[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some
documents listed in the index, such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
A link to the docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023. 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: [email protected].
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: [email protected].
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: [email protected].
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 webstore.ansi.org.
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
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 www.regulations.gov). 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.
2 degrees temperature of 25
Celsius (``[deg]C''). 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 0.5 [deg]C. 25 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 www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023/document, 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\ www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.4_natural_gas_combustion.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm.)
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: www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals#table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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 5 [deg]C for certain safety testing that manufacturers are
likely conducting.
The IEC ambient room temperature specifications (23 2
[deg]C) are within the range allowed by UL 858 (25 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
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 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 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 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 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 3 [deg]C should not prove
overly burdensome for testing, stating that ASTM food service standards
typically have a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 0.5
[deg]C for 10-30 minutes. For these reasons, DOE determines that
maintaining a tolerance of 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
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 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 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
t90,\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 t90 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
t90, the power setting under test is considered to be above
the threshold power setting. The simmering test is repeated using the
next lower power setting, after allowing the product temperature to
return to ambient conditions, until two consecutive power settings have
been determined to be above the threshold power setting and below the
threshold power setting, respectively. These power settings are
considered to be the minimum-above-threshold power setting and the
maximum-below-threshold power setting, respectively. The energy
consumption representative of an Energy Test Cycle is calculated based
on an interpolation of the energy use of both of these cycles, as
discussed in section III.E.4 of this document.
(3) If the smoothened temperature drops below 90 [deg]C at any time
in the 20-minute period following t90, the power setting
under test is considered to be below the threshold power setting. The
simmering test is repeated using the next higher power setting, after
allowing the product temperature to return to ambient conditions, until
two consecutive power settings have been determined to be above the
threshold power setting and below the threshold power setting,
respectively. These power settings are considered to be the minimum-
above-threshold power setting and the maximum-below-threshold power
setting, respectively. The energy consumption representative of an
Energy Test Cycle is calculated based on an interpolation of the energy
use of both of these cycles, as discussed in section III.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 (Tctarget), the simmering
period, and the time t90 (the start of the simmering
period).\53\ In appendix I1, DOE is defining the time t90 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 t90,''
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 (Tc) and the target turndown
temperature (Tctarget).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 t90 (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 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 Pbase,
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 Pbase 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 Pbase 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 Pbase and Patm
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 Pgas 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, Tk, 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 2%.
greater than 4.2............... * 300 Adjust the heat input
rate of the burner to
4.2 kW 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, 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. cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Induction-Range-Final-Report-July-2019.pdf. 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 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 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 two test programs. All of the data DOE has
presented for both the 2020 Round Robin and the 2021 Round Robin was
collected by experienced technicians and validated for compliance with
the appropriate test method. DOE notes that none of the three test
laboratories that participated in gas testing for the 2021 Round Robin
reported any difficulty in meeting the 2-percent specification even on
smaller burners.
DOE reiterates that the proposed 2-percent tolerance mirrors the
tolerance specified in the EN 30-2-1 industry test procedure. DOE
further notes that it did not propose any provisions that would require
changing barometric conditions. Furthermore, DOE notes that AHAM's
request for a 5-percent tolerance on the nominal burner heat input rate
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).
DOE disagrees with UL's suggestion to define the duration over
which the burner heat input rate should be measured. As suggested by
UL, the appropriate length of time over which the burner heat input
rate should be measured is based on the type of meter being used and
test laboratory best practices will depend on the type of meter being
used. DOE testing suggests that the rate of change of the burner heat
input rate within a few minutes after 5 minutes of operation is small
enough that the average burner heat input rate measurement would not
vary significantly for different measurement periods within that time
frame. DOE expects that laboratories complete this measurement within a
few minutes after the end of the 5-minute operating period, regardless
of the type of meter being used. Therefore, DOE is not specifying a
period of time over which the average burner heat input rate must be
measured.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the
November 2021 NOPR, 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.
For clarity, DOE is removing the word ``average'' from section
3.1.3 of appendix I1 to avoid implying that the measurement must be
made over a
[[Page 51518]]
specific length of time and, in particular, to accommodate the option
to measure instantaneous burner heat input rate after the specified 5
minutes of operation.
5. Target Power Density for Optional Potential Simmering Setting Pre-
Selection Test
As discussed in section III.D.2.d of this document, Annex H of IEC
60350-2:2021 specifies a target power density of 0.8 W/cm\2\ for the
potential simmering setting pre-selection test for electric cooking
tops. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed for gas cooking tops to
specify a separate target power density, which would be measured in Btu
per hour divided by the area of the cookware bottom in square
centimeters (``Btu/h[middot]cm\2\''). 86 FR 60974, 60989.
To evaluate possible values for this target power density, in the
November 2021 NOPR, DOE investigated test data from five gas cooking
tops, each tested three times as part of the 2020 Round Robin,\65\ at a
single test laboratory. Id. The range of power densities measured for
test cycles of minimum-above-threshold settings was 3.8-11.6 Btu/
h[middot]cm\2\. Id. at 86 FR 60990. The range of power densities
measured for test cycles of maximum-below-threshold settings was 2.6-
5.9 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE
preliminarily estimated that a target power density of 4.0 Btu/
h[middot]cm\2\ would be appropriate. Id. DOE noted that it could
consider specifying a different target power density for the potential
simmering setting pre-selection test if additional data were to suggest
that a different value would be more representative than the proposed
value of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ This test data was not measured according to the test
procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. DOE preliminarily
determined that it was still useful to evaluate potential target
power densities because a cooking top setting's power density is
inherent and does not vary with test procedure protocol. However,
due to the lack of burner heat input rate tolerance in the testing,
some of these tested values may not accurately reflect the expected
power densities when the heat input rate is within 2 percent of the
nominal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 2021 NODA, DOE presented data from the 2021 Round
Robin. The additional data DOE collected were on the measured power
density of the minimum-above-threshold input setting and the maximum-
below-threshold input setting for four gas cooking tops.\66\ 86 FR
71406, 71408. The range of power densities measured for test cycles of
minimum-above-threshold settings was 3.2-9.5 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\. The
range of power densities measured for test cycles of maximum-below-
threshold settings was 2.5-6.4 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ The test data are available in the docket for this
rulemaking at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0004. Unlike the data presented in the November 2021 NOPR, these
test data were measured according to the test procedure proposed in
the November 2021 NOPR. However, DOE believes the two data sets
present comparable data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposed
target power density for gas cooking tops of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\. 86
FR 60974, 60990.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed target
power density for gas cooking tops of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\.
DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed
target power density for the optional potential simmering setting pre-
selection test for gas cooking tops of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\.
6. Product Temperature Measurement for Gas Cooking Tops
As discussed in section III.E.2.b of this document, DOE is
specifying in new appendix I1 that the temperature of the product must
be measured at the center of the cooking zone under test before any
active mode testing. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify
that this requirement would also apply to gas burner adjustments
described in section 3.1.3 of new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60990. DOE
further proposed to specify that for a conventional gas cooking top,
the product temperature would be measured inside the burner body of the
cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap. Id.
Before the standby mode and off mode power test, the product
temperature would be measured as the average of the temperature
measured at the center of each cooking zone. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to require measuring a gas
cooking top's temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone
under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap. Id.
AHAM objected to DOE's proposal to require measuring the product
temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under test,
after temporarily removing the burner cap. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 13) AHAM
gave several reasons: DOE had not presented data to show that burner
cap removal is necessary, and this requirement would be impractical,
invasive, unnecessary, and not in accordance with common practices for
testing gas cooking appliances. AHAM commented that burners have an
increased risk of damage if they are tampered with and stated that
burner disassembly compromises proper and safe performance and is not
appropriate for gas products. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 13-14) AHAM urged
DOE not to require any appliance disassembly in the test procedure.
(AHAM, No. 12 at p. 14)
The CA IOUs suggested that DOE clarify where to measure the product
temperature for products without burner caps. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7)
In response to AHAM's concern regarding the removal of the gas
burner cap to measure the product temperature of a gas cooking top, DOE
notes that to its knowledge and through its testing experience,
removing the burner cap is generally not difficult and does not risk
damage to the unit. A test laboratory that participated in the 2021
Round Robin confirmed with DOE that the removal of the gas burner cap
is not a complicated or time-consuming requirement. DOE further notes
that removing the gas burner cap is a common practice among consumers
as part of the regular cleaning process for gas cooking tops, and
instructions for doing so are typically included in manufacturer
instructions. DOE considered not requiring the removal of the gas
burner cap to measure the product temperature but has determined that
the method proposed in the November 2021 NOPR is the approach that best
confirms whether a cooking top's internal components have returned to
ambient conditions. This confirmation is especially important for gas
cooking tops because the temperature of the internal components can
affect critical dimensions, and thus the amount of gas flow and
entrained air. If the cooking top is not properly tested starting at
ambient temperature, this factor could lead to unrepeatable results.
DOE notes that throughout both the 2020 Round Robin and the 2021 Round
Robin, three test laboratories followed the requirement to measure the
product temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under
test, after temporarily removing the burner cap without issue.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the November 2021 NOPR, to require measuring a gas cooking top's
temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under test,
after temporarily removing the burner cap. In response to the comment
from the CA IOUs, DOE clarifies that the burner cap need only be
removed if one exists.
[[Page 51519]]
G. Definitions and Clarifications
As part of this final rule, DOE is adding certain definitions and
clarifications to new appendix I1 in addition to those already
described.
1. Operating Modes
To clarify provisions relating to the various operating modes, in
the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to add definitions of ``active
mode,'' ``off mode,'' ``standby mode,'' ``inactive mode,'' and
``combined low-power mode'' to new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60990.
These definitions are identical to those that had been established in
the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule.
DOE proposed to define active mode as ``a mode in which the product
is connected to a mains power source, has been activated, and is
performing the main function of producing heat by means of a gas flame,
electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating.'' Id.
DOE proposed to define off mode as ``any mode in which a product is
connected to a mains power source and is not providing any active mode
or standby function, and where the mode may persist for an indefinite
time. An indicator that only shows the user that the product is in the
off position is included within the classification of an off mode.''
Id.
DOE proposed to define standby mode as ``any mode in which a
product is connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of
the following user-oriented or protective functions which may persist
for an indefinite time:
(1) Facilitation of the activation of other modes (including
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
(2) Provision of continuous functions, including information or
status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A
timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be
associated with a display) that allows for regularly scheduled tasks
and that operates on a continuous basis.'' Id. at 86 FR 60990-60991.
DOE proposed to define inactive mode as ``a standby mode that
facilitates the activation of active mode by remote switch (including
remote control), internal sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous
status display.'' Id. at 86 FR 60991.
DOE proposed to define combined low-power mode as ``the aggregate
of available modes other than active mode, but including the delay
start mode portion of active mode.'' Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed definitions of ``active
mode,'' ``off mode,'' ``standby mode,'' ``inactive mode,'' and
``combined low-power mode.'' Id.
The CA IOUs commented that DOE's proposal to define both
``standby'' and ``inactive'' mode may cause confusion. (CA IOUs, No. 14
at p. 5) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE remove references to
``inactive'' mode from the test procedure and stated that the standby
mode definition would then be used in low-power mode calculations.
(Id.) The CA IOUs commented that it is their understanding that when
DOE originally defined inactive mode as a subset of standby mode in the
final rule pertaining to test procedures for clothes dryers and room
air conditioners, published on January 6, 2011, it did not intend for
the terms ``inactive'' and ``standby'' to be defined as separate modes
for a single product, as has been done in the November 2021 NOPR. (CA
IOUs, No. 14 at p. 6) The CA IOUs commented that it is their
understanding that the inactive mode was intended to be referenced
partly in lieu of standby mode, when the statutory standby definition
in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 \67\ (``EISA
2007'') did not apply. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 5-6) The CA IOUs
recommended that the references to inactive mode be removed from the
rulemaking unless DOE has identified a strong rationale for using a
standby definition other than that provided by Congress. (CA IOUs, No.
14 at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Public Law 110-140 (enacted Dec. 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the CA IOUs' concern that DOE's proposal to define
both ``standby'' and ``inactive'' mode may cause confusion, DOE notes
that inactive mode was defined in the November 2021 NOPR as a subset of
standby mode. It was in section 1.14 of the version of appendix I as
finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, on which the definitions
used in the November 2021 NOPR were based. 86 FR 60974, 60991. EPCA, as
amended by EISA 2007, requires DOE to integrate measures of standby
mode and off mode energy consumption in any energy consumption metric,
if technically feasible. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Inactive mode
is the subset of standby mode measured as part of the energy
consumption metric. DOE further notes that this terminology is
consistent with other products such as clothes dryers, room air
conditioners, and dishwashers. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendices D2, F, and C1.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of ``active mode,'' ``off
mode,'' ``standby mode,'' ``inactive mode,'' and ``combined low-power
mode.''
2. Product Configuration and Installation Requirements
For additional clarity, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to
add definitions of ``combined cooking product,'' ``freestanding,''
``built-in,'' and ``drop-in'' to new appendix I1 that were included in
the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule,
and installation instructions for each of these configurations. 86 FR
60974, 60991.
DOE proposed to define combined cooking product as ``a household
cooking appliance that combines a cooking product with other appliance
functionality, which may or may not include another cooking product.
Combined cooking products include the following products: conventional
range, microwave/conventional cooking top, microwave/conventional oven,
and microwave/conventional range.'' Id.
DOE proposed to specify that a conventional cooking top or combined
cooking product be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions. Id. If the manufacturer's instructions specify that the
product may be used in multiple installation conditions, the product
would be installed according to the built-in configuration. Id. DOE
proposed to require complete assembly of the product with all handles,
knobs, guards, and similar components mounted in place, and that any
electric resistance heaters, gas burners, and baffles be positioned in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Id.
DOE proposed that if the product can communicate through a network
(e.g., Bluetooth[supreg] or internet connection), the network function
be disabled, if it is possible to disable it by means provided in the
manufacturer's user manual, for the duration of testing. Id. If the
network function cannot be disabled, or if means for disabling the
function are not provided in the manufacturer's user manual, the
product would be tested in the factory default setting or in the as-
shipped condition. Id. These proposals are consistent with comparable
provisions in final rule that DOE published for its microwave oven test
procedure on March 30, 2022. 87 FR 18261, 18268.
DOE proposed to define ``freestanding'' as applying when ``the
product is supported by the floor and is not specified in the
manufacturer's instructions as able to be installed such that it is
enclosed by surrounding
[[Page 51520]]
cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures.'' 86 FR 60974, 60991.
DOE proposed that a freestanding combined cooking product be installed
with the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical
wall which extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond
both sides of the product, and with no side walls. Id.
DOE proposed to define ``built-in'' as applying when ``the product
is enclosed in surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar
structures on at least three sides, and can be supported by surrounding
cabinetry or the floor.'' Id. DOE proposed to define ``drop-in'' as
applying when ``the product is supported by horizontal surface
cabinetry.'' Id. DOE proposed that a drop-in or built-in combined
cooking product be installed in a test enclosure in accordance with
manufacturer's instructions. Id.
DOE proposed that a conventional cooking top be installed with the
back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical wall which
extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond both sides
of the product. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed definitions of product
configurations and installation requirements. Id.
AHAM agreed with the proposed definitions for product configuration
and installation requirements, stating that they align with existing
industry standards. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 14) AHAM commented that it is
its understanding that DOE's proposal does not require additional
installation requirements such as aesthetic or safety components (e.g.,
anti-tipping brackets) that do not affect energy test performance, and
stated that if this is not DOE's intent, then DOE should clarify its
proposal and provide justification about why aesthetic or safety
components should be installed, despite the added burden to install.
(Id.)
NYSERDA urged DOE to amend the proposed procedure to account for
network-connected energy usage during testing by requiring products be
tested in the ``as-shipped'' condition to best represent typical use
conditions. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2) According to NYSERDA, testing the
product in the as-shipped condition is the best way to garner test
results that are representative of real-world conditions, stating that
it is unlikely the average consumer will read the manufacturer's
instructions and disable network connectivity. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that DOE provides no information indicating
that consumers will disable network functionality if they have a
cooking top with this feature. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 6) The CA IOUs
asserted that testing the product in the ``as-shipped'' condition would
be most representative of real-world conditions. (Id.) The CA IOUs
stated that in the context of various DOE rulemakings, including the
recently published microwave oven test procedure SNOPR, the CA IOUs
have consistently commented that leaving networking functions in their
as-shipped condition is most representative of real-world energy use in
the absence of data indicating how consumers use connected
functionality on the product under consideration. (Id.) The CA IOUs
claimed, in particular, that given the limited user interface of many
cooking products, granular control of networking capability (including
on/off functionality) is seldom offered. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented
that even if granular control of networking capability was offered,
consumers would likely be unaware of the option to adjust such
functions, or unable to determine how to do so. (Id.) The CA IOUs
commented that they are fully supportive of innovation that enhances
consumer utility but stated that this innovation ideally does not come
at the expense of efficiency. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that they
understand the potential benefits of networked cooking products but
stated that the implementation must be optimized properly. (Id.) The CA
IOUs suggested that DOE's instruction to turn off networking as
proposed in the test procedure provides an incentive for manufacturers
to add a method for disabling connected functionality as cheaply as
possible in a manner that may not be reasonably accessible to a
consumer. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 6-7) The CA IOUs commented that this
leaves consumers who do not take the active steps to disable their
network functionality with unregulated energy consuming operations. (CA
IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) The CA IOUs commented that if DOE moves forward
with its proposal to test with network functionality turned off when
possible, DOE should provide market data illustrating that consumers do
indeed take the active step to disable networking functionality. (Id.)
In response to AHAM's comment regarding installation requirements,
DOE proposed to require complete assembly of the product with all
handles, knobs, guards, and similar components mounted in place, and
that any electric resistance heaters, gas burners, and baffles be
positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. To the
extent that an aesthetic or safety component does not correspond to any
of these requirements, it would not be required to be installed.
DOE is aware of a number of cooking tops on the market with varying
implementations of connected functionality. On such products, DOE has
observed inconsistent implementations of these connected features
across different brands, and that the design and operation of these
features is continuously evolving as the market continues to grow for
these products.
DOE remains unaware of any data available, nor did interested
parties provide any such data, regarding the consumer use of connected
features. Without such data, DOE is unable to establish a
representative test configuration for assessing the energy consumption
of connected functionality for conventional cooking tops during an
average period of use, as required by EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
DOE has determined that if network functionality cannot be disabled
by the consumer, or if the manufacturer's user manual does not provide
instruction for disabling the function, including the energy
consumption of the enabled network function is more representative than
excluding the energy consumption associated with the network function.
For such products, the energy consumption of a connected function that
cannot be disabled will be measured.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of product configurations
and installation requirements.
3. Power Settings
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify power setting
selection by adding definitions of ``power setting,'' ``infinite power
settings,'' ``multi-ring cooking zone,'' and ``maximum power setting''
in new appendix I1, and by specifying which power settings are
considered for each type of cooking zone. 86 FR 60974, 60991.
DOE proposed to define power setting as ``a setting on a cooking
zone control that offers a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or
electric inductive heating.'' Id.
DOE proposed to define infinite power settings as ``a cooking zone
control without discrete power settings, allowing for selection of any
power setting below the maximum power setting.'' Id.
DOE proposed to define a multi-ring cooking zone as ``a cooking
zone on a
[[Page 51521]]
conventional cooking top with multiple concentric sizes of electric
resistance heating elements or gas burner rings.'' Id.
DOE proposed to define maximum power setting as ``the maximum
possible power setting if only one cookware item is used on the cooking
zone or cooking area of a conventional cooking top, including any
optional power boosting features. For conventional electric cooking
tops with multi-ring cooking zones or cooking areas, the maximum power
setting is the maximum power corresponding to the concentric heating
element with the largest diameter, which may correspond to a power
setting which may include one or more of the smaller concentric heating
elements. For conventional gas cooking tops with multi-ring cooking
zones, the maximum power is the maximum heat input rate when the
maximum number of rings of the cooking zone are ignited.'' Id. This
definition is based on the definition of ``maximum power'' in Section
3.14 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021, which includes a
note specifying that boost function must be considered in determining
the maximum power setting.
DOE also proposed to clarify in new appendix I1 which power
settings would be considered in the search for the simmering setting,
based on its testing experience. Id. On a multi-ring cooking zone on a
conventional gas cooking top, all power settings would be considered,
whether or not they ignite all rings of orifices. Id. On a multi-ring
cooking zone on a conventional electric cooking top, only power
settings corresponding to the concentric heating element with the
largest diameter would be considered, which may correspond to operation
with one or more of the smaller concentric heating elements energized.
Id.
On a cooking zone with infinite power settings for which the
available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is more than 150
rotational degrees, power settings that are spaced by 10 rotational
degrees would be evaluated. Id. On a cooking zone with infinite power
settings for which the available range of rotation from maximum to
minimum is less than or equal to 150 rotational degrees, power settings
that are spaced by 5 rotational degrees would be evaluated. Id. Based
on its testing experience, DOE tentatively determined in the November
2021 NOPR that 5 or 10 rotational degrees, as appropriate, would
provide sufficient granularity in determining the simmering setting.
Id. Given the provision, detailed in section III.E.4 of this document,
to normalize the energy use of the Energy Test Cycle to a value
representative of a simmering test with a final water temperature of 90
[deg]C, DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that
testing more settings would be unduly burdensome. Id. at 86 FR 60991-
60992.
For cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the power
setting, DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that it is aware that the
knob may yield different input power results for the same setting
depending on the direction in which the knob is turned to reach that
setting. Id. at 86 FR 60992. The cause of this is hysteresis caused by
potential backlash in the knob or valve. Id. at 86 FR 60992. To avoid
hysteresis and ensure consistent input power results for the same knob
setting, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR that the selection knob
be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to select
the potential simmering setting for the test. Id. DOE also proposed
that if the appropriate setting is passed, the test must be repeated
after allowing the product to return to ambient conditions. Id. DOE
tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that this
specification would help obtain consistent input power for a given
power setting, particularly on gas cooking tops, and thus improve
repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed definitions of ``power
setting,'' ``infinite power settings,'' ``multi-ring cooking zone,''
and ``maximum power setting.'' Id. DOE also requested comment on its
proposal for the subsets of power settings on each type of cooking zone
that are considered as part of the identification of the simmering
setting. Id. DOE further requested comment on its proposal that for
cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the power setting, the
selection knob always be turned in the direction from higher power to
lower power to select the potential simmering setting for a simmering
test. Id.
NYSERDA agreed with the clarification as to which direction knobs
should be rotated during the potential simmering setting determination
to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs supported DOE's proposal to demarcate discrete test
settings for cooking tops with infinite controls, stating that this
would minimize the chance that laboratories conduct tests under
different test conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also
commented that it is not immediately clear where the 5 or 10-degree
increments start. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) The CA IOUs requested
greater clarity from DOE on this setting selection process, and that
DOE include visual examples to reference. (Id.)
In response to the CA IOUs' request for greater clarity on the
starting location of the 5 or 10-degree increments on a cooking top
knob with infinite controls, DOE notes that the lowest power setting on
a cooking top is the first position that meets the definition of a
power setting (i.e., a setting that offers a gas flame, electric
resistance heating, or electric inductive heating), irrespective of how
the knob is labeled. The 5 or 10-degree increments would start at the
location of the lowest power setting. In this final rule, DOE is adding
this clarification on where the 5 or 10-degree increments start to
section 2.8.3 of appendix I1. A small difference in determining the
lowest power setting between testing laboratories should not affect the
reproducibility of the test results because of the requirement to
normalize the per-cycle energy use for the final water temperature, as
discussed in section III.E.4 of this document. Indeed, in the 2021
Round Robin, each testing laboratory determined for itself the location
of the lowest power setting based on these instructions and in
aggregate produced results with reproducibility COVs that DOE has
determined are acceptable.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of ``power setting,''
``infinite power settings,'' ``multi-ring cooking zone,'' and ``maximum
power setting''. DOE also finalizes its proposal, consistent with the
November 2021 NOPR and with the changes discussed above, to specify the
subset of power settings on each type of cooking zone that are
considered as part of the identification of the simmering setting. DOE
also finalizes its proposal to require that for cooking tops with
rotating knobs for selecting the power setting, the selection knob
always be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to
select the potential simmering setting for a simmering test.
4. Specialty Cooking Zone
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include a definition of
a ``specialty cooking zone,'' including the clarification that such a
cooking zone would not be tested under new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974,
60992. DOE proposed to define a specialty cooking zone as ``any cooking
zone that is designed for use only with non-circular cookware, such as
bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles.
[[Page 51522]]
Specialty cooking zones are not tested under this appendix.'' Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed definition of specialty
cooking zone. Id.
The CA IOUs expressed uncertainty regarding why specialty cooking
zones should be exempted from testing and recommended that DOE
investigate the usage of specialty cooking zones. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at
p. 7) The CA IOUs stated that testing units with specialty cooking
zones would require a novel approach, but that they do not believe
these units should be discounted simply because they are not a uniform
circle. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that IEC 60350-2:2017 has some
direction for rectangular shapes and elliptical cookware. (Id.)
AHAM supported the exclusion of specialty cooking zones under the
proposed test procedure and commented that specialty cooking zones for
circular and non-circular cookware exist. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 14) AHAM
recommended removing the reference to non-circular cookware from the
definition of a specialty cooking zone, stating that the proposed
definition is too strict. (Id.)
In response to the CA IOUs' comment, the predominance of circular
cookware on the market suggests that non-circular cookware is not
representative of typical consumer usage. Therefore, a cooking zone
designed for use only with non-circular cookware would not be expected
to be used with any regularity, such that measuring its energy use
would not be representative of the energy use of a cooking top during a
representative average consumer use cycle, as is required by EPCA. (See
42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
DOE further notes that its definition of specialty cooking zone
does not categorize specialty cooking zones on the basis of the shape
of the cooking zone itself; rather, the definition categorizes cooking
zones designed for use only with non-circular cookware as one type of
specialty cooking zone (emphasis added). See section III.E.1 of this
document, for further discussion on testing non-circular cooking zones
that are not specialty cooking zones.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposed definition of
specialty cooking zone, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR. In
response to AHAM's comment and for additional clarity, DOE is
reordering the wording of the list of example specialty cooking zones
within the definition to clarify that bridge zones are the only
specific example provided of a cooking zone that is designed for use
only with non-circular cookware; the references to warming plate,
grill, and griddle are examples of types of specialty cooking zones
other than cooking zones that are designed for use only with non-
circular cookware.
5. Turndown Temperature
The turndown temperature (labeled ``Tc'' in both IEC 60350-2:2017
and IEC 60350-2:2021) is the measured water temperature at the time at
which the tester begins adjusting the cooking top controls to change
the power setting, i.e., at ``turndown.'' The target turndown
temperature (which DOE proposed to label ``Tctarget'' in the
November 2021 NOPR) is calculated for each cooking zone according to
Section 7.5.2.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 and
section 3.1.4.2 of appendix I1, after conducting the overshoot
test.\68\ The target turndown temperature is the ``ideal'' turndown
temperature, in that it is calculated such that the temperature of the
water can rise higher than 90 [deg]C with the lowest amount of energy
use after the power is reduced, making use of the stored thermal energy
of the cooking top, test vessel, and water load. Tctarget is
calculated as 93 [deg]C minus the amount that the water temperature
``overshoots'' the temperature at which the power is turned off during
the overshoot test. If the measured turndown temperature, Tc, is not
between -0.5 [deg]C and +1 [deg]C of Tctarget, the simmering
test evaluated according to section 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 is
considered invalid and must be repeated after allowing the product to
return to ambient conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The overshoot test is a test conducted before any simmering
tests are initiated. The appropriate test vessel and water load are
placed on the heating element or burner, which is turned to the
maximum power setting. The power or heat input is shut off when the
water temperature reaches 70 [deg]C. The maximum water temperature
reached after the power/heat input is shut off is used to calculate
the target turndown temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the November 2021 NOPR, Whirlpool commented that
when the time at which the tester has physically taken the action to
rotate the knob is different than the time at which the power stops,
the identification of the turndown temperature is unclear. (Whirlpool,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 15) Whirlpool commented that its
data has shown that if the element stays on after the knob has been
physically rotated, the water temperature exceeds what Whirlpool
characterized as the 93 [deg]C limit. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 8 at p. 16)
In response to Whirlpool's concern that the water temperature may
exceed 93 [deg]C during the simmering test, DOE notes that the test
procedure does not define a temperature limit (at 93 [deg]C or any
other temperature) that the water temperature must remain under for a
simmering test to be valid. Although the value of 93 [deg]C is used as
a constant in the formula for calculating Tctarget, this
formula does not imply a temperature limit during the simmering test.
Nevertheless, DOE agrees with Whirlpool that additional
clarification regarding the turndown temperature is needed, in
particular to address situations when there is a delay between the time
at which the tester turns down the controls and the time at which the
power decreases accordingly. DOE considered the test burden of defining
the turndown temperature based on the time at which the power
decreases. This led DOE to determine that the burden could be
significant for products exhibiting this behavior because a larger than
typical number of tests could be considered invalid on the basis of Tc
not being within the required range and subsequently needing re-
testing. DOE compared this burden to the potential repeatability
concerns of defining the turndown temperature based on the time at
which the tester takes the physical action of adjusting the cooking top
controls (e.g., rotating the knob) if the power decrease lag is
unrepeatable. In DOE's testing, for many electric cooking tops, the
power level at the lower power settings is achieved by duty-cycling the
power to the heating element. For some units this duty cycle may start
with the ``on'' part of the duty cycle. For these units in particular,
it may be impossible to determine retroactively from the data when the
cooking top power setting has been changed, because the measured power
will remain at the maximum output even after the setting has been
changed. Therefore, DOE has determined that defining the turndown
temperature at the time at which the power drops would not be
repeatable. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is defining the turndown
temperature based on the time at which the tester adjusts the cooking
top controls to change the power setting. In particular, because it can
take several seconds to adjust the cooking top controls on certain
cooking tops, DOE is defining the turndown temperature based on the
time at which the tester begins adjusting the cooking top controls
(emphasis added).
In this final rule, DOE is including definitions for the target
turndown temperature and the turndown temperature in section 1 of
appendix I1. DOE defines target turndown temperature
(Tctarget) as ``the temperature as calculated according to
[[Page 51523]]
Section 7.5.2.1 of IEC 60350-2:2021 and section 3.1.4.2 of appendix I1,
for each cooking zone.'' DOE defines turndown temperature (Tc) for each
cooking zone, as ``the measured water temperature at the time at which
the tester begins adjusting the cooking top controls to change the
power setting.'' The test procedure adopted in this final rule uses the
defined terms where applicable.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include in new appendix
I1 the formula for calculating the target turndown temperature after
conducting the overshoot test based on DOE testing experience. That
experience has shown that referencing the definition of this value in
IEC 60350-2 (rather than providing the definition within the DOE test
procedure) can lead to inadvertent errors in performing the
calculation. 86 FR 60974, 60992. The target turndown temperature is
calculated as 93 [deg]C minus the difference between the maximum
measured temperature during the overshoot test, Tmax, and
the 20-second average temperature at the time the power is turned off
during the overshoot test, T70. Two common mistakes in
calculating the target turndown temperature are using the target value
of 70 [deg]C rather than the measured T70 in the formula and
failing to round the target turndown temperature to the nearest degree
Celsius. Id. By including the formula for the target turndown
temperature in the new appendix I1, DOE stated in the November 2021
NOPR that it aims to reduce the incidence of such errors. Id.
DOE requested comments on its proposal to include the formula for
the target turndown temperature in the new appendix I1. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposal to include
the formula for the target turndown temperature in the new appendix I1.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the November 2021 NOPR, to include the formula for the target
turndown temperature in the new appendix I1.
H. Test Conditions and Instrumentation
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating the test conditions and
instrumentation requirements of IEC 60350-2:2021 into the new appendix
I1 with the following additions.
1. Electrical Supply
Section 5.2 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 specifies
that the electrical supply is required to be at ``the rated voltage
with a relative tolerance of 1%'' and ``the rated frequency
1%.'' Both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 further
specify that the supply voltage and frequency shall be the nominal
voltage and frequency of the country in which the appliance is intended
to be used. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify in new
appendix I1 that the electrical supply for active mode testing be
maintained at either 240 volts 1 percent or 120 volts
1 percent, according to the manufacturer's instructions,
and at 60 Hz 1 percent, except for products which do not
allow for a mains electrical supply. 86 FR 60974, 60992.
DOE requested comment on its proposed electrical supply
requirements for active mode testing. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed electrical
supply requirements for active mode testing.
During the 2021 Round Robin, DOE observed intermittent
instantaneous voltage fluctuations outside of the required tolerance on
certain units in its test sample. DOE understands that these
fluctuations are a normal response to the turning on or off of major
electrical components and that such momentary fluctuations do not
measurably affect the unit's energy consumption. The Task Force has
added a statement on the voltage conditions to AHAM's draft test
method, stating that ``The actual voltage shall be maintained and
recorded throughout the test. Instantaneous voltage fluctuations caused
by the turning on or off of electrical components shall not be
considered.'' This is consistent with language included in AHAM's HRF-
1-2019 test method, ``Energy and Internal Volume of Consumer
Refrigeration Products'', which DOE has incorporated by reference into
its test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers, and miscellaneous refrigeration products. 86 FR 56790, 56801
(Oct. 12, 2021). In this final rule, DOE incorporates this same
language into its electrical supply specification for active mode
testing of conventional cooking tops.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the November 2021 NOPR, to specify in new appendix I1 that the
electrical supply for active mode testing be maintained at either 240
volts 1 percent or 120 volts 1 percent,
according to the manufacturer's instructions, and at 60 Hz
1 percent, except for products which do not allow for a mains
electrical supply, with the new addition regarding instantaneous
fluctuations discussed above.
2. Water Load Mass Tolerance
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify a tolerance on
the water load mass in the new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60992. Neither
the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule,
IEC 60350-2:2017 nor IEC 60350-2:2021 includes a tolerance on the water
load mass. DOE proposed to specify a tolerance of 0.5
grams (``g'') for each water load mass, to improve the repeatability
and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on the proposed tolerance of 0.5
g for each water load mass. Id.
NYSERDA commented that it supports DOE's effort to define a
tolerance for water load mass to ensure repeatability and
reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2)
AHAM opposed DOE's proposal to set the allowable tolerance on the
water load mass as 0.5 g, stating that the proposed
tolerance is too small and increases test burden. (AHAM, No. 12 at p.
14) AHAM commented that DOE has not presented data showing the need for
this tight of a tolerance and that AHAM has not seen evidence that
tightening this tolerance will reduce overall test variation. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it requests that DOE investigate alternative
tolerances for the water load mass. (Id.)
In response to AHAM's comment, DOE notes that the 0.5
g water load mass tolerance was used for the 2021 Round Robin testing,
and none of the participating laboratories reported any problem
achieving this tolerance. Furthermore, this testing achieved repeatable
results. In addition, no stakeholders provided any data indicating that
a wider tolerance would not negatively impact the results.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the November 2021 NOPR, to specify a tolerance of 0.5
g for each water load mass.
3. Test Vessel Flatness
In its petition, AHAM raised concerns about the impact of pan
warpage on the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure.
83 FR 17944, 17958. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE investigated
potential pan warpage over repeated test cycles. 86 FR 60974, 60992.
DOE test data showed some amount of variation in the flatness
measurement over time for each test vessel, but there was no consistent
or substantive trend. Id. at 86 FR 60993. Therefore, in the November
2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that pan warpage is not an issue
of concern for the test procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed determination that pan
[[Page 51524]]
warpage does not affect repeatability and reproducibility of the test
procedure. Id.
AHAM commented that DOE's assessment of the effects of pan warpage
are inadequate because no gas units were evaluated. (AHAM, No. 12 at p.
15) AHAM commented that if part of the test vessel is closer or further
from the heating source, it will likely have an effect on how the water
is heated. (Id.) AHAM commented that it requests information on the
types of electric units that DOE evaluated, particularly induction
units. (Id.) AHAM commented that this may have implications relating to
the use of the same pots for gas and electric units, stating that
warpage from gas testing may have significant impact on induction
testing when using the same vessels, for example. (Id.)
In response to AHAM's comment, DOE notes that while it does not
have data on the effects of gas cooking top testing on test vessel
flatness at this time, the 2021 Round Robin testing, which achieved
repeatable results, was conducted using the same test vessels for both
electric and gas cooking tops. This indicates that if any warpage did
occur, it did not significantly impact the repeatability or
reproducibility of test results on either gas or electric cooking tops.
In response to AHAM's request for information on DOE's flatness
testing, Table III.3 lists the number of test cycles that were run on
each unit type for each test vessel size for which flatness data was
presented in the November 2021 NOPR.
Table III.3--Number of Test Cycles on Each Unit Type for Each Test Vessel Size Presented in the November 2021
NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test vessel diameter (mm) 150 180 210 270 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Cycles on Coil Units.. 21 7 0 0 28
Number of Cycles on Radiant 4 12 10 5 31
Units..........................
Number of Cycles on Induction 0 6 0 0 6
Units..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its determination,
consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, that to the extent pan warpage
occurs during testing, it does not affect repeatability and
reproducibility of the test procedure.
I. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption
1. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 62301
EPCA requires DOE to include the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption in any energy consumption metric, if technically feasible.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) In the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE
incorporated IEC 62301 Second Edition for measuring the power in
standby mode and off mode of conventional cooking products. This
includes five provisions: the room ambient air temperature from Section
4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, the electrical supply
voltage from Section 4, Paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition,
the watt-meter from Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 Second
Edition, portions of the installation and set-up from Section 5,
Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, and the stabilization
requirements from Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 Second
Edition. 77 FR 65942, 65948. DOE also specified that the measurement of
standby mode and off mode power be made according to Section 5,
Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, except for conventional
cooking products in which power varies as a function of the clock time
displayed in standby mode (see section III.I.2 of this final rule). Id.
This procedure is used by microwave ovens in the current version of
appendix I. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include the same
procedure in the new appendix I1 for conventional cooking tops. 86 FR
60974, 60993.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to incorporate IEC 62301
Second Edition to provide the method for measuring standby mode and off
mode power, except for conventional cooking products in which power
varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby mode. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposal to
incorporate IEC 62301 Second Edition to provide the method for
measuring standby mode and off mode power, except for conventional
cooking products in which power varies as a function of the clock time
displayed in standby mode.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the November 2021 NOPR, to incorporate IEC 62301 Second Edition to
provide the method for measuring standby mode and off mode power,
except for conventional cooking products in which power varies as a
function of the clock time displayed in standby mode.
2. Standby Power Measurement for Cooking Tops With Varying Power as a
Function of Clock Time
In the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE determined that for
conventional cooking products in which power varies as a function of
the clock time displayed in standby mode, measuring standby mode and
off mode power according to Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301
Second Edition would cause manufacturers to incur significant burden
that would not be warranted by any potential improved accuracy of the
test measurement. 77 FR 65942, 65948. Therefore, the October 2012 Final
Rule required a modified approach from IEC 62301 First Edition. It
implemented the following language in appendix I: for units in which
power varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, clock
time would be set to 3:23 at the end of the stabilization period
specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 First Edition, and
the average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a)
of IEC 62301 First Edition would be used, but with a single test period
of 10 minutes +0/-2 sec after an additional stabilization period until
the clock time reached 3:33. Id.
In a final rule published on January 18, 2013, DOE implemented the
same approach for microwave ovens in appendix I. 78 FR 4015, 4020.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate in the new
appendix I1 the same approach for measuring the standby power of
cooking tops in which the power consumption of the display varies as a
function of the time displayed, with clarifications. 86 FR 60974,
60994. In response to a test laboratory's feedback, DOE proposed to
update the wording from that finalized in the October 2012 Final Rule
to provide additional direction regarding the two stabilization
periods. Id. The proposed language read, ``For units in which power
varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, set the clock
time to 3:23 at the end of an initial stabilization period, as
specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301
[[Page 51525]]
First Edition. After an additional 10-minute stabilization period,
measure the power use for a single test period of 10 minutes +0/-2
seconds that starts when the clock time first reads 3:33. Use the
average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of
IEC 62301 First Edition.'' Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to incorporate into appendix
I1 IEC 62301 First Edition for measuring standby mode and off mode
power for conventional cooking tops in which power varies as a function
of the clock time displayed in standby mode. Id. DOE did not receive
any comments regarding this proposal.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the November 2021 NOPR, to incorporate IEC 62301 First Edition for
measuring standby mode and off mode power for conventional cooking tops
in which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in
standby mode.
J. Metrics
1. Annual Active Mode Energy Consumption
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to calculate cooking top
annual active mode energy consumption as the average normalized per-
cycle energy use across all tested cooking zones multiplied by the
number of annual cycles. 86 FR 60974, 60994. The per-cycle energy use
would be normalized in two ways: first, by interpolating to represent a
final water temperature of 90 [deg]C, as described in section III.E.4
of this document, and second, by scaling according to the ratio of a
representative water load mass to the water mass used in the test. Id.
To determine the representative water load mass for both electric
and gas cooking tops for the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE reviewed the
surface unit diameters and input rates for cooking tops (including
those incorporated into combined cooking products) available on the
market at the time of a supplemental NOPR that DOE published prior to
the December 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016). To
determine the market-weighted average water load mass, DOE used the
methodology in EN 60350-2:2013, which is the same as the methodology in
IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 for selecting test vessel
diameters and their corresponding water load masses. DOE determined
that the market-weighted average water load mass for both electric and
gas cooking top models available on the U.S. market was 2,853 g
(equivalent to around 12 U.S. cups or 0.75 gallons) and used that value
in the December 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 91418, 91437.
DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to use the same
representative water load mass for per-cycle energy use normalization
of 2,853 g in the new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60994.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to use a representative water
load mass of 2,853 g in the new appendix I1. Id.
AHAM commented that it believes that DOE's proposed representative
water load mass of 2,853 g is overestimated and multiplied by more than
one cooking use per day. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 15) AHAM commented that it
is unclear that this load is representative of actual use. (Id.) AHAM
asked DOE to reanalyze this calculation using updated appliance
shipments and stated that AHAM is glad to consider providing updated
shipments under confidentiality agreement upon request. (Id.)
In response to AHAM's comment, DOE notes that it does not expect
the representative water load mass per cycle to have changed since
2016. DOE also notes, as discussed in further detail below, that AHAM's
opposition to the proposed water load mass value is based in part on a
mistaken understanding that the annual active-mode energy consumption
is calculated based on 12 cups of water per cooking zone per day
(emphasis added). DOE clarifies that the annual active-mode energy
consumption, as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR, was calculated
based on 12 cups of water per cooking top per day (emphasis added);
i.e., not multiplied by the number of cooking zones on the cooking top.
For reference, DOE further notes that a water load of 12 cups
represents roughly enough water to cook 12 ounces of pasta, which is
approximately 3-5 individual servings.\69\ This further supports the
determination of 12 cups of water per cooking top per day as a
reasonable estimate of representative consumer use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ A reputable cooking website states that 4 quarts (16 cups)
of water are needed to cook 1 pound (16 ounces) of pasta; i.e., 1
cup of water per ounce of pasta. The same source states that 2 \1/2\
to 4 \1/2\ ounces of pasta represent an individual serving. Using
this conversion, 12 ounces of pasta equates to 2.7 to 4.8 servings.
See www.eataly.com/us_en/magazine/how-to/how-to-cook-pasta/. Last
accessed April 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, DOE maintains its determination that 2,853 g per
cooking top per day is a representative water load mass.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the November 2021 NOPR, to use a representative water load mass of
2,853 g per cooking top per day in the new appendix I1.
In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE used data from the 2009
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS'') and a review of field
energy consumption survey data of residential cooking from 2009 and
2010 to estimate 207.5 cycles per year for electric cooking tops and
214.5 cycles per year for gas cooking tops. 81 FR 91418, 91438. For the
November 2021 NOPR, DOE determined an updated value of annual cooking
top cycles based on analyzing data from three more recent sources. 86
FR 60974, 60994.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE analyzed the 5,686 household
responses from the 2015 RECS to estimate the number of annual cooking
top cycles by installation configuration. Id. The 2015 RECS asked
respondents, geographically distributed in the United States, to
provide the number of uses per week of their standalone cooking top and
the cooking top portion of a combined cooking product (which included a
cooking top with a conventional oven.) From these weekly frequency-of-
use data, DOE calculated a weighted-average annual number of cooking
top cycles of 418. Id. This value represents an average of both gas and
electric cooking tops, as well as an average of both standalone cooking
tops and the cooking top components of combined cooking products. In
the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that a single value
for both gas and electric cooking tops is most representative of
consumer usage, as DOE is not aware of any reason for consumers of
products with different energy sources to use their cooking products
more or less frequently. Id.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE also reviewed data provided by AHAM
through its Task Force, which summarized the cooking patterns of 3,508
consumers with connected cooking products, based on information
collected via their network functions. Id. Although the data did not
identify specific geographical locations, AHAM indicated the sample of
consumers represented a distribution of connected cooking product
owners across the United States. Id. This AHAM data set showed an
average annual number of cooking top cycles of 365. Id. DOE also
analyzed a third set of field-metered data (i.e., data collected from
measuring the consumption of individual cooking tops as used by
consumers in real-world installations), which showed a median of 437
annual cooking top cycles. Id.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to use the 2015 RECS value
of 418 cycles per year for calculating
[[Page 51526]]
annual active mode energy use. Id. This is the median of the three
considered values and is based on the largest sample size and broadest
distribution by geography and household characteristics.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to use a value of 418 annual
cooking top cycles per year. Id.
The CA IOUs commented that they recommend that frequency of use
data be updated to include information collected showing the impact of
the COVID-19 pandemic on home cooking habits, as identified in the CA
IOUs' comment in response to DOE's notification of proposed
determination not to amend energy conservations standards for
conventional cooking products published on December 14, 2020. (CA IOUs,
No. 14 at p. 7 referencing 85 FR 80982) The CA IOUs commented
referencing a marketing and public relations firm's study \70\ which
found that COVID-19 has increased cooking habits and that consumers
expect that these new habits will persist. (Id. referencing EERE-2014-
BT-STD-005, CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that this
projection would increase annual energy consumption projections. (CA
IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Hunter: Food Study 2020 Special Report (America Gets
Cooking: The Impact of COVID-19 on Americans' Food Habits).
Published in December 2020. Available at www.hunterpr.com/foodstudy_coronavirus/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM commented that DOE's proposed value of 418 annual cooking top
cycles per year in combination with the proposed 2,853 g representative
water load mass contribute to an overestimate of annual energy use.
(AHAM, No. 12 at p. 15) AHAM commented that DOE should provide details
on its methodology and calculation steps justifying the annual number
of cycles from 2015 RECS data. (Id.) AHAM commented that it believes
the proposed number of annual cycles is too high and that it
exaggerates the representative cycles and the representative water load
mass, stating that these values should not be determined separately.
(Id.) AHAM commented that the proposed test procedure requires the
energy of all four cooking zones to be calculated during a heat up and
a simmer, and stated that by its calculation, the annual energy use
represents the equivalent of 1,672 operations of one cooking zone's
heat up and simmer per year. (Id.) AHAM commented that the energy test
represents, on average, 1,400 seconds of operation per run on each
cooking zone and stated that this equates to 23.3 minutes per cooking
zone or, by AHAM's calculation, a total of 93 minutes of operations per
unit per test (23.3 minutes x 4 cooking zones). (Id.) AHAM commented
that the operation time of 93 minutes multiplied by DOE's proposed
number of cycles of 418 and divided by 365 days in a year results in
107 minutes (1.8 hours) of total operation of the cooking top per day.
(Id.) AHAM commented that this value conflicts with AHAM consumer
research and manufacturers connected data on usage, which show daily
usage of 70.1 minutes and 53.8 minutes, respectively. (AHAM, No. 12 at
pp. 15-16)
In response to the CA IOUs' comment, DOE notes that while the CA
IOUs provided data suggesting that COVID-19 has increased cooking
habits and that consumers expect that these new habits will persist,
DOE does not have data reflecting the degree to which these cooking
habits may have changed. DOE is also unable to make projections about
future trends in consumer cooking habits. DOE will continue to monitor
patterns in consumer frequency of use data and will consider updating
its annual energy consumption projections in the future, should
additional data suggest that updates are warranted.
As AHAM's requested, below are details about how DOE calculated its
proposed value of 418 annual cooking top cycles per year. DOE divided
the weekly frequency of use data obtained from 2015 RECS data by 7 to
obtain a daily frequency of use of 1.144 average daily cooking top
cycles across all product types that include a cooking top. DOE then
multiplied 1.144 daily cooking top cycles by 365 days in a year to
obtain 418 annual cooking top cycles per year.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ 1.144 x 365 = 417.6, rounded to 418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to AHAM's comment regarding its calculation of daily
cooking top usage, the annual energy calculation proposed in the
November 2021 NOPR represents 418 annual cycles multiplied by the
average of all heating elements on a cooking top, not, as AHAM stated,
the sum of all heating elements. For example, as proposed, on a cooking
top with four cooking zones, the proposed 418 annual cooking top cycles
would be allocated over all 4 cooking zones, for an average of 104.5
annual cooking cycles per cooking zone. DOE does not expect, nor does
the test procedure calculation project, that each cooking zone be used
for 418 annual cycles (for a total of 1,672 cycles on a cooking top
with four cooking zones), as posited by AHAM.
Assuming a range of 23 to 37 minutes per test cycle (as supported
by DOE's test data),\72\ 418 annual cooking top cycles would result in
a range of 9,614 \73\ to 15,466 \74\ minutes of cooking top use per
year, or an average range of 34 to 42 minutes per day. This is within
the range of data AHAM has provided as part of this rulemaking, and the
ongoing Task Force, which suggest daily cooking top use ranging from 18
minutes \75\ to 70.1 minutes \76\ (see section III.J.2 for further
discussion of cooking top cycle time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Based on DOE's test data, the time to t90 (see
definition in section III.E.3 of this document) varies by technology
type. For induction units, the time to t90 is around 3
minutes; for coil and radiant units, the time to t90 is
around 6-9 minutes; and for gas units, the time to t90 is
around 15-17 minutes. The test cycle duration is equal to the time
to t90 plus a 20-minute simmering period.
\73\ 23 minutes per test cycle x 418 annual cooking top cycles =
9,614 minutes of cooking top use per year.
\74\ 37 minutes per test cycle x 418 annual cooking top cycles =
15,466 minutes of cooking top use per year.
\75\ See discussion of this data in section III.J.2 of this
document.
\76\ See AHAM, No. 12 at p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the November 2021 NOPR, to use a value of 418 annual cooking top
cycles per year.
2. Combined Low-Power Mode Hours
The number of cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours is
calculated as the number of hours in a year, 8,760, minus the number of
annual active mode hours for the cooking top, which for most product
types is equal to the number of annual cycles multiplied by cycle time.
Additional calculations, as discussed below, are necessary for the
cooking top component of a combined cooking product.
In a NOPR preceding the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE investigated
the hours and energy consumption associated with each possible
operating mode for conventional cooking tops, including inactive,
Sabbath, off, and active modes. 75 FR 75290, 75310 (Dec. 2, 2010). In
the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE described ``Sabbath mode'' as a mode
in which the automatic shutoff is overridden to allow for warming of
pre-cooked foods during such periods as the Jewish Sabbath. 77 FR
65942, 65952. In its analysis leading up to the October 2012 Final
Rule, DOE assigned the hours for which the cooking product is in
Sabbath mode as active mode hours, because the energy use of those
hours is similar to the energy use of the active mode. 75 FR 75290,
75311. DOE estimated an equivalent of 8.6 annual hours in Sabbath mode,
based on the number of annual work-free hours and
[[Page 51527]]
the percentage of U.S. households that observe kosher practices. Id. at
75 FR 75309. In that rule, DOE scaled the 8.6 hours according to the
number of annual cooking cycles, the number of cooking products per
household, and an assumption that a cooking top would only be used on
the Sabbath a quarter of the time. Id. This resulted in 2.2 hours per
year for standalone cooking tops, and 8.8 hours per year for
conventional ranges.
In 2010, DOE estimated that the total number of cooking top cycles
per year was 211 (see section III.J.1 of this document), the average
cycle time was 1 hour, and cooking tops spent 2.1 annual hours in
Sabbath mode. Id. Therefore, in the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE
specified that the number of annual active-mode hours was 213.2 and the
number of annual combined low-power mode hours was 8,546.9. 77 FR
65942, 65994.
In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE observed that for combined
cooking products, the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption
could be measured only for the combined cooking product and not the
individual components. 81 FR 91418, 91423. For a combined cooking
product, DOE calculated the annual combined low-power mode of the
conventional cooking top component. This involved 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 in
the combined cooking product. Id.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the estimate of
the annual combined low-power mode hours for standalone cooking tops
and for the cooking top component of combined cooking products. This
involved using more recent estimates for the number of annual cooking
top cycles and the representative cycle time. 86 FR 60974, 60995. As
discussed in section III.J.1 of this document, DOE is using a value of
418 annual cooking top cycles for all cooking tops.
For representative average cooking top cycle time, in the November
2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed data provided by AHAM. The data summarized the
cooking patterns of 3,508 consumers with connected cooking products,
based on information collected via their network functions. Id.
Although the data did not identify specific geographical locations,
AHAM indicated the sample of consumers represented a distribution of
connected cooking product owners across the United States. This AHAM
data set showed an average cooking top cycle time of 18 minutes.
However, as DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR, it is concerned that
because higher-income households tend to purchase connected cooking
products, usage patterns of those consumers may not be representative
of the usage patterns for all U.S. consumers. Id.
DOE also analyzed field-metered data that showed a median cycle
time of 31 minutes. Id. DOE expects the distribution of usage patterns
among these homes are more representative of consumer habits in the
United States as a whole because the metering was not limited to
premium products. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to calculate
the number of cooking top annual active mode hours per installation
configuration by multiplying the annual cycles estimated from the 2015
RECS by the 31-minute median cycle time, and then adding the
appropriate number of Sabbath mode hours.\77\ Id. DOE estimated the
number of annual active mode hours for the overall cooking product
using five additional values. The first additional value was the number
of cooking tops per household, which was determined to be 1.02 using
the 2015 RECS. Second was the annual number of conventional oven cycles
conducted per year on combined cooking products, which was determined
to be 145 using the 2015 RECS. Third was the number of microwave oven
cycles per year, which was determined to be 627 using the 2015 RECS.
Fourth was the average cycle time for a conventional oven, which was
assumed to be 1 hour. Fifth was the average cycle time for a microwave
oven, which was assumed to be 6 minutes. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Given the value of 1.02 cooking tops per household
determined using 2015 RECS, and using the same 25-percent assumption
of the percent of time a cooking top is left on during the Sabbath
(as opposed to a conventional oven), DOE assumed 2.2 hours per year
in Sabbath mode for standalone cooking tops and for combined cooking
products comprised of a microwave oven and a cooking top; and 8.8
hours per year in Sabbath mode for combined cooking products that
include a conventional oven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE proposed to estimate the annual combined low-power mode hours
for the overall product for each installation configuration by
subtracting the resulting annual active mode hours from 8,760 annual
hours. Id. Finally, DOE calculated the percentages of combined lower-
power mode hours assigned to the cooking top component by determining
the proportion of overall active mode hours that are associated with
the cooking top component of the combined cooking product. Id. The
results for DOE's combined low-power mode usage factors and resulting
cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours proposed in the
November 2021 NOPR are shown in Table III.4.
Table III.4--Combined Low-Power Mode Usage Factors Proposed in the November 2021 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product type Overall product Cooking top
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
overall
combined low-
Active mode Combined low- power mode Combined low-
hours per year power mode hours power mode
hours per year allocated to hours per year
the cooking
top (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standalone cooking top.......................... 216 8,544 100 8,544
Conventional range (cooking top + conventional 368 8,392 60 5,004
oven)..........................................
Cooking top + microwave oven.................... 279 8,481 77 6,560
Cooking top + conventional oven + microwave oven 431 8,329 51 4,228
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requested comment on its proposed usage factors and annual
hours for cooking top combined low-power mode, as well as on any of the
underlying assumptions. Id.
[[Page 51528]]
DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed usage
factors and annual hours for cooking top combined low-power mode, or on
any of the underlying assumptions, except for comments about the number
of annual cycles, as discussed in section III.J.1 of this document.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed usage factors and annual hours for
cooking top combined low-power mode.
3. Annual Combined Low-Power Mode Energy
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the annual energy in
combined low-power mode for a cooking top be calculated as follows.
Multiply the power consumption of the overall cooking product in
standby and/or off mode (see sections III.I.1 and III.I.2 of this
document) by the number of annual combined low-power mode hours for the
cooking top or cooking top component of a combined cooking product (see
section III.J.2 of this document). 86 FR 60974, 60995-60996. As DOE has
done in the test procedures for other appliances that can have either
an inactive (standby) mode, an off mode, or both, DOE proposed that the
total number of cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours be
allocated to each of inactive mode or off mode as illustrated in Table
III.5. Id. at 86 FR 60996.
Table III.5--Allocation of Cooking Top Combined Low-Power Mode Hours
From the November 2021 NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of low-power mode(s) Allocation to Allocation to off
available inactive mode mode
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both inactive and off mode........ 0.5 0.5
Inactive mode only................ 1 0
Off mode only..................... 0 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requested comment on its proposed allocation of combined low-
power mode hours. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed allocation
of combined low-power mode hours.
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed allocation of combined low-power mode
hours.
4. Integrated Annual Energy Consumption
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define the integrated
annual energy consumption (``IAEC'') for each tested cooking top. 86 FR
60974, 60996. For electric cooking tops, IAEC was defined in kilowatt-
hours (``kWh'') per year and is equal to the sum of the annual active
mode energy and the annual combined low-power mode energy. Id. For gas
cooking tops, IAEC was defined in kilo-British thermal units (``kBtu'')
per year and is equal to the sum of the annual active mode gas energy
consumption, the annual active mode electric energy consumption
(converted into kBtu per year), and the annual combined low-power mode
energy (converted into kBtu per year). Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed definition
of IAEC.
In this final rule, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November
2021 NOPR, its proposed definition of IAEC.
5. Annual Energy Consumption and Annual Cost
Section 430.23(i) of title 10 of the CFR lists the test procedures
for measuring the energy consumption of cooking products. As there are
no current test procedures for conventional cooking tops, 10 CFR
430.23(i) contains provisions only for microwave ovens.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to renumber the existing
microwave oven paragraph as 10 CFR 430.23(i)(1) and to add new
paragraphs (i)(2) through (i)(6) containing provisions for measuring
the electrical energy consumption, gas energy consumption, and annual
cost of conventional cooking tops. 86 FR 60974, 60996.
New paragraph (i)(2) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would
provide the means of calculating the integrated annual energy
consumption for a conventional cooking top, whether electric or gas,
including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking
product. Id. The result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kWh per year
for electric cooking tops, and to the nearest 1 kBtu per year for gas
cooking tops. Id.
New paragraph (i)(3) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would
provide the means of calculating the total annual gas energy
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, including any
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Id.
The result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kBtu per year. Id.
New paragraph (i)(4) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would
provide the means of calculating the total annual electrical energy
consumption for a conventional cooking top, whether electric or gas,
including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking
product. Id. The result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kWh per year.
Id. The total annual electrical energy consumption of a conventional
electric cooking top would equal the integrated annual energy
consumption of the conventional electric cooking top, as determined in
paragraph (i)(2). Id.
New paragraph (i)(5) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would
provide the means of calculating the estimated annual operating cost
corresponding to the energy consumption of a conventional cooking top,
including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking
product. Id. The result would be rounded to the nearest dollar per
year. Id.
New paragraph (i)(6) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would
allow the definition of other useful measures of energy consumption for
conventional cooking tops that the Secretary determines are likely to
assist consumers in making purchasing decisions and that are derived
from the application of appendix I1. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed provisions for measuring
annual energy consumption and estimated annual cost. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed provisions
for measuring annual energy consumption and estimated annual cost.
In this final rule, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November
2021 NOPR, its proposed provisions for measuring annual energy
consumption and estimated annual cost.
K. Alternative Proposals
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it was aware of
alternative approaches to the proposed cooking top test procedure and
listed alternative approaches that were being considered
[[Page 51529]]
by stakeholders. 86 FR 60974, 60996. DOE added that it could consider
adopting these alternative proposals if sufficient data were available
to evaluate whether such test procedures are reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure energy use of conventional cooking
tops during a representative average use cycle or period of use and are
not unduly burdensome to conduct. Id. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In
this final rule, DOE is not adopting any of the alternative proposals.
1. Replacing the Simmering Test With a Simmering Usage Factor
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE considered an approach to simplify
the test procedure such that it requires only a single test per cooking
zone. 86 FR 60974, 60997. This test could entail a simple heat-up test
at the maximum power setting until the water temperature reaches a
threshold temperature, such as 90 [deg]C or the target turndown
temperature. A simmering usage factor could then be applied to the
measured energy use to scale the energy of the heat-up only test to a
value that is representative of typical consumer usage including a
simmering phase.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE presented an initial analysis of its
test data suggesting that for electric cooking tops, the simmering
energy may be a consistent fraction of the heat-up energy for each
heating technology type. Id. However, for gas cooking tops, the
potential simmering usage factor is more variable by individual cooking
top and cooking zone.
DOE noted that if it were to adopt a test procedure that uses a
simmering usage factor, the usage factor would need to be based on test
data and would need to be representative of a tested simmering period
on multiple types of products. Id. DOE tentatively determined in the
November 2021 NOPR, based on the available data, that no such single
simmering usage factor by heating technology can be defined, and did
not propose to pursue this approach. Id.
DOE requested data on the representativeness of a simmering usage
factor across technology types. Id.
The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to
include a simmering test for electric and gas cooking top test
procedures, stating that it is representative of how consumers will be
using the products. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 3)
The Joint Commenters agreed with DOE's tentative determination that
the use of a representative simmer usage factor to determine simmering
energy would be difficult to define due to the variability of cooking
tops and cooking zones, stating that a simmering usage factor would not
accomplish the same goals as a simmering test. (Joint Commenters, No.
11 at pp. 3-4) The Joint Commenters commented that the inclusion of a
simmering test may change the relative ranking of products compared to
a heat-up only test. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 4) The Joint
Commenters commented that if a usage factor were applied instead of
running a simmering test, a consistent factor would be used for each
technology type to scale up the energy consumption value. (Id.) The
Joint Commenters stated this would fail to reflect differences in
simmering energy between different models of the same technology type.
(Id.)
NEEA commented in support of DOE's proposal to proceed with a test
procedure that includes a simmering portion rather than applying a
simmering usage factor, stating that simmer energy cannot be accurately
estimated through the application of a universal usage factor. (NEEA,
No. 15 at p. 2) NEEA commented that a Food Service Technology Center
report illustrated that simmer rates vary across different appliances
and do not necessarily correlate with input rate or boil efficiency.
(Id.) NEEA commented that attempting to apply a universal usage factor
would oversimplify and misrepresent the range of simmering energies
that cooking appliances might exhibit. (Id.) NEEA commented that any
attempt to simplify the process of collecting simmering energy data
would only be able to occur after a rigorous sample of simmering energy
data indicates a clear relationship. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE's decision to use an actual
simmering test rather than a simmering usage factor. (CA IOUs, No. 14
at p. 7) The CA IOUs commented that it is unlikely that a single
simmering usage factor would accurately apply to all cooking tops.
(Id.)
AHAM commented that DOE's tentative determination that a single
simmering usage factor by heating technology cannot be defined was
based on only minimal evaluation. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 16) AHAM
commented that it is collecting data to determine a simmering usage
factor and stated that DOE should wait until its data is available
before it concludes that no single simmering usage factor by heating
technology can be defined. (Id.) AHAM commented that a single simmering
usage factor may or may not properly encompass variation but stated
that other techniques may be useful such as multivariable extrapolation
based on factors like cooking zone size, cooking zone rating and/or
technology types. (Id.) AHAM commented that the simmering portion of
the test introduces the most variation and adds the most burden and
stated that a calculation factor would help reduce variation and
burden. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE should consider a simmering usage
factor in order to meet EPCA's requirements given the concerns with
variation and test burden. (Id.) AHAM commented that it agrees that it
is unlikely that a single factor could be applied across different
technologies and stated that this is why its testing is investigating
other techniques as listed above. (Id.) AHAM commented that developing
a multivariable extrapolation would involve testing of multiple
technologies with cooking zones of different sizes and ratings, and
then creating an equation to estimate simmering energy consumption
based on data for each technology, size, and rating. (Id.) AHAM
commented that the measured boiling energy consumption could then be
added to the calculated simmering energy consumption for a final
result. (Id.) AHAM commented that its test plan includes these
additional techniques, and that DOE should wait for those results
before it can reach a conclusion that a calculation methodology is not
representative. (Id.)
AHAM commented that the use of a simmering usage factor would
reduce test burden and stated that a simmering usage factor would allow
for a 6-minute test for each cooking zone without a turndown, compared
to what AHAM calculated as 475 minutes (7.9 hours) for the proposed
test procedure (using coil and induction cooking top testing as an
example). (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 16-17) AHAM presented a table supporting
this value of 475 minutes per cooking zone to conduct the proposed test
procedure based on the summation of 300 seconds (5 minutes) of
overshoot testing; 2,100 seconds of pre-selection testing (a 10-minute
test run on 3-4 settings, for a total of around 35 minutes); 3,000
seconds of simmering testing (25 minutes each for the minimum-above
threshold and maximum-below threshold settings); 1,500 seconds (25
minutes) of likely additional simmering testing due to various issues;
and 21,600 seconds of cooldown time (60 minutes between each test, for
a total of 6 cooldown periods). (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17)
DOE has determined through its testing that a test procedure
including a simmering test produces the most representative results for
the energy
[[Page 51530]]
consumption of each conventional cooking top basic model and is not
unduly burdensome to conduct. Use of a simmering usage factor in lieu
of a simmering test, as suggested by AHAM, relies upon the inaccurate
assumption that the energy use profile of every cooking top is similar
to that of other cooking tops throughout a representative usage cycle,
which includes both a heat-up and a simmering phase. However, these
profiles differ according to the specific design and performance
characteristics among various models (e.g., electric heating
technology, shape and size of the electric coil, grate material and
geometry, gas burner flame turndown behavior and relationship to the
grate, etc.). DOE has observed throughout its testing programs that the
ratio of energy use during the simmering phase to energy use during the
heat-up phase varies between cooking tops and even between heating
elements or burners on a single cooking top. The use of a single
simmering usage factor would impede the ability for the test procedure
to differentiate between various energy-saving simmering strategies
among different conventional cooking tops. The use of a single
simmering factor or other similar analytic approach could
disincentivize manufacturers from innovating new energy-saving
simmering strategies. Because the use of a simmering usage factor would
not capture the differences between various simmering strategies, it
would also, therefore, produce results that are not representative of
the consumer usage of each conventional cooking top basic model as
compared to a test that includes a simmering phase.
Regarding AHAM's comment on test burden, DOE agrees with AHAM that
a test procedure that includes only a heat-up phase would take less
time to conduct. However, as discussed, this type of test would not
produce results that are representative of consumer usage. Further,
AHAM's calculation of 7.9 hours per cooking zone for the test procedure
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR overcounts the amount of cooling
periods needed. A cooldown period is needed only before an overshoot or
simmering test. It is not needed before or in-between the pre-selection
tests, as discussed in section III.D.2.d of this document. Using the
values provided by AHAM while removing the unnecessary cooling periods
would result in a total time of 295 minutes, or 4.9 hours,\78\ of
testing per cooking zone (except for the last cooking zone under test,
which would require only 3.9 hours of testing).\79\ DOE has determined
that the conduct and duration of the test procedure established in this
final rule is not unduly burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 295 minutes calculated as 5 minutes of overshoot testing +
35 minutes of pre-selection testing + 60 minutes of cooldown + 25
minutes of simmering testing for the minimum-above-threshold setting
+ 60 minutes of cooldown + 25 minutes of simmering testing for the
maximum-below-threshold setting + 60 minutes of cooldown before
testing the next cooking zone (except for the last cooking zone
under test) + a buffer of 25 minutes to account for potential
additional simmering testing = 295 minutes (or 235 for the last
cooking zone under test).
\79\ For a unit with four cooking zones, this is a total of 18.7
hours of testing. This duration is similar to the November 2021 NOPR
value of 17.5 hours of testing. For a unit with six cooking zones,
this is a total of 28.5 hours of testing. See section III.N of this
document for further discussion of test procedure costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is
not adopting a test methodology that includes the use of a simmering
usage factor. To the extent that commenters in the future may wish to
have DOE evaluate methodology for a conventional cooking top test
procedure without a simmering test, they should submit data and
analysis on the record for DOE to consider. In order to ensure that the
test method is representative of consumer usage, any alternative method
would need to provide an estimated energy consumption specific to the
conventional cooking top model under test, rather than yielding an
approximate value by means of a generic approach that applies equally
for all models. Any such alternative method would need to produce
equivalent estimated energy consumption results and associated product
rankings as the test procedure adopted in this final rule.
2. Changing the Setting Used To Calculate Simmering Energy
IEC 60350-2:2021 defines the simmering setting according to the
temperature characteristics of the water load at that power setting. In
the November 2021 NOPR, DOE considered alternatively defining the
simmering setting according to the power supplied at each power
setting. 86 FR 60974, 60997. For instance, DOE considered defining the
simmering setting as the lowest power setting that is at or above 25
percent of maximum power (or maximum heat input rate for gas cooking
tops). Id.
To the extent that consumers choose a simmering power setting based
on knob position (or setting number) rather than by directly or
indirectly monitoring the temperature variation of the food or water in
the cookware, this potential alternative could yield more
representative results than the current proposal. DOE previously
established a power-level-based test procedure as part of the October
2012 Final Rule. 77 FR 65942.
DOE requested data on the representativeness of a simmering setting
based on a percentage of the maximum power setting. 86 FR 60974, 60997.
The CA IOUs commented that they agree with using the temperature-
based test conditions rather than choosing a simmer power setting based
on knob position and stated that this results in more comparable and
representative results across different units. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p.
7)
DOE did not receive any data on the representativeness of a
simmering setting based on a percentage of the maximum power setting.
For the reasons discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, in this final
rule, DOE is not defining the simmering setting based on the knob
position or the power level of the potential simmering setting.
3. Industry Test Procedures
DOE is aware that AHAM is developing test procedures for electric
and gas cooking tops as part of its Task Force efforts. Although AHAM's
test procedures had not been finalized at the time of publication of
the November 2021 NOPR, the provisions in the draft test procedures as
of September 1, 2021, were substantially the same as those specified in
the November 2021 NOPR. DOE also stated in the November 2021 NOPR that
if AHAM were to finalize its test procedures before DOE publishes a
test procedure final rule for conventional cooking tops, DOE could
consider incorporating the AHAM procedure by reference, instead of
using the language adopted in this final rule. 86 FR 60974, 60997.
AHAM has not finalized its test procedures as of the publication of
this final rule.
AHAM commented that since the August 2020 Final Rule, it has been
in the process of developing test procedures for electric and gas
cooking tops that decrease variation and test burden. (AHAM, No. 12 at
pp. 9-10) AHAM commented that it has been working on a fast track in
recognition that DOE is interested in moving this test forward and
stated that it has been sharing its insights with DOE throughout the
process and plans to share raw data when it becomes available. (AHAM,
No. 12 at p. 10) AHAM commented that it is in the process of conducting
testing at a third-party laboratory in two separate
[[Page 51531]]
locations to assess possible test modifications. (Id.) AHAM commented
that its data may not provide a complete picture of reproducibility but
stated that it will be relevant to DOE's proposed test procedure
amendments. (Id.) AHAM commented that the completion of this testing
was a central reason why AHAM requested a comment period extension on
the November 2021 NOPR to March 31, 2022. (Id.) AHAM commented that it
was not able to meet that deadline but stated that it plans to file
supplemental comments on the proposed test procedure with DOE, stating
that it hopes the testing will be complete by September 2022. (Id.)
AHAM commented that its members are also considering a scaled-down test
plan whereby AHAM could complete testing by July 2022, and that DOE
will receive an update if the test plan is revised. (Id.)
AHAM commented that the third-party laboratory conducting AHAM's
testing has faced numerous obstacles, including difficulty in procuring
adequate test vessels, difficulty in executing the technical procedure
due to vagueness, logistical issues at the test laboratory, and COVID-
19 outbreaks at the testing facility, resulting in closures. (AHAM, No.
12 at p. 10) AHAM commented that the certified test laboratory found
certain provisions of the test procedure vague, stating that this
caused delays. (Id.) AHAM commented that, according to its
interpretation, even DOE had to disregard some of the data collected
because of the complicated test setup involved, stating that 25 percent
of the results were marked ``n/a'' in the December 2021 NODA. (AHAM,
No. 12 at pp. 10-11) AHAM commented that DOE should allow time for
AHAM's testing to be completed in order to ensure DOE defines a test
that is accurate, repeatable, reproducible, representative, and not
unduly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 11)
AHAM commented that one of the reasons for this delay in its test
data collection was that the laboratory experienced longer cooldown
periods for electric units than anticipated. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 10)
AHAM commented that the test laboratory, which AHAM stated has
considerable experience running DOE test procedures, found that testing
of a single heating element is unlikely to be completed in a single 8-
hour shift for certain technologies. (Id.) AHAM commented that this is
an indication that the procedure is unduly burdensome to complete, as
the test requires constant technician interaction and monitoring. (Id.)
DOE appreciates AHAM's efforts to develop test procedures for
electric and gas cooking tops and notes that it 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 it has provided opportunity
for stakeholders to provide test results, including two extensions of
the comment period on the November 2021 NOPR (see section III.A of this
document). As discussed in this final rule, DOE has determined that the
established test procedure is reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy use of conventional cooking tops during a
representative period of use and is not unduly burdensome to conduct.
DOE continues to welcome AHAM's data and will consider it in the
ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking.
In response to AHAM's assumption that the ``n/a'' notation on the
2021 Round Robin data presented in the December 2021 NODA represented
disregarded test data, DOE clarifies that these ``n/a'' notations
represent units that were not tested at particular laboratories (``not
applicable''). As stated in this document and in the December 2021
NODA, each unit was tested at 3 laboratories. 86 FR 71406, 71407. Due
to a time constraint, one of the units in the test sample was not
tested at Laboratory B, but was instead tested at Laboratory E,
resulting in the notation of ``n/a'' because that unit did not have
test results for Laboratory B. Id. Similarly, the units that were
tested at Laboratory B were not tested at Laboratory E, resulting in
the notation of ``n/a'' for those tests too.
DOE interprets AHAM's comment regarding longer-than-anticipated
cooldown periods for electric units to apply to units that AHAM's test
laboratory has observed to take over 2 hours to return to ambient
temperature. DOE notes that, in its experience, a cooldown is typically
much shorter than 2 hours. Based on the experience of two of the
laboratories that participated in the 2021 Round Robin, the cooldown of
a unit typically ranges from 20 minutes to 1 hour. DOE reiterates that
the test procedure allows active cooling of the unit under test, and
that some effective strategies have included the use of a fan blowing
air over a wet cloth laid on the cooking top surface to improve
evaporative cooling and the use of a fan blowing air directly into the
burner cavity. In response to AHAM's assertion that a single cooking
zone is unlikely to be completed in a single 8-hour shift for certain
technologies, DOE's testing experience indicates that the test
procedure can be completed in under 5 hours on average per cooking zone
for any technology.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See section III.K.1 for a detailed explanation of DOE's
calculation of the estimated test time per cooking zone of 4.9
hours, based on AHAM's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Representations
1. Sampling Plan
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to maintain the sampling
plan requirements for cooking products in 10 CFR 429.23(a), which
specify that for each basic model of cooking product a sample of
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that
any represented value for which consumers would favor lower values
shall be greater than or equal to the higher of the mean of the sample
or the upper 97.5 percent confidence limit of the true mean divided by
1.05. 86 FR 60974, 60997.
DOE sought comment on the proposed method for establishing a
sampling plan. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed method for
establishing a sampling plan.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See section III.F of this document for discussion of a
comment from Samsung regarding certification and compliance
tolerances for gas cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final rule, DOE finalizes its proposed sampling plan,
consistent with the November 2021 NOPR.
2. Convertible Cooking Appliances
DOE defines a convertible cooking appliance as any kitchen range
and oven which is a household cooking appliance designed by the
manufacturer to be changed in service from use with natural gas to use
with LP-gas, and vice versa, by incorporating in the appliance
convertible orifices for the main gas burners and a convertible gas
pressure regulator. 10 CFR 430.2.
In the May 1978 Final Rule, DOE established a requirement for two
estimated annual operating costs for convertible cooking appliances:
one reflecting testing with natural gas and another reflecting testing
with propane. 43 FR 20108, 20110. DOE allowed manufacturers to use the
amount of energy consumed during the test with natural gas to determine
the estimated annual operating cost of the appliance reflecting testing
with propane. Id. DOE provided this allowance based on test data that
showed that conventional cooking products tested with propane yielded
slightly higher efficiencies than the same products tested with natural
gas. Id.
In the version of 10 CFR 430.23 finalized in the December 2016
Final Rule, convertible cooking tops were
[[Page 51532]]
required to be tested using both natural gas and propane, although the
version of appendix I finalized in that same rule listed the test gas
as natural gas or propane. 81 FR 91418, 91448. DOE does not require
testing both natural gas and propane for any other convertible
appliances.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that all gas
cooking tops be tested using the default test gas (i.e., the
appropriate test gas given the as-shipped configuration of the cooking
top) and proposed not to require testing any convertible cooking top
using both natural gas and propane. 86 FR 60974, 60998.
DOE further proposed to delete the definition of convertible
cooking appliance in 10 CFR 430.2, since such distinction would no
longer be needed and may cause confusion. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to test all gas cooking tops
using the default test gas, as defined by the as-shipped configuration
of the unit. Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal to delete
the definition of convertible cooking appliance from 10 CFR 430.2. Id.
AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposal to test all gas cooking
tops using the default test gas, as defined by the as-shipped
configuration of the unit and stated that it understands this proposal
to be consistent with test procedures for other product categories,
such as clothes dryers. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17)
For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent
with the November 2021 NOPR, to test all gas cooking tops using the
default test gas, as defined by the as-shipped configuration of the
unit and to delete the definition of convertible cooking appliance from
10 CFR 430.2.
M. Reporting
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE did not propose to require reporting
of cooking top energy use until such time as compliance is required
with a performance-based energy conservation standard, should such a
standard be established. 86 FR 60974, 60998. DOE proposed to add an
introductory note to new appendix I1 to that effect. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed
introductory note to new appendix I1.
In this final rule, DOE finalizes its introductory note to appendix
I1, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR.
N. Test Procedure Costs
In this document, DOE establishes a new test procedure for
conventional cooking tops in a new appendix I1. The test procedure
adopts the latest version of the relevant industry standard with
modifications to adapt the test method to gas cooking tops (including
specifying gas supply tolerances), includes measurement of standby mode
and off mode energy use, updates certain test conditions, and provides
certain clarifying language. If manufacturers voluntarily choose to
make representations regarding the energy efficiency of conventional
cooking tops before such time as use of the test procedure becomes
mandatory to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards,
manufacturers would be required to test according to the DOE test
procedure.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE initially determined that the
proposed new appendix I1, if finalized, would result in added costs to
conventional cooking top manufacturers, if manufacturers choose to make
efficiency representations for the conventional cooking tops that they
manufacture. 86 FR 60974, 60998. Additionally, manufacturers would
incur testing costs if DOE were to establish a performance-based energy
conservation standard for conventional cooking tops.
To estimate third-party laboratory costs in the November 2021 NOPR,
DOE evaluated quotes from test laboratories on the price of conducting
a similar conventional cooking top test procedure. Id. at 86 FR 60999.
DOE then averaged these prices to arrive at an estimate of what the
manufacturers would have to spend to test their product using a third-
party test laboratory. Id. Using these quotes, DOE estimated that it
would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $3,000
to conduct a single test on a conventional cooking top unit, if this
test was conducted at a third-party laboratory test facility. Id.
To estimate in-house testing cost, DOE estimated in the November
2021 NOPR, based on its testing experience, that testing a single
conventional cooking top unit to the proposed test procedure required
approximately 17.5 hours of a technician's time. Id.
DOE requested comment on any aspect of the estimated initial
testing costs detailed in the November 2021 NOPR. Id. DOE also
requested comment on any aspect of the estimated recurring testing
costs associated with conventional cooking tops detailed in the
November 2021 NOPR. Id.
AHAM commented in response to the November 2021 NOPR that the
cumulative regulatory burden associated with different energy
conservation standards and test procedure rulemakings is potentially
significant. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 9) AHAM noted specifically that
manufacturers of cooking products, at the time of writing, were in the
position of responding to five open rulemakings with limited staff to
do so. (Id.)
AHAM also commented that the third-party test laboratory that it is
working with has updated its test cost quote to $483 per simmering
test, for an estimated $3,900 per four-cooking zone cooking top. (AHAM,
No. 12 at p. 11)
As discussed in detail in section III.K.1 of this document, AHAM
commented that the proposed test procedure requires 7.9 hours per
cooking zone to conduct. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17)
Were DOE to establish energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking tops, manufacturers would be required to test
according to the finalized test procedure. DOE recognizes the potential
manufacturer burden of multiple simultaneous rulemakings and would
evaluate the cumulative regulatory burden in future energy conservation
standards rulemakings related to cooking products as provided by its
established processes.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See 10 CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A section 13(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final rule, DOE reviewed its third-party test laboratory
costs and test time estimates, to provide the best estimate of the
total cost to manufacturers if DOE were to implement performance-based
standards. DOE is further updating its estimates to reflect the range
of typical cooking tops on the market and is providing values for both
a cooking top with four cooking zones and one with six cooking zones.
In subsequent calculations, DOE used an average of the value for the
cooking top with four cooking zones and the cooking top with six
cooking zones, representative of the fact that DOE determined through a
market analysis that cooking tops have an average of five cooking
zones.
DOE has reviewed additional test quotes since the November 2021
NOPR, including the one submitted by AHAM in its comments, and has
determined that it would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers
approximately $3,200 to conduct a single test on a conventional cooking
top unit with four cooking zones, if this test was conducted at a
third-party laboratory test facility. The same test would cost
conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $5,000 on a
conventional cooking top unit with six cooking zones.
[[Page 51533]]
In the remainder of this document, DOE uses an average value of $4,100
per test.
As discussed in section III.K.1 of this document, DOE has updated
its estimated test time per cooking zone to 4.9 hours, except for the
last cooking zone under test which would require only 3.9 hours. As a
result, DOE estimates that testing a single conventional cooking top
unit to appendix I1 requires approximately 18.7 hours of a technician's
time for four cooking zones and 28.5 hours for six cooking zones. In
the remainder of this document, DOE uses an average value of 23.6 hours
per test.
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (``BLS'')
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for
mechanical engineering technologists and technicians is $30.47.\83\
Additionally, DOE used data from BLS's Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation to estimate the percent that wages comprise the total
compensation for an employee. DOE estimates that wages make up 70.5
percent of the total compensation for private industry employees.\84\
Therefore, DOE estimates that the total hourly compensation (including
all fringe benefits) of a technician performing the testing is
$43.22.\85\ Using these labor rates and the updated average time
estimate of 23.6 hours per cooking top, DOE estimates that it would
cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $1,020 to
conduct a single test on a conventional cooking top unit, if this test
was conducted at an in-house test facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ DOE used the mean hourly wage of the ``17-3027 Mechanical
Engineering Technologists and Technicians'' from the most recent BLS
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (May 2021) to estimate
the hourly wage rate of a technician assumed to perform this
testing. See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173027.htm. Last accessed on
April 4, 2022.
\84\ DOE used the December 2021 ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation'' to estimate that for ``Private Industry Workers,''
``Wages and Salaries'' are 70.3 percent of the total employee
compensation. See www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf. Last
accessed on April 4, 2022.
\85\ $30.47 / 0.705 = $43.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the assumptions discussed in this section, DOE estimates that
it would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately
$2,040 per basic model, if tested at an in-house test facility and
approximately $8,200 per basic model, if tested at a third-party
laboratory test facility.
DOE also estimates that conventional cooking top manufacturers
would need to purchase test vessels in accordance with new appendix I1.
DOE estimates that each set of test vessels costs approximately $6,000.
O. Compliance Date
The effective date for the adopted test procedure will be 30 days
after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. EPCA
prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and energy
use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels,
must be made in accordance with that new test procedure, beginning 180
days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) EPCA provides an allowance for individual
manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-day period if
the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an extension, petitions must be
filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day
period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue
hardship. (Id.)
As previously stated, no performance-based energy conservation
standards are prescribed for conventional cooking tops. Manufacturers
are not required to test according to the DOE test procedure unless
manufacturers voluntarily choose to make representations as to the
energy efficiency or energy use of a conventional cooking top. Were DOE
to establish energy conservation standards for conventional cooking
tops, manufacturers would be required to test according to the
finalized test procedure at such time as compliance would be required
with the established standards.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'')12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is
consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for
any final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003.
The following sections detail DOE's FRFA for this test procedure
rulemaking:
[[Page 51534]]
1. Descriptions of Reasons for Action
DOE is establishing test procedures for conventional cooking tops.
Establishing test procedures for conventional cooking tops assists DOE
in fulfilling its statutory deadline for amending energy conservation
standards for cooking products that achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Additionally, establishing test
procedures for conventional cooking tops allows manufacturers to
produce measurements of energy use that are representative of an
average use cycle and uniform for all manufacturers.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
DOE has undertaken this rulemaking pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10), which authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment,
including the cooking products that are the subject of this rulemaking.
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
DOE has recently conducted a focused inquiry into small business
manufacturers of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE used the
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. The size
standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'') code as well as by industry description and are available
at www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Manufacturing
cooking tops is classified under NAICS 335220, ``major household
appliance manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees
or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business for this
category. DOE used available public information to identify potential
small manufacturers. DOE accessed the Compliance Certification Database
\86\ (CCD), the Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System \87\
(MAEDbS), and the National Resources Canada database \88\ (NRCan) to
create a list of companies that import or otherwise manufacture the
products covered by this final rule. Once DOE created a list of
potential manufacturers, DOE used market research tools to determine
whether any met the SBA's definition of a small entity--based on the
total number of employees for each company including parent,
subsidiary, and sister entities--and gather annual revenue estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification
Management System, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
\87\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System, available at: https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx.
\88\ Natural Resources Canada searchable product list, available
at: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on DOE's analysis, DOE identified 43 companies potentially
manufacturing cooking tops covered by this test procedure. DOE screened
out companies that do not meet the small entity definition and,
additionally, screened out companies that are largely or entirely
foreign owned and operated. Of the 43 companies, 12 were identified as
a small business. Of these 12 small businesses, seven were further
identified--through a review of their websites and online
documentation--to be original equipment manufacturers manufacturing
covered cooking tops as opposed to rebranding covered cooking tops,
integrating the covered cooking tops into some broader product
offering, or producing cooking tops for commercial applications.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
Because there are currently no energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking tops, DOE estimates that this test procedure would
not require any manufacturer to incur any testing burden associated
with the test procedure. DOE recognizes that energy conservation
standards related to conventional cooking tops may be proposed or
promulgated in the future and manufacturers would then be required to
test all covered equipment in accordance with the test procedure once
compliance with any standard is required. (See Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0013) Therefore, DOE is presenting the costs associated with
testing equipment and procedure consistent with the requirements of the
test procedure, as would be required to comply with any future energy
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops.
DOE observed that a number of the identified small businesses known
to produce conventional cooking tops did not have cooking top models
reflected in the publicly available CCD, MAEDbS, and NRCan databases.
DOE undertook a review of each small business's website in order to
develop an approximate model count. DOE estimated that the seven small
businesses produced a total of 223 basic models of covered cooking
tops, for a range of five to 126 basic models and an average of
approximately 32 models per small business.
DOE assumes that small businesses would contract with third party
testing labs to test and certify their covered products. Given DOE's
previously estimated cost of $8,200 to test and certify a single model,
DOE estimates it will cost approximately $1,826,600 to test all
identified models manufactured by small businesses for an average of
approximately $261,228 per small business. DOE was able to identify
annual revenue estimates for all small businesses. From these
estimates, DOE determined that the estimated testing costs would
represent less than 2 percent of estimated annual revenue for all but
one small business--for which the cost is estimated to be somewhat over
7 percent of its estimated annual revenue.
In addition, DOE expects small manufacturers to redesign or
introduce new models of cooking tops on the same three-year timeframe
as the broader industry described previously. Using this redesign cycle
timeframe and the test costs and model count estimates previously
stated, DOE estimated that small businesses manufacturing conventional
cooking tops would collectively incur approximately $609,533 in costs
every year to test approximately 74 newly introduced or redesigned
conventional cooking top models.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
DOE is required to review existing DOE test procedures for all
covered products and equipment every 7 years. Additionally, DOE shall
amend test procedures with respect to any covered product, if the
Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately
produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a covered product type during a
representative average use cycle or period of use, while not being
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)(i)) DOE has
determined that the DOE test procedure for conventional cooking tops
established by this final rule will produce test results that measure
cooking top energy use during a representative average use cycle or
period of use without being unduly burdensome to conduct.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE examined alternatives to the
proposed test procedure, such as determining not to establish a
performance-based test
[[Page 51535]]
procedure for conventional cooking tops or establishing prescriptive-
based test procedures for conventional cooking tops. DOE noted in the
November 2021 NOPR that while not establishing performance-based test
procedures or establishing prescriptive-based test procedures for
conventional cooking tops would reduce the burden on small businesses,
DOE must use test procedures to determine whether the products comply
with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. 86 FR 61001. Since
establishing performance-based test procedures for conventional cooking
tops is necessary prior to establishing performance-based standards for
conventional cooking tops, and DOE is required under EPCA to evaluate
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products,
including conventional cooking tops, DOE tentatively concluded in the
November 2021 NOPR that establishing performance-based test procedures
supports DOE's authority to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE received no comments on its conclusions
in the November 2021 NOPR and thus affirms its determination in this
final rule that there are no better alternatives than the final test
procedure to meet the agency's objectives to measure energy efficiency
more accurately and to reduce burden on manufacturers.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of conventional cooking tops must certify to DOE that
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation
standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test
data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including
conventional cooking tops. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for
the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
There is currently no performance-based energy conservation
standard for conventional cooking tops, and the test procedure
established by this final rule does not establish any reporting
requirements at this time. Were certification data required for
conventional cooking tops, DOE would consider such certification
requirements and reporting for conventional cooking products under a
separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification.
DOE would address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time,
as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes a test procedure that it
expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops. DOE has
determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are
categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that
adopting test procedures for measuring energy efficiency of consumer
products and industrial equipment is consistent with activities
identified in 10 CFR part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6.
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses
[[Page 51536]]
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them.
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards
of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The new test procedure for conventional cooking tops adopted in
this final rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain
sections of the following commercial standards: IEC 60350-2:2021, IEC
62301 First Edition, and IEC 62301 Second Edition. DOE has evaluated
these standards and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies
with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it
was developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation,
comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General
and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of using
the methods contained in these standards and has received no comments
objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
[[Page 51537]]
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the following IEC
standards:
IEC 60350-2, ``Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs-
Methods for measuring performance'', Edition 2.1, 2021-05. This is an
industry-accepted test procedure that measures conventional electric
cooking top energy use, using a water heating approach. Specifically,
the test procedure codified by this final rule references various
sections of IEC 60350-2:2021 that address test setup, instrumentation,
test conduct, and calculations.
IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances-Measurement of standby
power'', first edition, June 2005 is an industry-accepted test
procedure that measures standby power in household appliances. The test
procedure codified by this final rule references various sections of
IEC 62301 that address test setup, instrumentation, and test conduct
applicable to units for which standby power varies cyclically (such as
units with a display clock).
IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances-Measurement of standby
power'', Second Edition, 2011-01 is an industry-accepted test procedure
that measures standby power in household appliances. The test procedure
codified by this final rule references various sections of IEC 62301
that address test setup, instrumentation, and test conduct for the
units for which standby power does not vary cyclically.
Copies of IEC 60350-2:2021, and both editions of IEC 62301 may be
purchased from the IEC webstore at webstore.iec.ch, or from the
American National Standards Institute at 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor,
New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or by going to webstore.ansi.org.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 18,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 19, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends 10 CFR part 430
as follows:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 430.2 [Amended]
0
2. Section 430.2 is amended by removing the definition for
``Convertible cooking appliance.''
0
3. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (p)(3) through (9) as (p)(4) through (10);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (p)(3);
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (p)(6); and
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (p)(7);
0
i. Removing the text ``I'' and adding, in its place, the text ``I,
I1''; and
0
ii. Removing the text ``J2'' and adding, in its place, the text ``J,
J2''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(p) * * *
(3) IEC 60350-2, (``IEC 60350-2''), Household electric cooking
appliances Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance, Edition
2.1, 2021-05; IBR approved for appendix I1 to subpart B.
* * * * *
(6) IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power, first edition, June 2005; IBR approved for appendices I,
I1 to subpart B.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.
* * * * *
(i) Cooking products. (1) Determine the standby power for microwave
ovens, excluding any microwave oven component of a combined cooking
product, according to section 3.2.3 of appendix I to this subpart.
Round standby power to the nearest 0.1 watt.
(2)(i) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption of a
conventional electric cooking top, including any conventional cooking
top component of a combined cooking product, according to section 4.3.1
of appendix I1 to this subpart. Round the result to the nearest 1
kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year.
(ii) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption of a
conventional gas cooking top, including any conventional cooking top
component of a combined cooking product, according to section 4.3.2 of
appendix I1 to this subpart. Round the result to the nearest 1 kilo-
British thermal unit (kBtu) per year.
(3) Determine the total annual gas energy consumption of a
conventional gas cooking top, including any conventional cooking top
component of a combined cooking product, according to section 4.1.2.2.1
of appendix I1 to this subpart. Round the result to the nearest 1 kBtu
per year.
(4)(i) Determine the total annual electrical energy consumption of
a conventional electric cooking top, including any conventional cooking
top component of a combined cooking product, as the integrated annual
energy consumption of the conventional electric cooking top, as
determined in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section.
(ii) Determine the total annual electrical energy consumption of a
conventional gas cooking top, including any conventional cooking top
component of a combined cooking product, as follows, rounded to the
nearest 1 kWh per year:
ETGE = EAGE + ETLP
Where:
EAGE is the conventional gas cooking top annual active
mode electrical energy consumption as defined in section 4.1.2.2.2
of appendix I1 to this subpart, and ETLP is the combined
low-power mode energy consumption as defined in section 4.1 of
appendix I1 to this subpart.
(5) Determine the estimated annual operating cost corresponding to
the energy consumption of a conventional cooking top, including any
conventional
[[Page 51538]]
cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as follows,
rounded to the nearest dollar per year:
(ETGE x CKWH) + (ETGG x
CKBTU)
Where:
ETGE is the total annual electrical energy consumption
for any electric energy usage, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, as
determined in accordance with paragraph (i)(4) of this section;
CKWH is the representative average unit cost for
electricity, in dollars per kWh, as provided pursuant to section
323(b)(2) of the Act;
ETGG is the total annual gas energy consumption, in kBtu
per year, as determined in accordance with paragraph (i)(3) of this
section; and
CKBTU is the representative average unit cost for natural
gas or propane, in dollars per kBtu, as provided pursuant to section
323(b)(2) of the Act, for conventional gas cooking tops that operate
with natural gas or with LP-gas, respectively.
(6) Other useful measures of energy consumption for conventional
cooking tops shall be the measures of energy consumption that the
Secretary determines are likely to assist consumers in making
purchasing decisions and that are derived from the application of
appendix I1 to this subpart.
* * * * *
Appendix I to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Microwave Ovens
0
5. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 is amended by revising the
appendix heading to read as set forth above.
0
6. Appendix I1 to subpart B of part 430 is added to read as follows:
Appendix I1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products
Note: Any representation related to energy consumption of
conventional cooking tops, including the conventional cooking top
component of combined cooking products, made after February 20, 2023
must be based upon results generated under this test procedure. Upon
the compliance date(s) of any energy conservation standard(s) for
conventional cooking tops, including the conventional cooking top
component of combined cooking products, use of the applicable
provisions of this test procedure to demonstrate compliance with the
energy conservation standard is required.
0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 430.3, the entire test
standard for IEC 60350-2; IEC 62301 (First Edition); and IEC 62301
(Second Edition). However, only enumerated provisions of those
standards are applicable to this appendix, as follows. If there is a
conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes
precedence over the referenced test standards.
0.1 IEC 60350-2
(a) Section 5.1 as referenced in section 2.4.1 of this appendix;
(b) Section 5.3 as referenced in sections 2.7.1.1, 2.7.3.1,
2.7.3.3, 2.7.3.4, 2.7.4, and 2.7.5 of this appendix;
(c) Section 5.5 as referenced in section 2.5.1 of this appendix;
(d) Section 5.6.1 as referenced in section 2.6.1 of this appendix;
(e) Section 5.6.1.5 as referenced in section 3.1.1.2 of this
appendix;
(f) Section 6.3 as referenced in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this
appendix;
(g) Section 6.3.1 as referenced in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this
appendix;
(h) Section 6.3.2 as referenced in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this
appendix;
(i) Section 7.5.1 as referenced in section 2.6.2 of this appendix;
(j) Section 7.5.2 as referenced in section 3.1.4.4 of this
appendix;
(k) Section 7.5.2.1 as referenced in sections 1 and 3.1.4.2 of this
appendix;
(l) Section 7.5.2.2 as referenced in section 3.1.4.4 of this
appendix;
(m) Section 7.5.4.1 as referenced in sections 1 and 3.1.4.5 of this
appendix;
(n) Annex A as referenced in section 3.1.1.2 of this appendix;
(o) Annex B as referenced in sections 2.6.1 and 2.8.3 of this
appendix; and
(p) Annex C as referenced in section 3.1.4.1 of this appendix.
0.2 IEC 62301 (First Edition)
(a) Paragraph 5.3 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix;
and
(b) Paragraph 5.3.2 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix.
0.3 IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
(a) Paragraph 4.2 as referenced in section 2.4.2 of this appendix;
(b) Paragraph 4.3.2 as referenced in section 2.2.1.1.2 of this
appendix;
(c) Paragraph 4.4 as referenced in section 2.7.1.2 of this
appendix;
(d) Paragraph 5.1 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix;
and
(e) Paragraph 5.3.2 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix.
1. Definitions
The following definitions apply to the test procedures in this
appendix, including the test procedures incorporated by reference:
Active mode means a mode in which the product is connected to a
mains power source, has been activated, and is performing the main
function of producing heat by means of a gas flame, electric resistance
heating, or electric inductive heating.
Built-in means the product is enclosed in surrounding cabinetry,
walls, or other similar structures on at least three sides, and can be
supported by surrounding cabinetry or the floor.
Combined cooking product means a household cooking appliance that
combines a cooking product with other appliance functionality, which
may or may not include another cooking product. Combined cooking
products include the following products: conventional range, microwave/
conventional cooking top, microwave/conventional oven, and microwave/
conventional range.
Combined low-power mode means the aggregate of available modes
other than active mode, but including the delay start mode portion of
active mode.
Cooking area means 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.
Cooking top control means a part of the conventional cooking top
used to adjust the power and the temperature of the cooking zone or
cooking area for one cookware item.
Cooking zone means 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.
Cycle finished mode means a standby mode in which a conventional
cooking top provides continuous status display following operation in
active mode.
Drop-in means the product is supported by horizontal surface
cabinetry.
Freestanding means the product is supported by the floor and is not
specified in the manufacturer's instructions as able to be installed
such that it is enclosed by surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other
similar structures.
Inactive mode means a standby mode that facilitates the activation
of active mode by remote switch (including remote control), internal
sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous status display.
Infinite power settings means a cooking zone control without
discrete power settings, which allows for
[[Page 51539]]
selection of any power setting up to the maximum power setting.
Maximum-below-threshold power setting means the power setting on a
conventional cooking top that is the highest power setting that results
in smoothened water temperature data that do not meet the evaluation
criteria specified in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2.
Maximum power setting means the maximum possible power setting if
only one cookware item is used on the cooking zone or cooking area of a
conventional cooking top, including any optional power boosting
features. For conventional electric cooking tops with multi-ring
cooking zones or cooking areas, the maximum power setting is the
maximum power corresponding to the concentric heating element with the
largest diameter, which may correspond to a power setting which may
include one or more of the smaller concentric heating elements. For
conventional gas cooking tops with multi-ring cooking zones, the
maximum power setting is the maximum heat input rate when the maximum
number of rings of the cooking zone are ignited.
Minimum-above-threshold power setting means 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. This power setting is also
referred to as the simmering setting.
Multi-ring cooking zone means a cooking zone on a conventional
cooking top with multiple concentric sizes of electric resistance
heating elements or gas burner rings.
Off mode means any mode in which a product is connected to a mains
power source and is not providing any active mode or standby function,
and where the mode may persist for an indefinite time. An indicator
that only shows the user that the product is in the off position is
included within the classification of an off mode.
Power setting means a setting on a cooking zone control that offers
a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive
heating.
Simmering period means, for each cooking zone, the 20-minute period
during the simmering test starting at time t90.
Smoothened water temperature means the 40-second moving-average
temperature as calculated in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2, rounded to
the nearest 0.1 degree Celsius.
Specialty cooking zone means a warming plate, grill, griddle, or
any cooking zone that is designed for use only with non-circular
cookware, such as a bridge zone. Specialty cooking zones are not tested
under this appendix.
Stable temperature means a temperature that does not vary by more
than 1 [deg]C over a 5-minute period.
Standard cubic foot of gas means 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 (30 inches of
mercury or 101.6 kPa).
Standby mode means any mode in which a product is connected to a
mains power source and offers one or more of the following user-
oriented or protective functions which may persist for an indefinite
time:
(1) Facilitation of the activation of other modes (including
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including
remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
(2) Provision of continuous functions, including information or
status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer
is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with
a display) that allows for regularly scheduled tasks and that operates
on a continuous basis.
Target turndown temperature (Tctarget) means the
temperature as calculated according to Section 7.5.2.1 of IEC 60350-2
and section 3.1.4.2 of this appendix, for each cooking zone.
Thermocouple means a device consisting of two dissimilar metals
which are joined together and, with their associated wires, are used to
measure temperature by means of electromotive force.
Time t90 means the first instant during the simmering
test for each cooking zone at which the smoothened water temperature is
greater than or equal to 90 [deg]C.
Turndown temperature (Tc) means, for each cooking zone,
the measured water temperature at the time at which the tester begins
adjusting the cooking top controls to change the power setting.
2. Test Conditions and Instrumentation
2.1 Installation. Install the conventional cooking top or combined
cooking product in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If
the manufacturer's instructions specify that the product may be used in
multiple installation conditions, install the product according to the
built-in configuration. Completely assemble the product with all
handles, knobs, guards, and similar components mounted in place.
Position any electric resistance heaters, gas burners, and baffles in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If the product can
communicate through a network (e.g., Bluetooth[supreg] or internet
connection), disable the network function, if it is possible to disable
it by means provided in the manufacturer's user manual, for the
duration of testing. If the network function cannot be disabled, or if
means for disabling the function are not provided in the manufacturer's
user manual, the product shall be tested in the factory default setting
or in the as-shipped condition.
2.1.1 Freestanding combined cooking product. Install a freestanding
combined cooking product with the back directly against, or as near as
possible to, a vertical wall which extends at least 1 foot above the
product and 1 foot beyond both sides of the product, and with no side
walls.
2.1.2 Drop-in or built-in combined cooking product. Install a drop-
in or built-in combined cooking product in a test enclosure in
accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
2.1.3 Conventional cooking top. Install a conventional cooking top
with the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical
wall which extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond
both sides of the product.
2.2 Energy supply.
2.2.1 Electrical supply.
2.2.1.1 Supply voltage.
2.2.1.1.1 Active mode supply voltage. During active mode testing,
maintain the electrical supply to the product at either 240 volts
1 percent or 120 volts 1 percent, according to
the manufacturer's instructions, except for products which do not allow
for a mains electrical supply. The actual voltage shall be maintained
and recorded throughout the test. Instantaneous voltage fluctuations
caused by the turning on or off of electrical components shall not be
considered.
2.2.1.1.2 Standby mode and off mode supply voltage. During standby
mode and off mode testing, maintain the electrical supply to the
product at either 240 volts 1 percent, or 120 volts 1 percent, according to the manufacturer's instructions. Maintain
the electrical supply voltage waveform specified in Section 4,
Paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition), disregarding the
provisions regarding batteries and the determination, classification,
and testing of relevant modes. If the power measuring instrument used
for testing is unable to measure and record the total harmonic content
during the test measurement period, total harmonic content may be
measured and recorded immediately before and after the test measurement
period.
[[Page 51540]]
2.2.1.2 Supply frequency. Maintain the electrical supply frequency
for all tests at 60 hertz 1 percent.
2.2.2 Gas supply.
2.2.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the natural gas pressure immediately
ahead of all controls of the unit under test at 7 to 10 inches of water
column, except as specified in section 3.1.3 of this appendix. The
natural gas supplied should have a higher heating value (dry-basis) of
approximately 1,025 Btu per standard cubic foot. Obtain the higher
heating value on a dry basis of gas, Hn, in Btu per standard
cubic foot, for the natural gas to be used in the test either from
measurements made by the manufacturer conducting the test using
equipment that meets the requirements described in section 2.7.2.2 of
this appendix or by the use of bottled natural gas whose gross heating
value is certified to be at least as accurate a value that meets the
requirements in section 2.7.2.2 of this appendix.
2.2.2.2 Propane. Maintain the propane pressure immediately ahead of
all controls of the unit under test at 11 to 13 inches of water column,
except as specified in section 3.1.3 of this appendix. The propane
supplied should have a higher heating value (dry-basis) of
approximately 2,500 Btu per standard cubic foot. Obtain the higher
heating value on a dry basis of gas, Hp, in Btu per standard
cubic foot, for the propane to be used in the test either from
measurements made by the manufacturer conducting the test using
equipment that meets the requirements described in section 2.7.2.2 of
this appendix, or by the use of bottled propane whose gross heating
value is certified to be at least as accurate a value that meets the
requirements described in section 2.7.2.2 of this appendix.
2.3 Air circulation. Maintain air circulation in the room
sufficient to secure a reasonably uniform temperature distribution, but
do not cause a direct draft on the unit under test.
2.4 Ambient room test conditions.
2.4.1 Active mode ambient conditions. During active mode testing,
maintain the ambient room air pressure specified in Section 5.1 of IEC
60350-2, and maintain the ambient room air temperature at 25 5 [deg]C with a target temperature of 25 [deg]C.
2.4.2 Standby mode and off mode ambient conditions. During standby
mode and off mode testing, maintain the ambient room air temperature
conditions specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 (Second
Edition).
2.5 Product temperature.
2.5.1 Product temperature stability. Prior to any testing, the
product must achieve a stable temperature meeting the ambient room air
temperature specified in section 2.4 of this appendix. For all
conventional cooking tops, forced cooling may be used to assist in
reducing the temperature of the product between tests, as specified in
Section 5.5 of IEC 60350-2. Forced cooling must not be used during the
period of time used to assess temperature stability.
2.5.2 Product temperature measurement. Measure the product
temperature in degrees Celsius using the equipment specified in section
2.7.3.3 of this appendix at the following locations.
2.5.2.1 Measure the product temperature at the center of the
cooking zone under test for any gas burner adjustment in section 3.1.3
of this appendix and per-cooking zone energy consumption test in
section 3.1.4 of this appendix, except that the product temperature
measurement is not required for any potential simmering setting pre-
selection test in section 3.1.4.3 of this appendix. For a conventional
gas cooking top, measure the product temperature inside the burner body
of the cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing any burner
cap on that cooking zone.
2.5.2.2 Measure the temperature at the center of each cooking zone
for the standby mode and off mode power test in section 3.2 of this
appendix. For a conventional gas cooking top, measure the temperature
inside the burner body of each cooking zone, after temporarily removing
any burner cap on that cooking zone. Calculate the product temperature
as the average of the temperatures at the center of each cooking zone.
2.6 Test loads.
2.6.1 Test vessels. The test vessel for active mode testing of each
cooking zone must meet the specifications in Section 5.6.1 and Annex B
of IEC 60350-2.
2.6.2 Water load. The water used to fill the test vessels for
active mode testing must meet the specifications in Section 7.5.1 of
IEC 60350-2. The water temperature at the start of each test, except
for the gas burner adjustment in section 3.1.3 of this appendix and the
potential simmering setting pre-selection test in section 3.1.4.3 of
this appendix, must have an initial temperature equal to 25 0.5 [deg]C.
2.7 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the
following instruments, as appropriate:
2.7.1 Electrical measurements.
2.7.1.1 Active mode watt-hour meter. The watt-hour meter for
measuring the active mode electrical energy consumption must have a
resolution as specified in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350-2.
Measurements shall be made as specified in Table 2 of Section 5.3 of
IEC 60350-2.
2.7.1.2 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter used
to measure standby mode and off mode power must meet the specifications
in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition). If the power
measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure and record
the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio during the
test measurement period, measure the crest factor, power factor, and
maximum current ratio immediately before and after the test measurement
period to determine whether these characteristics meet the
specifications in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second
Edition).
2.7.2 Gas measurements.
2.7.2.1 Gas meter. 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.
2.7.2.2 Standard continuous flow calorimeter. The maximum error of
the basic calorimeter must be no greater than 0.2 percent of the actual
heating value of the gas used in the test. The indicator readout must
have a 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.
2.7.2.3 Gas line temperature. The incoming gas temperature must be
measured at the gas meter. The instrument for measuring the gas line
temperature shall have a maximum error no greater than 2
[deg]F over the operating range.
2.7.2.4 Gas line pressure. The incoming gas pressure must be
measured at the gas meter. The instrument for measuring the gas line
pressure must have a maximum error no greater than 0.1 inches of water
column.
2.7.3 Temperature measurements.
2.7.3.1 Active mode ambient room temperature. The room temperature
indicating system must meet the specifications in Table 1 of Section
5.3 of IEC 60350-2. Measurements shall be made as specified in Table 2
of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350-2.
2.7.3.2 Standby mode and off mode ambient room temperature. The
room temperature indicating system must have an error no greater than
1 [deg]F (0.6
[[Page 51541]]
[deg]C) over the range 65[deg] to 90 [deg]F (18 [deg]C to 32 [deg]C).
2.7.3.3 Product temperature. The temperature indicating system must
have an error no greater than 1 [deg]F (0.6
[deg]C) over the range 65[deg] to 90 [deg]F (18 [deg]C to 32 [deg]C).
Measurements shall be made as specified in Table 2 of Section 5.3 of
IEC 60350-2.
2.7.3.4 Water temperature. Measure the test vessel water
temperature with a thermocouple that meets the specifications in Table
1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350-2. Measurements shall be made as
specified in Table 2 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350-2.
2.7.4 Room air pressure. The room air pressure indicating system
must meet the specifications in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350-2.
2.7.5 Water mass. The scale used to measure the mass of the water
load must meet the specifications in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC
60350-2.
2.8 Power settings.
2.8.1 On a multi-ring cooking zone on a conventional gas cooking
top, all power settings are considered, whether they ignite all rings
of orifices or not.
2.8.2 On a multi-ring cooking zone on a conventional electric
cooking top, only power settings corresponding to the concentric
heating element with the largest diameter are considered, which may
correspond to operation with one or more of the smaller concentric
heating elements energized.
2.8.3 On a cooking zone with infinite power settings where the
available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is more than 150
rotational degrees, evaluate power settings that are spaced by 10
rotational degrees. On a cooking zone with infinite power settings
where the available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is less
than or equal to 150 rotational degrees, evaluate power settings that
are spaced by 5 rotational degrees, starting with the first position
that meets the definition of a power setting, irrespective of how the
knob is labeled. Polar coordinate paper, as provided in Annex B of IEC
60350-2 may be used to mark power settings.
3. Test Methods and Measurements
3.1 Active mode. Perform the following test methods for
conventional cooking tops and the conventional cooking top component of
a combined cooking product.
3.1.1 Test vessel and water load selection.
3.1.1.1 Conventional electric cooking tops.
3.1.1.1.1 For cooking zones, measure the size of each cooking zone
as specified in Section 6.3.2 of IEC 60350-2, not including any
specialty cooking zones as defined in section 1 of this appendix. For
circular cooking zones on smooth cooking tops, the cooking zone size is
determined using the outer diameter of the printed marking, as
specified in Section 6.3 of IEC 60350-2. For open coil cooking zones,
the cooking zone size is determined using the widest diameter of the
coil, see Figure 3.1.1.1. For non-circular cooking zones, the cooking
zone size is determined by the measurement of the shorter side or minor
axis. For cooking areas, determine the number of cooking zones as
specified in Section 6.3.1 of IEC 60350-2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.001
3.1.1.1.2 Determine the test vessel diameter in millimeters (mm)
and water load mass in grams (g) for each measured cooking zone. For
cooking zones, test vessel selection is based on cooking zone size as
specified in Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC 60350-2. For cooking
areas, test vessel selection is based on the number of cooking zones as
specified in Annex A of IEC 60350-2. If a selected test vessel
(including its lid) 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 shall be used. The
[[Page 51542]]
allowable tolerance on the water load weight is 0.5 g.
3.1.1.2 Conventional gas cooking tops.
3.1.1.2.1 Record the nominal heat input rate for each cooking zone,
not including any specialty cooking zones as defined in section 1 of
this appendix.
3.1.1.2.2 Determine the test vessel diameter in mm and water load
mass in g for each measured cooking zone according to Table 3.1 of this
appendix. 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 shall be used. The allowable tolerance on the water
load weight is 0.5 g.
Table 3.1--Test Vessel Selection for Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal gas burner input rate (Btu/h) Test vessel Water load
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- diameter mass
-------------------------------
Minimum (<) Maximum (<=) (mm) (g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,600 210 2,050
5,600........................................................... 8,050 240 2,700
8,050........................................................... 14,300 270 3,420
14,300.......................................................... .............. 300 4,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1.2 Unit Preparation. Before the first measurement is taken, all
cooking zones must be operated simultaneously for at least 10 minutes
at maximum power. This step shall be conducted once per product.
3.1.3 Gas burner adjustment. Prior to active mode testing of each
tested burner of a conventional gas cooking top, the burner heat input
rate must be adjusted, if necessary, to within 2 percent of the nominal
heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer. Prior
to ignition and any adjustment of the burner heat input rate, the
conventional cooking top must achieve the product temperature specified
in section 2.5 of this appendix. Ignite and operate the gas burner
under test with the test vessel and water mass specified in section
3.1.1 of this appendix. Measure the heat input rate of the gas burner
under test starting 5 minutes after ignition. If the measured input
rate of the gas burner under test 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 shall be made.
3.1.3.1 Conventional gas cooking tops with an adjustable internal
pressure regulator. If the measured heat input rate of the burner under
test is not within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the
burner as specified by the manufacturer, adjust the product's internal
pressure regulator such that the 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. Adjust the burner with sufficient air
flow to prevent a yellow flame or a flame with yellow tips. Complete
section 3.1.4 of this appendix while maintaining the same gas pressure
regulator adjustment.
3.1.3.2 Conventional gas cooking tops with a non-adjustable
internal pressure regulator or without an internal pressure regulator.
If the measured heat input rate of the burner under test is not within
2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by
the manufacturer, remove the product's internal pressure regulator, or
block it in the open position, and initially maintain the gas pressure
ahead of all controls of the unit under test approximately equal to the
manufacturer's recommended manifold pressure. Adjust the gas supply
pressure such that the 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. Adjust the burner with sufficient air
flow to prevent a yellow flame or a flame with yellow tips. Complete
section 3.1.4 of this appendix while maintaining the same gas pressure
regulator adjustment.
3.1.4 Per-cooking zone energy consumption test. Establish the test
conditions set forth in section 2 of this appendix. Turn off the gas
flow to the conventional oven(s), if so equipped. The product
temperature must meet the specifications in section 2.5 of this
appendix.
3.1.4.1 Test vessel placement. Position the test vessel with water
load for the cooking zone under test, selected and prepared as
specified in section 3.1.1 of this appendix, in the center of the
cooking zone, and as specified in Annex C to IEC 60350-2.
3.1.4.2 Overshoot test. Use the test methods set forth in Section
7.5.2.1 of IEC 60350-2 to determine the target turndown temperature for
each cooking zone, Tctarget, in degrees Celsius, as follows.
Tctarget = 93 [deg]C - (Tmax - T70)
Where:
Tmax is highest recorded temperature value, in degrees
Celsius; and
T70 is the average recorded temperature between the time
10 seconds before the power is turned off and the time 10 seconds
after the power is turned off.
If T70 is within the tolerance of 70 0.5
[deg]C, the target turndown temperature is the highest of 80 [deg]C and
the calculated Tctarget, rounded to the nearest integer. If
T70 is outside of the tolerance, the overshoot test is
considered invalid and must be repeated after allowing the product to
return to ambient conditions.
3.1.4.3 Potential simmering setting pre-selection test. The
potential simmering setting for each cooking zone may be determined
using the potential simmering setting pre-selecting test. If a
potential simmering setting is already known, it may be used instead of
completing sections 3.1.4.3.1 through 3.1.4.3.4 of this appendix.
3.1.4.3.1 Use the test vessel with water load for the cooking zone
under test, selected, prepared, and positioned as specified in sections
3.1.1 and 3.1.4.1 of this appendix. The temperature of the conventional
cooking top is not required to meet the specification for the product
temperature in section 2.5 of this appendix for the potential simmering
setting pre-selection test. Operate the cooking zone under test with
the lowest available power setting. Measure the energy consumption for
10 minutes 2 seconds.
3.1.4.3.2 Calculate the power density of the power setting, j, on a
conventional electric cooking top, Qej, in watts per square
centimeter, as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.002
Where:
a = the surface area of the test vessel bottom, in square
centimeters; and
Ej = the electrical energy consumption during the 10-
minute test, in Wh.
3.1.4.3.3 Calculate the power density of the power setting, j, on a
[[Page 51543]]
conventional gas cooking top, Qgj, in Btu/h per square
centimeter, as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.003
Where:
a = the surface area of the test vessel bottom, in square
centimeters;
Vj = the volume of gas consumed during the 10-minute
test, in cubic feet;
CF = the gas correction factor to standard temperature and pressure,
as calculated in section 4.1.1.2.1 of this appendix;
H = either Hn or Hp, the heating value of the
gas used in the test as specified in sections 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 of
this appendix, in Btu per standard cubic foot of gas;
Eej = the electrical energy consumption of the
conventional gas cooking top during the 10-minute test, in Wh; and
Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh, conversion factor of watt-hours to
Btu.
3.1.4.3.4 Repeat the measurement for each successively higher power
setting until Qej exceeds 0.8 W/cm\2\ for conventional
electric cooking tops or Qgj exceeds 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\
for conventional gas cooking tops.
For conventional cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the
power setting, the selection knob shall be turned to the maximum power
setting in between each test, to avoid hysteresis. The selection knob
shall be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to
select the power setting for the test. If the appropriate power setting
is passed, the selection knob shall be turned to the maximum power
setting again before repeating the power setting selection.
Of the last two power settings tested, the potential simmering
setting is the power setting that produces a power density closest to
0.8 W/cm\2\ for conventional electric cooking tops or 4.0 Btu/
h[middot]cm\2\ for conventional gas cooking tops. The closest power
density may be higher or lower than the applicable threshold value.
3.1.4.4 Simmering test. The product temperature must meet the
specifications in section 2.5 of this appendix at the start of each
simmering test. For each cooking zone, conduct the test method
specified in Section 7.5.2 of IEC 60350-2, using the potential
simmering setting identified in section 3.1.4.3 of this appendix for
the initial simmering setting used in Section 7.5.2.2 of IEC 60350-2.
For conventional cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the
power setting, the selection knob shall be turned in the direction from
higher power to lower power to select the potential simmering setting
for the test, to avoid hysteresis. If the appropriate setting is
passed, the test is considered invalid and must be repeated after
allowing the product to return to ambient conditions.
3.1.4.5 Evaluation of the simmering test. Evaluate the test
conducted under section 3.1.4.4 of this appendix as set forth in
Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2 according to Figure 3.1.4.5 of this
appendix. If the measured turndown temperature, Tc, is not within -0.5
[deg]C and +1 [deg]C of the target turndown temperature,
Tctarget, the test is considered invalid and must be
repeated after allowing the product to return to ambient conditions.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 51544]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.004
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
3.2 Standby mode and off mode power. Establish the standby mode and
off mode testing conditions set forth in section 2 of this appendix.
For products that take some time to enter a stable state from a higher
power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC
62301 (Second Edition), allow sufficient time for the product to reach
the lower power state before proceeding with the test measurement.
Follow the test procedure as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of
IEC 62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each possible mode as
described in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of this appendix. For units in
which power varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, set
the clock time to 3:23 at the end of an initial stabilization period,
as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 (First Edition).
After an additional 10-minute stabilization period, measure the power
use for a single test period of 10 minutes +0/-2 seconds that starts
when the clock time first reads 3:33. Use the average power approach
described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First
Edition).
3.2.1 If the product has an inactive mode, as defined in section 1
of this appendix, measure the average inactive mode power,
PIA, in watts.
3.2.2 If the product has an off mode, as defined in section 1 of
this appendix, measure the average off mode power, POM, in
watts.
3.3 Recorded values.
3.3.1 Active mode.
3.3.1.1 For a conventional gas cooking top tested with natural gas,
record the natural gas higher heating value in Btu per standard cubic
foot, Hn, as determined in section 2.2.2.1 of this appendix
for the natural gas supply. For a conventional gas cooking top tested
with propane, record the propane higher heating value in Btu per
standard cubic foot, Hp, as determined in section 2.2.2.2 of
this appendix for the propane supply.
3.3.1.2 Record the test room temperature in degrees Celsius and
relative air pressure in hectopascals (hPa) during each test.
3.3.1.3 Per-cooking zone energy consumption test.
3.3.1.3.1 Record the product temperature in degrees Celsius,
TP, prior to the start of each overshoot test or simmering
test, as determined in section 2.5 of this appendix.
3.3.1.3.2 Overshoot test. For each cooking zone, record the initial
temperature of the water in degrees Celsius, Ti; the average
water temperature between the time 10 seconds before the power is
turned off and the time 10 seconds after the power is turned off in
degrees Celsius, T70; the highest recorded water temperature
in degrees Celsius, Tmax; and the target turndown
temperature in degrees Celsius, Tctarget.
3.3.1.3.3 Simmering test. For each cooking zone, record the
temperature of the water throughout the test, in degrees Celsius, and
the values in sections 3.3.1.3.3.1 through 3.3.1.3.3.7 of this appendix
for the Energy Test Cycle, if an Energy Test Cycle is measured in
section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, otherwise for both the maximum-below-
[[Page 51545]]
threshold power setting and the minimum-above-threshold power setting.
Because t90 may not be known until completion of the
simmering test, water temperature, any electrical energy consumption,
and any gas volumetric consumption measurements may be recorded for
several minutes after the end of the simmering period to ensure that
the full simmering period is recorded.
3.3.1.3.3.1 The power setting under test.
3.3.1.3.3.2 The initial temperature of the water, in degrees
Celsius, Ti.
3.3.1.3.3.3 The time at which the tester begins adjusting the
cooking top control to change the power setting, to the nearest second,
tc and the turndown temperature, in degrees Celsius, Tc.
3.3.1.3.3.4 The time at which the simmering period starts, to the
nearest second, t90.
3.3.1.3.3.5 The time at which the simmering period ends, to the
nearest second, tS and the smoothened water temperature at
the end of the simmering period, in degrees Celsius, TS.
3.3.1.3.3.6 For a conventional electric cooking top, the electrical
energy consumption from the start of the test to tS, E, in
watt-hours.
3.3.1.3.3.7 For a conventional gas cooking top, the volume of gas
consumed from the start of the test to tS, V, in cubic feet
of gas; and any electrical energy consumption of the cooking top from
the start of the test to tS, Ee, in watt-hours.
3.3.2 Standby mode and off mode. Make measurements as specified in
section 3.2 of this appendix. If the product is capable of operating in
inactive mode, as defined in section 1 of this appendix, record the
average inactive mode power, PIA, in watts as specified in
section 3.2.1 of this appendix. If the product is capable of operating
in off mode, as defined in section 1 of this appendix, record the
average off mode power, POM, in watts as specified in
section 3.2.2 of this appendix.
4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements
4.1. Active mode energy consumption of conventional cooking tops
and any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking
product.
4.1.1 Per-cycle active mode energy consumption of a conventional
cooking top and any conventional cooking top component of a combined
cooking product.
4.1.1.1 Conventional electric cooking top per-cycle active mode
energy consumption.
4.1.1.1.1 Conventional electric cooking top per-cooking zone
normalized active mode energy consumption. For each cooking zone,
calculate the per-cooking zone normalized active mode energy
consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, E, in watt-hours,
using the following equation:
E = EETC
for cooking zones where an Energy Test Cycle was measured in section
3.1.4.5 of this appendix, and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.005
for cooking zones where a minimum-above-threshold cycle and a maximum-
below-threshold cycle were measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this
appendix.
Where:
EETC = the electrical energy consumption of the Energy Test Cycle
from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking
zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-
hours;
EMAT = the electrical energy consumption of the minimum-
above-threshold power setting from the start of the test to the end
of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5
of this appendix, in watt-hours;
EMBT = the electrical energy consumption of the maximum-
below-threshold power setting from the start of the test to the end
of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5
of this appendix, in watt-hours;
TS,MAT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of
the minimum-above-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone,
in degrees Celsius; and
TS,MBT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of
the maximum-below-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone,
in degrees Celsius.
4.1.1.1.2 Calculate the per-cycle active mode total energy
consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, ECET, in
watt-hours, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.006
Where:
n = the total number of cooking zones tested on the conventional
cooking top;
Ez = the normalized energy consumption representative of
the Energy Test Cycle for each cooking zone, as calculated in
section 4.1.1.1.1 of this appendix, in watt-hours;
mz is the mass of water used for each cooking zone, in
grams; and
2853 = the representative water load mass, in grams.
4.1.1.2 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active mode energy
consumption.
4.1.1.2.1 Gas correction factor to standard temperature and
pressure. Calculate the gas correction factor to standard temperature
and pressure, which converts between standard cubic feet and measured
cubic feet of gas for a given set of test conditions:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.007
Where:
Pgas = the measured line gas gauge pressure, in inches
of water column;
0.0361= the conversion factor from inches of water column to pounds
per square inch;
Patm = the measured atmospheric pressure, in pounds per
square inch;
Pbase = 14.73 pounds per square inch, the standard sea
level air pressure;
Tbase = 519.67 degrees Rankine (or 288.7 Kelvin);
Tgas = the measured line gas temperature, in degrees
Fahrenheit (or degrees Celsius); and
Tk = the adder converting from degrees Fahrenheit to
degrees Rankine, 459.7 (or from degrees Celsius to Kelvin, 273.16).
[[Page 51546]]
4.1.1.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top per-cooking zone normalized
active mode gas consumption. For each cooking zone, calculate the per-
cooking zone normalized active mode gas consumption of a conventional
gas cooking top, V, in cubic feet, using the following equation:
V = VETC
for cooking zones where an Energy Test Cycle was measured in section
3.1.4.5 of this appendix, and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.008
for cooking zones where a minimum-above-threshold cycle and a maximum-
below-threshold cycle were measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this
appendix.
Where:
VETC = the gas consumption of the Energy Test Cycle from
the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone,
as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in cubic feet;
VMAT = the gas consumption of the minimum-above-threshold
power setting from the start of the test to the end of the test for
the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix,
in cubic feet;
VMBT = the gas consumption of the maximum-below-threshold
power setting from the start of the test to the end of the test for
the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix,
in cubic feet;
TS,MAT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of
the minimum-above-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone,
in degrees Celsius; and
TS,MBT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of
the maximum-below-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone,
in degrees Celsius.
4.1.1.2.3 Conventional gas cooking top per-cooking zone active mode
normalized electrical energy consumption. For each cooking zone,
calculate the per-cooking zone normalized active mode electrical energy
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, Ee, in watt-
hours, using the following equation:
Ee = Ee,ETC
for cooking zones where an Energy Test Cycle was measured in section
3.1.4.5 of this appendix, and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.009
for cooking zones where a minimum-above-threshold cycle and a maximum-
below-threshold cycle were measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this
appendix.
Where:
Ee,ETC = the electrical energy consumption of the Energy
Test Cycle from the start of the test to the end of the test for the
cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in
watt-hours;
Ee,MAT = the electrical energy consumption of the
minimum-above-threshold power setting from the start of the test to
the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section
3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours;
Ee,MBT = the electrical energy consumption of the
maximum-below-threshold power setting from the start of the test to
the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section
3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours;
TS,MAT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of
the minimum-above-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone,
in degrees Celsius; and
TS,MBT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of
the maximum-below-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone,
in degrees Celsius.
4.1.1.2.4 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active mode gas
energy consumption. Calculate the per-cycle active mode gas energy
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, ECGG, in Btu,
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.010
Where:
n, mz, and 2853 are defined in section 4.1.1.1.2 of this
appendix;
Vz = the normalized gas consumption representative of the
Energy Test Cycle for each cooking zone, as calculated in section
4.1.1.2.2 of this appendix, in cubic feet; and
CF = the gas correction factor to standard temperature and pressure,
as calculated in section 4.1.1.2.1 of this appendix
H = either Hn or Hp, the heating value of the
gas used in the test as specified in sections 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 of
this appendix, expressed in Btu per standard cubic foot of gas.
4.1.1.2.5 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active mode
electrical energy consumption. Calculate the per-cycle active mode
electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top,
ECGE, in watt-hours, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.011
Where:
n, mz, and 2853 are defined in section 4.1.1.1.2 of this
appendix; and
Eez = the normalized electrical energy consumption
representative of the Energy Test Cycle for each cooking zone, as
calculated in section 4.1.1.2.3 of this appendix, in watt-hours.
4.1.1.2.6 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active-mode total
energy consumption. Calculate the per-cycle active mode total energy
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, ECGT, in Btu,
using the following equation:
ECGT = ECGG + (ECGE x Ke)
Where:
ECGG = the per-cycle active mode gas energy consumption
of a conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.1.2.4
of this appendix, in Btu;
ECGE = the per-cycle active mode electrical energy
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top as determined in
section 4.1.1.2.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours; and
Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh, conversion factor of watt-hours to
Btu.
4.1.2 Annual active mode energy consumption of a conventional
cooking top and any conventional cooking top component of a combined
cooking product.
4.1.2.1 Conventional electric cooking top annual active mode energy
consumption. Calculate the annual active mode total energy consumption
of a conventional electric cooking top, EAET, in kilowatt-
hours per year, using the following equation:
EAET = ECET x K x NC
Where:
[[Page 51547]]
ECET = the conventional electric cooking top per-cycle
active mode total energy consumption, as determined in section
4.1.1.1.2 of this appendix, in watt-hours;
K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours;
and
NC = 418 cooking cycles per year, the average number of
cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking event
estimated for conventional cooking tops.
4.1.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode energy
consumption.
4.1.2.2.1 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode gas
energy consumption. Calculate the annual active mode gas energy
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, EAGG, in kBtu
per year, using the following equation:
EAGG = ECGG x K x NC
Where:
K and NC are defined in section 4.1.2.1 of this appendix;
and
ECGG = the conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active
mode gas energy consumption, as determined in section 4.1.1.2.4 of
this appendix, in Btu.
4.1.2.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode
electrical energy consumption. Calculate the annual active mode
electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top,
EAGE, in kilowatt-hours per year, using the following
equation:
EAGE = ECGE x K x NC
Where:
K and NC are defined in section 4.1.2.1 of this
appendix; and
ECGE = the conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active
mode electrical energy consumption, as determined in section
4.1.1.2.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours.
4.1.2.2.3 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode total
energy consumption. Calculate the annual active mode total energy
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, EAGT, in kBtu
per year, using the following equation:
EAGT = EAGG + (EAGE x Ke)
Where:
EAGG = the conventional gas cooking top annual active
mode gas energy consumption as determined in section 4.1.2.2.1 of
this appendix, in kBtu per year;
EAGE = the conventional gas cooking top annual active
mode electrical energy consumption as determined in section
4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix, in kilowatt-hours per year; and
Ke is defined in section 4.1.1.2.6 of this appendix.
4.2 Annual combined low-power mode energy consumption of a
conventional cooking top and any conventional cooking top component of
a combined cooking product.
4.2.1 Conventional cooking top annual combined low-power mode
energy consumption. Calculate the annual combined low-power mode energy
consumption for a conventional cooking top, ETLP, in
kilowatt-hours per year, using the following equation:
ETLP = [(PIA x FIA) + (POM
x FOM)] x K x ST
Where:
PIA = inactive mode power, in watts, as measured in
section 3.2.1 of this appendix;
POM = off mode power, in watts, as measured in section
3.2.2 of this appendix;
FIA and FOM are the portion of annual hours
spent in inactive mode and off mode hours respectively, as defined
in Table 4.2.1 of this appendix;
K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours;
and
ST = 8,544, total number of inactive mode and off mode
hours per year for a conventional cooking top.
Table 4.2.1--Annual Hour Multipliers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of low-power mode(s) available FIA FOM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both inactive and off mode.............. 0.5 0.5
Inactive mode only...................... 1 0
Off mode only........................... 0 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2.2 Conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking
product annual combined low-power mode energy consumption. Calculate
the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for the
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product,
ETLP, in kilowatt-hours per year, using the following
equation:
ETLP = [(PIA x FIA) + (POM
x FOM)] x K x STOT x HC
Where:
PIA, POM, FIA, FOM, and
K are defined in section 4.2.1 of this appendix;
STOT = the total number of inactive mode and off mode
hours per year for a combined cooking product, as defined in Table
4.2.2 of this appendix; and
HC = the percentage of hours per year assigned to the
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as
defined in Table 4.2.2 of this appendix.
Table 4.2.2--Combined Cooking Product Usage Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of combined cooking product STOT HC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooking top and conventional oven 8,392 60
(conventional range)...................
Cooking top and microwave oven.......... 8,481 77
Cooking top, conventional oven, and 8,329 51
microwave oven.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 Integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional cooking
top and any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking
product.
4.3.1 Conventional electric cooking top integrated annual energy
consumption. Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption, IAEC,
of a conventional electric cooking top, in kilowatt-hours per year,
using the following equation:
IAEC = EAET + ETLP
Where:
EAET = the conventional electric cooking top annual
active mode energy consumption, as determined in section 4.1.2.1 of
this appendix; and
ETLP = the annual combined low-power mode energy
consumption of a conventional cooking top or any conventional
cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as determined
in section 4.2 of this appendix.
4.3.2 Conventional gas cooking top integrated annual energy
consumption. Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption, IAEC,
of a conventional gas cooking top, in kBtu per year, defined as:
[[Page 51548]]
IAEC = EAGT + (ETLP x Ke)
Where:
EAGT = the conventional gas cooking top annual active
mode total energy consumption, as determined in section 4.1.2.2.3 of
this appendix;
ETLP = the annual combined low-power mode energy
consumption of a conventional cooking top or any conventional
cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as determined
in section 4.2 of this appendix; and
Ke is defined in section 4.1.1.2.6 of this appendix.
[FR Doc. 2022-15725 Filed 8-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P