Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-15725

Rule2022-15725

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure 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

August 22, 2022

Effective

September 21, 2022

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") is establishing a test procedure for a category of cooking products, i.e., conventional cooking tops, under a new appendix. The new test procedure adopts the latest version of the relevant industry standard for electric cooking tops with modifications. The modifications adapt the test method to gas cooking tops, normalize the energy use of each test cycle, include measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use, update certain test conditions, and clarify certain provisions. This final rule retitles the existing cooking products test procedure to specify that it is for microwave ovens only. This final rule also corrects the CFR following an incorrect amendatory instruction in a June 2022 final rule.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 161 (Monday, August 22, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 161 (Monday, August 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51492-51548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15725]

[[Page 51491]]

Vol. 87

Monday,

No. 161

August 22, 2022

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Cooking Products; Final
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 51492]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

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

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Cooking Products

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

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is establishing a test
procedure for a category of cooking products, i.e., conventional
cooking tops, under a new appendix. The new test procedure adopts the
latest version of the relevant industry standard for electric cooking
tops with modifications. The modifications adapt the test method to gas
cooking tops, normalize the energy use of each test cycle, include
measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use, update certain
test conditions, and clarify certain provisions. This final rule
retitles the existing cooking products test procedure to specify that
it is for microwave ovens only. This final rule also corrects the CFR
following an incorrect amendatory instruction in a June 2022 final
rule.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is September 21, 2022. The final
rule changes will be mandatory for representations of energy use or
energy efficiency of a conventional cooking top on or after February
20, 2023.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on
September 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, webinar
transcripts, 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.
A link to 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.
For further information on how to review the docket contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#74350404181d151a17112700151a101506100725011107001d1b1a073411115a101b115a131b02">[email&#160;protected]</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#fabb8a8a96939b94999fa98e9b949e9b889e89ab8f9f898e93959489ba9f9fd49e959fd49d958c">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. 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#ecaf8980858dc2bf84899eac849dc2888389c28b839a">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into appendix I1 to subpart B of part 430:
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') 62301,
``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power'',
first edition, June 2005 (``IEC 62301 First Edition'').
IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power'', Edition 2.0, 2011-01 (``IEC 62301 Second Edition'').
IEC 60350-2, ``Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs--
Methods for measuring performance'', Edition 2.1, 2021-05 (``IEC 60350-
2:2021'').
Copies of IEC 62301 First Edition, IEC 62301 Second Edition and IEC
60350-2:2021 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.N of this document for further discussion of these
standards.

Technical Correction

On June 1, 2022, DOE published the final rule ``Test Procedures for
Residential and Commercial Clothes Washers'', effective on July 1, 2022
(87 FR 33316). One of the instructions was intended to update the IEC
62301 Second Edition entry in the centralized IBR section (10 CFR
430.3(p)(6)). However, the amendatory instruction referenced paragraph
(o) instead of paragraph (p). (See 87 FR 33380.) This final rule,
therefore, corrects that error.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Applicability
C. Round Robin Test Results
D. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 60350-2:2021 for Measuring
Energy Consumption
1. Water-Heating Test Methodology
2. Differences Between IEC 60350-2:2021 and Previous Versions
E. Modifications to IEC 60350-2:2021 Methodology To Reduce
Testing Burden
1. Test Vessel Selection for Electric Cooking Tops
2. Temperature Specifications
3. Determination of the Simmering Setting
4. Normalizing Per-Cycle Energy Use for the Final Water
Temperature
F. 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
G. Definitions and Clarifications
1. Operating Modes
2. Product Configuration and Installation Requirements
3. Power Settings
4. Specialty Cooking Zone
5. Turndown Temperature
H. Test Conditions and Instrumentation
1. Electrical Supply
2. Water Load Mass Tolerance
3. Test Vessel Flatness
I. 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
J. 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
K. Alternative Proposals
1. Replacing the Simmering Test With a Simmering Usage Factor
2. Changing the Setting Used to Calculate Simmering Energy
3. Industry Test Procedures
L. Representations
1. Sampling Plan
2. Convertible Cooking Appliances
M. Reporting
N. Test Procedure Costs
O. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Descriptions of Reasons for Action
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations

[[Page 51493]]

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. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. 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 the Department of Energy (``DOE'') is authorized
to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) DOE's regulations at title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430 section 2 defines
``cooking products,'' \1\ which cover cooking appliances that use gas,
electricity, or microwave energy as the source of heat. The section
also defines specific categories of cooking products: conventional
cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, and a term for
products that do not fall into those categories: ``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''), respectively. Only
microwave oven test procedures are currently specified in appendix I.
DOE is creating a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B
appendix I1 (``appendix I1'') that establishes a test procedure for
conventional cooking tops. The following sections discuss DOE's
authority to establish test procedures for conventional cooking tops
and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of
test procedures 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
not accurately describe the products considered, which include
microwave ovens, conventional ranges, cooking tops, 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), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\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 testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1)
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2)
making other representations about the efficiency of those products (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the products comply with any 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))
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 shall be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and shall not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
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 amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures 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 proposed test procedures and afford interested persons
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments
with respect to such procedures. 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 procedures.
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 into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode
energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a separate test
is technically feasible. (Id.) Any such amendment must consider the

[[Page 51494]]

most current versions of IEC 62301 \4\ and IEC 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, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the statutory
authority specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10))

B. Background

As stated, DOE's 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 only of standby power
of microwave ovens. There are no provisions for testing conventional
cooking tops or conventional ovens. DOE is adopting testing provisions
only for conventional cooking tops in this final rule.
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 covered 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 top test procedure, the relevant
sections of the 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'') (``AHAM
petition''). 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. 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 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 in
the August 2020 Final Rule based on test data submitted by outside
parties indicating that the test procedure for conventional cooking
tops yielded inconsistent results.\7\ 85 FR 50757, 50760. DOE's test
data for electric cooking tops from testing conducted at a single
laboratory showed small variations. Id. Lab-to-lab test results
submitted by AHAM showed high levels of variation for gas and electric
cooking tops. Id. at 85 FR 50763. DOE determined that the inconsistency
in results of such testing showed the results to be unreliable, and
that it was unduly burdensome to require cooking top tests be conducted
using that test method without further study to resolve those
inconsistencies. Id. at 85 FR 50760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ DOE later stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking
published on November 4, 2021, that not all of the test results
submitted by outside parties were from testing that followed all
requirements of the DOE test procedure. 86 FR 60974, 60976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE conducted two sets of round robin testing and published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') on November 4, 2021,
(``November 2021 NOPR''), at which time one set had been completed. The
November 2021 NOPR proposed to re-establish a conventional cooking top
test procedure. 86 FR 60974. DOE proposed to adopt the latest version
of the relevant industry standard published by the International
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC''), Standard 60350-2 (Edition 2.0
2017-08), ``Household electric cooking appliances--Part 2: Hobs--
Methods for measuring performance'' (``IEC 60350-2:2017''), with
modifications. The modifications would 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 clarify
certain provisions. Id. The November 2021 NOPR also presented the
results of an initial round robin test program initiated in January
2020 (``2020 Round Robin'') to investigate further the water-heating
approach and the concerns raised in the AHAM petition.\8\ Id. at 86 FR
60979-60980. The comment period for the November 2021 NOPR was
initially set to close on January 3, 2022. Id. at 86 FR 60974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The 2020 Round Robin was ongoing as of the August 2020 Final
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE published a notice of data availability (``NODA'') on December
16, 2021, (``December 2021 NODA'') in which DOE announced that it had
published the results of a second round robin test program initiated in
May 2021 (``2021 Round Robin'') and extended the comment period for the
November 2021 NOPR until January 18, 2022. 86 FR 71406. In response to
a stakeholder request,\9\ on January 18, 2022, DOE published a notice
further extending the comment period until February 17, 2022. 87 FR
2559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Request from AHAM (EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0007) available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0007">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0007</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received comments in response to the November 2021 NOPR and the
December 2021 NODA from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.

[[Page 51495]]

Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the November 2021 NOPR and December 2021
NODA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final Document No.
Commenter(s) rule in docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous............................... Anonymous................. 3 Individual.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Commenters.......... 11 Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation
of America, National Consumer Law
Center, and Natural Resources Defense
Council.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM...................... 12 Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
The American Gas Association and the Joint Gas Associations.... 18 Utility and Trade
American Public Gas Association. Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.... NEEA...................... 15 Efficiency Organization.
New York State Energy Research and NYSERDA................... 10 State Agency.
Development Authority.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San CA IOUs................... 14 Utilities.
Diego Gas and Electric, Southern
California Edison; collectively, the
California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Samsung Electronics America............. Samsung................... 16 Manufacturer.
UL LLC.................................. UL........................ 17 Certification Laboratory.
Whirlpool Corporation................... Whirlpool................. 13 Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for conventional cooking tops. (Docket No. EERE-
2021-BT-TP-0023, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document). Some comment references are from
different dockets than the one listed here, in that case, the
parenthetical reference will include the docket number as well as
the document ID number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE establishes 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 also amends 10 CFR part 430 to incorporate
by reference IEC 60350-2 (Edition 2.1, 2021-05), ``Household electric
cooking appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance'',
the current version of the applicable industry standard. Appendix I1:
(1) Reduces the test burden and improves the repeatability and
reproducibility \11\ of testing conducted to IEC 60350-2:2021 by:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Repeatability refers to test-to-test variability within a
single laboratory, on a given unit. Reproducibility, which measures
the ability to replicate the findings of others, refers to lab-to-
lab variability, on a given unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Simplifying the test vessel selection process for electrical
cooking tops;
(b) Modifying the room temperature, product temperature, and
initial water temperature requirements;
(c) Providing criteria for determining the simmering setting during
energy testing; and
(d) Normalizing the per-cycle energy use to account for the water
temperature at the end of the simmering period;
(2) Applies IEC 60350-2:2021 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) Provides additional specifications, including:
(a) Definitions for operating modes, product configurations, test
settings, test parameters, 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) Provides means for measuring cooking top annual energy use in
standby mode and off mode by:
(a) Applying certain provisions from IEC 62301, ``Household
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power'', First Edition,
2005-06, and IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement
of standby power'', Edition 2.0 2011-01;
(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) Defines the integrated annual energy use metric by specifying
the representative water load mass and the number of annual cooking top
cycles.
DOE is also adding calculations of annual energy consumption and
estimated annual operating cost to 10 CFR 430.23(i) and renaming the
test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I to ``Uniform
Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Microwave Ovens.''
Table II.1 summarizes DOE's modifications to the cooking top test
procedure compared to the current industry test procedure, as well as
the reasons for the provisions in new appendix I1. DOE's reorganization
of appendix I is summarized in Table II.2.

[[Page 51496]]

Table II.1--Summary of Changes in the Newly Established Test Procedure
for Conventional Cooking Products Relative to the Industry Test
Procedure Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEC 60350-2:2021 test Appendix I1 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, test
settings, test
parameters, 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 (first and
second editions) to
measure standby mode
and off mode power
and calculate annual
combined low-power
mode energy.
Specifies a room and starting Specifies a room and Decrease test
product temperature of 23 starting product burden.
<plus-minus> 2 degrees temperature of 25
Celsius (``[deg]C''). <plus-minus> 5
[deg]C. Specifies
that the temperature
must be stable,
defines stable
temperature, and
specifies how to
measure the product
temperature.
Specifies an initial water Specifies an initial 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 size, 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 0.5 gram Improve
on the mass of the water load. (``g'') tolerance on repeatability
the mass of the water and
load. reproducibility
.
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 1000 g water load to Uses a 2853 g 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 the Amended Test Procedure for
Microwave Ovens Relative to Existing Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing DOE test procedure Amended test procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix I title refers to 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 determined that the new test procedure described in section
III of this document and adopted in this final rule will produce
measurements of energy use that are representative of an average use
cycle and are not unduly burdensome to conduct. Discussion of DOE's
actions are addressed in detail in section III of this document.
Additionally, DOE provides estimates of the cost of testing for
industry in section III.N of this document. DOE notes that there are
currently no performance-based energy conservation standards prescribed
for conventional cooking tops.
The effective date for the new test procedure adopted in this final
rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Manufacturers will not be required to conduct the test
procedure until 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. To the extent manufacturers make voluntary
representations as to the energy use or energy efficiency of a
conventional cooking top, representations of energy use or energy
efficiency must be based on testing in accordance with the new test
procedure beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule.

III. Discussion

In this final rule, DOE establishes a new test procedure for
conventional cooking tops in a new appendix I1, ``Uniform Test Method
for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking
Products.'' The test procedure is based primarily on an industry
standard for measuring the energy consumption of electric cooking tops,
IEC 60350-2:2021, with certain adjustments and clarifications, as
discussed in the following sections of this document. Although IEC
60350-2:2021 applies only to electric cooking tops, the methodology is
extended to gas cooking tops by means of additional instrumentation and
test setup provisions.
DOE is also renaming 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. General Comments

Whirlpool supported AHAM's comments on the November 2021 NOPR.
(Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 2) The Joint Gas Associations agreed with the
amendments that AHAM recommended in response to the November 2021 NOPR.
(Joint Gas Associations, No. 18 at p. 2)

[[Page 51497]]

An anonymous commenter expressed general support for a new test
procedure that creates a standardized measure of energy consumption of
cooking products. (Anonymous Commenter, No. 3 at p. 1)
Samsung supported DOE's establishing energy conservation standards
and considering applicable tolerances for certification and compliance
for electric cooking tops, based on the round robin test results.
(Samsung, No. 16 at p. 2) Samsung also encouraged DOE to move forward
in finalizing the test procedure for electric cooking tops, stating
that this could help advance ENERGY STAR recognition of induction
cooking tops in the near future, which would also be important for
significant potential decarbonization and electrification through
induction cooking. (Samsung, No. 16 at p. 3)
NYSERDA commented that DOE should re-institute a test procedure for
electric and gas cooking tops as soon as possible. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at
p. 1) According to NYSERDA, the test procedure withdrawal was
unsupported by DOE's test results and data, and has left a void in the
market for products introduced since October 2019 that have not been
subjected to test procedures and have been sold to consumers. (Id.)
NEEA expressed general support for the proposed test procedure.
(NEEA, No. 15 at p. 1)
The CA IOUs supported re-adoption of a test procedure for cooking
products and encouraged DOE to swiftly finalize this rulemaking,
commenting that the proposed modifications to the test procedure would
mitigate the repeatability, reproducibility, and representativeness
concerns of the withdrawn test procedure while also reducing the
testing burden. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 1)
The Joint Commenters supported the test methods proposed in the
November 2021 NOPR. They urged DOE to finalize the test procedures for
cooking tops as soon as possible to allow the Department to develop
standards that can deliver large energy savings. (Joint Commenters, No.
11 at p. 1)
The Joint Commenters also encouraged DOE to initiate work to
develop a test procedure for conventional ovens, noting that there are
no test procedures or performance-based standards in place for
conventional ovens. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 4) The Joint
Commenters stated that developing a test procedure for conventional
ovens would allow DOE to set performance-based standards for
conventional ovens, which could lead to significant energy savings.
(Id.)
DOE notes that the scope of this rulemaking and of this final rule
is limited to test procedures for cooking tops. The development of any
potential test procedure for conventional ovens would be considered in
a separate rulemaking.
The Joint Gas Associations commented that the proposed DOE test
procedures for cooking tops do not appear to produce reliable and
repeatable results. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 18 at p. 2) To remedy
this, the Joint Gas Associations support the changes recommended by
AHAM. (Id.)
AHAM commented that the proposed rule does not comply with the EPCA
requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) that new and amended test
procedures produce accurate results that measure energy efficiency
during a representative average use cycle or period of use and are not
unduly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 2) AHAM also stated
that the proposed rule does not comply with the Administrative
Procedure Act requirement that a rule not be arbitrary and capricious.
(Id.) AHAM further commented that the November 2021 NOPR lacks
supporting data on the record other than in summary form and is not the
detailed data necessary to assess DOE's proposal and support its
conclusion that the proposed test procedure sufficiently addresses
repeatability and reproducibility. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 5-6)
In evaluating whether the adopted test procedure is reasonably
designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency and
energy use of conventional cooking tops, DOE relied, in part, on the
data presented in the November 2021 NOPR and the December 2021 NODA.
This final rule is supported by rigorous and substantive testing
conducted over 6 months at four different testing laboratories that
included both round robin testing and additional investigative testing.
As discussed in the following sections, DOE has determined that the
evaluated test data demonstrate that the test procedure is repeatable
and reproducible for both electric and gas cooking tops (see discussion
in section III.D.1 of this document). In this final rule, DOE
determines that this test procedure is accurate and measures energy use
during a representative average use cycle (see discussions in sections
III.E.1, III.F.3, III.G.2, and III.K.1 of this document). DOE further
determines in this final rule that the test procedure is not unduly
burdensome (see section III.N of this document).
AHAM requested that DOE provide 180 days between the publication of
the final test procedure and the end of the comment period on proposed
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products. (AHAM,
No. 12 at p. 8) AHAM further requested that DOE not issue a proposed
rule on standards until after publishing a notice of data availability
or other subsequent document subject to notice and comment that
provides updated test data from DOE's own testing, preferably including
data from AHAM members' testing as well. (Id.)
AHAM commented that DOE could satisfy its commitment to rectify its
missed statutory deadline by finalizing a rule not amending energy
conservation standards for cooking products due to the lack of a test
procedure, stating that doing so would allow DOE to separately finalize
a test procedure and consider whether further amended standards are
justified. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 6) AHAM commented that EPCA requires DOE
to review determinations not to amend energy conservation standards
``not later than 3 years after'' the determination, stating that 3
years at most would pass before DOE would revisit possible amended
standards if it published a final rule not amending cooking product
energy conservation standards. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE could
review standards at any time before that, should a test procedure be
completed sooner, which AHAM asserted was likely. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it has convened a task force (``Task Force'')
\12\ that has worked to develop an industry test method that would
improve the repeatability and reproducibility of the test and to
decrease what AHAM characterized as significant test burden. (AHAM, No.
12 at pp. 4-5) AHAM commented that its Task Force has worked to develop
a test method that meets DOE's requirements under EPCA. (AHAM, No. 12
at p. 4) AHAM acknowledged that there are some improvements in the test
procedure as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR, but stated that there
are potential sources of variation that need to be resolved before DOE
finalizes a cooking top test procedure. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 5) AHAM
noted that the determination to withdraw the cooking top test procedure
was one of the rulemakings

[[Page 51498]]

specified for review by December 31, 2021, under Executive Order 13990,
``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' (Id.) AHAM requested that DOE allow AHAM
to complete its data collection efforts and then proceed with this
rulemaking according to the data, rather than continue to work in
parallel to the Task Force. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ The AHAM cooking product task force includes AHAM member
manufacturers, a representative of the Appliance Standard Awareness
Project, and DOE staff and contractors. The first meeting of the
Task Force was in January 2021. The Task Force has been developing
test procedures for both electric and gas cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE based the test procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR on
the then-current version of the Task Force draft procedure. In
particular, DOE notes that the test procedure proposed in the November
2021 NOPR includes several revisions to IEC 60350-2 methodology
suggested by Task Force members. One is the simplification of the test
vessel selection for electric cooking tops (see section III.E.1 of this
document). A second is the expanded ambient room temperature range (see
section III.E.2.a of this document). A third is the updated initial
water temperature (see section III.E.2.c of this document). A fourth is
the use of a flow chart to determine the simmering setting (see section
III.E.3 of this document). A fifth is the normalization of the per-
cycle energy use based on the final water temperature (see section
III.E.4 of this document). Generally, DOE has addressed concerns that
AHAM has raised. These include the repeatability and reproducibility of
the test procedure (see section III.D.1 of this document), the
potential effects of test vessel warpage (see section III.H.3 of this
document), and the test burden (see sections III.K.1 and III.N of this
document).
DOE is finalizing this test procedure having determined that it
meets the EPCA criteria that a test procedure be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure the energy use of a covered product
during a representative average use cycle, without being unduly
burdensome to conduct. DOE discusses in detail the adopted test
procedure and addresses specific comments in the following sections.

B. 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. Id.
As discussed in section I.A of this document, EPCA authorizes DOE
to establish and amend test procedures for covered products (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)) and 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 replace
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 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. A
combined cooking product that consists of multiple classes of cooking
products is subject to multiple standards. Any established energy
conservation standard applies to each individual component of such a
combined cooking product. As determined in the December 2016 Final
Rule, the cooking top test procedure applies 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 be measured only for the combined cooking product, not
for the individual components. 81 FR 91418, 91423. As discussed in
section III.J.3 of this document, DOE is establishing 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. DOE's approach involves 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 of
the combined cooking product.

C. Round Robin Test Results

In January 2020, DOE initiated the 2020 Round Robin test program to
investigate further the repeatability and reproducibility of the water-
heating approach in the then-current version of appendix I and to
evaluate issues raised in the AHAM petition. DOE presented the results
of the 2020 Round Robin in the November 2021 NOPR. 86 FR 60974, 60979.
Four laboratories with experience testing cooking products tested a
total of ten cooking tops--five electric units \13\ and five gas
units--according to the then-current version of appendix I. Id. Except
as noted in the November 2021 NOPR, for each unit tested, each
laboratory conducted three complete tests (i.e., three replications of
the DOE test procedure) \14\ to determine the annual energy consumption
(excluding combined low-power mode energy), yielding a coefficient of
variation (``COV'') \15\ that can be used to assess the repeatability
\16\ of results. Id. The averages between the laboratories were also
compared to determine a COV of reproducibility.\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Among the five electric cooking tops, two were induction
technology, two were radiant technology, and one was electric
resistance coil technology.
\14\ As detailed in the November 2021 NOPR, not all ten units
were tested at all four participating laboratories. Table III.1 of
the November 2021 NOPR details which units were tested at which
laboratories. Further details regarding testing can be found in
section III.K.3 of this document.
\15\ COV is a statistical measure of the dispersion of data
points around the mean. A lower COV indicates less variation in
results.
\16\ Repeatability refers to test-to-test variability within a
single lab, on a given unit.
\17\ Reproducibility refers to lab-to-lab variability, on a
given unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results from the 2020 Round Robin are summarized as follows.
For electric cooking tops, the test results showed repeatability COVs
ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 percent and reproducibility COVs ranging from
1.5 to 2.7 percent.\18\ 86 FR 60974, 60980. For gas cooking tops, the
test results showed repeatability COVs ranging from 0.3 to 3.7 percent
and reproducibility COVs ranging from 4.0 to 8.9 percent. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Among test laboratories identified in the November 2021
NOPR as ``certified,'' reproducibility COVs ranged from 0.4 percent
to 1.9 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following the August 2020 Final Rule, DOE initiated another round
robin test program in response to changes to

[[Page 51499]]

electric cooking tops on the market \19\ and to evaluate variability in
testing gas cooking tops. DOE presented the results of this 2021 Round
Robin in the December 2021 NODA. 86 FR 71406, 71407. Four laboratories
\20\ with recognized experience testing cooking products tested a total
of five cooking top units--four gas cooking tops and one electric
(resistance coil-type) cooking top that meets the most recent version
of the relevant industry safety standard (i.e., UL 858)--according to
the test procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR.\21\ For each
unit tested, each laboratory conducted two complete tests (i.e., two
replications of the proposed test procedure) to determine the annual
energy consumption (excluding combined low-power mode energy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ On June 18, 2015, UL issued a revision to its safety
standard for electric ranges--UL 858 ``Household Electric Ranges
Standard for Safety'' (``UL 858'')--that added a new performance
requirement for electric-coil cooking tops intended to address
unattended cooking. This revision had an effective date of April 4,
2019. Because the electric-coil cooking top in the 2020 Round Robin
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 revised version of UL 858. To address
the lack of test data on electric-coil cooking tops that comply with
the revised UL 858 safety standard, DOE included one electric-coil
cooking top meeting the 2015 revision of UL 858 in the 2021 Round
Robin. 86 FR 71406, 71407.
\20\ Three of the test laboratories which participated in the
2020 Round Robin also participated in the 2021 Round Robin.
\21\ As detailed in the December 2021 NODA, not all five units
were tested at all four participating laboratories. The data tables
accompanying the December 2021 NODA detail which units were tested
at which laboratories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results from the 2021 Round Robin are as follows. For the
electric-coil cooking top, the results showed repeatability COVs
ranging from 0.3 to 0.5 percent (compared to a range of 0.4 to 0.7
percent from the 2020 Round Robin) and a reproducibility COV of 2.4
percent (compared to 2.7 percent from the 2020 Round Robin). 86 FR
60974, 60980 and 86 FR 71406, 71407.\22\ For the gas cooking tops, the
test results showed repeatability COVs ranging from 0.004 to 1.7
percent (compared to a range of 0.3 to 3.7 percent from the 2020 Round
Robin) and reproducibility COVs ranging from 3.3 to 5.3 percent
(compared to a range of 4.0 to 8.9 percent from the 2020 Round Robin).
Id. at 86 FR 71407-71408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See also the table of results for the 2021 Round Robin
available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0004">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0004</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the November 2021 NOPR and December 2021 NODA, AHAM
commented that DOE had not provided sufficient data. In particular,
AHAM asserted the data DOE provided was insufficient to support its
analysis or to allow commenters to fully understand, interpret, or
analyze the proposed test procedure and provide meaningful comment.
(AHAM, No. 12 at p. 6) AHAM commented that DOE's failure to fully
disclose its data in this rulemaking would be a mistake and urged DOE
to provide complete disclosure and time for comment. (Id.) AHAM
requested that DOE provide its full, raw data on the record for
stakeholder review, not just high-level results. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 7)
AHAM stated that the data summaries provided by DOE were helpful but do
not provide the ability to understand what occurred during testing or
to conduct an independent review of the data. (Id.) AHAM commented that
without second-by-second data from DOE, it is unable to fully evaluate
DOE's results and provide meaningful comments. (Id.) AHAM commented
that it is collecting data to evaluate DOE's proposed test procedure
and hopes to provide the investigative test data in detail to
supplement comments on the test procedure. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that they also plan to test electric and gas
cooking tops to further evaluate the proposed test procedure's
repeatability, reproducibility, and representativeness. (CA IOUs, No.
14 at p. 9) The CA IOUs commented that they will share the results of
this testing as it is completed. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that the 2021 Round Robin results highlight
the efficacy of the amendments proposed by DOE in the November 2021
NOPR in improving repeatability and reproducibility of the cooking top
test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that in
comparison to the 10-percent uncertainty allowance for repeatability in
other test methodologies such as the American Society for Testing and
Materials (``ASTM'') test methods used in the ENERGY STAR program, the
revised DOE test methodology has shown exceptional repeatability and
reproducibility results. (Id.) The CA IOUs supported the improvements
made to the test method, stating that the test procedure constitutes a
reasonable, repeatable and reproducible method. (Id.)
NYSERDA commented that DOE's proposal effectively addresses any
concerns with the prior procedure, stating that the modifications
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR reduce the variability in
repeatability and reproducibility as compared to the previous test
procedure. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2)
Samsung supported DOE's efforts after the previously withdrawn test
procedure to further develop the test procedure for conventional
cooking tops to address concerns expressed by stakeholders to improve
repeatability and reproducibility and to reduce test burden. (Samsung,
No. 16 at p. 2) Samsung commented that the repeatability and
reproducibility COV values for electric and gas cooking tops based on
the 2021 Round Robin significantly mitigate the repeatability and
reproducibility concerns raised previously. (Id.)
AHAM expressed its long-held position that any COV greater than 2
percent for the reproducibility of testing cooking top energy use from
laboratory to laboratory is unacceptable. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 8) AHAM
asserted that, while it appreciates DOE's efforts to reduce variation,
those efforts have not reduced variation enough and that the
reproducibility COVs presented in DOE's data are still too high. (Id.)
AHAM commented that DOE's data show that the variation in gas cooking
top testing is not similar to the variation in electric cooking top
testing, and asserted that more work is necessary before DOE can
proceed with the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 8-9) According to
AHAM, the industry insists on more narrow reproducibility than was
measured during the 2021 Round Robin, stating that a higher COV is
likely to increase the risk of potential non-compliance (e.g., where a
certifying body finds a unit's performance to be acceptable, but
verification testing identifies potential non-compliance). (Id.) AHAM
urged DOE to allow the Task Force to complete its test plan and to
consider its test results in this rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 9)
AHAM commented that it hopes the testing will be completed by September
2022. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 10).
DOE notes that in addition to the extensive test data made public
as part of the November 2021 NOPR and the December 2021 NODA, DOE has
also posted to the rulemaking docket the detailed test reports upon
which the summary tables presented in the December 2021 NODA were
based, in response to AHAM's request that DOE provide its full, raw
data.\23\ These data and test reports represent testing of cooking tops
from multiple manufacturers, across all available technologies, at
multiple testing laboratories. The breadth of products represented in
DOE's data set, together

[[Page 51500]]

with the data and test reports published to the rulemaking docket,
provide the foundation for the conclusions presented in the discussion
that follows. DOE welcomes any additional data that AHAM, the CA IOUs,
or any other stakeholder is able to share, and DOE will consider any
such data as part of the ongoing energy conservation standards
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023/document</a>, items number 19, 20, 21, and 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is required to establish test procedures that are reasonably
designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency and
energy use of covered products, including conventional cooking tops,
during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as
determined by the Secretary, and that are not unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE seeks improved repeatability and
reproducibility of a test procedure (as measured by a decrease in the
COVs), which has two potential benefits related to this obligation.
First, representativeness potentially improves because there is more
certainty that the measured results reflect representative use of the
product under test. Second, test burden potentially decreases, because
fewer test replications may be necessary to obtain certainty in the
results.
Regarding AHAM's comment that the results of the gas cooking top
testing do not demonstrate similar variation to the electric cooking
top testing, DOE acknowledges the generally higher reproducibility COVs
for gas cooking tops as compared to electric cooking tops and that in
the 2021 Round Robin the reproducibility COV of 5.3 percent for one of
the gas cooking tops was higher than the reproducibility COVs of the
three other gas cooking tops (3.3, 3.6, and 3.6 percent). However,
these differences reflect the inherent differences between electric and
gas cooking tops. In particular, a gas cooking top's performance
variability is greater than that of an electric cooking top due to
inherent factors that do not affect electric products. These include
variation in the gas composition, air flow mix, or other components of
the combustion system. In effect, a certain amount of variation in test
results for a gas cooking top is expected; this variation reflects
actual variation in performance of the product. The test procedure is
capturing variation in the product's actual performance, not
demonstrating a lack of repeatability and reproducibility in the test
procedure.
DOE has determined that the 2021 Round Robin test results
demonstrate that the representativeness of the test procedure proposed
in the November 2021 NOPR and finalized in this final rule for gas
cooking tops (see discussion of gas-specific provisions in section
III.F of this document) is not negatively impacted by repeatability and
reproducibility concerns. In particular, the test procedure proposed in
the November 2021 NOPR demonstrates significantly improved
repeatability and reproducibility compared to the testing methodology
used for the 2020 Round Robin. As discussed, the repeatability COVs for
the 2021 Round Robin for gas cooking tops ranged from 0.004 to 1.7
percent (compared to a range of 0.3 to 3.7 percent from the 2020 Round
Robin) and reproducibility COVs ranged from 3.3 to 5.3 percent
(compared to a range of 4.0 to 8.9 percent from the 2020 Round Robin).
DOE has also determined that the 2020 Round Robin and 2021 Round
Robin test results demonstrate that the representativeness of DOE's
test procedure for electric cooking tops is not negatively impacted by
repeatability and reproducibility concerns. The 2021 Round Robin test
results demonstrate specifically that these findings hold true for
electric coil-type products that meet the revised UL 858 safety
standard. As discussed, the repeatability COVs for coil-type electric
cooking tops ranged from 0.3 to 0.5 percent and the reproducibility COV
was 2.4 percent.
There are changes that potentially could further improve
repeatability and reproducibility. These include narrower tolerances on
testing conditions and greater accuracy on instrumentation. However,
such increased stringencies would likely increase the testing burden
and could make it more difficult to conduct a valid test.
For gas cooking tops, tighter tolerances on gas specifications than
those proposed in the November 2021 NOPR \24\ could decrease
variability. 86 FR 60974, 60987. However, as explained below, this
would not be feasible because test laboratories may not have control
over the higher heating value of their gas supply if they do not choose
to use bottled gas with a certified gross heating value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ The gas specifications proposed in the November 2021 NOPR
only required an approximate higher heating value of 1,025 British
thermal units (``Btu'') per standard cubic foot when testing with
natural gas or an approximate higher heating value of 2,500 Btu per
standard cubic foot when testing with propane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE research suggests that third-party laboratories use either
municipal line natural gas or bottled natural gas for their natural-
gas-fired combustion testing. Either source may have a higher heating
value that varies from the nominal 1,025 Btu per standard cubic foot
for natural gas specified in the November 2021 NOPR. The Environmental
Protection Agency suggests the typical range is 950-1,050 Btu per
standard cubic foot.\25\ The higher heating value will depend on the
specific mix of gases in the natural gas line, which is a function of
the origin of the natural gas. Because test laboratories do not have
control over the line gas's heating value, specifying a tolerance on
the natural gas heating value would not be feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ <a href="http://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.4_natural_gas_combustion.pdf">www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.4_natural_gas_combustion.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One way to minimize higher heating value variability from test-to-
test and from lab-to-lab is to specify reference gases to be very pure
(i.e., over 99% methane). However, requiring the use of methane would
impose burdens on test laboratories. Methane is substantially more
costly per cubic foot than natural gas \26\ and would require a
dedicated bottled gas supply. Test laboratories currently using
municipal line gas would need to make significant investments, such as
purchasing gas bottle storage cabinets and controllers for flammable
gases. For test laboratories currently using bottled natural gas for
other gas-fired appliances (e.g., clothes dryers, water heaters,
furnaces), requiring the use of methane for testing cooking tops would
create additional logistical burden, because they would need to keep
track of multiple kinds of gas bottles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ DOE research found typical prices of bottled methane with
purity of 99.0 percent or greater, intended for laboratory usage,
ranging from approximately $0.50 to $1.50 per cubic foot of methane,
depending on cylinder size and purity. Methane, with a gross heating
value of 1,011 Btu/ft\3\, is the primary constituent of natural gas
and is thus typically used for testing products designed to operate
with natural gas. In contrast, the U.S. Energy Information
Administration's U.S. monthly commercial price of natural gas for
January 2022 was $9.76 per thousand cubic feet, or $0.00976 per
cubic foot. (See <a href="http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm">www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm</a>.)
Therefore, the cost of bottled methane for a testing laboratory
would be roughly 50-150 times that of natural gas from a municipal
line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, DOE has determined that any potential improvement in
repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure that could be
achieved by requiring the use of pure methane would be outweighed by
the additional cost and burden that would be imposed on test
laboratories, and therefore requiring the use of pure methane would be
unduly burdensome.
Other alternatives suggested by AHAM would significantly affect the
test procedure's representativeness (as discussed in section III.K.1 of
this document).
In this final rule, DOE determines that the test procedure
established in this

[[Page 51501]]

final rule is reasonably designed to produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a
cooking top during a representative average use cycle and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct.

D. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 60350-2:2021 for Measuring Energy
Consumption

1. Water-Heating Test Methodology
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed 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. 86 FR 60974,
60979. In the IEC 60350-2:2017 test method (and the updated IEC 60350-
2:2021 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'').\27\ 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'').\28\ 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.J.1
of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ See discussion of the turndown temperature in sections
III.D.2.a and III.G.5 of this document.
\28\ See discussion of the simmering period in section III.E.3
of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The approach DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR for new
appendix I1, IEC 60350-2:2017 (on which the November 2021 NOPR was
based), and IEC 60350-2:2021 (on which this final rule is based) are
all 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. Id. A more detailed comparison of IEC
60350-2:2021, IEC 60350-2:2017 and EN 60350-2:2013 is provided in
section III.D.2 of this document.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed 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.D.2.d through III.G of this
document. 86 FR 60974, 60980.
UL supported DOE's efforts to review and update the test procedure
for cooking products and of DOE leveraging existing procedures such as
IEC 60350-2:2017. (UL, No. 17 at p. 1)
Samsung supported the proposed test procedure for cooking tops
based on the IEC water-heating test methodology. (Samsung, No. 16 at p.
2)
AHAM generally agreed with DOE's proposed determination to rely on
a water boiling test. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 3)
For the reasons discussed in November 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing
its proposal to use a water-heating method, based primarily on the most
recent IEC test procedure, to measure cooking top energy consumption.
2. Differences Between IEC 60350-2:2021 and Previous Versions
After the publication of the December 2016 Final Rule, which was
based on EN 60350-2:2013, IEC issued IEC 60350-2:2017. In comparison to
EN 60350-2:2013, IEC 60350-2:2017 included additional informative
methodology for significantly reducing testing burden during the
determination of the simmering setting.
As mentioned previously, since the publication of the November 2021
NOPR, IEC has issued an updated test standard, IEC 60350-2:2021. This
updated version retains substantively the same provisions for the
water-heating methodology evaluated in the November 2021 NOPR, except
as addressed in the following sections.
In this final rule, DOE incorporates certain provisions of IEC
60350-2:2021 for measuring the energy consumption of cooking tops. DOE
further adopts certain modifications and clarifications to the
referenced sections of IEC 60350-2:2021, as discussed in sections
III.D.2.d, 0, III.G, III.H, and III.I of this document.
a. Temperature-Averaging
DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to add a definition of
``smoothened water temperature'' to section 1 of 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. 86 FR 60974, 60982. DOE also proposed 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.'' Id.
DOE requested 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. Id.
The CA IOUs commented that using a 40-second moving average for
determining temperatures is a key change proposed in the November 2021
NOPR to increase repeatability of the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 14
at pp. 1-2)
NEEA agreed with implementing a 40-second moving average to
smoothen the temperature curve, stating that this addresses natural
temperature oscillation. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2)
For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing a definition for
smoothened water temperature consistent with the November 2021 NOPR,
changing the referenced test procedure to IEC 60350-2:2021.
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. As DOE further discussed in the
November 2021 NOPR, these temperature oscillations may cause difficulty
in determining when the 20-minute simmering period starts after the
water temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C. 86 FR 60974, 60981. EN
60350-2:2013 did not contain provisions that addressed temperature
oscillations. In contrast, IEC 60350-2:2017 introduced (and IEC 60350-
2:2021 maintained) the use of ``smoothened'' temperature measurements
to minimize the effect of minor temperature oscillations in determining
the water temperature.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE 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 simmering test \29\ (i.e., the ``turndown
temperature'') \30\

[[Page 51502]]

was within a certain defined tolerance; and (2) the determination of
the start of the 20-minute simmering period. 86 FR 60974, 60981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ DOE uses the term ``simmering test'' to refer to the test
cycle that includes a heat-up period and a simmering period. DOE
uses this term to distinguish it from the ``overshoot test'' which
refers to the test used to calculate the turndown temperature (see
section III.G.5 of this document).
\30\ See section III.G.5 of this document for a definition and
further discussion of turndown temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding validation of the turndown temperature, Section 7.5.2.1
of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 provides a methodology
for conducting a preliminary test (the ``overshoot test'') to determine
the water temperature at which the power setting will be reduced to the
``simmering setting'' during the subsequent simmering test (i.e., the
``target'' turndown temperature).\31\ Section 7.5.3 of both IEC 60350-
2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 specifies that while conducting the
simmering 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 both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 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 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-
2:2021 requires that this validation be performed based on the
smoothened water temperature (as described previously) rather than
using the instantaneous measured water temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ See section III.G.5 of this document for a definition and
further discussion of target turndown temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE presented test data suggesting that
using the smoothened water temperature measurement, rather than the
instantaneous water temperature measurement, to validate the measured
turndown temperature could introduce unnecessary test burden. That test
burden resulted from 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). 86 FR
60974, 60981. 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. Id. On such products, the rate at which the water temperature
rises begins to quickly decrease (i.e., the temperature rise
``flattens'' out) within a few seconds after the power setting is
turned down to the simmering setting. Id. For such products, the
smoothened turndown temperature can be a few degrees lower than the
instantaneous turndown temperature 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. Id. 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 according to Section 7.5.4.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and
IEC 60350-2:2021). Id. 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. Id.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the
requirement in IEC 60350-2:2017 \32\ to use the smoothened water
temperature measurement, rather than the instantaneous water
temperature measurement, to validate the measured turndown temperature
may be unduly burdensome, particularly for electric-smooth radiant and
induction cooking tops. Id. at 86 FR 60982. Therefore, in the November
2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that new appendix I1 require using the
instantaneous water temperature measurement (rather than the smoothened
water temperature measurement) to validate that the measured turndown
temperature was within +1 [deg]C/-0.5 [deg]C of the target turndown
temperature. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ IEC 60350-2:2021 contains the same requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requested comment on its proposal to require that the
instantaneous, rather than the smoothened, turndown \33\ temperature be
within +1 [deg]C/-0.5 [deg]C of the target turndown temperature. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See section III.G.5 of this document for comments
pertaining to the definition of turndown temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the reasons discussed, DOE determines that the provision to use
the smoothened water temperature measurement to validate the measured
turndown temperature may be unduly burdensome, particularly for
electric-smooth radiant and induction cooking tops. Therefore, DOE
finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to
require that the instantaneous turndown temperature 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,\34\ in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE analyzed approaches for
determining the start of the simmering period that account for water
temperature fluctuations. 86 FR 60974, 60982. Section 7.5.3 of both IEC
60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 specifies that the start of the 20-
minute simmering period is when the water temperature first meets or
exceeds 90 [deg]C. By contrast, the version of appendix I as finalized
in the December 2016 Final Rule, which used instantaneous water
temperatures, allowed for a brief ``grace period'' after the water
temperature initially reached 90 [deg]C. In that grace period,
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. As
part of the November 2021 NOPR analysis, DOE analyzed test data from
the 2020 Round Robin. DOE observed that for each simmering setting
under test, the smoothened water temperature did not drop below 90
[deg]C after the initial time it reached that temperature. In other
words, when using the smoothened water temperature approach described
in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017, none of the test cycles that
had required a ``grace period'' when evaluated according to the test
procedure finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule had smoothened
water temperatures below 90 [deg]C after the start of the simmering
period. Id. Accordingly, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed 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 any ``grace period.'' Id. DOE tentatively
concluded in the November 2021 NOPR that a grace period is unnecessary
when relying on smoothened water temperature. DOE also tentatively
concluded 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. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ As discussed in section III.E.3 of this document, the start
of the 20-minute simmering period is when the smoothened water
temperature is greater than or equal to 90 [deg]C.

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

[[Page 51503]]

DOE requested 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. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding this
proposal.
For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing, consistent with the
November 2021 NOPR, 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.
b. Water Hardness
Section 7.1.Z6.1 of EN 60350-2:2013, and Section 7.6 of both IEC
60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021, specify that the test water shall be
potable. Section 7.5.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021
further state that distilled water may be used to avoid lime sediment.
DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that the use of
distilled water would not 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.\35\ 86 FR 60974, 60982.
This was based on DOE's 2020 Round Robin test results that showed high
reproducibility among the test laboratories with different water
supplies that were not subject to specific tolerances on water
hardness. Id. DOE also tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR
that a reduction in lime sediment could extend the lifetime of the test
vessels. Id. Therefore, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to allow
the use of distilled water in new appendix I1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'')
does not regulate the water hardness of drinking water, 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 requested comment on its proposal to allow the use of distilled
water for testing in the new appendix I1. Id. DOE did not receive any
comments regarding this proposal.
For the reasons discussed, DOE determines that the use of distilled
water would not significantly affect the measured energy use of a
cooking top in comparison to test results that would be obtained using
water with a hardness within potable limits. DOE therefore finalizes
its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to allow the use
of distilled water for testing in new appendix I1.
c. 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 must 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. 86 FR 60974, 60982. Section 7.5.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017
and IEC 60350-2:2021 include a similar requirement and clarify that
this vaporization process need only be run once per tested unit. In the
November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that the vaporization
process need only be run once per tested unit by adopting the provision
in IEC 60350-2:2017 in new appendix I1. This was based on DOE's
preliminary determination that conducting the vaporization process once
would be sufficient to eliminate residual water. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to include the cooking top
preparation requirements for water vaporization from IEC 60350-2:2017
\36\ in its new appendix I1. Id. DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ IEC 60350-2:2021 contains an identical provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the reasons discussed, DOE has determined that conducting the
vaporization process once is sufficient to eliminate residual water.
Therefore, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is including the
cooking top preparation requirements for water vaporization in new
appendix I1, changing the referenced test procedure to IEC 60350-
2:2021.
d. Optional Potential Simmering Setting Pre-Selection Test
As discussed, DOE is adopting the water-heating methodology in IEC
60350-2:2021. This method requires the evaluation of an Energy Test
Cycle, which consists of measuring energy consumption during an initial
heat-up period and a subsequent 20-minute simmering period. Conducting
the IEC 60350-2:2021 test method requires determining the simmering
setting through 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.
A draft version of IEC 60350-2:2021 included a new Annex H (``draft
Annex H''), which provided an informative and optional 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). Draft Annex H, available at the time of the November 2021
NOPR, stated 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\'').\37\ The method in draft Annex H provided 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ The power density is defined as the average wattage of the
power setting over a 10-minute period divided by the area of the
cookware bottom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to manufacturer concerns regarding the test burden of
IEC 60350-2:2017, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to include
provisions in its new appendix I1 that mirrored the language of draft
Annex H, with certain modifications to further reduce test burden. 86
FR 60974, 60985. DOE stated that in its testing experience, using this
``pre-selection test'' can significantly reduce the test burden of
determining the simmering setting for the Energy Test Cycle. Id.
Although this would represent an additional procedure, DOE stated that
the overall testing time for a cooking top may be substantially shorter
because performing the potential simmering setting pre-selection test
can reduce the number of simmering test cycles necessary to determine
the Energy Test Cycle from as many as 12 to as few as two.\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ The potential simmering setting pre-selection tests takes
10 minutes per power setting tested (with no cooldown required
between each test), whereas testing each setting as described in IEC
60350-2:2017 takes between 1 and 1.5 hours per power setting tested
(including cooldown time between each test).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the November 2021 NOPR DOE proposed an approach consistent with
that of draft Annex H. During the potential simmering setting pre-
selection test, the power density measurement would need to be repeated
for each successively higher power setting until the measured power

[[Page 51504]]

density exceeds the specified threshold power density. Id. The
potential simmering setting would be one 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. Whichever setting produces a power density closest to the
threshold value would be the potential simmering setting. Id. The
closest power density may be higher or lower than the applicable
threshold value. Id.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE also proposed a modification from
draft Annex H to further reduce test burden while achieving the same
end result as the procedure specified in draft Annex H. Id. at 86 FR
61008. As discussed, the objective of the pre-selection test is to
determine which power setting is closest to providing the target power
density of 0.8 W/cm\2\. Draft Annex H specified a starting water
temperature of 20 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C for the optional pre-selection
test; however, the temperature of the water does not affect the power
density of a particular power setting. The two parameters used to
determine the power density are a measurement of the surface area of
the bottom of the test vessel and the electrical energy consumption
during the 10-minute test. The temperature of the water in the test
vessel does not affect either of these measured values. Therefore, to
reduce the test burden of the simmer setting pre-selection test, as
part of its proposal DOE did not specify a water temperature condition
for the start of the pre-selection test.\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ See section III.F.5 of this document for a discussion of
how this provision was extended to apply to gas cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE further proposed to make the
potential simmering setting pre-selection test optional. Id. at 86 FR
60985. DOE proposed 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. Id. Irrespective of the method used for determining the
potential simmering setting, a valid test confirms whether the power
setting under test meets the requirements of an Energy Test Cycle (see
section III.E.3 of this document). Id. 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 to find the power setting that meets the
requirements of an Energy Test Cycle. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to include the optional
potential simmering setting pre-selection test in new appendix I1. Id.
DOE also requested comment on its proposal, if a tester has prior
knowledge of the unit's operation and has previously determined a
potential simmering setting through a different method, to allow the
tester to use that as the initial power setting for the test cycles.
Id.
The Joint Commenters supported DOE's proposal to include an
optional simmering setting pre-selection test for both electric and gas
cooking top test procedures. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 3)
The CA IOUs noted that the simmer setting preselection method and
test modifications that reduce the need for possible retests will
decrease test duration. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) The CA IOUs supported
DOE's efforts to reduce testing burden by shortening test duration from
36 to 17.5 hours while still maintaining a representative test
procedure. (Id.)
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal from the
November 2021 NOPR to include an optional potential simmering setting
pre-selection test in new appendix I1 that mirrors the methodology
specified in Annex H of IEC 60350-2:2021,\40\ with modifications as
proposed and discussed above to further reduce test burden. DOE also
finalizes its proposal from the November 2021 NOPR 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ The methodology specified in Annex H of IEC 60350-2:2021 is
the same as the methodology specified in draft Annex H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Modifications to IEC 60350-2:2021 Methodology To Reduce Testing
Burden

1. Test Vessel Selection for Electric Cooking Tops
Section 5.6.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021
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 both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021
defines four ``standardized cookware categories'' \41\ that are used to
group test vessels by diameter range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ 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 and IEC 60350-2:2021
specify a procedure to select the set of test vessels necessary to test
an electric cooking top, based on if a cooking zone \42\ or a cooking
area \43\ is being tested. 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 zones, a tester selects the
test vessel based on the cooking zone dimension. To find the cooking
zone dimension, the tester measures the marked area on the surface of
the cooking top, irrespective of the size of the heating element. For
circular cooking zones, the outermost diameter is used; for non-
circular cooking zones, the shorter side or the minor axis is used. The
tester then matches the cooking zone dimension to the outer diameter of
a corresponding test vessel, using Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of both
IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021, and makes an initial selection
of the corresponding test vessel. For cooking areas, Annex A of both
IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 defines the set of test vessels
to use for testing all of the cooking zones on the cooking top, based
on the number of cooking zones (i.e., the number of independent
controls) within the cooking area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ DOE defines a cooking zone in section 1 of new appendix I1
as a part of a conventional cooking top surface that is either a
single electric resistance heating element, multiple concentric
sizes of electric resistance heating elements, an inductive heating
element, or a gas surface unit that is defined by limitative
markings on the surface of the cooking top and can be controlled
independently of any other cooking area or cooking zone.
\43\ DOE defines a cooking area in section 1 of new appendix I1
as an area on a conventional cooking top surface heated by an
inducted magnetic field where cookware is placed for heating, where
more than one cookware item can be used simultaneously and
controlled separately from other cookware placed on the cooking area
and that may or may not include limitative markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are additional requirements for selecting the set of test
vessels used for testing a cooking top. Both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC
60350-2:2021 specify 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

[[Page 51505]]

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.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE 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. This suggests that the energy
consumption will not substantially differ compared to using the test
vessel whose diameter is closest to the heating element diameter. In
addition, any corresponding difference in measured energy consumption
for the entire cooking top will be even more minimal. 86 FR 60974,
60983. Through testing conducted in support of the December 2016 Final
Rule, DOE also observed that in some tests, electric cooking tops were
tested with the wrong set of test vessels. Id. DOE attributes this to
the complex test vessel selection process.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require much simpler
test vessel selection criteria for new appendix I1 to reduce the burden
of implementing the test vessel selection procedure and thereby improve
test procedure reproducibility. Id. Specifically, DOE proposed to
require that for electric cooking tops with limitative markings, each
cooking zone 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. Id. For electric
cooking tops without limitative markings, DOE proposed to use Table A.1
in Annex A of IEC 60350-2:2017 to determine the set of test vessels
required, because without those markings, it is not possible to match
the test vessel diameter to the marking's diameter. Id. DOE also
proposed to exclude the provisions from Section 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2017
in new appendix I1 to ensure that these approaches are properly
implemented. Id. 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), DOE proposed to
require using the test vessel with the largest diameter that can be
centered on the cooking zone. Id. This process of vessel selection
would reflect the expected consumer practice of matching cookware to
the size of a heating element (i.e., cookware is placed on the heating
element that is the closest in size to the cookware). Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to update the test vessel
selection procedure. Again, for electric cooking tops with limitative
markings, the proposal excludes the provisions from Section 7.3 of IEC
60350-2:2017 and instead requires that each cooking zone be tested with
the test vessel that most closely matches the outer diameter of the
marking. For electric cooking tops without limitative markings, DOE
proposed that Table A.1 of Annex A of IEC 60350-2:2017 be used to
define the test vessels. Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal
for when a structural component of the cooking top interferes with the
test vessel to substitute the largest test vessel that can be centered
on the cooking zone. Id.
NYSERDA supported DOE's effort to simplify the test vessel
selection process to ensure repeatability and reproducibility.
(NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2)
The Joint Commenters agreed with the proposed test vessels and test
vessel selection method for electric cooking tops. (Joint Commenters,
No. 11 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters asserted that DOE's proposal to
exclude the provisions from Section 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2017 and to
simplify the test vessel selection criteria for electric cooking tops
are reasonable methods for selecting test vessels. (Id.) The Joint
Commenters stated that these proposals would improve reproducibility
while simplifying the test vessel selection process for manufacturers.
(Id.) The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to investigate methods for
testing non-circular cooking zones to fully encapsulate the energy
consumption of all cooking zones in the test procedure.\44\ (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ See further discussion of the definition of specialty
cooking zones in section III.G.4 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs commented on differences between the vessel selection
methods depending on the fuel type of the cooktop. They noted that the
electric cooking top test vessel selection criteria contain upper and
lower bounds, but the gas cooking top test vessel criteria do not.\45\
(CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 4) The CA IOUs stated that while they are
unaware of existing electric cooking tops with heating elements outside
of the included scope of diameters (i.e., between 100-330 mm), they do
not see any reason that heating elements less than 100 mm or larger
than 330 mm should be excluded. (Id.) The CA IOUs urged DOE to
eliminate the lower and upper bounds of the electric test vessel
selection criteria, stating that this would keep the electric and gas
cooking top scopes consistent in terms of not excluding products purely
based on their size or power rating. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ See further comments from the CA IOUs regarding gas cooking
top test vessel selection criteria in section III.F.3 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the CA IOUs' comment comparing the scope of electric
and gas cooking tops, DOE notes that in general, gas burners are able
to be effectively used with a wider range of pot sizes than electric
heating elements. An electric resistance heating element, can only
provide effective heat transfer to the area of a pot in direct contact
or line of sight with the element because the primary mechanism of heat
transfer to the pot is through conduction (i.e., surface contact) or
radiation. As such, the range of pot diameters that can be effectively
used on an electric resistive heating element is limited by the
diameter of the element. Conversely, for a gas burner, the flames are
able to provide effective heat transfer to a wide range of pot sizes
(and in particular, pots with a diameter substantially larger than the
burner) because the primary mechanism of heat transfer to the pot is
through convection (i.e., the movement of hot air around the base of
the pot). As such, the diameter of a gas burner does not limit the
range of pot diameters that can be effectively used. For these reasons,
DOE has determined that it is appropriate for the test vessel selection
table to define an upper bound for electric heating elements but not
for gas burners.
Regarding the lower bound defined for electric cooking tops, DOE
notes that a heating element on an electric cooking top with a diameter
smaller than 100 mm (3.9 inches) would likely not be able to heat water
to 90 [deg]C. As such, it would likely be excluded from testing because
it would be a specialty cooking zone (e.g., a warming plate or zone).
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its test vessel selection
proposal from the November 2021 NOPR. Again, on an electric cooking
top, tests must use the test vessels according to Table 3 of Section
5.6.1.5 of IEC 60350-2:2021 and, if a structural component of the
cooking top interferes with the test vessel, substitute the largest
test vessel that can be centered on the cooking zone. DOE further
specifies that if a structural component of the cooking top interferes
with the test vessel such that a test vessel's lid cannot be centered
on the test vessel due to interference with a structural component of
the cooking top, the instruction to substitute the largest test vessel
that can be centered on the cooking zone applies.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed different instructions for

[[Page 51506]]

determining test vessel selection in the preamble and regulatory text
for cooking areas with limitative markings that differed from the
instructions for cooking areas without limitative markings. The
preamble was correct; the proposed regulatory text was incorrect. As
discussed previously in this section, for cooking areas (regardless of
limitative markings), Annex A of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-
2:2021 defines the set of test vessels to be used for testing based on
the number of cooking zones (i.e., the number of independent controls)
within the cooking area. As indicated by the discussion in section
III.C.1 of the preamble to the November 2021 NOPR, DOE intended to
propose the same test vessel selection requirements as specified in IEC
60350-2:2017; i.e., to use Annex A of IEC 60350-2:2017 to determine the
correct test vessel for testing cooking areas with or without
limitative markings.\46\ 86 FR 60974, 60983. Although the preamble
stated Annex A, the regulatory text for cooking areas with limitative
markings incorrectly proposed to use Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC
60350-2:2017. That section corresponds instead to the instructions for
circular ``cooking zones.'' Id. at 86 FR 61009. In this final rule, DOE
corrects this error and specifies that for all cooking areas, the test
vessel section is based on the number of cooking zones and as specified
in Annex A of IEC 60350-2:2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ The only intended difference between the proposed appendix
I1 and IEC 60350-2:2017 was the removal of the ``categories''
requirement in Section 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was another error in the regulatory text as proposed in the
November 2021 NOPR. It incorrectly implied that all cooking zones are
circular, by requiring measuring their diameter. Id. For a non-circular
cooking zone, measuring a ``diameter'' would not be appropriate, since
``diameter'' is a dimension limited to a circle. In this final rule,
DOE provides instructions for measuring the size of a non-circular
cooking zone \47\ and selecting the appropriate test vessel, consistent
with the language in Section 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2021. DOE also
specifies how to determine the cooking zone size. For circular cooking
zones, use the outer diameter of the printed marking, and for non-
circular cooking zones, use the measurement of the shorter (i.e.,
minor) axis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ DOE makes a distinction between non-circular cooking zones
designed for use with any type of cookware (which are discussed in
this section), and cooking zones designed for use only with non-
circular cookware (which are considered specialty cooking zones, as
discussed in section III.G.4 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of the 2021 Round Robin, DOE learned that some technicians
are uncertain about how to measure the size of an open coil heating
element, because open coils are not perfect circles.\48\ Indeed, the
approach to measure the size of a heating element depends on whether a
technician considers the open coil heating elements as circular. If so,
the largest diameter would be used to determine the appropriate test
vessel, according to Section 6.3.2 of IEC 60350-2:2021. If not, a
technician uses the short axis of the ellipse (``the minor dimension'')
to determine the appropriate test vessel, according to Sections 6.3.2
and 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2021. DOE understands that industry practice is
to use the largest diameter of an open coil heating element, as
presented in Figure 60A.2 of UL 858. In this final rule, DOE clarifies
that open coil heating elements are to be treated as circular, and that
the largest diameter is used to determine the appropriate test vessel
and incorporates an illustration similar to Figure 60A.2 of UL 858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ As an example of this lack of clarity, one of the test
laboratories in the 2021 Round Robin measured a diameter 3mm smaller
than the other two laboratories on one heating element size of one
cooking top. As a result, the test laboratories used different test
vessel sizes. DOE cannot confirm the source of this difference.
However, based on an inspection of the coil heating element in
question, it is DOE's understanding that one laboratory measured the
diameter as the smallest width of the coil, and the other two
laboratories measured the diameter as the largest width of the coil,
perpendicular to the first laboratory's measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Temperature Specifications
a. Room Temperature
Section 5.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 specifies
an ambient room temperature of 23 <plus-minus> 2 [deg]C for testing.
DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that it was aware that conducting
energy testing on cooking tops in the same conditioned space that
safety testing is conducted could significantly reduce testing burden,
based on discussions with cooking top manufacturers as part of the Task
Force. 86 FR 60974, 60983. 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.
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). DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that it did 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.
Id. This was based on DOE's understanding of the primary heat transfer
mechanisms to the water load. Those mechanisms are conduction to the
test vessel for electric-coil cooking tops; radiation for electric-
smooth cooking tops other than induction type; joule heating in the
test vessel itself by induced eddy currents for electric-smooth
induction cooking tops; and convective heat transfer from the flames
and conduction from the grates for gas cooking tops. DOE tentatively
determined in the November 2021 NOPR 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, due to this
relatively minimal impact on testing results and the potential for
significant reduction in test burden on manufacturers. Id.
Manufacturers in the Task Force raised concerns that test laboratories
could consistently test at the extremes of the temperature tolerances.
To address those concerns, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to
specify that the target ambient room temperature is the nominal
midpoint of the temperature range. Id. DOE proposed to specify in new
appendix I1 an ambient room temperature of 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C,
with a target temperature of 25 [deg]C. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to specify an ambient room
temperature of 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C. Id.
The Joint Commenters supported a target ambient room temperature
specification of 25 [deg]C, but expressed concern that it may not
prevent test laboratories from testing at extremes of the <plus-minus>5
[deg]C tolerance, which they stated could potentially affect
reproducibility. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2) The Joint
Commenters encouraged DOE to consider providing instructions on how to
best reach the target temperature or more specificity around what it
means to target the midpoint of the temperature range. (Id.)
NEEA commented that DOE should set a more rigorous ambient
temperature specification during the active mode test, stating that an
ambient temperature specification of 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C is too
wide to ensure repeatability. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 1) NEEA commented
that specifying a target ambient temperature of 25 [deg]C may not
prevent tests from being conducted at the extremes of that range, and
that it is unclear whether the differences in applying the current
methodology at 20 [deg]C and 30 [deg]C are insignificant. (Id.)
According to NEEA, an ambient

[[Page 51507]]

temperature tolerance such as <plus-minus>3 [deg]C should not prove
overly burdensome for testing, stating that ASTM food service standards
typically have a <plus-minus>5 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'')
tolerance on ambient temperature. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that there is no requirement to maintain the
ambient temperature close to the ``target'' value of 25 [deg]C. (CA
IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE include an
additional requirement that the average ambient temperature throughout
the test remain within 25 <plus-minus> 2 [deg]C to provide consistency
with the target temperature and to improve repeatability and
reproducibility. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that this specification
would be in addition to the 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C maximum and
minimum ambient temperature requirements. (Id.)
AHAM agreed with DOE's proposal to maintain an ambient room air
temperature of 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C with a target temperature of 25
[deg]C. AHAM stated that it is consistent with the U.S. safety standard
for electric cooking tops, UL 858, and that this provision would reduce
test burden and allow manufacturers to use existing laboratories for
testing to the DOE test procedure. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12)
DOE's 2021 Round Robin testing was conducted in accordance with the
ambient room air temperature specification of 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C,
as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. As discussed, it produced
repeatable and reproducible results. DOE further notes that testing for
the 2021 Round Robin was conducted in facilities that also perform
safety testing requiring ambient room air temperatures of 25 <plus-
minus> 5 [deg]C, such as the UL 858 standard. Reducing the allowable
range for the ambient room air temperature or adding a secondary
tolerance to the average ambient room air temperature would add undue
burden to the cooking top test procedure depending on the laboratory's
equipment. Based on the foregoing discussion, DOE determines that an
ambient room temperature specification of 25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C
provides repeatable and reproducible results without being unduly
burdensome.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the November 2021 NOPR, to specify an ambient room temperature of
25 <plus-minus> 5 [deg]C in new appendix I1.
b. Product Starting Temperature
Section 5.5 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 specifies
that the conventional cooking top unit under test must be at the
laboratory's ambient temperature at the beginning of each test. To
assist in reducing the temperature from a prior test, forced cooling
may be used. This provision ensures a repeatable starting temperature
of the cooking top before testing. If a cooking top is warmer or colder
than the ambient temperature, it would consume a different amount of
energy during testing than one that is at the ambient temperature.
Section 5.5 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021, however,
does not specify how to measure the temperature of the product before
each test.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that the product
temperature must be stable, DOE also proposed to define that as ``a
temperature that does not vary by more than 1 [deg]C over a 5-minute
period.'' 86 FR 60974, 60984. DOE also proposed to bar using forced
cooling during the period of time used to assess temperature stability.
Id.
DOE further proposed to specify where to measure the temperature of
the product. Id. Before any active mode testing, the product
temperature would be measured at the center of the cooking zone under
test. Before the standby mode and off mode power test,\49\ the product
temperature would be measured as the average of the temperature
measured at the center of each cooking zone. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ See section III.I of this document for discussion of the
standby mode and off mode power test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requested 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.
Id.
The CA IOUs commented that specifying the initial starting
temperature of the cooking zone is a key change that would increase
repeatability of the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 1-2)
The Joint Commenters supported DOE's proposal to require that the
product temperature not vary by more than 1 [deg]C over a 5-minute
period. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2)
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes 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.
c. Initial Water Temperature
Section 7.5.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021
specifies an initial water temperature of 15 <plus-minus> 0.5 [deg]C,
and that the test vessel must not be stored in a refrigerator to avoid
the rims getting ``too cold.'' As part of conversations within the Task
Force in which DOE has participated, manufacturers 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 before testing. 86 FR
60974, 60984.
As discussed, DOE is specifying an ambient room temperature of 25
<plus-minus> 5 [deg]C. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it
expects that using an initial nominal water temperature of 25 [deg]C,
rather than the IEC-specified 15 [deg]C, would not impact the
repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id.
Furthermore, DOE stated that it expects that an initial nominal water
temperature of 25 [deg]C may more accurately represent an average
temperature of food or water loads with which consumers would fill
their cookware before starting to cook. Id. DOE surmised 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). Id.
DOE also tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that,
although a different initial nominal water temperature would be
appropriate, 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. Id.
In summary, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify in
new appendix I1 that the water must have an initial temperature of 25
<plus-minus> 0.5 [deg]C. Id. DOE requested comment on this proposal.
Id.
The CA IOUs and Joint Comments supported the proposed initial water
temperature specifications to minimize variability when testing. (CA
IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 1-2; Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2)
AHAM commented that it tentatively believes that the proposed
initial water temperature of 25 <plus-minus> 0.5 [deg]C tolerance is
too small and creates excessive test burden. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12)
AHAM is collecting data on potentially expanding the water temperature
tolerance to <plus-minus>1 [deg]C, and stated that DOE should consider
its results before publishing a final rule. (Id.) AHAM asserted that it
is not feasible for a tester

[[Page 51508]]

to maintain the proposed tolerance, as water temperature can rise above
the tolerance between the time when the water is brought to the
appliance and when the test is started. (Id.)
While DOE has not yet received any data from AHAM on this issue,
DOE encourages AHAM to send any data when it becomes available. DOE
notes that the 2021 Round Robin, which DOE has concluded resulted in
repeatable and reproducible results, used a <plus-minus>0.5 [deg]C
tolerance on the initial water temperature, as proposed in the November
2021 NOPR. DOE is not aware of any of the test laboratories that
participated in the 2021 Round Robin having had any difficulty
maintaining the <plus-minus> 0.5 [deg]C tolerance on the initial water
temperature. In DOE's experience, the alignment of the nominal ambient
temperature and of the nominal initial water temperature at 25 [deg]C,
has reduced the burden associated with the <plus-minus>0.5 [deg]C
tolerance on the initial water temperature, as compared to the
specification in both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021. For
example, in DOE's experience, if the ambient temperature is maintained
at the nominal value of 25 [deg]C and the test vessel is kept in the
test room and not placed on a cooking zone that is turned on, the water
in the test vessel will remain within the required 25 <plus-minus> 0.5
[deg]C for 10-30 minutes. For these reasons, DOE determines that
maintaining a tolerance of <plus-minus>0.5 [deg]C on the initial water
temperature is not unduly burdensome.
Furthermore, DOE confirms its tentative determination from the
November 2021 NOPR 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 also
confirms its tentative determination from the November 2021 NOPR that
it would not be 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. A wider initial water temperature tolerance of <plus-minus>1
[deg]C, as suggested by AHAM, would reduce the repeatability and
reproducibility of the test procedure and would seemingly contradict
AHAM's comment that DOE's efforts to reduce variation have not reduced
variation enough for certain parts of the test procedure (see section
III.C of this document).
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal from the
November 2021 NOPR to specify an initial water temperature of 25 <plus-
minus> 0.5 [deg]C.
3. Determination of the Simmering Setting
IEC 60350-2:2021 adds a clause to Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-
2:2017 stating that if the smoothened water temperature is 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 above 91 [deg]C during
the simmering period, the test cycle is repeated using the next lower
power setting and checked to ensure that the lowest possible power
setting that remains above 90 [deg]C is identified for the Energy Test
Cycle. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it 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. 86 FR 60974, 60985. 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.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed two power setting
definitions. First, the ``maximum-below-threshold power setting'' would
be ``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.'' Second, the ``minimum-above-threshold power
setting'' would be ``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.'' Id.
DOE also proposed to include a flow chart (see Figure III.1) in new
appendix I1 that would require identifying the maximum-below-threshold
power setting and the minimum-above-threshold power setting (or the
simmering setting) from any valid \50\ simmering test conducted
according to Section 7.5.2 of IEC 60350-2:2017, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ DOE defines a valid simmering test as one for which the
test conditions in section 2 of appendix I1 are met and the measured
turndown temperature, Tc, is within -0.5 [deg]C and +1 [deg]C of the
target turndown temperature. 86 FR 60974, 60985. See section III.G.5
of this document for definitions of turndown temperature and 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 following
t<INF>90</INF>,\51\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE defined t<INF>90</INF> in
this context as the start of the simmering period and as the time at
which the smoothened water temperature first meets or exceeds 90
[deg]C. Id. at 86 FR 60986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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
t<INF>90</INF>, 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.E.4 of this document.
(3) If the smoothened temperature drops below 90 [deg]C at any time
in the 20-minute period following t<INF>90</INF>, 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.E.4 of this
document. 86 FR 60974, 60985-60986.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 51509]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.000

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE requested 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. Id. at 86 FR 60986.
NYSERDA supported the proposal to clarify which setting is as close
to 90 [deg]C as possible for the simmering period to ensure
repeatability and reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs appreciated the flow chart in Figure 3.1.4.5 of the
November 2021 NOPR that specifies the simmering test process. (CA IOUs,
No. 14 at p. 8)
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of the minimum-above-
threshold power setting and maximum-below-threshold power setting.\52\
Within these finalized definitions, DOE references IEC 60350-2:2021
rather than IEC 60350-2:2017, noting that the definitions are the same
in each version. DOE also finalizes, consistent with the November 2021
NOPR, its proposed methodology for determining the simmering setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ In the finalized definition of maximum-below-power
threshold power setting, the phrase ``data that does not meet'' is
changed to ``data that do not meet'' to mirror the phrasing used in
the definition of minimum-above-threshold power setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To provide additional clarity to the test procedure, in this final
rule DOE is moving the definitions of certain terms from section 3 of
appendix I1 (as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR) to section 1 of
appendix I1. These terms include: the turndown temperature (Tc), the
target turndown temperature (Tc<INF>target</INF>), the simmering
period, and the time t<INF>90</INF> (the start of the simmering
period).\53\ In appendix I1, DOE is defining the time t<INF>90</INF> as
``the first instant during the simmering test for each cooking zone
where the smoothened water temperature is greater than or equal to 90
[deg]C,'' consistent with the definition in section 3.3.1.3.3.4, as
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. In appendix I1, DOE is also
defining the simmering period for each cooking zone as ``the 20-minute
period during the simmering test starting at time t<INF>90</INF>,''
consistent with the definition in section 3.3.1.3.3.5, as proposed in
the November 2021 NOPR. DOE is also simplifying the language of
sections 3.1.4.5, 3.3.1.3.3, 3.3.1.3.3.3, 3.3.1.3.3.4, and 3.3.1.3.3.5
of appendix I1, to reflect the inclusion of these definitions in
section 1 of appendix I1, by removing redundant phrases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ See section III.G.5 of this document for the definitions of
the turndown temperature (T<INF>c</INF>) and the target turndown
temperature (Tc<INF>target</INF>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also finalizes the use of a flow chart in Figure 3.1.4.5 of
appendix I1 that describes how to evaluate the simmering setting,
similar to the one proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. The flow chart
in Figure 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 in this final rule uses updated
formatting to standardize the shape of the boxes, to provide additional
arrows where clarity on the sequence of actions was needed, and to
replace the gray background of certain text boxes with a bolded border
to increase legibility. The new flow chart

[[Page 51510]]

in Figure 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 also uses streamlined language to
reflect the new definition of simmering period and of turndown
temperature, and to use more direct questions. For example, the text
``Does the smoothened water temperature drop below 90 [deg]C at any
time in the 20-minute period following t<INF>90</INF> (as defined in
section 3.3.1.3.3.4 of this appendix)?'' is replaced with simpler text
that conveys the same question using the wording ``Is the smoothened
water temperature <= 90 [deg]C at any time during the simmering
period?''
4. Normalizing Per-Cycle Energy Use for the Final Water Temperature
As discussed in section III.E.3 of this document, the test conduct
can conclude with either one or two cycles. A single Energy Test Cycle
in which the smoothened water temperature during the simmering period
remains between 90 [deg]C and 91 [deg]C is one possibility. Otherwise,
a pair of cycles designated as the minimum-above-threshold cycle and
the maximum-below-threshold cycle is identified. In the minimum-above-
threshold cycle, as defined above, the smoothened water temperature
remains at or above 90 [deg]C for the entire 20-minute simmering
period, and the smoothened water temperature exceeds 91 [deg]C for at
least one second of the simmering period. Conversely, in the maximum-
below-threshold cycle, as defined above, the smoothened water
temperature does not remain at or above 90 [deg]C during the entire 20-
minute simmering period, and the smoothened water temperature drops
below 90 [deg]C for at least one second of the simmering period. In
both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021, the energy use of a cooking
zone is calculated based on such a minimum-above-threshold cycle,
regardless of the amount by which the smoothened water temperature
exceeds 90 [deg]C during the simmering period.
In conversations as part of the Task Force in which DOE has
participated, some manufacturers expressed concerns that a test cycle
with a water temperature at the end of the simmering period (i.e., a
``final water temperature'') that is above 91 [deg]C may not be
comparable to a test cycle with a final water temperature that is
closer to 90 [deg]C. The higher the final temperatures, the greater the
risk; there is no limit on how far above 91 [deg]C the final water
temperature may be (as long as the setting is the minimum-above-
threshold cycle). 86 FR 60974, 60986. In addition, this concern is
particularly relevant to cooking tops with a small number of discrete
power settings that result in relatively large differences in final
water temperature between each setting. Id. In addition, for cooking
tops with continuous (i.e., infinite) power settings, repeatably
identifying the minimum-above-threshold cycle is particularly
challenging.\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ See section III.G.3 of this document for further discussion
of the methodology for cooking tops with infinite power settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To reduce test burden for cooking tops with infinite power
settings, and to provide comparable energy use for all cooking tops
including those with discrete power settings, in the November 2021
NOPR, DOE proposed 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. DOE proposed using an interpolation
of the energy use of the maximum-below-threshold cycle and the
respective final smoothened water temperatures. Id. For test cycles for
which the smoothened water temperature during the simmering period does
not exceed 91 [deg]C, DOE also proposed not to perform this
normalization for two reasons. First, IEC 60350-2:2017 does not require
the next lowest power setting to be tested under these circumstances.
Second, DOE had tentatively determined the extra test burden would not
be warranted by the resulting small adjustment to the energy use. Id.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE further posited that the
normalization calculation would not be possible under two scenarios.
One scenario is the minimum-above-threshold power setting is the lowest
available power setting on the cooking zone under test. A second is 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. Id. Under either of
these circumstances, DOE proposed that the minimum-above-threshold
power setting test be the Energy Test Cycle. Id.
DOE requested 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 temperature of 90 [deg]C. Id. DOE specifically
requested 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. Id. DOE also requested
comment on its proposal not to require the normalization under any of
three circumstances: 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 cooking zone 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. Id.
NEEA supported normalizing the calculated energy of the Energy Test
Cycle to maintain comparable temperatures. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs commented that the normalizing methodology would
increase repeatability of the simmering test. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp.
1-2) The CA IOUs commented that it appears that one pathway \55\ on the
flow chart in proposed Figure 3.1.4.5 does not align with the
requirement for a simmering test to maintain a temperature between 90
and 91 [deg]C throughout the simmering test, or, if that is not
possible, for the two dial/knob positions that bound \56\ this
temperature condition to be tested. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 8) The CA
IOUs recommended that the flow chart be fixed to match the verbiage
within the test methodology. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ The pathway highlighted visually by the CA IOUs as part of
this comment is the pathway wherein 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.
\56\ The CA IOUs' comment used the word ``bind.'' DOE
understands the CA IOUs' comment to have meant to use the word
``bound'' instead of ``bind.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the CA IOUs' concern, DOE confirms that the
flowchart pathway highlighted by the CA IOUs correctly reflects the
intent of the test procedure as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR and
as finalized in this final rule. In performing the complete test
procedure, there are three circumstances which will cause the test to
conclude with only a single Energy Test Cycle, as opposed to a pair of
cycles designated as the minimum-above-threshold cycle and the maximum-
below-threshold cycle. First, if the smoothened water temperature does
not drop below 90 [deg]C or rise above 91 [deg]C during the simmering
period, then no normalization is required. Second, if the lowest power
setting available on the cooking zone under test is determined to be
the minimum-above-threshold power setting, then no lower setting is
available to be considered the maximum-below-threshold power setting.
Third, if the maximum-below-threshold power setting is unable to
achieve a smoothened water temperature of 90 [deg]C (i.e., does not
have

[[Page 51511]]

a definable simmer period), then no normalization can be performed and
the Energy Test Cycle consists only of the minimum-above-threshold
power setting. The pathway highlighted by the CA IOUs reflects the
second pathway.
In summary, DOE finalizes its November 2021 proposals related to
normalizing the energy use of the tested cycle. First, if the
smoothened water temperature exceeds 91 [deg]C during the simmering
period, the tested cycle's energy consumption is normalized to
represent an Energy Test Cycle with a final water temperature of 90
[deg]C. Second, testers must use the smoothened final water temperature
to perform this normalization. Third, under any of the following three
conditions, normalization is not required: (A) the smoothened water
temperature remains between 90 [deg]C and 91 [deg]C during the
simmering period, (B) the minimum-above-threshold power setting is the
lowest available power setting on the cooking zone under test, or (C)
the smoothened water temperature during the maximum-below-threshold
power setting does not meet or exceed 90 [deg]C.
In this final rule, DOE also clarifies the language in the flow
chart in Figure 3.1.4.5 of new appendix I1 to address the situation in
which tests occur in a different order. If the first simmering test is
conducted with a power setting above the threshold power setting and
the second simmering test is one in which the smoothened water
temperature does not equal or exceed 90 [deg]C during the simmering
phase, it is not necessary to perform the first test again. Instead, a
tester evaluates the subsequent flow chart questions using the
previously conducted test cycle.
DOE further updates the flow chart language to align the language
in all three boxes that state that no further testing is necessary.
This will clarify the next steps (i.e., calculations) to perform after
testing is complete. For flow chart paths ending with a determination
that the test is the Energy Test Cycle, the last sentence of the text
box is updated to read ``the test is the Energy Test Cycle, for use in
section 4 of this appendix.'' For flow chart paths ending with a
determination of a maximum-below-threshold power setting and a minimum-
above-threshold power setting, the last sentence of the text box is
updated to read ``these power settings are the maximum-below-threshold
power setting and the minimum-above-threshold power setting,
respectively, for use in section 4 of this appendix.'' DOE has removed
all mention of normalization from the flow chart itself, and instead
addresses normalization only within section 4 of appendix I1
(``Calculation of Derived Results from Test Measurements'').
Finally, since publishing the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is aware that
the Task Force has identified a means for reducing test burden when
conducting a test cycle on a power setting for which the water
temperature does not reach 90 [deg]C. In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE
proposed that the determination of whether the smoothened water
temperature meets or exceeds 90 [deg]C would be made after a 20-minute
time period following the time the power setting is reduced (i.e.,
``turndown''). Two of the question boxes in the proposed flowchart in
Figure 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 reflect this. As considered by the Task
Force, and consistent with DOE's internal testing experience, a 10-
minute period following turndown would be sufficient to confirm test
settings that will not reach 90 [deg]C. On such settings, the
temperature continues to rise only for a few minutes following
turndown, after which the temperature either stabilizes or starts to
decrease. On such settings, if the smoothened water temperature has not
reached 90 [deg]C by the time it stabilizes or starts to decrease
(which occurs a few minutes after turndown), the cycle will not meet or
exceed 90 [deg]C. DOE understands that for this reason, the Task Force
has updated AHAM's draft test procedure to require only a 10-minute
period to determine whether a simmering test meets or exceeds 90 [deg]C
following turndown. DOE's testing experience confirms that a 10-minute
period is more than sufficient to determine whether the water
temperature will meet or exceed 90 [deg]C following turndown. Since
this change would reduce test burden while maintaining the same end
result of the test, DOE incorporates this change into this final rule,
as reflected in updated langue to the flowchart in Figure 3.1.4.5.

F. Extension of Methodology to Gas Cooking Tops

DOE implemented a methodology for testing gas cooking tops in the
December 2016 Final Rule, which was based on test provisions in the
European Standard EN 30-2-1:1998, ``Domestic cooking appliances burning
gas--Part 2-1: Rational use of energy--General'' (``EN 30-2-1'') and EN
60350-2:2013 (extended to testing gas cooking tops). 81 FR 91418,
91422. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed a test procedure for
testing gas cooking tops based on EN 30-2-1 and IEC 60350-2:2017
(extended to testing gas cooking tops), but with additional provisions
to clarify testing requirements and improve the reproducibility of test
results for gas cooking tops. 86 FR 60974, 60987. In the November 2021
NOPR, DOE stated that round robin testing of gas cooking tops suggests
that a test procedure based on IEC 60350-2:2017 and EN 30-2-1, with
modification as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR, would provide test
results with acceptable repeatability and reproducibility for gas
cooking tops. Id.
As discussed, in the December 2021 NODA, DOE presented test data
from the 2021 Round Robin showing that the repeatability COV for gas
cooking tops testing according to the procedure proposed in the
November 2021 NOPR was under 2 percent, and the reproducibility COV for
gas cooking tops was largely under 4 percent, with a maximum of 5.3
percent. 86 FR 71406, 71407-71408.
Samsung generally supported unifying the cooking top test procedure
as much as possible across fuel types, including both gas and electric,
to allow comparison of efficiency across the fuel types. (Samsung, No.
16 at p. 2) Samsung suggested that due to the higher COVs measured for
gas cooking tops than for electric cooking tops, DOE should establish a
wider certification and compliance tolerance for gas cooking tops than
electric cooking tops when establishing energy conservation standards.
(Samsung, No. 16 at p. 3) Samsung commented that DOE should
alternatively continue to improve on the gas test procedure and move
forward in finalizing the proposed test procedure for electric cooking
tops. (Id.) Samsung stated that a finalized test procedure for electric
cooking tops could help advance ENERGY STAR recognition of induction
cooking tops in the near future, which could lead to significant
potential decarbonization and electrification through induction
cooking. (Id.)
AHAM asserted that manufacturers do not believe it is appropriate
to use the same test procedure for gas and electric cooking tops,
stating that the technologies and components are different between the
two product types and that the use of the same test method is unlikely
to reduce variation. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17) AHAM stated that it cannot
comment on whether or not DOE's gas cooking top test results are
representative of factory shipments and sales. (Id.) AHAM noted that
different constructions will yield a variety of different results,
especially considering different burner ratings and thicknesses of the
grate. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 9)
In response to Samsung's comment, in lieu of establishing
certification

[[Page 51512]]

tolerances, DOE regulations instead specify methods for statistically
evaluating a sample plan to ensure that products meet the relevant
standard. Any represented value of a basic model for which consumers
would favor lower values (such as annual energy use) must 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 (see section
III.L.1 of this document).
In response to AHAM's comments, DOE has acknowledged the need to
include unique provisions in the test procedure to account for whether
the unit being tested is a gas or electric cooking top. Notably, DOE
has specified a procedure for adjusting the burner heat input rate for
gas cooking tops, as discussed in section III.F.4 of this document. As
illustrated by the 2021 Round Robin test results, these specifications
have resulted in a cooking top test procedure that has significantly
reduced variability as compared to the test procedure finalized in the
December 2016 Final Rule. DOE also notes that units used in the round
robin testing were not intended to be reflective of any particular
shipment or sales distribution except to the extent that a broad range
of manufacturers were represented. DOE will address the market
distribution of cooking top efficiencies as part of its ongoing energy
conservation standards analysis.
1. Gas Test Conditions
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed 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. 86 FR 60974, 60987. DOE further proposed that the higher
heating value of natural gas be approximately 1,025 Btu per standard
cubic foot, and that the higher heating value of propane be
approximately 2,500 Btu per standard cubic foot. Id. These values are
consistent with industry standards, and other DOE test procedures for
gas-fired appliances.
DOE also proposed 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).'' Id. Standard cubic feet are used to measure
the energy use of a gas appliance in a repeatable manner by correcting
for potential variation in the gas line conditions.
DOE requested comment on its proposed test conditions for gas
cooking tops, and its proposed definition of a standard cubic foot of
gas. Id.
AHAM agreed with the proposed natural gas and propane heating value
definitions. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12)
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed test conditions for gas cooking tops,
and its proposed definition of a standard cubic foot of gas.
2. Gas Supply Instrumentation
a. Gas Meter
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify in new appendix
I1 a gas meter for testing gas cooking tops. The proposal was identical
to the provision in the version of appendix I as finalized in the
December 2016 Final Rule. That provision 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. 86
FR 60974, 60987.
DOE requested comment on its proposed instrumentation
specifications for gas cooking tops, including the gas meter, and any
cost burden for manufacturers who may not already have the required
instrumentation. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed
specifications for the gas meter used in new appendix I1.
For the reasons presented in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE finalizes
its proposed specifications for the gas meter used in new appendix I1.
b. Correction Factor
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include in section
4.1.1.2.1 of new appendix I1 the formula for the correction factor to
standard temperature and pressure conditions. This was a change from
the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule,
which referenced the U.S. Bureau of Standards Circular C417, 1938,
(``C417''). 86 FR 60974, 60987. DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR
that by providing this explicit formula, it expects to reduce the
potential for confusion or miscalculations. Id.
Measuring the gas temperature and line pressure \57\ are required
to calculate the correction factor to standard temperature and pressure
conditions. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify the
instrumentation to do so. Id. DOE proposed to require that the
instrument for measuring the gas line temperature 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 have a maximum error
no greater than 0.1 inches of water column. Id. 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 gas-fired furnaces and for gas-fired water heaters, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ If line pressure is measured as gauge pressure, the
absolute pressure is the sum of that value and the barometric
pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requested comment on its proposed instrumentation
specifications for gas cooking tops, including for measuring gas
temperature and pressure, and any cost burden for manufacturers who may
not already have the required instrumentation. Id.
UL observed that the accuracy of the gas line pressure meter is
specified in the proposed test procedure but that the accuracy of the
barometric pressure reading is not specified. (UL, No. 17 at p. 2) UL
commented that the barometric pressure reading is not necessary if the
gas pressure is measured as absolute pressure. (Id.) UL recommended
that DOE specify an accuracy for the sum of the barometric pressure and
gas pressure measurements and for the barometric pressure measurement.
(Id.) UL commented that if an accuracy requirement is specified only
for the barometric pressure, then DOE should provide guidance for how
to combine the two accuracies. (Id.)
UL also commented that any pressure measurements that reference a
height of liquid should specify the temperature of the liquid, or
whether it is ``conventional.'' (UL, No. 17 at pp. 2-3) UL commented
that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST'')
provides three possible conversion factors when working with inches of
mercury or inches of water, depending on the condition of the liquid.
(UL, No. 17 at p. 2) UL commented that the value of P<INF>base</INF>,
the standard sea level air pressure, specified in section 4.1.1.2.1 of
proposed appendix I1 (408.13 inches of water) is different than in the
gas calorimeter tables in C417 and does not seem to match any typical
standard pressure conditions. (Id.) UL commented that C417 specifies a
pressure of 30 inches of mercury at a temperature of 32 [deg]F, which
UL converted according to NIST conversion factors into 101,591.4
Pascals or 407.852 inches of water (using the ``conventional liquid''
conversion factor). (UL, No. 17 at pp. 2-3) UL recommended that the
value for P<INF>base</INF> be updated to match the value

[[Page 51513]]

derived using C417 and that the pressure be specified in units that do
not involve the height of a fluid to avoid confusion. (UL, No. 17 at p.
3)
In response to UL's comment that the accuracy of the barometric
pressure reading is not specified in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE notes
that the 2021 Round Robin produced repeatable test results even though
the barometric pressure reading accuracy was not specified. DOE has
determined that the laboratories that conducted the 2021 Round Robin
used barometric pressure measuring devices with accuracies ranging from
0.1 to 4 millibars. DOE has observed that typical accuracies for
barometric pressure reading devices currently on the market are less
than 8 millibars. In this final rule, DOE is not specifying an accuracy
for the barometric pressure reading in appendix I1, noting that it is
unlikely that an instrument used by a test laboratory to measure
barometric pressure would produce significantly more variability than
was observed in the 2021 Round Robin.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposed gas pressure
and temperature specifications for gas cooking tops.
In response to UL's comments regarding the gas correction factor
formula, DOE is updating the units of measurement specified in the
formula for the correction factor to standard temperature and pressure
conditions used in section 4.1.1.2.1 of new appendix I1 to be more
representative of the units of measurement used by test laboratories.
These changes do not affect any of the resulting calculations.
Specifically, DOE notes that C417 specifies a P<INF>base</INF> value of
30 inches of mercury at a temperature of 32 [deg]F, which is equal to
101,591.4 Pascals,\58\ or 14.73 pounds per square inch (``psi'').\59\
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed pressure values in the
correction factor formula in inches of water column, which is the unit
of measurement most commonly used by industry for measuring gas line
pressure. By contrast, in DOE's experience, to measure barometric
pressure, psi is a more commonly used unit. In this final rule, DOE
updates the specified units for P<INF>base</INF> and P<INF>atm</INF>
used in the correction factor formula in section 4.1.1.2.1 of appendix
I1 to be recorded in psi, and maintains gas line pressure to be
measured in inches of water column, as proposed in the November 2021
NOPR. DOE is also including a corresponding conversion factor of 0.0361
\60\ in appendix I1 to convert P<INF>gas</INF> from inches of water
column to psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ 30 inches of mercury at 32 [deg]F x 3,386.38 Pascals per
inch of mercury (conversion factor defined by NIST) = 101,591.4
Pascals.
\59\ 101,591.4 Pascals / 6,894.757 Pascals per pound per square
inch (conversion factor defined by NIST) = 14.73 pounds per square
inch.
\60\ DOE notes that the conversion from inches of water column
to psi, as defined by NIST, is equal to 0.0361, regardless of the
temperature of the water defined in the inches of water column unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is also updating the units for gas temperature used in the
correction factor formula to be measured in [deg]F or [deg]C, rather
than degrees Rankine or Kelvin. To accommodate this change, DOE is
including an adder, T<INF>k</INF>, to the correction factor formula for
converting the gas temperature from [deg]F to Rankine or [deg]C to
Kelvin, as applicable.
In summary, DOE believes these changes to the units of measurement
better align with the units of measurement most commonly used by test
laboratories.
c. Gas Calorimeter
The version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final
Rule 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 was then required to be corrected to standard temperature and
pressure. 81 FR 91418, 91440.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require the use of a
standard continuous flow calorimeter to measure the higher heating
value of the gas. DOE proposed four requirements: 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. 86 FR
60974, 60987. 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.
As discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed 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. 86 FR 60974, 60987. Instead, DOE proposed to calculate gas
energy use as the product of three factors: the measured gas volume
consumed (in cubic feet), a correction factor converting measured cubic
feet of gas to standard cubic feet of gas as discussed previously, and
the heating value of the gas (in Btu per standard cubic foot) in new
appendix I1. Id. DOE proposed to specify further that the heating value
would be the higher heating value on a dry-basis of gas. Id. In the
November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it is DOE's understanding that this
is the typical heating value used by the industry and third-party test
laboratories. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed instrumentation
specifications for gas cooking tops, including the gas calorimeter, and
any cost burden for manufacturers who may not already have the required
instrumentation. Id.
AHAM commented that it does not oppose DOE's proposal to require
the use of a standard continuous flow calorimeter for gas cooking top
testing, stating that these devices are standard laboratory equipment.
(AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12)
UL commented that the requirements for standard continuous flow
calorimeter accuracy separating the meter accuracy (error) from the
readout (error) seem to be based on older Cutler Hammer calorimeters
and are not applicable to modern equipment or other techniques such as
a gas chromatograph or bottled gases. (UL, No. 17 at p. 1) UL commented
that it recommends that the regulation combines the meter accuracy with
the readout accuracy to have an accuracy requirement for the
measurement of heat content. (Id.)
UL further commented that the specification for operating range
given in section 2.7.2.2 of proposed appendix I1 also seems to be based
on older Cutler Hammer calorimeters and stated that, in general,
operating ranges are not required for other instruments such as flow
meters, volt meters, ammeters, etc. (UL, No. 17 at p. 2) UL recommended
that section 2.7.2.2 of appendix I1 eliminate the requirement for an
operating range, claiming that specifying a broad range tends to reduce
accuracy. (Id.)
In response to UL's comment regarding the gas meter accuracy, DOE
notes that these requirements would not apply if a test laboratory were
to use bottled gas to conduct the cooking top test procedure. Modifying
the accuracy requirements as suggested by UL could prevent some older
testing equipment from being able to be used to perform the DOE test
procedure, thus requiring laboratories that use such equipment to
purchase newer equipment. DOE has no indications to suggest that such
older equipment is any less accurate or any less appropriate for use in
the DOE test

[[Page 51514]]

procedure. Thus, requiring the purchase of newer equipment would
represent undue test burden. DOE further notes that the requirements as
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR do not preclude the use of more
modern equipment. In this final rule, DOE finalizes the requirements
for the accuracy of the standard continuous flow calorimeter as
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR.
In response to UL's comment stating that specifying a broad
operating range tends to reduce accuracy, DOE notes that the equipment
used for testing must meet the accuracy specifications defined by the
test procedure, regardless of whether a broad or narrow operating range
is specified (i.e., in combination with specifying an accuracy range,
the specification of a broad operating range has no impact on the
accuracy of the measured value). DOE recognizes, however, that
specifying a particular operating range could prevent certain equipment
from being used that may have a different specified operating range but
provides an equivalent level of accuracy for the values being measured
for the DOE test procedure. As such, specifying an accuracy range could
increase test burden (by requiring the purchase of new equipment)
without providing any benefit in the form of improved accuracy. For
this reason, DOE determines that specifying an operating range for the
gas calorimeter could introduce undue test burden. In this final rule,
DOE specifies the required accuracy of the standard continuous flow
calorimeter without specifying an allowable operating range.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposed
instrumentation specifications for gas calorimeters for gas cooking
tops, with the elimination of the 750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic foot
operating range requirement proposed in the November 2021 NOPR.
3. Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops
In applying the test method in IEC 60350-2:2021 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 both IEC
60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 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 with gas
cooking tops, specifies test vessels that differ in dimensions,
material, and construction from those in IEC 60350-2. 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.1). These test vessels are fabricated from
a single piece of aluminum, with a wall thickness between 1.5 and 1.8
mm.

Table III.1--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%.

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. To use a consistent set of test
vessels for all types of gas and electric cooking tops, DOE proposed in
the November 2021 NOPR to specify in new appendix I1 the IEC 60350-
2:2017 test vessel to be used for each gas burner,\61\ 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''). 86 FR 60974, 60988. The test
vessel diameters in EN 30-2-1 do not exactly match those of the test
vessels in IEC 60350-2, but DOE selected the closest match possible, as
shown in Table III.2. DOE also proposed 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 to
allocate some of its range to the IEC 240 mm vessel for two reasons.
First, it would provide more evenly balanced ranges. Second, it would
avoid a significant mismatch between the heat input rate and test
vessel sizes at the lower end of the heat input range. Id. DOE did not
propose 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. DOE
preliminarily determined these would not be representative of consumer
use of such burners. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ As described previously, both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC
60350-2:2021 specify test vessels in the following diameters: 120
mmm 150 mm, 180 mm, 210 mm, 240 mm, 270 mm, 300 mm, and 330 mm.

Table III.2--Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops Proposed in the November 2021 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal gas burner input rate (Btu/h) EN 30-2-1 IEC 60350-2
----------------------------------------------------------------- Test vessel Test vesel Water load
Minimum (>) Maximum (<=) diameter (mm) diameter (mm) mass (g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,600 220 210 2,050
5,600........................................... 8,050 240 and 260 240 2,700
8,050........................................... 14,300 260 270 3,420

[[Page 51515]]

14,300.......................................... .............. 300 300 4,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similar to electric cooking tops, DOE also proposed in 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.\62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ See section III.E.1 of this document for a discussion of
the clarifying edits to this provision for electric cooking tops,
which is extended to gas cooking tops, requiring that if a test
vessel lid cannot be centered on the test vessel due to interference
from a structural component, the substitution also occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requested 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. Id.
The Joint Commenters agreed with the proposed test vessels and test
vessel selection method for gas cooking tops. (Joint Commenters, No. 11
at p. 2) The Joint Commenters supported aligning the test methods for
gas and electric cooking tops to the extent possible. (Id.) The Joint
Commenters stated that using a consistent set of test vessels across
all cooking tops can provide more accurate comparisons between cooking
top models across different product types. (Id.)
Samsung supported the use of the same test vessels for both
electric and gas cooking tops, stating that minimizing the variety of
test vessels required reduces testing burden. (Samsung, No. 16 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs requested that DOE amend the gas and/or electric
cooking top test vessel and water load selection criteria to mitigate
what they claimed were discrepancies in comparability between cooking
tops with different fuel types. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) The CA IOUs
commented that, while IEC 60350-2 and EN 30-2-1 are both reliable test
procedure sources for their respective cooking top fuels, the use of
two different sources for developing the test vessel and water load
selection criteria may result in significant differences that limit
performance comparisons between electric and gas cooking tops. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that IEC 60350-2 and EN 30-2-1 were not developed
to be directly comparable to one another, and stated that as such, DOE
should make amendments to ensure comparability. (Id.) The CA IOUs
recommended that to create a more comparable test procedure, the
electric and gas cooking tops should have the same granularity of test
vessel and water load selection criteria. (Id.) They stated that the
gas cooking top test vessel selection table includes only half of the
eight test vessels in the electric cooking top test vessel selection
table. (Id.)
According to the CA IOUs, the relationship between input power and
water load is not equivalent between cooking top fuel types because of
the difference in granularity between electric and gas cooking top test
vessel selection criteria in the November 2021 NOPR. (Id.) The CA IOUs
commented that they have developed a crosswalk between the test vessel
selection criteria for electric cooking tops based on cooking zone
diameter, and for gas cooking tops based on evaluating the nominal
burner input rating, using the cooking zone diameters and associated
power ratings of a representative electric range. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at
p. 3) The CA IOUs asserted that the resulting analysis shows the
inconsistent test vessel and water load granularity between electric
and gas. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated that by their calculation, the
narrowest range defined for a gas cooking top test vessel (5,600 to
8,050 Btu/h, for use with the 240 mm test vessel) corresponds to three
different vessel sizes for electric cooking tops within that equivalent
range. (Id.) The CA IOUs further stated that the rate of change in
water load to input power ratios is inconsistent between electric and
gas cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that
it is understandable that an electric heating element and gas burner
designed for the same consumer purpose (e.g., primary large or
secondary simmering cooking zone) have different power ratings. (Id.)
They stated that, according to a 2019 study conducted by Frontier
Energy, they transfer heat to the pan or pot at different efficiencies
dictated by their fuel type.\63\ (Id.) The CA IOUs asserted that once
that inherent difference has been established, the rate of change to
the next test vessel selection should be consistent for both electric
and gas cooking tops with the change in water load. (Id.) However, they
noted that as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR, when moving from the
2,700 g water load to the 3,420 g water load, the electric heating
element power increases by 13 percent, while the gas burner power
increases by 64 percent. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ As described in a 2019 study by Frontier Energy, gas
cooking tops ``have the highest thermal losses because the gas flame
heats up the air around the pot or pan, which in turn heats up the
kitchen'' while electric cooking tops, either ``heat up the pot or
pan directly and not the surrounding air'', as is the case with
induction cooking, or ``heat the air indirectly'' due to heating of
the cooking top itself such as with electric resistance cooking
tops. Residential Cooktop Performance and Energy Comparison Study by
Frontier Energy. July 2019. <a href="http://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Induction-Range-Final-Report-July-2019.pdf">cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Induction-Range-Final-Report-July-2019.pdf</a>. Last accessed March 31,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs claimed that the inconsistencies in the test vessel
selection criteria create a test procedure that does not allow for an
accurate comparison between gas and electric product performance and
thus limits a consumer's ability to accurately compare products. (CA
IOUs, No. 14 at p. 5) The CA IOUs requested that DOE align the gas
cooking top test vessel and water load selection criteria with the
electric cooking top criteria more closely by specifying an equal
number of test vessel and water load increments for gas and electric
cooking tops. (Id.) The CA IOUs also requested that DOE amend the gas
and/or electric cooking top test vessel and water load selection
criteria rate of changes to more closely align with one another. (Id.)
AHAM commented that DOE has not conducted testing to understand the
wear and degradation effects from gas units on the IEC cookware,
stating that the long-term durability of stainless pots for gas testing
is unknown. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 13) AHAM commented that it is
conducting investigative testing to assess the difference in results
between IEC and EN test vessels. (Id.) AHAM stated that DOE should wait
for its test results before proceeding and should include its results
in a supplemental

[[Page 51516]]

NOPR (``SNOPR'') or NODA as needed. (Id.) AHAM commented that it
acknowledges the potential to reduce burden associated with using the
same pots but stated that the impact of doing so on test results needs
to be studied. (Id.)
In response to the CA IOUs' comments regarding the differences in
granularity of the defined heat input ranges corresponding to each test
vessel size for gas and electric cooking tops, DOE notes that gas and
electric cooking tops are not directly comparable in terms of the
variety of element and burner sizes generally offered on individual
models. On a single unit, electric cooking tops generally offer a
greater range of heating element sizes and maximum input rates among
the different heating elements than gas cooking tops offer in terms of
burner input rates.
As discussed in section III.E.1 of this document, gas burners are
able to be effectively used with a much wider range of pot sizes than
electric heating elements. An electric heating element can only provide
effective heat transfer to the area of a pot in direct contact or in
line of sight with the element, such that the range of pot diameters
that can be effectively used on an electric heating element is limited
by the diameter of the heating element. Conversely, gas burners are
able to provide effective heat transfer to a wider range of pot sizes
(and in particular, pots with a diameter larger than the burner). Thus,
the range of pot diameters that can be effectively used on a gas burner
is not limited by the diameter of the burner to the same extent that it
is for an electric heating element. For these reasons, DOE has
determined that it is appropriate that the test procedure specify
smaller test vessel increments (i.e., more granularity) for electric
cooking tops than for gas cooking tops.
Furthermore, DOE is unaware of any existing electric cooking tops
with heating element diameters smaller than 130 mm (5.1 inches) or
larger than 310 mm (12.2 inches), which would use the 120 mm and 330 mm
test vessels, respectively. Therefore, effectively only six test vessel
sizes (as opposed to eight included for consideration) are used for
electric cooking tops as compared to the four test vessel sizes used
for gas cooking tops.
In response to AHAM's comment on the use of the IEC test vessels
for gas cooking top testing, DOE has determined that there is no
evidence to suggest that consumers use different cookware for gas and
electric cooking tops. Therefore, DOE proposed to use the same cookware
for testing gas cooking tops as is used for electric cooking tops. DOE
selected the IEC test vessels because they are compatible with all
cooking technologies, unlike the EN test vessels.\64\ As discussed, DOE
has conducted a rigorous round robin testing program over multiple
months using the IEC test vessels on both gas and electric cooking
tops, and DOE has not encountered any problems with their use during
this testing. Further, DOE observed no discernable difference in the
condition of the test vessels after electric or gas cooking top
testing. See section III.H.3 of this document for further discussion
regarding test vessel flatness. DOE has not yet received any data from
AHAM on this issue and encourages AHAM to send any data when it becomes
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ Because the EN cookware are made of aluminum, they would
not be usable on electric cooking tops using induction heating
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal in the
November 2021 NOPR to require the use of IEC test vessels for gas
cooking tops, and its proposed method for selecting the test vessel
size based on the gas burner's heat input rate.
4. Burner Heat Input Rate Adjustment
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE recognized that the version of
appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule did not include
requirements related to gas outlet pressure, in particular a tolerance
on the regulator outlet pressure or specifications for the nominal heat
input rate for burners on gas cooking tops. 86 FR 60974, 60988. From a
review of the test results from the 2020 Round Robin, DOE tentatively
concluded in the November 2021 NOPR 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. Id. To improve test procedure reproducibility, DOE
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to incorporate gas supply pressure
and regulator outlet pressure (which affects heat input rate)
requirements into new appendix I1, as described further in the
following discussion. Id.
Industry procedures for gas cooking tops include specifications for
the heat input rate. For example, EN 30-2-1 specifies that before
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'') has a two-step heat input rate
requirement. First, individual burners must be adjusted to their Btu
rating at normal inlet test pressure. Next, the heat input rate of the
burners must be measured after 5 minutes of operation, at which time it
must be within <plus-minus> 5 percent of the nameplate value.
Based on a review of its test data, DOE tentatively determined in
the November 2021 NOPR that specifying a tolerance of <plus-minus> 5
percent from the nominal heat input rate may not produce repeatable and
reproducible test results. Id. at 86 FR 60989. Therefore, DOE proposed
to specify in new appendix I1 that the measured heat input rate be
within 2 percent the nominal heat input rate as specified by the
manufacturer. Id.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the heat input rate be
measured and adjusted for each burner of the cooking top before
conducting testing on that burner. Id. 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, starting 5 minutes
after ignition. Id. 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. Id.
DOE also proposed to require adjusting the average heat input rate
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. Id. 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. Id. 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. Id. 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 until 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. Id. 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. Id.

[[Page 51517]]

Once the heat input rate has been set for a burner, it would not be
adjusted during testing of that burner. Id.
DOE requested 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. Id. Below are summaries of
comments received.
NYSERDA agreed with including gas supply pressure and regulatory
outlet pressure requirements to ensure repeatability and
reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2)
The Joint Commenters supported the proposal for adjusting the
burner heat input rate for gas cooking tops, the inclusion of
specifications for the heat input rate, and the 2-percent tolerance on
the heat input rate to ensure reproducibility of test results. (Joint
Commenters, No. 11 at p. 3)
NEEA supported the proposed methodology for input rate verification
and the proposed 2-percent tolerance on input rate, stating that these
proposals align with the methodology of ASTM food service standards and
should be rigorous enough to ensure repeatable testing. (NEEA, No. 15
at p. 2)
The CA IOUs supported the proposed input rate and incoming gas
pressure specifications to ensure that units tested at different
laboratories are tested under comparable conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 14
at p. 2)
AHAM commented that the third-party test laboratory it used for its
testing had problems controlling gas pressure and flow, especially on
smaller burners rated at 5,000 to 6,000 Btu/h. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 11)
AHAM stated that depending on unit construction, damage could occur
from blocking open a built-in gas regulator, internal to the unit, to
achieve the required gas tolerance. (Id.) AHAM also stated this could
generate inaccurate results. (Id.)
AHAM asserted that the proposed tolerance of the average heat input
rate of the burner under test being within 2 percent of the nominal
heat input rate of the burner is too small. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 13)
AHAM stated that it is conducting investigative testing using both a 2-
percent and 5-percent tolerance, and that DOE should wait for the
results rather than using a calculated assessment of how results change
based on burner adjustment. (Id.) AHAM recommended that DOE use the 5-
percent tolerance if it decides to move forward without test data to
support its proposal, stating that a 5-percent tolerance is used in
well-established industry standards. (Id.) AHAM claimed that DOE's data
do not demonstrate that variation in the test itself has been reduced.
(Id.) AHAM stated that other factors, such as improved test technician
understanding of the test, likely contributed to the reduction in
variation. (Id.) Additionally, AHAM commented that the tighter
tolerance on burner heat input rate adds undue burden. AHAM further
stated that changing barometric pressure conditions must be considered
within a wider tolerance. (Id.) AHAM commented that the smaller
tolerance window is more problematic for smaller burners (5,000-6,000
Btu/h) than for higher-input-rate burners. (Id.)
UL commented that the procedure for gas burner adjustment defines
only when to start measuring heat input and not for how long. (UL, No.
17 at p. 2) UL stated that the duration of the input rate measurement
should be defined since heat input decreases over time. (Id.) UL
asserted, for example, that if one laboratory measures heat input for
10 seconds and another measures it over a time period of 2 minutes, the
numbers will be different because the heat input is changing while it
is being measured. (Id.) UL suggested that some laboratories may object
to a specific time period and stated that a range may be a good
compromise to accommodate different measurement methods. (Id.)
According to UL, some laboratories may rely on a stopwatch to measure
the time of a specified number of rotations of the needle on a wet drum
meter, and that the amount of time for those rotations depends on the
size of the meter and the rating for the burner. (Id.) UL commented
that other laboratories may have equipment to measure instantaneous
heat input, in which case a time for measurement can align with
alternative methods. (Id.)
DOE has not yet received any data from AHAM on this issue and
encourages AHAM to send any data when it becomes available. AHAM's
concern regarding the potential damage to the unit from blocking a
built-in regulator in the open position to achieve the required burner
heat input rate is not supported by DOE's testing experience. When
blocking a gas regulator in the open position, to obtain the required
heat input, the test laboratory would use the laboratory regulator on
the gas supply line, upstream of the unit, to control the gas supply
pressure. This external regulation would reduce the pressure and
mitigate any gas flow fluctuations from the supply line that could
cause potential damage. DOE also notes that this approach leads to more
repeatable and reproducible results.
DOE's 2021 Round Robin test data shows improved repeatability and
reproducibility in comparison to the 2020 Round Robin. Specifying a 2-
percent tolerance on the burner heat input rate was one of the key
differences between the

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on August 22, 2022.

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.