in the
2016 version of appendix I, which read as follows: The gas meter used
for measuring gas consumption must have a resolution of 0.01 cubic foot
or less and a maximum error no greater than 1 percent of the measured
valued for any demand greater than 2.2 cubic feet per hour.
DOE is proposing to include in section 4.1.1.2.1 of proposed new
appendix I1 the formula for the correction factor to standard
temperature and pressure conditions, rather than reference the U.S.
Bureau of Standards Circular C417, 1938, as was done in the 2016
version of appendix I. By providing this explicit formula, DOE expects
to reduce the potential for confusion or miscalculations.
In order to measure the gas temperature and line pressure required
for the calculation of the correction factor to standard temperature
and pressure conditions, DOE is proposing to specify the
instrumentation for measuring the gas temperature and line pressure.
DOE is proposing to require that the instrument for measuring the gas
line temperature must have a maximum error no greater than <plus-
minus>2 [deg]F over the operating range and that the instrument for
measuring the gas line pressure must have a maximum error no greater
than 0.1 inches of water column. These requirements are consistent with
the gas temperature and line pressure requirements from the test
procedures at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices N and E, for
furnaces and for water heaters, respectively.
DOE is proposing to require the use of a standard continuous flow
calorimeter to measure the higher heating value of the gas, with an
operating range of 750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic foot, a maximum error no
greater than 0.2 percent of the actual heating value of the gas used in
the test, an indicator readout maximum error no greater than 0.5
percent of the measured value within the operating range and a
resolution of 0.2 percent of the full-scale reading of the indicator
instrument. These requirements are consistent with the calorimeter
requirements from the test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix D2, for gas clothes dryers.
The 2016 version of appendix I required that the heating value be
measured with an unspecified instrument with a maximum error of 0.5
percent of the measured value and a resolution of 0.2 percent of the
full scale reading. The heating value would then be corrected to
standard temperature and pressure. 81 FR 91418, 91440. DOE is proposing
the same error and resolution requirements for the instrumentation, but
is proposing a different approach for determining the heating value
because, after discussions with test laboratories and manufacturers,
applying the gas correction factor to the heating value does not
reflect common practice in the industry. Instead, DOE is proposing to
calculate gas energy use as the product of the measured gas volume
consumed (in cubic feet), a correction factor converting measured cubic
feet of gas to standard cubic feet of gas, and the heating value of the
gas (in Btu per standard cubic foot) in proposed new appendix I1. DOE
is proposing to further specify that the heating value would be the
higher heating value on a dry-basis of gas. It is DOE's understanding
that this is the typical heating value used by the industry and third-
party test laboratories.
DOE requests comment on its proposed instrumentation specifications
for gas cooking tops, and any cost burden for manufacturers who may not
already have the required instrumentation.
3. Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops
In proposing to apply the test method in IEC 60350-2:2017 to gas
cooking tops, DOE must define test vessels that are appropriate for
each type of burner. The test vessels specified in Section 5.6.1 of IEC
60350-2:2017 are constructed from a 1-mm thick stainless steel sidewall
welded to a 5-mm thick circular stainless steel base, with additional
heat-resistant sealant applied.
The EN 30-2-1 test method, which is designed for use in gas cooking
tops, specifies test vessels that differ in dimensions, material, and
construction from those in IEC 60350-2:2017. Further, Table 1 of EN 30-
2-1 defines the test vessel selection based on the nominal heat input
rate (specified in kilowatts (``kW'') of each burner under test, as
shown in Table III.4). These test vessels are fabricated from a single
piece of aluminum, with a wall thickness between 1.5 and 1.8 mm.
Because they are not made of a ferromagnetic material (such as
stainless steel), the EN 30-2-1 test vessels could not be used for
electric-smooth induction cooking tops.

[[Page 60988]]

Table III.4--Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops in EN 30-2-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test vessel
Nominal heat input range (kW) diameter (mm) Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
between 1.16 and 1.64 inclusive 220
between 1.65 and 1.98 inclusive * 240
between 1.99 and 2.36 inclusive * 260
between 2.37 and 4.2 inclusive. * 260 Adjust the heat input
rate of the burner to
2.36 kW <plus-
minus>2%.
greater than 4.2............... * 300 Adjust the heat input
rate of the burner to
4.2 kW <plus-minus>2%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If the indicated diameter is greater than the maximum diameter given
in the instructions, conduct the test using the next lower diameter
and adjust the heat input rate to the highest heat input of the
allowable range for that test vessel size, <plus-minus>2%.

To use a consistent set of test vessels for all types of gas and
electric cooking tops, DOE is proposing in proposed new appendix I1 to
specify the IEC 60350-2:2017 test vessel to be used for each gas
burner,\23\ based on heat input rate ranges equivalent to those in
Table 1 of EN 30-2-1, although expressed in Btu per hour (``Btu/h'').
The test vessel diameters in EN 30-2-1 do not exactly match those of
the test vessels in IEC 60350-2:2017, but DOE selected the closest
match possible, as shown in Table III.5. DOE also proposes to adjust
the lower limit of one of the burner heat input rate ranges
corresponding to the EN 260 mm test vessel (1.99-2.36 kW, equivalent to
6,800-8,050 Btu/h) and allocate some of its range to the IEC 240 mm
test vessel to provide more evenly balanced ranges and avoid a
significant mismatch between the heat input rate and test vessel sizes
at the lower end of the heat input range. DOE is not proposing to
include the notes included in EN 30-2-1, which require burners with
nominal heat input rates greater than 8,050 Btu/h to be tested at heat
input rates lower than their maximum rated value, which DOE
preliminarily determines would not be representative of consumer use of
such burners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ As described previously, IEC 60350-2:2017 specifies test
vessels in the following diameters: 120 mm, 150 mm, 180 mm, 210 mm,
240 mm, 270 mm, 300 mm, and 330 mm.

Table III.5--Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops in Proposed New Appendix I1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal gas burner input rate (btu/h) IEC 60350-
----------------------------------------------------------------- EN 30-2-1 Test 2:2017 Test Water load
vessel vessel mass (g)
Minimum (>) Maximum (<=) diameter (mm) diameter (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,600 220 210 2,050
5,600........................................... 8,050 240 and 260 240 2,700
8,050........................................... 14,300 260 270 3,420
14,300.......................................... .............. 300 300 4,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similar to electric cooking tops, DOE is also proposing in proposed
new appendix I1 that if a selected test vessel cannot be centered on
the cooking zone due to interference with a structural component of the
cooking top, the test vessel with the largest diameter that can be
centered on the cooking zone be used.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require the use of IEC test
vessels for gas cooking tops and on its proposed method for selecting
the test vessel size to use based on the gas burner's heat input rate.
4. Burner Heat Input Rate Adjustment
DOE recognizes that the 2016 version of appendix I did not include
a tolerance on the regulator outlet pressure or specifications for the
nominal heat input rate for burners on gas cooking tops. From review of
the test results from its initial round robin testing, DOE has
tentatively concluded that the lack of such provisions was likely a
significant contributor to the greater reproducibility COV values
observed for gas cooking tops in relation to those for electric cooking
tops. To improve test procedure reproducibility, DOE is proposing in
this NOPR to incorporate gas supply pressure and regulator outlet
pressure requirements into proposed new appendix I1, as described
further in the following discussion.
Other industry procedures for gas cooking tops include
specifications for the heat input rate. For example, EN 30-2-1
specifies that prior to testing, each burner is adjusted to within 2
percent of its nominal heat input rate. Section 5.3.5 of the American
National Standards Institute (``ANSI'') Standard Z21.1-2016,
``Household cooking gas appliances'' (``ANSI Z21.1'') requires that
individual burners be adjusted to their Btu rating at normal inlet test
pressure, and that when measured after 5 minutes of operation, the
measured heat input rate must be within <plus-minus>5 percent of the
nameplate value.
Based on review of the maximum heat input rates and correlation
with the resulting temperature rise in the water loads and energy use
measured during the initial heat-up period, DOE has initially
determined that the energy use measured using proposed new appendix I1
varies with the nominal heat input rate supplied to each burner on the
cooking top. To achieve repeatable and reproducible results, the heat
input rate must be specified within appropriate tolerances. To
determine the appropriate tolerances, DOE analyzed 37 Energy Test
Cycles conducted at multiple heat input rates on nine burners, from
three different gas cooking tops.\24\ For each burner, the measured
energy use over each Energy Test Cycle, divided by the grams of water
in the test load, referred to as the normalized per-burner energy use,
was calculated in Btu

[[Page 60989]]

per gram (``Btu/g''). A linear curve fit was applied to the set of
normalized per-burner energy use data versus measured heat input rate
for each burner, and DOE calculated the value of the normalized per-
burner energy use on the curve corresponding to the burner's nominal
(i.e., nameplate) heat input rate. For each of the nine burners, DOE
then plotted the percent change in normalized per-burner energy use
from the calculated value as a function of the percent change in the
measured heat input rate from the nominal heat input rate, and again
applied a linear curve fit to each data set. These graphs are shown in
the Annex to this NOPR, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.\25\ Table III.4 presents the slopes of these nine curves,
and based on these slopes, DOE calculated the percentage variation in
normalized per-burner energy use for a <plus-minus>2 percent variation
(the EN 30-2-1 specification) and a <plus-minus>5 percent variation
(the ANSI Z21.1 specification) in heat input rate from nominal. Because
each burner exhibits a different relationship between heat input rate
and normalized per-burner energy use, identifying a single correction
factor across all gas cooking tops may not be possible, further
justifying the need to establish tolerances around the heat input rate.
Among the burners in its test sample, DOE's analysis shows that a
<plus-minus>5-percent tolerance on the heat input rate of a burner
resulted in a variation in per-burner energy use of as much as <plus-
minus>4.9 percent, whereas a <plus-minus>2-percent tolerance on the
heat input rate limited the variation in per-burner energy use in its
test sample to <plus-minus>2.0 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ DOE analyzed three burners with nameplate heat input rates
of 18,000 Btu/h, three burners with nameplate heat input rates of
15,000 Btu/h, and three burners with nameplate heat input rates
close to 5,000 Btu/h. Each burner was tested at four different set
points, and one burner was tested at a fifth set point.
\25\ The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023</a>.

Table III.6--Gas Cooking Top Input Rate Variation Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated variation in Calculated variation in
Nameplate heat Slope of best- energy based on a <plus- energy based on a <plus-
Unit No. Burner location input rate fit line minus>2% variation in minus>5% variation in
(Btu/h) heat input rate (%) heat input rate (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12......................................... FL 18,000 -0.67 <plus-minus>1.3 <plus-minus>3.4
13......................................... FL 18,000 0.81 <plus-minus>1.6 <plus-minus>4.1
14......................................... C 18,000 0.98 <plus-minus>2.0 <plus-minus>4.9
12......................................... BL 15,000 0.51 <plus-minus>1.0 <plus-minus>2.5
13......................................... BL 15,000 0.04 <plus-minus>0.1 <plus-minus>0.2
15......................................... FR 15,000 0.63 <plus-minus>1.3 <plus-minus>3.2
12......................................... BR 5,000 0.56 <plus-minus>1.1 <plus-minus>2.8
14......................................... BR 5,500 0.06 <plus-minus>0.1 <plus-minus>0.3
15......................................... BL 5,000 -0.24 <plus-minus>0.5 <plus-minus>1.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on these results, DOE has tentatively determined that
specifying a tolerance of <plus-minus>5 percent from the nominal heat
input rate may not produce repeatable and reproducible test results.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to specify in proposed new appendix I1 that
the measured heat input rate be within 2 percent of the nominal heat
input rate as specified by the manufacturer.
DOE is proposing that the heat input rate be measured and adjusted
for each burner of the cooking top before conducting testing on that
burner. The measurement would be taken at the maximum heat input rate,
with the properly sized test vessel and water load centered above the
burner to be measured. If the measured average heat input rate of the
burner is within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner
as specified by the manufacturer, no adjustment of the heat input rate
would be made for any testing of that burner.
DOE is proposing that if the measured average heat input rate of
the burner is not within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of
the burner as specified by the manufacturer, the average heat input
rate would be adjusted. For gas cooking tops with an adjustable
internal pressure regulator, the pressure regulator would be adjusted
such that the average heat input rate of the burner under test is
within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as
specified by the manufacturer. For gas cooking tops with a non-
adjustable internal pressure regulator or without an internal pressure
regulator, the regulator would be removed or blocked in the open
position, and the gas pressure ahead of all controls would be
maintained at the nominal manifold pressure specified by the
manufacturer. These proposed instructions are in accordance with
provisions for burner adjustment in Section 5.3.3 of ANSI Z21.1. The
gas supply pressure would then be adjusted such that the average heat
input rate of the burner under test is within 2 percent of the nominal
heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer. In
either case, the burner would be adjusted such that the air flow is
sufficient to prevent a yellow flame or flame with yellow tips. Once
the heat input rate has been set for a burner, it would not be adjusted
during testing of that burner.
DOE requests comment on its proposal for adjusting the burner heat
input rate to the nominal heat input rate as specified by the
manufacturer, and to include a 2-percent tolerance on the heat input
rate of each burner on a gas cooking top.
5. Target Power Density for Optional Potential Simmering Setting Pre-
Selection Test
As discussed in section III.C.3 of this NOPR, Annex H of IEC 60350-
2:FDIS provides a target power density for the potential simmering
setting pre-selection test for electric cooking tops. In this NOPR, DOE
is proposing to specify a separate target power density specific to gas
cooking tops, which would be measured in Btu per hour divided by the
area of the cookware bottom in square centimeters (``Btu/
h[middot]cm\2\). To evaluate possible values for this target power
density, DOE investigated test data from five gas cooking tops at
Laboratory A, as shown in Table III.7, to develop a proposed target
power density.
Among the five cooking tops, 22 individual burners were tested
three times each, and four individual burners were tested two times
each, for a total of 66 test cycles at the minimum-above-threshold
power setting (Energy Test

[[Page 60990]]

Cycles) and 66 test cycles at the maximum-below-threshold power
setting. In reviewing the estimated corresponding power densities of
both sets of energy test cycles, including the individual values and
ranges of values for all burners, DOE preliminarily estimates that a
target power density of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\ would be appropriate.
That is, in the majority of cases, the target power density falls
between the power densities at the minimum-above-threshold power
setting and maximum-below-threshold power setting. In such cases, the
optional potential simmering setting pre-selection test would result in
no more than two test cycles being conducted to obtain the Energy Test
Cycle. DOE could consider specifying a different target power density
for the potential simmering setting pre-selection test if additional
data were to suggest that a different value would be more
representative than the proposed value of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\.

Table III.7--Estimated Power Density From Gas Cooking Top Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power density of input setting used for the Power density of input setting below the
energy test (Btu/h[middot]cm\2\) energy test (Btu/h[middot]cm\2\)
Unit No. Burner position -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6................................... FL 4.3 3.8 5.5 3.2 2.8 3.5
BL 4.4 4.2 4.4 3.8 2.7 3.2
BR 6.2 3.9 5.1 3.7 3.0 3.6
FR 4.5 4.6 4.7 2.7 3.0 3.6
7................................... FL 6.0 6.4 6.1 4.3 4.5 4.3
BL 6.2 6.1 6.2 3.1 3.8 4.1
BR 6.5 6.3 6.0 4.3 5.6 5.9
FR 6.7 5.8 7.0 4.3 4.3 4.3
8................................... FL 6.5 6.1 6.3 4.0 4.0 3.9
BL 6.3 7.1 5.7 4.2 4.0 4.1
BR 5.4 5.4 5.8 3.2 3.2 3.2
FR 8.4 7.4 9.2 5.1 4.2 4.1
9................................... FL 9.3 5.5 5.1 4.9 3.6 3.8
BL 4.8 6.1 6.3 3.8 3.6 3.6
BR 7.0 7.7 7.6 3.4 4.1 4.3
FR 6.4 7.1 7.1 3.7 3.9 4.1
10.................................. FL 5.9 5.9 5.8 2.9 3.0 3.0
BL 11.6 10.8 11.2 4.7 4.5 4.4
BC 5.3 4.9 5.4 2.9 2.9 2.9
FC 7.1 5.8 7.2 4.0 3.8 3.6
FR 10.7 10.8 5.3 3.9 4.6 2.6
BR 7.3 7.1 6.1 3.0 2.9 3.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range............................................... 3.8-11.6
2.6-5.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comment on its proposed target power density for gas
cooking tops of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\.
6. Product Temperature Measurement for Gas Cooking Tops
As discussed in section III.C.2.b of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to
specify in proposed new appendix I1 that the temperature of the product
must be measured at the center of the cooking zone under test prior to
any active mode testing. DOE is proposing to specify that this
requirement would also apply to gas burner adjustments. DOE is further
proposing that for a conventional gas cooking top, the product
temperature would be measured inside the burner body of the cooking
zone under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap. Prior to
the standby mode and off mode power test, the product temperature would
be measured as the average of the temperature measured at the center of
each cooking zone.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require the product
temperature of a gas cooking top be measured inside the burner body of
the cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap.

E. Definitions and Clarifications

As part of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to add certain definitions
and clarifications to proposed new appendix I1 in addition to those
already described.
1. Operating Modes
To clarify provisions relating to the various operating modes, DOE
is proposing to add definitions of ``active mode,'' ``off mode,''
``standby mode,'' ``inactive mode,'' and ``combined low-power mode'' to
proposed new appendix I1. These definitions are identical to those that
had been established in the 2016 version of appendix I.
DOE is proposing to define active mode as ``a mode in which the
product is connected to a mains power source, has been activated, and
is performing the main function of producing heat by means of a gas
flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating.''
DOE is proposing to define off mode as ``any mode in which a
product is connected to a mains power source and is not providing any
active mode or standby function, and where the mode may persist for an
indefinite time. An indicator that only shows the user that the product
is in the off position is included within the classification of an off
mode.''
DOE is proposing to define standby mode as ``any mode in which a
product is connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of
the following user-oriented or protective functions which may persist
for an indefinite time:
(1) Facilitation of the activation of other modes (including
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including
remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
(2) Provision of continuous functions, including information or
status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer
is a continuous clock

[[Page 60991]]

function (which may or may not be associated with a display) that
allows for regularly scheduled tasks and that operates on a continuous
basis.''
DOE is proposing to define inactive mode as ``a standby mode that
facilitates the activation of active mode by remote switch (including
remote control), internal sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous
status display.''
DOE is proposing to define combined low-power mode as ``the
aggregate of available modes other than active mode, but including the
delay start mode portion of active mode.''
DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of ``active
mode,'' ``off mode,'' ``standby mode,'' ``inactive mode,'' and
``combined low-power mode.''
2. Product Configuration and Installation Requirements
For additional clarity, DOE is proposing to add definitions of
``combined cooking product,'' ``freestanding,'' ``built-in,'' and
``drop-in'' to proposed new appendix I1 that were included in the 2016
version of appendix I, and installation instructions for each of these
configurations.
DOE is proposing to define combined cooking product as ``a
household cooking appliance that combines a cooking product with other
appliance functionality, which may or may not include another cooking
product. Combined cooking products include the following products:
Conventional range, microwave/conventional cooking top, microwave/
conventional oven, and microwave/conventional range.''
DOE is proposing that a conventional cooking top or combined
cooking product be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions. If the manufacturer's instructions specify that the
product may be used in multiple installation conditions, the product
would be installed according to the built-in configuration. DOE is
proposing to require complete assembly of the product with all handles,
knobs, guards, and similar components mounted in place; and that any
electric resistance heaters, gas burners, and baffles be positioned in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. DOE is proposing that
if the product can communicate through a network (e.g.,
Bluetooth[supreg] or internet connection), the network function be
disabled, if it is possible to disable it by means provided in the
manufacturer's user manual, for the duration of testing. If the network
function cannot be disabled, or if means for disabling the function are
not provided in the manufacturer's user manual, the product would be
tested in the factory default setting or in the as-shipped condition.
These proposals are consistent with comparable provisions in the
supplemental NOPR that DOE published for its microwave oven test
procedure on August 3, 2021 (86 FR 41759).
DOE is proposing to define freestanding as applying when ``the
product is supported by the floor and is not specified in the
manufacturer's instructions as able to be installed such that it is
enclosed by surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar
structures.'' DOE is proposing that a freestanding combined cooking
product be installed with the back directly against, or as near as
possible to, a vertical wall which extends at least 1 foot above the
product and 1 foot beyond both sides of the product, and with no side
walls.
DOE is proposing to define built-in as applying when ``the product
is enclosed in surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar
structures on at least three sides, and can be supported by surrounding
cabinetry or the floor.'' DOE is proposing to define drop-in as
applying when ``the product is supported by horizontal surface
cabinetry.'' DOE is proposing that a drop-in or built-in combined
cooking product be installed in a test enclosure in accordance with
manufacturer's instructions.
DOE is proposing that a conventional cooking top be installed with
the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical wall
which extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond both
sides of the product.
DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of product
configurations and installation requirements.
3. Power Settings
DOE is proposing to clarify power setting selection by adding
definitions of ``power setting,'' ``infinite power settings,'' ``multi-
ring cooking zone,'' and ``maximum power setting'' in proposed new
appendix I1, and by specifying which power settings are considered for
each type of cooking zone.
DOE proposes to define power setting as ``a setting on a cooking
zone control that offers a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or
electric inductive heating.''
DOE proposes to define infinite power settings as ``a cooking zone
control without discrete power settings, allowing for selection of any
power setting below the maximum power setting.''
DOE proposes to define a multi-ring cooking zone as ``a cooking
zone on a conventional cooking top with multiple concentric sizes of
electric resistance heating elements or gas burner rings.''
DOE proposes to define maximum power setting as ``the maximum
possible power setting if only one cookware item is used on the cooking
zone or cooking area of a conventional cooking top, including any
optional power boosting features. For conventional electric cooking
tops with multi-ring cooking zones or cooking areas, the maximum power
setting is the maximum power corresponding to the concentric heating
element with the largest diameter, which may correspond to a power
setting which may include one or more of the smaller concentric heating
elements. For conventional gas cooking tops with multi-ring cooking
zones, the maximum power is the maximum heat input rate when the
maximum number of rings of the cooking zone are ignited.'' This
definition is based on the definition of ``maximum power'' in Section
3.14 of IEC 60350-2:2017 which includes a note specifying that boost
function should be considered in determining the maximum power setting.
DOE is also proposing to clarify in proposed new appendix I1 which
power settings would be considered in the search for the simmering
setting, based on its testing experience. On a multi-ring cooking zone
on a conventional gas cooking top, all power settings would be
considered, whether they ignite all rings of orifices or not. On a
multi-ring cooking zone on a conventional electric cooking top, only
power settings corresponding to the concentric heating element with the
largest diameter would be considered, which may correspond to operation
with one or more of the smaller concentric heating elements energized.
On a cooking zone with infinite power settings where the available
range of rotation from maximum to minimum is more than 150 rotational
degrees, power settings that are spaced by 10 rotational degrees would
be evaluated. On a cooking zone with infinite power settings where the
available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is less than or
equal to 150 rotational degrees, power settings that are spaced by 5
rotational degrees would be evaluated. Based on its round robin testing
and its own testing experience, DOE has tentatively determined that 5
or 10 rotational degrees, as appropriate, would provide sufficient
granularity in determining the simmering setting. Given DOE's proposal,
outlined in section III.C.5 of this NOPR, to normalize the energy use
of the Energy Test Cycle to a value representative of

[[Page 60992]]

an energy test with a final water temperature of 90 [deg]C, DOE has
tentatively determined that testing more settings would be unduly
burdensome.
DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of ``power
setting,'' ``infinite power settings,'' ``multi-ring cooking zone,''
and ``maximum power setting.'' DOE also requests comments on its
proposal for the subset of power settings on each type of cooking zone
that are considered as part of the identification of the simmering
setting.
For cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the power
setting, DOE is aware that the knob may yield different input power
results for the same setting depending on the direction in which the
knob is turned to reach that setting, due to hysteresis caused by
potential backlash in the knob or valve. To avoid hysteresis and ensure
consistent input power results for the same knob setting, DOE is
proposing that the selection knob be turned in the direction from
higher power to lower power to select the potential simmering setting
for the test, and that if the appropriate setting is passed, the test
must be repeated after allowing the product to return to ambient
conditions. DOE has tentatively determined that this proposal would
help obtain consistent input power for a given power setting,
particularly on gas cooking tops, and thus improve repeatability and
reproducibility of the test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its proposal that for cooking tops with
rotating knobs for selecting the power setting, the selection knob
always be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to
select the potential simmering setting for an energy test.
4. Specialty Cooking Zone
DOE is proposing to include a definition of a ``specialty cooking
zone,'' including the clarification that such a cooking zone would not
be tested under proposed new appendix I1. DOE is proposing to define a
specialty cooking zone as ``any cooking zone that is designed for use
only with non-circular cookware, such as bridge zones, warming plates,
grills, and griddles. Specialty cooking zones are not tested under this
appendix.''
DOE requests comments on its proposed definition of specialty
cooking zone.
5. Target Turndown Temperature
DOE is proposing to include in the proposed new appendix I1 the
formula for calculating the target turndown temperature after
conducting the overshoot test,\26\ because DOE testing experience has
shown that referencing the definition of this value in IEC 60350-2:2017
(rather than providing the definition within the DOE test procedure)
can lead to inadvertent errors in performing the calculation. The
target turndown temperature is calculated as 93 [deg]C minus the
difference between the maximum measured temperature during the
overshoot test, T<INF>max</INF>, and the 20-second average temperature
at the time the power is turned off during the overshoot test,
T<INF>70</INF>. Two common mistakes in calculating the target turndown
temperature include using the target value of 70 [deg]C rather than the
measured T<INF>70</INF> in the formula, and failing to round the target
turndown temperature to the nearest degree Celsius. By including the
formula for the target turndown temperature in the proposed new
appendix I1, DOE aims to reduce the incidence of such errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The overshoot test is a test conducted before any simmering
tests are initiated. The appropriate test vessel and water load are
placed on the heating element or burner, which is turned to the
maximum power setting. The power or heat input is shut off when the
water temperature reaches 70 [deg]C. The maximum water temperature
reached after the power/heat input is shut off is used to calculate
the nominal turndown temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comments on its proposal to include the formula for
the target turndown temperature in the proposed new appendix I1.

F. Test Conditions and Instrumentation

DOE is proposing to incorporate the test conditions and
instrumentation requirements of IEC 60350-2:2017 into the proposed new
appendix I1 with the following additions.
1. Electrical Supply
Section 5.2 of IEC 60350-2:2017 specifies that the electrical
supply is required to be at ``the rated voltage with a relative
tolerance of <plus-minus>1%'' and ``the rated frequency <plus-
minus>1%.'' IEC 60350-2:2017 further specifies that the supply voltage
and frequency shall be the nominal voltage and frequency of the country
in which the appliance is intended to be used. DOE proposes to specify
in the proposed new appendix I1 that the electrical supply for active
mode testing be maintained at either 240 volts <plus-minus>1 percent or
120 volts <plus-minus>1 percent, according to the manufacturer's
instructions, and at 60 Hz <plus-minus> 1 percent, except for products
which do not allow for a mains electrical supply.
DOE requests comment on its proposed electrical supply requirements
for active mode testing.
2. Water Load Mass Tolerance
DOE is proposing to specify a tolerance on the water load mass in
the proposed new appendix I1. Neither the 2016 version of appendix I
nor IEC 60350-2:2017 includes a tolerance on the water load mass. DOE
is proposing to specify a tolerance of <plus-minus> 0.5 grams for each
water load mass, to improve the repeatability, and reproducibility of
the test procedure.
DOE requests comment on the proposed tolerance of <plus-minus> 0.5
grams for each water load mass.
3. Test Vessel Flatness
In its petition, AHAM raised concerns about the impact of pan
warpage on the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure.
83 FR 17944, 17958. For this NOPR, DOE investigated the issue of
potential pan warpage over repeated test cycles. DOE conducted repeated
testing trials on electric cooking tops, and measured each test
vessels' flatness after every five tests. Figure III.2 shows the
measured change in flatness (in mm) from the initial reading for the
four test vessel sizes that were most frequently used during this
testing.

[[Page 60993]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04NO21.001

Figure III.2 shows there is some variation in the flatness
measurement over time for each test vessel, but there is no consistent
or substantive trend. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that
pan warpage is not an issue for the test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its proposed determination that pan warpage
does not affect repeatability and reproducibility of the test
procedure.

G. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption

1. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 62301
EPCA requires DOE to include the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption in any energy consumption metric, if technically feasible.
In the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE incorporated IEC Standard 62301
Edition 2.0, 2011-01, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power'' (``IEC 62301 Second Edition'') for measuring the power
in standby mode and off mode of conventional cooking products,
including the provisions for the room ambient air temperature from
Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, electrical supply
voltage from Section 4, Paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition,
watt-meter from Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 Second Edition,
portions of the installation and set-up from Section 5, Paragraph 5.2
of IEC 62301 Second Edition, and stabilization requirements from
Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 Second Edition. 77 FR
65942, 65948. DOE also specified that the measurement of standby mode
and off mode power be made according to Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of
IEC 62301 Second Edition, except for conventional cooking products in
which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby
mode (see section III.G.2 of this NOPR). This procedure is used by
microwave ovens in the current version of appendix I. DOE is proposing
to include the same procedure in the proposed new appendix I1 for
conventional cooking tops.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate IEC 62301
Second Edition to provide the method for measuring standby mode and off
mode power, except for conventional cooking products in which power
varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby mode.
2. Standby Power Measurement for Cooking Tops With Varying Power as a
Function of Clock Time
In the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE determined that the measurement
of standby mode and off mode power according to Section 5, Paragraph
5.3.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition for conventional cooking products in
which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby
mode would cause manufacturers to incur significant burden that would
not be warranted by any potential improved accuracy of the test
measurement. 77 FR 65942, 65948. Therefore, DOE implemented the
following language in the 2012 version of appendix I: For units in
which power varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode,
clock time would be set to 3:23 at the end of the stabilization period
specified in Section 5, Paragraph

[[Page 60994]]

5.3 of IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition, June 2005), ``Household
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power'' (``IEC 62301
First Edition''), and the average power approach described in Section
5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 First Edition would be used, but
with a single test period of 10 minutes +0/-2 sec after an additional
stabilization period until the clock time reached 3:33. Id.
DOE subsequently implemented the same language for microwave ovens
in appendix I as part of a final rule published on January 18, 2013. 78
FR 4015, 4020.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to incorporate in the proposed new
appendix I1 the use of IEC 62301 First Edition for measuring the
standby power of cooking tops in which the power consumption of the
display varies as a function of the time displayed. DOE is also
proposing to update the wording from the 2016 version of appendix I to
provide additional direction regarding the two stabilization periods in
response to a test laboratory's feedback. The updated language would
read, ``For units in which power varies as a function of displayed time
in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 at the end of an initial
stabilization period, as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC
62301 First Edition. After an additional 10 minute stabilization
period, measure the power use for a single test period of 10 minutes
+0/-2 seconds that starts when the clock time first reads 3:33. Use the
average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of
IEC 62301 First Edition.''
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate IEC 62301 First
Edition for measuring standby mode and off mode power for conventional
cooking tops in which power varies as a function of the clock time
displayed in standby mode.

H. Metrics

1. Annual Active Mode Energy Consumption
DOE is proposing to calculate cooking top annual active mode energy
consumption as the average normalized per-cycle energy use across all
tested cooking zones multiplied by the number of annual cycles. The
per-cycle energy use would be normalized in two ways: First, by
interpolating to represent a final water temperature of 90 [deg]C, as
described in section III.C.5 of this NOPR, and second, by scaling
according to the ratio of a representative water load mass to the water
mass used in the test.
To determine the representative water load mass 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 at the time of a supplemental
NOPR that DOE published prior to the December 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR
57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016). Using the methodology in IEC 60350-2 for
selecting test vessel diameters and their corresponding water load
masses, DOE determined that the market-weighted average water load mass
for both electric and gas cooking top models available on the U.S.
market was 2,853 g, and used that value in the December 2016 Final
Rule. 81 FR 91418, 91437.
DOE is proposing to use the same representative water load mass for
per-cycle energy use normalization of 2,853 g in the proposed new
appendix I1.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to use a representative water
load mass of 2,853 g in the proposed new appendix I1.
In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE used data from the 2009
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS'') and a review of field
energy consumption survey data of residential cooking from 2009 and
2010 to estimate 207.5 cycles per year for electric cooking tops and
214.5 cycles per year for gas cooking tops. 81 FR 91418, 91438. For
this NOPR, DOE analyzed data available from more recent sources to
determine an updated value of annual cooking top cycles.
DOE analyzed the 5,686 household responses from the 2015 RECS to
estimate the number of annual cooking top cycles by installation
configuration. The 2015 RECS asked respondents, geographically
distributed in the United States, to provide the number of uses per
week of their standalone cooking top and the cooking top portion of a
combined cooking product (which included a cooking top with a
conventional oven.) From these weekly frequency-of-use data, DOE
calculated weighted-average annual cooking top cycles of 418. This
value represents an average of both gas and electric cooking tops, as
well as an average of both standalone cooking tops, and of the cooking
top component of a combined cooking product. DOE has tentatively
determined that a single value for both gas and electric cooking tops
is most representative of consumer usage, as DOE is not aware of any
reason for consumers of products with different energy sources to use
their cooking products differently.
DOE reviewed data provided by AHAM through its task force, which
summarized the cooking patterns of 3,508 consumers with connected
cooking products, based on information collected via their network
functions. Although specific geographical locations were not
identified, AHAM indicated the sample of consumers represented a
distribution of connected cooking product owners across the United
States. This AHAM data set showed an average annual number of cooking
top cycles of 365.
DOE also analyzed field-metered data from Pecan Street Inc.'s
sample of 246 volunteer homes across four states (California, Texas,
New York, and Colorado),\27\ obtained over a varying number of years
per household between 2012 and 2021, which showed a median of 437
annual cooking top cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Information about Pecan Street Inc.'s data set is available
at <a href="http://www.pecanstreet.org/dataport/about/">www.pecanstreet.org/dataport/about/</a> about/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is proposing to use the 2015 RECS value of 418 cycles per year
for calculating annual active mode energy use. This value corresponds
to the median of the three considered values and is based on the
largest sample size and broadest distribution by geography and
household characteristics.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to use a value of 418 annual
cooking top cycles per year.
2. Combined Low-Power Mode Hours
The number of cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours is
calculated as the number of hours in a year, 8,760, minus the number of
annual active mode hours for the cooking top, which is typically equal
to the number of annual cycles multiplied by cycle time. Additional
calculations, as discussed below, are necessary for the cooking top
component of a combined cooking product.
In a NOPR preceding the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE investigated
the hours and energy consumption associated with each possible
operating mode for conventional cooking tops, including inactive,
Sabbath, off, and active modes. 75 FR 75290, 75310 (Dec. 2, 2010).
``Sabbath mode'' is defined as a mode in which the automatic shutoff is
overridden to allow for warming of pre-cooked foods during such periods
as the Jewish Sabbath. In its analysis leading up to the October 2012
Final Rule, DOE assigned the hours for which the cooking product is in
Sabbath mode as active mode hours, because the energy use of those
hours is similar to the energy use of the active mode. 75 FR 75290,
75311. DOE estimated each

[[Page 60995]]

household's oven spends an equivalent of 8.6 hours in Sabbath mode,
based on the number of annual work-free hours and the percentage of
U.S. households that observe kosher practices. Id. In that rule, DOE
scaled the 8.6 hours according to the number of annual cooking cycles,
the number of cooking products per household, and an assumption that a
cooking top would only be used on the Sabbath a quarter of the time.
Id.
In 2010, DOE estimated that the total number of cooking top cycles
per year was 211 (see section III.H.1 of this NOPR), the average cycle
time was 1 hour, and cooking tops spent 2.1 annual hours in Sabbath
mode. Id. Therefore, in the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE specified that
the number of annual active-mode hours was 213.2 and the number of
annual combined low-power mode hours was 8,546.9. 77 FR 65942, 65994.
In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE observed that for combined
cooking products, the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption
could be measured only for the combined cooking product and not the
individual components. 81 FR 91418, 91423. DOE calculated the annual
combined low-power mode of the conventional cooking top component of a
combined cooking product 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.
DOE is proposing for this NOPR to update the estimate of the annual
combined low-power mode hours for standalone cooking tops and for the
cooking top component of combined cooking products, using more recent
estimates for the number of annual cooking top cycles and the
representative cycle time. As discussed in section III.H.1 of this
NOPR, DOE is proposing to use a value of 418 annual cooking top cycles
for all cooking tops.
For representative average cooking top cycle time, DOE reviewed
data provided by AHAM, which summarized the cooking patterns of 3,508
consumers with connected cooking products, based on information
collected via their network functions. Although specific geographical
locations were not identified, AHAM indicated the sample of consumers
represented a distribution of connected cooking product owners across
the United States. This AHAM data set showed an average cooking top
cycle time of 18 minutes. DOE is concerned, however, that the usage
patterns of consumers with connected cooking products, which are
relatively higher-cost premium products, may not be representative of
the usage patterns for all U.S. consumers.
DOE also analyzed the field-metered data from Pecan Street Inc.'s
sample of 246 volunteer homes,\28\ which showed a median cycle time of
31 minutes. The distribution of usage patterns among these homes may be
representative of consumer habits in the United States as a whole
because the metering was not limited to premium products which tend to
be purchased by higher-income households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Information about Pecan Street Inc's data set is available
at <a href="http://www.pecanstreet.org/dataport/about/">www.pecanstreet.org/dataport/about/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is proposing to calculate the number of cooking top annual
active mode hours per installation configuration by multiplying the
annual cycles estimated from the 2015 RECS by the 31-minute median
cycle time, and then adding the appropriate number of Sabbath mode
hours.\29\ Using additional values, including the number of cooking
tops per household, which was determined to be 1.02 using the 2015
RECS; the annual number of conventional oven cycles conducted per year
on combined cooking products, which was determined to be 145 using the
2015 RECS; the number of microwave oven cycles per year, which was
determined to be 627 using the 2015 RECS; the average cycle time for a
conventional oven, which was assumed to be 1 hour; and the average
cycle time for a microwave oven, which was assumed to be 6 minutes, the
number of annual active mode hours for the overall cooking product
could be estimated. By subtracting the resulting annual active mode
hours from 8,760 annual hours, DOE proposes to estimate the annual
combined low-power mode hours for the overall product by installation
configuration. Finally, the percentages of combined lower-power mode
hours assigned to the cooking top component were calculated by
determining the proportion of overall active mode hours that are
associated with the cooking top component of the combined cooking
product. The results for DOE's proposed combined low-power mode usage
factors and resulting cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours
are shown in Table III.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Given the value of 1.02 cooking tops per household
determined using 2015 RECS, and using the same 25-percent assumption
of the percent of time a cooking top is left on during the Sabbath
(as opposed to a conventional oven), DOE assumed 2.2 hours per year
in Sabbath mode for standalone cooking tops and for combined cooking
products comprised of a microwave oven and a cooking top; and 8.8
hours per year in Sabbath mode for combined cooking products that
include a conventional oven.

Table III.8--Combined Low-Power Mode Usage Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall product Cooking top
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
overall combined
Product type Active mode hours Combined low- low-power mode Combined low-
per year power mode hours hours allocated power mode hours
per year to the cooking per year
top
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standalone cooking top.............. 216 8,544 100 8,544
Conventional range (cooking top + 368 8,392 60 5,004
conventional oven).................
Cooking top + microwave oven........ 279 8,481 77 6,560
Cooking top + conventional oven + 431 8,329 51 4,228
microwave oven.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comment on its proposed usage factors and annual hours
for cooking top combined low-power mode, as well as on any of the
underlying assumptions.
3. Annual Combined Low-Power Mode Energy
DOE is proposing that the annual energy in combined low-power mode

[[Page 60996]]

for a cooking top be calculated as the power consumption of the overall
cooking product in standby and/or off mode (see sections III.G.1 and
III.G.2 of this NOPR) multiplied by the number of annual combined low-
power mode hours for the cooking top or cooking top component of a
combined cooking product (see section III.H.2 of this NOPR). DOE is
proposing, as it has done in the test procedures for other appliances
which can have either an inactive (standby) mode, an off mode, or both,
that the total number of cooking top annual combined low-power mode
hours be allocated to each of inactive mode or off mode as illustrated
in Table III.9.

Table III.9--Allocation of Cooking Top Combined Low-Power Mode Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of low-power mode(s) Allocation to Allocation to off
available inactive mode mode
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both inactive and off mode........ 0.5 0.5
Inactive mode only................ 1 0
Off mode only..................... 0 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comment on its proposed allocation of combined low-
power mode hours.
4. Integrated Annual Energy Consumption
DOE is proposing to define the integrated annual energy consumption
(``IAEC'') for each tested cooking top. For electric cooking tops, IAEC
is defined in kilowatt-hours (``kWh'') per year and is equal to the sum
of the annual active mode energy and the annual combined low-power mode
energy. For gas cooking tops, IAEC is defined in kilo-British thermal
units (``kBtu'') per year and is equal to the sum of the annual active
mode gas energy consumption, the annual active mode electric energy
consumption (converted into kBtu per year), and the annual combined
low-power mode energy (converted into kBtu per year).
5. Annual Energy Consumption and Annual Cost
Section 430.23(i) of title 10 of the CFR lists the test procedures
for the measurement of energy consumption of cooking products. As there
are no current test procedures for conventional cooking tops, 10 CFR
430.23(i) currently contains provisions only for microwave ovens.
DOE is proposing to renumber the existing microwave oven paragraph
as 10 CFR 430.23(i)(1) and to add new paragraphs (i)(2) through (i)(6)
containing provisions for measuring the electrical energy consumption,
gas energy consumption, and annual cost of conventional cooking tops.
New paragraph (i)(2) would provide the means of calculating the
integrated annual energy consumption for either a conventional electric
cooking top or a conventional gas cooking top, including any
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. The
result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kWh per year for electric
cooking tops, and to the nearest 1 kBtu per year for gas cooking tops.
New paragraph (i)(3) would provide the means of calculating the
total annual gas energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top,
including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking
product. The result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kBtu per year.
New paragraph (4) would provide the means of calculating the total
annual electrical energy consumption for either a conventional electric
cooking top or a conventional gas cooking top, including any
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. The
result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kWh per year. The total annual
electrical energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top
would equal the integrated annual energy consumption of the
conventional electric cooking top, as determined in paragraph (i)(2).
New paragraph (i)(5) would provide the means of calculating the
estimated annual operating cost corresponding to the energy consumption
of a conventional cooking top, including any conventional cooking top
component of a combined cooking product. The result would be rounded to
the nearest dollar per year.
New paragraph (i)(6) would allow the definition of other useful
measures of energy consumption for conventional cooking tops that the
Secretary determines are likely to assist consumers in making
purchasing decisions and that are derived from the application of
appendix I1.
DOE requests comment on its proposed provisions for measuring
annual energy consumption and estimated annual cost.

I. Alternate Proposals

DOE is aware of alternate approaches to the proposed cooking top
test procedure that are currently being considered by stakeholders,
such as those described in the subsections that follow. While in most
cases DOE does not have data by which to evaluate such alternate
approaches, DOE would consider the alternates discussed if sufficient
data were available to evaluate whether such test procedures are
reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy use of
conventional cooking tops during a representative average use cycle or
period of use and are not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (See 42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
1. Separate Boiling and Simmering Tests
DOE is aware that some manufacturers have indicated a preference
for a test procedure that does not include a simmering portion. A test
procedure that omits simmering would only capture the energy use
associated with boiling and therefore would not be representative of an
average energy use cycle, which DOE asserts would include a simmering
period. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that a cooking top
test procedure that does not include both a heat-up period and a
simmering period would not produce test results that measure energy
efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered
product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as
required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
However, DOE could consider separating the heat-up and the
simmering portions of the test into two shorter test runs, which could
each be subject to fewer failure conditions. For instance, DOE could
consider a heat-up test that is similar to the overshoot test in IEC
60350-2:2017, but for which the power is turned off at 90 [deg]C
instead of 70 [deg]C. If DOE were to consider this approach, the
temperature overshoot by the water after the power is turned off could
be used to normalize the energy used per degree of water heated. The
test procedure could then require a separate test to measure the
simmering

[[Page 60997]]

energy of a cooking top, for example by starting with already-simmering
water at 90 [deg]C and maintaining it at that temperature.
This approach could potentially reduce burden by reducing the
overall time required to test each power setting.
DOE requests data on the test burden, repeatability,
reproducibility, and representativeness of a test procedure that would
separate the boiling and simmering tests.
2. Replacing the Simmering Test With a Simmering Usage Factor
Another approach could be to simplify the test procedure such that
it requires only a single test per cooking zone. This test could entail
a simple heat-up test at the maximum power setting until the water
temperature reaches a threshold temperature, such as 90 [deg]C or the
target turndown temperature. A simmering usage factor could then be
applied to the measured energy use in order to scale the energy of the
heat-up only test to a value that is representative of typical consumer
usage including a simmering phase.
An initial analysis of DOE test data suggests that for electric
cooking tops, the simmering energy may be a consistent fraction of the
heat-up energy for each heating technology type. However, for gas
cooking tops, the potential simmering usage factor is more variable by
individual cooking top and cooking zone. DOE test data for Laboratory A
is presented in Table III.10.

Table III.10--Simmering Energy as a Fraction of Heat-up Energy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Potential simmering usage factor (average of 3 replications)
Unit No. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average by Average by
Cooking zone No.: 1 2 3 4 5 6 cooking top technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................... Electric-Coil............ 1.34 1.39 1.36 1.42 ........... ........... 1.38 1.38
2.................... Electric-Smooth (Radiant) 1.34 1.36 1.32 1.38 ........... ........... 1.35 1.35
3.................... Electric-Smooth (Radiant) 1.34 1.34 1.36 1.34 1.37 ........... 1.35
4.................... Electric-Smooth 1.47 1.45 1.41 1.38 ........... ........... 1.43 1.41
(Induction).
5.................... Electric-Smooth 1.40 1.38 1.42 1.38 ........... ........... 1.40
(Induction).
6.................... Gas...................... 1.41 1.39 1.45 1.38 ........... ........... 1.41 1.38
7.................... Gas...................... 1.27 1.34 1.36 1.27 ........... ........... 1.31
10................... Gas...................... 1.33 1.63 1.29 1.37 1.50 1.38 1.41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If DOE were to adopt a test procedure that uses a simmering usage
factor, the usage factor would need to be based on test data and would
need to be representative of a tested simmering period on multiple
types of products. DOE has tentatively determined, based on the
available data, that no such single simmering usage factor by heating
technology can be defined, and is not proposing to pursue this approach
at this time.
DOE requests data on the representativeness of a simmering usage
factor across technology types.
3. Changing the Setting Used To Calculate Simmering Energy
IEC 60350-2:2017 defines the simmering setting according to the
temperature characteristics of the water load at that power setting. As
an alternative, DOE could consider defining the simmering setting
according to the power supplied at each power setting. For instance,
DOE could define the simmering setting as the lowest power setting that
is at or above 25 percent of maximum power (or maximum heat input rate
for gas cooking tops). This alternative approach could result in only a
single simmering test being required.
To the extent that consumers choose a simmering power setting based
on knob position (or setting number) rather than by directly or
indirectly monitoring the temperature variation of the food or water in
the cookware, this potential alternative could yield more
representative results than the current proposal. DOE previously
established a power-level-based test procedure as part of the October
2012 Final Rule. 77 FR 65942.
DOE requests data on the representativeness of a simmering setting
based on a percentage of the maximum power setting.
4. Industry Test Procedures
DOE is aware that AHAM is developing test procedures for electric
and gas cooking tops as part of its task force efforts. Although AHAM's
test procedures have not been finalized at the time of publication of
this NOPR, DOE understands the provisions in the draft test procedures
as of September 1, 2021 to be substantially the same as those proposed
in this NOPR. If AHAM were to finalize its test procedures ahead of the
publication of any DOE test procedure final rule for conventional
cooking tops, DOE could consider incorporating the AHAM procedure by
reference, instead of using the language proposed in this NOPR, if the
provisions are substantively the same as those proposed in this NOPR.
If the finalized AHAM procedure were to contain significant differences
from the procedures proposed in this NOPR, DOE would publish a
supplemental proposal before proceeding to a final rule.

J. Representations

1. Sampling Plan
DOE is proposing to maintain the sampling plan requirements for
cooking products in 10 CFR 429.23(a), which specify that for each basic
model of cooking products a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly
selected and tested to ensure that any represented value for which
consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to
the higher of the mean of the sample or the upper 97.5 percent
confidence limit of the true mean divided by 1.05.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed method for establishing a
sampling plan.
2. Convertible Cooking Appliances
DOE defines a convertible cooking appliance as any kitchen range
and oven which is a household cooking appliance designed by the
manufacturer to be changed in service from use with natural gas to use
with LP-gas, and vice versa, by incorporating in the appliance
convertible orifices for the main gas burners and a convertible gas
pressure regulator. 10 CFR 430.2.
In the May 1978 Final Rule, DOE established a requirement for two
estimated annual operating costs for convertible cooking appliances: An
estimated annual operating cost reflecting testing with natural gas and
a cost reflecting testing with propane. 43 FR 20108, 20110. DOE allowed
manufacturers to use the amount of

[[Page 60998]]

energy consumed during the test with natural gas to determine the
estimated annual operating cost of the appliance reflecting testing
with propane. DOE provided this allowance based on test data that
showed that conventional cooking products tested with propane yielded
slightly higher efficiencies than the same products tested with natural
gas. Id.
In the version of 10 CFR 430.23 finalized in the December 2016
Final Rule, convertible cooking tops were required to be tested using
both natural gas and propane, although the version of appendix I
finalized in that same rule listed the test gas as natural gas or
propane. 81 FR 91418, 91488. DOE does not require testing both natural
gas and propane for any other convertible appliances.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to specify that all gas cooking tops
shall be tested using the default test gas (i.e., the appropriate test
gas given the as-shipped configuration of the cooking top) and is
proposing to not require any convertible cooking top to be tested using
both natural gas and propane.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to test all gas cooking tops
using the default test gas, as defined by the as-shipped configuration
of the unit.
Therefore, DOE is further proposing to delete the definition of
convertible cooking appliance in 10 CFR 430.2, since such distinction
would no longer be needed and may cause confusion.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to delete the definition of
convertible cooking appliance from 10 CFR 430.2.

K. Reporting

DOE is not proposing to require reporting of cooking top energy use
until such time as compliance is required with a performance-based
energy conservation standard, should such a standard be established.
DOE is proposing to add an introductory note to proposed new appendix
I1 to that effect.

L. Test Procedure Costs

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to establish a new test procedure for
conventional cooking tops in a new appendix I1. The test procedure
proposed in this NOPR would adopt the latest version of the relevant
industry standard with modifications to adapt the test method to gas
cooking tops (including specifying gas supply tolerances), offer an
optional method for burden reduction, normalize the energy use of each
test cycle, include measurement of standby mode and off mode energy
use, update certain test conditions, and provide certain clarifying
language. If manufacturers voluntarily chose to make representations
regarding the energy efficiency of conventional cooking tops,
manufacturers would be required to test according to the DOE test
procedure, if finalized.
DOE has initially determined that this proposal, if finalized,
would result in added costs to conventional cooking top manufacturers,
if manufacturers choose to make efficiency representations for the
conventional cooking tops that they manufacture. Additionally,
manufacturers would incur testing costs if DOE were to establish a
performance-based energy conservation standard for conventional cooking
tops.
To determine this potential cost to manufacturers, DOE first
attempted to estimate the number of models that could be covered under
these proposed test procedures. DOE used data from DOE's publicly
available Compliance Certification Database (``CCD''),\30\ California
Energy Commission's (``CEC's'') Modernized Appliance Efficiency
Database (``MAEDBS''),\31\ Natural Resources Canada's publicly
searchable database,\32\ AHAM's member directory,\33\ and individual
catalog data from identified conventional cooking top manufacturers to
estimate both the number of conventional cooking top manufacturers and
the number of models potentially covered by the proposed test
procedure. Based DOE's analysis, DOE identified approximately 45
manufacturers selling an estimated 1,606 unique basic models of
conventional cooking tops covered by this proposed test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ DOE currently requires manufacturers to certify that all
conventional cooking product models using gas are not equipped with
a standing pilot light. See <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data</a>. Last accessed on May 24, 2021.
\31\ <a href="http://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx">cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx</a>. Last accessed on May 24, 2021.
\32\ <a href="http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/index.cfm?action=app.welcome-bienvenue">oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/index.cfm?action=app.welcome-bienvenue</a>. Last accessed on May 24, 2021.
\33\ <a href="http://www.aham.org/AHAM/AuxCurrentMembers">www.aham.org/AHAM/AuxCurrentMembers</a>. Last accessed on May
24, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on an initial market assessment, DOE conservatively estimated
that the largest seven manufacturers account for at least 75 percent of
the conventional cooking tops sold in the United States. DOE assumed
that these largest seven companies would test all their conventional
cooking top models covered by this proposed test procedure at their in-
house test facility (representing 1,205 basic models), while the
remaining 25 percent would be tested at a third-party testing facility
(representing 401 basic models). DOE assumed that the per-unit test
costs differ between conducting testing at in-house test facilities
versus testing at third-party test facilities. Table III.11 lists the
estimated in-house and third-party test costs potentially incurred by
manufacturers.

Table III.11--Estimated Number of Conventional Cooking Top Models Tested and Associated One-Time Per-Unit Test
Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per-unit test Number of Units tested Total one-time
Type of test facility cost models tested per model testing cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-House Testing Facility....................... $729 1,205 2 $1,756,890
Third-Party Testing Facility.................... 3,000 401 2 2,406,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 4,162,890
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 60999]]

To estimate in-house testing cost, DOE estimated based on its
testing experience that testing a single conventional cooking top unit
to the proposed test procedure requires approximately 17.5 hours of a
technician's time. Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics'
(``BLS's'') Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, the mean
hourly wage for mechanical engineering technologists and technicians is
$29.27.\34\ Additionally, DOE used data from BLS's Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation to estimate the percent that wages comprise the
total compensation for an employee. DOE estimates that wages make up
70.3 percent of the total compensation for private industry
employees.\35\ Therefore, DOE estimated that the total hourly
compensation (including all fringe benefits) of a technician performing
the testing is $41.64.\36\ Using these labor rates and time estimates,
DOE estimates that it would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers
approximately $729 to conduct a single test on a conventional cooking
top unit, if this test was conducted at an in-house test facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ DOE used the mean hourly wage of the ``17-3027 Mechanical
Engineering Technologists and Technicians'' from the most recent BLS
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (May 2020) to estimate
the hourly wage rate of a technician assumed to perform this
testing. See <a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173027.htm">www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173027.htm</a>. Last accessed on
May 26, 2021.
\35\ DOE used the December 2020 ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation'' to estimate that for ``Private Industry Workers,''
``Wages and Salaries'' are 70.3 percent of the total employee
compensation. See <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03182021.pdf">www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03182021.pdf</a>. Last accessed on May 26, 2021.
\36\ $29.27 / 0.703 = $41.64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To estimate third-party laboratory costs, DOE received quotes from
test laboratories on the price of conducting a similar conventional
cooking top test procedure. DOE then averaged these prices to arrive at
an estimate of what the manufacturers would have to spend to test their
product using a third-party test laboratory. Using these quotes, DOE
estimates that it would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers
approximately $3,000 to conduct a single test on a conventional cooking
top unit, if this test was conducted at a third-party laboratory test
facility. Using this assumption, DOE estimates that it would cost
conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $1,458 per basic
model, if tested at an in-house test facility and approximately $6,000
per basic model, if tested at a third-party laboratory test facility.
Based on these estimates, DOE estimated that conventional cooking
top manufacturers would incur approximately $4.2 million \37\ to
initially test all conventional cooking top basic models that are
currently on the market according to the test procedure proposed in
this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ In-House: $1,458 x 1,205 = $1,756,890. Third-Party: $6,000
x 401 = $2,406,000. Total: $1,756,890 + $2,406,000 = $4,162,890
(rounded to $4.2 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comment on any aspect of the estimated initial testing
costs associated with DOE's proposed test procedures.
DOE also estimated that conventional cooking top manufacturers
would need to purchase test vessels in accordance with the test
procedures proposed in this NOPR. DOE estimated that, on average, the
largest seven manufacturers would purchase approximately 20 sets of
test vessels each; while 19 manufacturers would purchase approximately
two sets of testing vessels each; and the remaining 19 manufacturers
would not purchase any testing vessels, as all the models manufactured
by these manufacturers would be tested at a third-party testing
facility. Based on these assumptions, DOE estimated that the entire
conventional cooking top industry would purchase approximately 178 sets
of test vessels to be able to conduct this proposed test procedure, if
finalized.\38\ DOE estimated that each set of test vessels would cost
approximately $6,000. Therefore, DOE estimated that all conventional
cooking top manufacturers would incur approximately $1.1 million to
purchase the equipment necessary to conduct the test procedure proposed
in this NOPR.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ (7 x 20) + (19 x 2) = 178.
\39\ $6,000 x 178 = $1,068,000 (rounded to $1.1 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to these one-time testing costs to initially test all
covered conventional cooking top basic models and the testing equipment
needed to conduct the proposed test procedure, DOE assumed smaller
annual recuring testing costs as conventional cooking top models are
either newly introduced into the market or existing models are
remodeled. DOE estimated that conventional cooking tops are redesigned
approximately once every 3 years on average. Using this redesign cycle
time-frame and the test costs and model count estimates previously
stated, DOE estimated that conventional cooking top manufacturers would
incur approximately $1.4 million every year to test these newly
introduced or remodeled conventional cooking top models.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ DOE estimated that approximately 401 unique basic models
would be tested at an in-house test facility and approximately 134
unique basic models would be tested at a third-party test facility
each year. These estimates add up to approximately one-third of the
total estimated number of unique basic models currently on the
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requests comment on any aspect of the estimated recurring
testing costs associated with conventional cooking tops.

M. Compliance Date

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE establishes a new test procedure, all
representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those
made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in
accordance with that new test procedure, beginning 180 days after
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2))
If DOE were to publish a new test procedure for conventional
cooking tops, EPCA provides an allowance for individual manufacturers
to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-day period if the
manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline. (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an extension, petitions must be
filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day
period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue
hardship. (Id.)
As previously stated, currently no performance-based energy
conservation standards are prescribed for conventional cooking tops.
Were DOE to finalize the test procedure as proposed, manufacturers
would not be required to test according to the DOE test procedure
unless manufacturers voluntarily choose to make representations as to
the energy efficiency or energy use of a conventional cooking top. Were
DOE to establish energy conservation standards for conventional cooking
tops, manufacturers would be required to test according to the
finalized test procedure at such time as compliance would be required
with the established standards.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute ``significant
regulatory actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order (``E.O.'')
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
OMB.

[[Page 61000]]

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by 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 website: <a href="https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is proposing to establish test procedures for conventional
cooking tops. Establishing test procedures for conventional cooking
tops assists DOE in fulfilling its statutory deadline for amending
energy conservation standards for cooking products that achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Additionally, establishing test procedures for conventional cooking
tops, allows manufacturers to produce measurements of energy use that
are representative of an average use cycle and uniform for all
manufacturers.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
DOE has undertaken this rulemaking pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10), which authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment,
including the cooking products that are the subject of this rulemaking.
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of conventional cooking tops, the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards are listed by North
American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry
description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-
size-standards. Manufacturing conventional cooking tops is classified
under NAICS 335220, ``major household appliance manufacturing.'' The
SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be
considered as a small business for this category.
DOE reviewed the test procedures proposed in this NOPR under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE used publicly available
information to identify potential small businesses that manufacture
conventional cooking tops. DOE used data from DOE's publicly available
CCD,\41\ CEC's MAEDBS,\42\ Natural Resources Canada's publicly
searchable database,\43\ AHAM's member directory,\44\ and manufacturers
identified in previous DOE rulemakings to identify all potential
manufacturers of conventional cooking tops sold in the United States.
Once DOE created a list of potential manufacturers, DOE used market
research tools (e.g., D&B Hoover) to determine whether they met the
SBA's definition of a small entity, based on the total number of
employees for each company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ DOE currently requires manufacturers to certify that all
conventional cooking product models using gas are not equipped with
a standing pilot light. See <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data</a>. Last accessed on May 24, 2021.
\42\ <a href="http://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx">cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx</a>. Last accessed on May 24, 2021.
\43\ <a href="http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/index.cfm?action=app.welcome-bienvenue">oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/index.cfm?action=app.welcome-bienvenue</a>. Last accessed on May 24, 2021.
\44\ <a href="http://www.aham.org/AHAM/AuxCurrentMembers">www.aham.org/AHAM/AuxCurrentMembers</a>. Last accessed on May
24, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based DOE's analysis, DOE identified 45 companies potentially
selling conventional cooking tops covered by this proposed test
procedure in the United States. DOE screened out companies that do not
offer products impacted by this proposed rulemaking, do not meet the
definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
Of these 45 conventional cooking top manufacturers, DOE identified up
to 13 small businesses.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
As previously stated, DOE identified 13 small businesses
potentially selling conventional cooking tops in the United States.
Based on a review of publicly available model databases and individual
company product catalogues, DOE estimated the number of conventional
cooking tops covered by this test procedure proposal for each small
business. DOE estimated the number of conventional cooking top models
covered by this test procedure proposal for each small business ranges
from four unique basic covered models to 93 unique basic covered
models, depending on the specific small business. DOE conservatively
estimated that all small businesses would have all their conventional
cooking top models tested at a third-party testing facility.\45\ As
discussed in section III.L of this document, DOE estimated it would
cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $6,000 per
unique basic model to be tested at a third-party test facility.
Therefore, DOE estimated that a small business could incur anywhere
from $24,000 to $558,000 if all their conventional cooking top models
covered by this test procedure proposal were tested at a third-party
test facility.\46\ These costs represent the minimum and maximum one-
time cost that a small business would incur to initially test all
unique basic covered models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ DOE estimated a higher per-model testing cost when the test
was conducted at a third-party testing facility versus if the test
was conducted at an in-house testing facility.
\46\ 4 models x $6,000 = $24,000. 93 models x $6,000 = $558,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, DOE used D&B Hoover to estimate the annual revenue
for each potential small business. DOE used these annual revenue
estimates in addition to the number of conventional cooking top models
covered by this test procedure proposal to estimate the potential
impact of initially testing all unique basic covered models on small
busines

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on November 4, 2021.

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