Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products, 91418-91452 [2016-29077]

Download as PDF 91418 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 [Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0013] RIN 1904–AC71 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: On August 22, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the test procedure for conventional cooking products. That proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for this final rule. Specifically, this final rule amends DOE’s test procedure for conventional electric cooking tops to incorporate by reference the relevant sections from European standard EN 60350–2:2013 ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs— Methods for measuring performance’’ (EN 60350–2:2013). This final rule also includes methods for testing noncircular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction cooking tops based on EN 60350–2:2013. In addition, DOE extends the test methods in EN 60350–2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including input rates that exceed 14,000 British thermal units per hour. This final rule also includes methods to calculate annual energy consumption and integrated annual energy consumption for conventional cooking tops based on the water-heating test method and provides updates to the sampling plan requirements. The final rule includes minor technical clarifications to the gas heating value correction and other grammatical changes to the regulatory text in the cooking products test procedure that do not alter the substance of the existing test methods. This final rule also repeals the regulatory provisions establishing the test procedure for conventional ovens under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. DOE has determined that the conventional oven test procedure does not accurately represent consumer use as it favors conventional ovens with low thermal mass and does not capture cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal mass of the oven cavity. DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 17, 2017. The final rule changes asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 will be mandatory for representations of energy or power consumption of cooking products on or after June 14, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 17, 2017. ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. A link to the docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP0013. The docket Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586–6636 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Ms. Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 256–7432. Email: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference certain sections of the following industry standard into 10 CFR part 430: (1) EN 60350–2:2013 ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances, Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance’’, July 2013. • Copies of EN 60350–2:2013, a European standard approved by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), can be obtained from the British Standards Institute (BSI Group), 389 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 4AL, United Kingdom, or by going to http://shop.bsigroup.com/. See section IV.N for a further discussion of this standard. PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Table of Contents I. Authority and Background A. Authority B. Background 1. The January 2013 TP NOPR 2. The December 2014 TP SNOPR 3. The August 2016 TP SNOPR II. Synopsis of the Final Rule III. Discussion A. Scope 1. Induction Cooking Tops 2. Combined Cooking Products 3. Gas Cooking Tops With High Input Rates B. Repeal of the Conventional Oven Test Procedure C. Water Heating Test Method 1. Incorporation by Reference of EN 60350– 2:2013 2. Multi-Ring and Non-Circular Surface Units 3. Gas Cooking Tops D. Annual Energy Consumption 1. Conventional Cooking Top Annual Energy Consumption 2. Combined Cooking Products 3. Full Fuel Cycle Metric E. Installation Test Conditions F. Technical Clarification to the Correction of the Gas Heating Value G. Grammatical Changes to Certain Sections of Appendix I H. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Congressional Notification N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background Conventional cooking products are included in the list of ‘‘covered products’’ for which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) DOE’s energy conservation standards and test procedures for conventional cooking products are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(j) and 10 CFR 430.23(i), respectively. The following sections discuss DOE’s authority to establish test procedures for conventional cooking products and E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations relevant background information regarding DOE’s consideration of test procedures for this equipment. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES A. Authority Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) 1 sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified), establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.’’ These include cooking products,2 and specifically conventional cooking tops 3 and conventional ovens,4 the primary subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to 1 All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114–11 (April 30, 2015). 2 DOE’s regulations define ‘‘cooking products’’ as one of the following classes: Conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges and other cooking products. (10 CFR 430.2) 3 Conventional cooking top means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a horizontal surface containing one or more surface units which include either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. (10 CFR 430.2) 4 Conventional oven means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of one or more compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. It does not include portable or countertop ovens which use electric resistance heating for the cooking or heating of food and are designed for an electrical supply of approximately 120 volts. (10 CFR 430.2) VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish a proposed test procedure and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on it. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) DOE recognizes that the test procedure amendments adopted in this final rule will affect the measured energy use of some conventional cooking products. However, the current energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products are a prescriptive design standard prohibiting constant burning pilots for all gas cooking products manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. (10 CFR 430.32(j)) Because there are currently no performancebased standards for conventional cooking products, the EPCA provisions discussed in this preamble do not apply to this rulemaking. DOE is currently considering amendments to the existing Federal energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products in a concurrent rulemaking, (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005). DOE will use the test procedure amendments adopted in this final rule as the basis for standards development in the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE is establishing in this final rule that use of the amended test procedure for compliance with DOE energy conservation standards or representations with respect to energy consumption of conventional cooking products is required on the compliance date of any revised energy conservation standards, which are being considered in a concurrent rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005). The existing test procedure for conventional cooking products must be used for any representations related to standby mode and off mode energy consumption of conventional cooking tops, but not PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 91419 including combined cooking products. Any representation related to energy or power consumption of cooking products made 180 days after the publication of this final rule in the Federal Register, including for combined cooking products, must be based upon results generated under the amended test procedure. This final rule fulfills DOE’s obligation to periodically review its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its next evaluation of this test procedure will occur in a manner consistent with the timeline set out in this provision. B. Background DOE’s test procedures for conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens are codified at appendix I to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (appendix I). DOE established the test procedures for conventional cooking products in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120–20128. DOE revised its test procedures for cooking products to more accurately measure their efficiency and energy use, and published the revisions as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 (Oct. 3, 1997). These test procedure amendments included: (1) A reduction in the annual useful cooking energy; (2) a reduction in the number of selfcleaning oven cycles per year; and (3) incorporation of portions of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 705–1988, ‘‘Methods for measuring the performance of microwave ovens for household and similar purposes,’’ and Amendment 2–1993 for the testing of microwave ovens. Id. The test procedures for conventional cooking products establish provisions for determining estimated annual operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the ratio of cooking energy output to cooking energy input), and energy factor (defined as the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to total annual energy input). 10 CFR 430.23(i); appendix I. These provisions for conventional cooking products are not currently used for compliance with any energy conservation standards because the present standards are design requirements; in addition, there is no EnergyGuide 5 labeling program for cooking products. DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off mode energy consumption, as well as 5 For more information on the EnergyGuide labeling program, see: www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ cfr/waisidx_00/16cfr305_00.html. E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91420 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations certain active mode testing provisions, for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and conventional cooking products. DOE published a final rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, the October 2012 Final Rule), adopting standby and off mode provisions that satisfy the EPCA requirement that DOE include measures of standby mode and off mode power in its test procedures for residential products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 1. The January 2013 TP NOPR On January 30, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) (78 FR 6232, the January 2013 TP NOPR) proposing amendments to appendix I that would allow for measuring the active mode energy consumption of induction cooking products (i.e., conventional cooking tops equipped with induction heating technology for one or more surface units 6 on the cooking top). DOE proposed to incorporate induction cooking tops by amending the definition of ‘‘conventional cooking top’’ to include induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE proposed to require for all cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with induction technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the solid aluminum test blocks currently specified in the test procedure for cooking tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: an aluminum body and a stainless steel base. In the January 2013 TP NOPR, DOE also proposed amendments to include a clarification that the test block size be determined using the smallest dimension of the electric surface unit. 78 FR 6232, 6234 (Jan. 30, 2013). asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 2. The December 2014 TP SNOPR On December 3, 2014, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) (79 FR 71894, the December 2014 TP SNOPR), modifying its proposal from the January 2013 TP NOPR for measuring the energy efficiency of induction cooking tops. DOE proposed to add a layer of thermal grease between the stainless steel base and aluminum body of the hybrid test block to facilitate heat transfer between the two pieces. DOE also proposed additional test equipment for electric surface units with large diameters (both induction and electric resistance) and gas cooking top burners with high input rates. 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). In 6 The term surface unit refers to burners for gas cooking tops, electric resistance heating elements for electric cooking tops, and inductive heating elements for induction cooking tops. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 addition, DOE proposed methods to test non-circular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and fullsurface induction cooking tops. Id. In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed to incorporate methods for measuring conventional oven volume, clarify that the existing oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input rate, and provide a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). On July 3, 2015, DOE published a final rule addressing the test procedure amendments for conventional ovens only. (80 FR 37954, the July 2015 TP Final Rule). 3. The August 2016 TP SNOPR On August 22, 2016, DOE published an additional SNOPR (81 FR 57374, the August 2016 TP SNOPR) in which DOE modified its proposal from the December 2014 TP SNOPR for testing conventional cooking tops. Based on review of the public comments received in response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR and a series of manufacturer interviews conducted in February and March 2015 to discuss key concerns regarding the hybrid test block method proposed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its proposal for testing conventional cooking tops with a hybrid test block. Instead, DOE proposed to amend its test procedure for conventional electric cooking tops to incorporate by reference the relevant selections from European standard EN 60350–2:2013 ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs— Methods for measuring performance’’ (EN 60350–2:2013). DOE also revised its proposals for testing non-circular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction cooking tops. In addition, DOE proposed to extend the test methods in EN 60350–2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including input rates that exceed 14,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h). DOE also proposed to modify the calculations of conventional cooking top annual energy consumption (AEC) and integrated annual energy consumption (IAEC) to account for the proposed water-heating test method. Additionally, in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference certain test structures for conventional cooking tops contained in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z21.1–2016 ‘‘Household cooking PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 gas appliances’’ (ANSI Z21.1–2016) and addressed minor technical changes that did not alter the substance of the existing test methods. 81 FR 57374, 57376–57377 (Aug. 22, 2016). With regard to conventional ovens, DOE determined that, based on further review of public comments and data provided by manufacturers, the conventional oven test procedure does not accurately represent consumer use as it favors conventional ovens with low thermal mass and does not capture cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal mass of the oven cavity. As a result, DOE also proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to repeal the regulatory provisions establishing the test procedures of conventional ovens. 81 FR 57374, 57376 (Aug. 22, 2016). In response to the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE received multiple comments urging it to extend the comment period. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) commented that the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR is completely different from DOE’s previously proposed versions, and that a 30-day comment period does not provide sufficient time for interested parties to comment. AHAM stated that because DOE’s proposal is completely new, it should be treated as a NOPR pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2) with no less than 60 days for public comment, including the opportunity to provide oral comments. AHAM also opposed the development of test procedures and proposed standards in parallel, and commented that DOE should finalize the test procedure before continuing with proposed standards. According to AHAM, manufacturers were required to divide their resources to address the concurrent proposals, and thus were given insufficient time to respond to either. AHAM stated that, as a result, DOE has denied interested parties the opportunity to evaluate the accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility and test burden of the proposed test procedure, which AHAM claimed DOE has not assessed itself. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 2, 3, 6, 7) AHAM also asserted that the brief comment period does not provide interested parties with enough time to identify potential ambiguities in the test procedure, which it believes would lead to numerous requests for guidance after the test procedure is finalized, some of which could impact the measured energy use and DOE’s interpretation of the anti-backsliding rule (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). AHAM also cautioned DOE about enforcement challenges due to manufacturers and third-party E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations laboratories different interpretations of the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 4–5, 7) AHAM described conducting a round robin testing program to understand and evaluate the water-heating test method in the draft version of IEC Standard 60350–2 Edition 2.0 ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances–Part 2: Hobs–Method for measuring performance’’ (IEC 60350–2),7 which is similar to the water-heating test method DOE has proposed. AHAM noted that the round robin testing for electric cooking tops was scheduled to be completed by December 2016. AHAM also noted that it further plans to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of DOE’s proposed test procedure for gas cooking tops, and expects to complete a smaller-scale round robin testing program for gas cooking tops by mid-January 2017. AHAM does not expect this testing to be completed in the comment period provided in the August 2016 TP SNOPR and requested that DOE extend the comment period until January 31, 2017. AHAM also noted that because DOE’s proposed test procedure differs from the international version of the waterheating test procedure that was used in AHAM’s round robin testing program, AHAM’s results cannot evaluate to what extent DOE’s modifications to the test method will add variation to test results. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 1, 4–5, 6; AHAM, No. 30 at p. 3) Furthermore, AHAM stated that if DOE continues to develop the test procedure and standards in parallel, DOE should issue a notice of data availability and/or supplemental proposed test procedure to address AHAM’s comments, conduct additional testing, and gather more information. AHAM stated that DOE should provide no fewer than 30 days to comment on that notice, and preferably 60 days if changes are significant. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 2, 8) GE Appliances, a Haier Company (GE), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and Sub-Zero Group, Inc. (Sub-Zero) supported AHAM’s comments. (GE, No. 31 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 29 at p. 1; Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 1) Sub-Zero added that requiring interested parties to substantively comment concurrently on both a new test procedure and a proposed standard for previously 7 DOE notes that the test methods in EN 60350– 2:2013 are based on the same test methods in the latest draft version of IEC 60350–2. Based on the few comments received during the development of the draft, DOE expects that the IEC procedure, once finalized, will retain the same basic test method as currently contained in EN 60350–2:2013. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 unregulated products is significantly burdensome to the industry. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 1) GE also commented that at the time it submitted comments on the August 2016 TP SNOPR, it had been able to obtain results for only approximately 25 percent of its models, for reasons including the lack of availability of test vessels and difficulty in obtaining valid test runs. GE commented that DOE should pause the rulemaking process and engage in additional outreach with manufacturers to ensure that the issues raised by AHAM are appropriately evaluated and addressed. (GE, No. 31 at pp. 1–2) Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) (collectively, the Southern California investor-owned utilities (SoCal IOUs)) also commented that the proposed water-heating test method represents a significant change from DOE’s previously proposed hybrid block test method and, as a result, DOE should extend the comment period to allow time for interested parties to evaluate the test procedure. (SoCal IOUs, No. 27 at p. 3) The American Gas Association (AGA) and American Public Gas Association (APGA) similarly stated that their comments will not be as comprehensive as they would have been if DOE had extended the comment period. (AGA and APGA, No. 26 at pp. 1–2) DOE considered and evaluated waterheating test methods based on the IEC test procedure as part of the January 2013 TP NOPR and December 2014 TP SNOPR. 78 FR 6232, 6239–6241 (Jan. 30, 2013); 79 FR 71894, 71900–71903 (Dec. 3, 2014). As a result, DOE does not consider its proposal in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to be completely new and warranting treatment as a NOPR. As discussed in section III.C.2 of this final rule, DOE is not requiring that each setting of the multi-ring surface unit be tested independently. Instead, DOE is aligning the test provisions with EN 60350–2:2013 to require testing of the largest measured diameter of multi-ring surface units only, unless an additional test vessel category is needed to meet the test vessel selection requirements in section 7.1.Z3 of EN 60350–2:2013, as explained in III.C.1. In that case, one of the smaller-diameter settings of the multi-ring surface unit that matches the next best-fitting test vessel diameter must be tested. As a result, the test procedure adopted in this final rule is equivalent to the test procedure considered and used in AHAM’s round robin testing program. As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, multiple manufacturers that PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 91421 produce and sell products in both the United States and Europe supported the use of the water-heating test method in IEC 60350–2. BSH Home Appliances Corporation (BSH) specifically noted that this test procedure is applied in Europe for its Energy Conservation Program and that international test laboratories and manufacturers have successfully used this test method. 81 FR 57374, 57382 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE agrees that manufacturers that also produce and sell conventional cooking tops in Europe are likely to already have experience with the water-heating test method adopted in this final rule. DOE further observes that because AHAM and other manufacturers also participate in the development of IEC 60350–2,8 these interested parties are likely already familiar with the repeatability, reproducibility and test burden associated with the provisions from EN 60350–2:2013 adopted in this final rule. Accordingly, DOE does not find that a comment period extension for the test procedure is warranted. With respect to the process of establishing test procedures and standards for a given product, DOE notes that, while not legally obligated to do so, it generally follows the approach laid out in guidance found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products). That guidance provides, among other things, that, when necessary, DOE will issue final, modified test procedures for a given product prior to publication of the NOPR proposing energy conservation standards for that product. While DOE strives to follow the procedural steps outlined in its guidance, there may be circumstances in which it may be necessary or appropriate to deviate from it. In such instances, the guidance indicates that DOE will provide notice and an explanation for the deviation. For this test procedure rulemaking, DOE issued a supplemental proposed rulemaking (the August 2016 TP SNOPR) conventional cooking products which is not contemplated by the process rule, but DOE believed was necessary due to the significant comments regarding the test procedures for both induction cooking tops and commercial-style cooking products. With this action, DOE is finalizing the test procedure as its next regulatory 8 IEC committee members for IEC 60350–2 are listed online at: http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/ f?p=103:14:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ ID:2420,25, and https://ansi.org/standards_ activities/iec_programs/governance_committees/ gen_info.aspx?menuid=3. E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91422 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations action for cooking products, as commenters suggested. DOE appreciates AHAM’s willingness to conduct a round robin testing program to inform the rulemaking and other interested parties, as well as AHAM’s comments that derive from the round robin testing that has been completed. DOE requested the test data from AHAM’s round robin testing program so that it could further evaluate for this final rule the concerns raised by interested parties, but has not received any such data. However, DOE conducted its own additional testing on both electric and gas cooking tops after the August 2016 TP SNOPR to evaluate the variability in testing results using the proposed water-heating test methods and to address specific issues raised by interested parties regarding the waterheating test method, as discussed in section III.C of this document. The results from DOE’s testing are presented and discussed in relevant sections of this final rule. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES II. Synopsis of the Final Rule In this final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR 430 Appendix I, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products,’’ as follows: • Repeals the provisions in the existing cooking products test procedure relating to conventional ovens; • Incorporates by reference the relevant sections of EN 60350–2:2013, which uses a water-heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric cooking tops; • Extends the water-heating test method specified in EN 60350–2:2013 to gas cooking tops by correlating the burner input rate and test vessel diameters specified in EN 30–2–1:1998 Domestic cooking appliances burning gas—Part 2–1: Rational use of energy— General (EN 30–2–1) to the test vessel diameters and water loads already included in EN 60350–2:2013; • Adopts a modified water quantity, different than the quantity specified in EN 60350–2:2013, used to normalize the total energy consumption of the cooking top to estimate a representative AEC for the U.S. market; • Clarifies that for all cooking tops, specialty surface units such as bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles are not covered by appendix I; • Clarifies that the 20-minute simmering period starts when the water temperature first reaches 90 °C and does not drop below 90 °C for more than 20 seconds after initially reaching 90 °C; • Adopts a calculation of the AEC and IAEC of conventional cooking tops; VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 • Defines the term ‘‘combined cooking product’’ as a cooking product that combines a conventional cooking product with other appliance functionality, which may or may not include another cooking product; • Clarifies that the active mode test procedures in appendix I applies to the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product and includes a method to apportion the combined low-power mode energy consumption measured for the combined cooking product to the individual cooking top component of the combined cooking product; • Clarifies that the measurement of the heating value of natural gas or propane specified in section 2.9.4 of appendix I be corrected to standard pressure and temperature conditions in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938; and • Corrects grammatical errors in certain sections of appendix I that serve as clarifications and do not change the substance of the test method. In this final rule, DOE is also modifying the requirements in 10 CFR 430.23 to align with the changes adopted for appendix I, clarifying test procedures for the measurement of energy consumption for cooking tops. Finally, DOE amends the sampling plan requirements in 10 CFR 429.23 ‘‘Conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens’’ to include AEC and IAEC for conventional cooking tops. III. Discussion In this test procedure final rule, DOE is amending the test procedures for conventional cooking products contained in the relevant sections of part 430 of Title 10 of the CFR. The test procedures established in this final rule provide a measure of conventional cooking top energy consumption under representative conditions, which are discussed further in sections III.C, III.D, III.E, and III.F of this final rule, and repeals provisions in the existing cooking products test procedure relating to conventional ovens. A. Scope As discussed in section I.A of this document, DOE has the authority to amend test procedures for covered products. EPCA identifies kitchen ranges and ovens as a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) In a final rule published on September 8, 1998 (63 FR 48038), DOE amended its regulations in certain places to substitute the term ‘‘kitchen ranges and ovens’’ with ‘‘cooking products.’’ DOE regulations currently define ‘‘cooking products’’ as PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 consumer products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments, and must be one of the following classes: Conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/ conventional ranges and other cooking products. 10 CFR 430.2 In this final rule, DOE is addressing test procedures for conventional cooking tops and is repealing the test procedures for conventional ovens. In addition, because DOE regulations currently continue to use the term ‘‘kitchen ranges and ovens’’ and other terms in certain places to describe the products that are the subject of this rulemaking, DOE is amending its regulations codified at 10 CFR 430 to consistently refer to the products as ‘‘cooking products.’’ 1. Induction Cooking Tops As discussed in section I of this final rule, the test procedures currently specified in appendix I do not apply to induction cooking products. In the January 2013 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the definition of ‘‘conventional cooking top’’ to include products that feature electric inductive heating surface units. 78 FR 6232, 6234– 6235 (Jan. 30, 2013). DOE similarly proposed in the January 2013 TP NOPR to revise the definition of ‘‘active mode’’ included in appendix I to account for electric inductive heating, consistent with the proposed definition of ‘‘conventional cooking top.’’ Id. In comments on the January 2013 TP NOPR, manufacturers did not oppose amended definitions to include induction cooking. 79 FR 71894, 71897 (Dec. 3, 2014). Additionally, DOE did not receive any comments on its proposal to revise the definitions in the December 2014 TP SNOPR and August 2016 TP SNOPR. As a result, DOE is amending the definitions of ‘‘conventional cooking top’’ and ‘‘active mode’’ in this final rule to account for induction technology, as discussed above. 2. Combined Cooking Products Certain residential household cooking appliances combine a conventional cooking product component with other appliance functionality, which may or may not perform a cooking-related function. Examples of such ‘‘combined cooking products’’ include a E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations conventional range, which combines a conventional cooking top and one or more conventional ovens; a microwave/ conventional cooking top, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional cooking top; a microwave/ conventional oven, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional oven; and a microwave/conventional range, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional oven in separate compartments and a conventional cooking top. Because combined cooking products may consist of multiple classes of cooking products, any potential conventional cooking top or oven energy conservation standard would apply to the individual components of the combined cooking product. Thus, DOE stated in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that the proposed cooking top test procedures would also apply to the individual conventional cooking top portion of a combined cooking product. 81 FR 57374, 57378 (Aug. 22, 2016). Because combined cooking products are a kind of cooking product that combines a conventional cooking product with other appliance functionality and not a distinct product class, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to remove the definitions of the various kinds of combined cooking products currently included in 10 CFR 430.2, and then proposed to add a definition of ‘‘combined cooking product’’ to appendix I, as this definition would be related to the test of combined cooking products and is not a unique product class itself. Id. DOE also noted that the definitions of ‘‘conventional cooking top,’’ ‘‘conventional oven,’’ ‘‘microwave oven,’’ and ‘‘other cooking products’’ refer to these products as classes of cooking products. Because these are more general product categories and not specific product classes, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to amend the definitions of conventional cooking top, conventional oven, microwave oven, and other cooking products in 10 CFR 430.2 to reflect this clarification. Id. DOE did not receive any comments on its proposal to revise the definitions related to combined cooking products and cooking product categories. For the reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting these amended definitions in this final rule. As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE observed that for combined cooking products, the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption can only be measured for the combined cooking product and not the individual components. 81 FR 57374, 57378 (Aug. 22, 2016). As discussed in section III.D.2 of this VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 document, DOE is adopting the methods proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to calculate the IAEC of the conventional cooking top component separately by allocating a portion of the combined low-power mode energy consumption measured for the combined cooking product to the conventional cooking top component using the estimated annual cooking hours for the given components comprising the combined cooking product. Similarly for microwave ovens, DOE is adopting the methods proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to allocate a portion of the combined lowpower mode energy consumption measured for the combined cooking product to the microwave oven component, based on the estimated annual cooking hours for the given components comprising the combined cooking product. 3. Gas Cooking Tops With High Input Rates In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to amend the conventional cooking top test procedure in appendix I to measure the energy use of gas surface units with high input rates and noted that the current definition for ‘‘conventional cooking top’’ in 10 CFR 430.2 already covers conventional gas cooking products with higher input rates (including commercial-style gas cooking products), as these products are household cooking appliances with surface units or compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of a gas flame. DOE considers a cooking top burner with a high input rate to be a burner rated greater than 14,000 Btu/h. 79 FR 71894, 71897 (Dec. 3, 2014). DOE did not receive any comments on this interpretation of the definition of ‘‘conventional cooking top.’’ In addition, as discussed in section III.C.3 of this document, DOE is adopting test methods to measure the energy consumption of conventional gas cooking tops that use a range of test vessel diameters and water loads that are selected based on the input rate of the burner, including those with burners having input rates greater than 14,000 Btu/h (including commercial-style gas cooking tops). As a result, DOE maintains the interpretation for this final rule that the definition for ‘‘conventional cooking top’’ in 10 CFR 430.2 covers conventional gas cooking products with higher input rates, including commercial-style cooking tops. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 91423 B. Repeal of the Conventional Oven Test Procedure As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that commercial-style ovens typically incorporate design features (e.g., heavier-gauge cavity construction, high input rate burners, extension racks) that result in inherently lower efficiencies than for residential-style ovens with comparable cavity sizes, due to the greater thermal mass of the cavity and racks when measured using the test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. 81 FR 57374, 57379 (Aug. 22, 2016). Furthermore, DOE concluded that certain additional factors that are not currently addressed in the test procedure, such as the impact of door openings on thermal recovery, could, if included in the test procedure, alter the efficiencies of commercial-style ovens relative to the efficiencies of residentialstyle ovens. For these reasons, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to repeal the provisions in appendix I for measuring conventional oven IAEC. In addition, because DOE proposed to repeal the provisions for measuring conventional oven IAEC, DOE also proposed to remove the reference to AHAM OV–1–2011 ‘‘Procedures for the Determination and Expression of the Volume of Household Microwave and Conventional Ovens’’ contained in 10 CFR 430.3. Id. AHAM supported DOE’s proposal to repeal the provisions in appendix I for measuring conventional oven IAEC. AHAM asserted that, in general, test procedures should be adopted and revised to accommodate products on the market. AHAM stated that products should not have to adapt to the test procedure, which could result in a loss of consumer utility, as would be the case with the existing test procedure for conventional ovens. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 18) The Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council (collectively, the Joint Efficiency Advocates) and the SoCal IOUs encouraged DOE to initiate work to develop a test procedure for conventional ovens. The Joint Efficiency Advocates added that a test procedure for conventional ovens would allow DOE to set performance standards for ovens in the future that could achieve significant energy savings and provide information to consumers about the cooking efficiency of conventional E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91424 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations ovens. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at pp. 1–2; SoCal IOUs, No. 27 at p. 3) Because DOE did not receive any objections to its proposal, and for the reasons stated, DOE is repealing the test procedures pertaining to conventional ovens in this final rule. C. Water Heating Test Method In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the relevant sections from EN 60350–2:2013 for measuring electric cooking top energy consumption. DOE is also extending the testing methods in EN 60350–2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate. These amendments are discussed in the following sections. 1. Incorporation by Reference of EN 60350–2:2013 The test method to measure the energy consumption of each electric cooking top surface unit provided in EN 60350–2:2013 consists of two phases. The first phase of the EN 60350–2 test requires heating a water-filled test vessel on a surface unit to a calculated ‘‘turndown temperature’’ at the maximum energy input setting. During the second phase of the test, the power input is reduced to a setting that will maintain the water temperature above 90 °C (a simmering temperature) but as close to 90 °C as possible without additional adjustment of the low-power setting.9 The test ends 20 minutes after the temperature first increases above 90 °C. To determine the turndown temperature, Tc, EN 60350–2:2013 requires an initial test to determine the number of degrees that the temperature continues to rise after turning the unit off from the maximum energy input setting. This initial measurement involves heating the water-filled test vessel at the maximum energy input setting until the water temperature reaches 70 °C, T70, at which point the power is switched off.10 The water temperature is measured as it continues to rise after the power is switched off. The temperature overshoot, DT0, is calculated as the highest measured water temperature minus T70. Tc is then calculated as 93 °C minus DT0. For the test load, EN 60350–2:2013 specifies a quantity of water to be heated in a standardized test vessel. The test vessel consists of a thin-walled stainless steel cylinder attached to a flat, stainless steel 430 base plate. The test method also specifies an aluminum lid with vent holes and a small center hole to fix the thermocouple in the center of the pot. There are eight standardized cooking vessel diameters ranging from 4.7 inches to 13 inches and the amount of water varies with the test vessel diameter. One cooking vessel is chosen to test a given surface unit based on the diameter of the surface unit. Table III.1 lists the full range of test vessel diameters, water loads, and the corresponding surface unit diameters as specified in EN 60350–2:2013 for electric cooking tops. EN 60350–2:2013 also groups the specified test vessels into categories representing different cookware types. TABLE III.1—EN 60350–2:2013 TEST VESSEL DIAMETER AND WATER LOAD Mass of the water load lbs (kg) Test vessel diameter inches (mm) asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 4.72 (120) .................................................................................... 5.91 (150) .................................................................................... 7.09 (180) .................................................................................... 8.27 (210) .................................................................................... 9.45 (240) .................................................................................... 10.63 (270) .................................................................................. 11.81 (300) .................................................................................. 12.99 (330) .................................................................................. 1.43 2.27 3.31 4.52 5.95 7.54 9.35 11.33 (0.65) (1.03) (1.50) (2.05) (2.70) (3.42) (4.24) (5.14) Corresponding surface unit diameter inches (mm) 3.93 ≤ × < 5.12 (100 ≤ × < 5.12 ≤ × < 6.30 (130 ≤ × < 6.30 ≤ × < 7.48 (160 ≤ × < 7.48 ≤ × < 8.66 (190 ≤ × < 8.66 ≤ × < 9.84 (220 ≤ × < 9.84 ≤ × < 11.02 (250 ≤ × < 11.02 ≤ × < 12.20 (280 ≤ × < 12.20 ≤ × < 12.99 (310 ≤ × ≤ 130) 160) 190) 220) 250) 280) 310) 330) Standard cookware category A B C D The number of test vessels needed to assess the energy consumption of the cooking top is based on the number of controls that can be independently but simultaneously operated on the cooking top. By assessing the number of independent controls and not just the marked surface units, the test procedure accounts for cooking tops with cooking zones that do not have limitative markings. Each independently controlled surface unit or area of a ‘‘cooking zone’’ is tested individually. The temperature of the water and the total input energy consumption is measured throughout the test. EN 60350–2:2013 specifies that the total cooking top energy consumption is determined as the average of the energy consumed during each independent test divided by the mass of the water load used for the test. This average energy consumption in Watt-hours (Wh) is then normalized to a standard water load size (1,000 grams (g)) to determine the average per-cycle energy consumption of the cooking top. Normalizing to a single load size ensures that manufacturers are not penalized for offering a variety of surface unit diameters to consumers. For standard circular electric surface units, the test vessel with a diameter that most closely matches the surface unit diameter is selected. Different surface units on a cooking top can be tested with the same test vessel diameter. However, if the number of independent controls/surface units for the cooking top exceeds two, the selected test vessels must come from at least two cookware categories. This means that one or more of the surface units on the cooking top will be tested with the next best-matched test vessel in another cookware category. By adding this requirement, EN 603050–2:2013 accounts for the variety of cookware that would be used on the cooking top and prevents the test procedure from penalizing cooking tops that have a range of surface unit sizes with a range of surface unit input rates. For cooking tops without defined surface units, such as cooking tops with full-surface induction cooking zones, EN 60350–2:2013 specifies a method to select the appropriate test position for each test vessel based on a pattern starting from the geometric center of the 9 At first, the lowest power setting is selected. If the temperature of the water is less than 90 °C during the simmering time, the test has to be repeated with an increased power setting. 10 To obtain a higher accuracy of the temperature measurement, T70 is determined by the average of the recorded temperature between the time to reach 70 °C, t70, minus 10 seconds, and t70 plus 10 seconds. If the result is within the tolerance of 70 °C ± 0.5 °C, then this temperature is noted. If not, the test is repeated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES cooking zone. Instead of requiring that test vessels be selected based on best fit, the test vessel diameters are explicitly defined, and vary with the number of controls, to capture how different cookware types may be used on the unmarked cooking surface. As part of the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE conducted a series of interviews with manufacturers, as well as analyzed test results from DOE’s water-heating testing and results from round robin testing performed in 2011 by the European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED) 11 12 to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of EN 60350–2:2013. Based on this evaluation, DOE determined that the test methods to measure surface unit energy consumption specified in EN 60350– 2:2013 produce sufficiently repeatable and reproducible test results. DOE also noted that the test vessels specified in EN 60350–2:2013 are compatible with all cooking top types, and that the range of test vessel diameters cover the full range of surface unit diameters available on the U.S. market. 81 FR 57374, 57382–57384 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to incorporate by reference certain sections of EN 60350–2:2013.13 Specifically, DOE proposed to incorporate Section 5, ‘‘General conditions for the measurements,’’ which outlines the test room and test equipment conditions; Section 6.2, ‘‘Cooking zones per hob,’’ which outlines how to determine the number of controls and the dimensions of the cooking zones; and Section 7.1, ‘‘Energy consumption and heating up time,’’ which outlines both the test methods and equipment required to measure cooking top energy consumption. DOE proposed to omit Section 7.1.Z5, ‘‘Procedure for measuring the heating up time,’’ as it is not required to calculate the overall energy consumption of the cooking top and would increase manufacturer test burden. Additionally, DOE proposed to omit Section 7.1.Z7, ‘‘Evaluation and calculation,’’ as DOE proposed an 11 Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development— Technical Unit Energy Efficiency (ENEA–UTEE), ‘‘CECED Round Robin Tests for Hobs and Microwave Ovens—Final Report for Hobs,’’ July 2011. 12 The CECED round robin testing program included 3 cooking top technologies (electric solid plate, electric smooth—radiant, and electric smooth—induction) tested at 12 different test facilities (6 manufacturer test labs and 6 independent test labs). 13 The test procedure also includes test methods to measure heat distribution and other forms of cooking performance not related to the energy consumption of the cooking top. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 alternative method to normalize the measured cooking top energy consumption discussed further in section III.D.1 of this document. DOE also proposed to incorporate by reference Annex ZA through Annex ZF of EN 60350–2:2013, which provide further requirements for measuring the energy consumption, clarify test vessel construction, and provide examples for how to select the appropriate test vessels. DOE also proposed to include many of the definitions related to the measure of cooking top energy consumption specified in Section 3 of EN 60350–2:2013. However, due to differences in terminology between the United States and Europe, such as the use of the word hob for cooking top, DOE proposed to explicitly define relevant terms from Section 3 of EN 60350–2:2013 in appendix I. 81 FR 57374, 57384 (Aug. 22, 2016). In response to the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE received a number of comments regarding the proposed water-heating test method. These comments are discussed in the following sections. Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Representativeness of the Water-Heating Test Method The SoCal IOUs and Joint Efficiency Advocates supported DOE’s proposal to incorporate by reference EN 60350– 2:2013. The SoCal IOUs added that this test method is more representative of actual cooking compared to the hybrid block test method. (SoCal IOUs, No. 27 at p. 2; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at p. 2) AHAM commented that it does not have consumer data on the representativeness of the water-heating test method and interested parties were not provided with enough time to collect this data. AHAM further commented that DOE should conduct consumer surveys to collect the data necessary to support the proposed test procedure. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 8) Nonetheless, AHAM agreed that the best test method for cooking tops would be a water-heating test method even though it opposed DOE’s proposed test procedure. AHAM believes that DOE must determine whether the test is repeatable and reproducible and address the significant issues raised by interested parties before finalizing the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 2, 3, 4–5) AHAM objected to the use of CECED round robin testing conducted 5 years ago on European products, which have different designs (e.g., different heating element/burner construction), to demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of DOE’s proposed test PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 91425 procedure. AHAM noted that the CECED round robin testing included only testing of a single surface unit for each cooking top, and that DOE’s proposed test procedure is not the same as the test procedure evaluated in the CECED round robin testing. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 3, 8) AHAM commented that its round robin testing, which included four test units encompassing a different combination of controls and heating elements relevant to the U.S. market, showed a much higher variance in test results. AHAM’s submitted its measured values for the coefficient of variance of test results from laboratory to laboratory of 7.1 percent, 9.2 percent, and 8.4 percent for electric coil, electric smooth–radiant, and electric smooth– induction cooking tops, respectively. Based on this round robin testing, AHAM stated that EN 60350–2:2013 does not produce reproducible test results and that more work is needed to reduce this variation. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 8–9) GE commented that, based on the variation in test results shown in the AHAM round robin testing program, there will be significant risks of setting energy conservation standards at unachievable levels. GE commented that because cooking products have limited technology options to improve efficiency, setting a standard based on a test procedure with significant variation in test results could cause products to become obsolete and create significant issues with the enforcement of standards. (GE, No. 31 at p. 2) With regards to the CECED round robin test results, DOE notes that, based on product teardowns conducted as part of the concurrent standards rulemaking, the heating elements and glass cooking surfaces used in electric smooth cooking tops are typically purchased parts that are manufactured by companies that produce and supply these parts to countries worldwide.14 As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE also notes that while the solid plate cooking top technology evaluated in the CECED round robin testing program is not available on the U.S. market, DOE anticipates that the results obtained for this technology type are most similar to those obtained for electric coil cooking tops because in both cases the electric resistance heating element is in direct contact with the cooking vessel. Additionally, based on its review of 14 DOE observed during product teardowns conducted for the concurrent energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products that many electric smooth cooking top heating elements are supplied by E.G.O. Worldwide (http:// www.egoproducts.com/en/home/). E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91426 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations electric cooking tops, DOE observed that both U.S. and European models use similar controls (i.e., both step and infinite). Because the electric cooking top controls and technologies available on the U.S. market are the same or similar to those available in Europe, the CECED round robin test results are appropriate for evaluating the repeatability and reproducibility of the water-heating test method proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR. Furthermore, as discussed in section III.C.2, DOE is not requiring that each setting of the multi-ring surface unit be tested independently. Instead, DOE is aligning the test provisions for multiring surface units with those in EN 60350–2:2013. As a result, the test procedure used in the CECED round robin testing program does not contain any significant differences from the test procedure for electric cooking tops adopted in this final rule. After the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE conducted additional testing to investigate concerns raised by interested parties regarding potential sources of variability in the water-heating test method. DOE conducted testing on five electric cooking tops incorporating different heating technologies and control types (i.e., either controls that can adjust surface unit power input only in discrete increments or those that provide essentially infinite power input adjustment). Table III.2 includes a list of the heating and control characteristics for each of the cooking tops in the DOE test sample. TABLE III.2—ELECTRIC COOKING TOPS EVALUATED FOR THE FINAL RULE Cooking top unit 1 2 3 4 5 Heating technology ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... Control type Coil ......................................................................................... Smooth—Radiant .................................................................. Smooth—Radiant .................................................................. Smooth—Induction ................................................................ Smooth—Induction ................................................................ For each model, DOE conducted testing on surface units capturing a range of heating element sizes. To evaluate the variability in test results, DOE conducted 2–3 tests per surface unit. For each individual test, DOE performed the full surface unit test method, including the preliminary test required to determine the turndown temperature and simmering setting for a given surface unit. To further evaluate Discrete Discrete Infinite. Discrete Discrete Step. Step. Step. Step. the repeatability and reproducibility of test results, DOE varied test operators for surface unit tests. In addition, in evaluating variation in tests results, DOE included test results from previous testing of these test units conducted in support of the August 2016 TP SNOPR. Table III.3 lists the coefficient of variation of the measured energy consumption among all of DOE’s tests for each surface unit. The average coefficient of variation observed for DOE’s test sample was 1.2 percent, which was slightly lower than the average coefficient of variation of 1.6 percent determined as part of the CECED round robin testing program, and in no case did the coefficient of variation for any individual surface unit exceed 2.0 percent. TABLE III.3—VARIATION IN ELECTRIC COOKING TOP SURFACE UNIT TOTAL TEST ENERGY CONSUMPTION Surface unit location Cooking top unit 1 ........................................................................................ 2 ........................................................................................ 3 ........................................................................................ 4 ........................................................................................ asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 5 ........................................................................................ Based on DOE’s testing and the CECED round robin testing, and because DOE expects that the coefficient of variation of the results for an overall cooking top will not exceed the coefficient of variation of the results for an individual surface unit, DOE concludes that the water-heating test method in EN 60350–2:2013 produces repeatable and reproducible test results. To better understand the higher variation in test results observed as part of AHAM’s round robin testing, DOE requested the test data from AHAM for VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 Surface unit diameter (in.) BR BL FL BR FL BR FR BR FL FL Cookware diameter (mm) 6 6 9 6 6 6 7 6 7 6 comparison. At the time of this final rule analysis, DOE had not received this test data for direct evaluation. Therefore, as discussed in the following sections, DOE conducted further testing itself to evaluate specific water-heating test method conditions (e.g., turndown temperature and setting) that could potentially have contributed to the variation in test results observed in AHAM’s round robin testing. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 150 180 240 150 150 150 180 150 180 150 Average percycle energy consumption (Wh) 202.1 275.1 500.9 192.2 189.8 184.4 239.2 173.1 266.8 185.9 Coefficient of variation (%) 1.0 1.4 1.8 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.6 2.0 1.1 2.0 Turndown Temperature AHAM commented that there is variability in determining the turndown temperature because switching off power to a surface unit is not an automated process and cannot always be performed immediately after the water temperature reaches 70 °C during the preliminary turndown test. AHAM stated that this introduces variability in results depending on the accuracy, resolution, and response time of the temperature measuring device. AHAM E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations presented test data from its round robin test program for an electric coil surface unit for which the three testing laboratories determined turndown temperatures of 82.3 °C, 80 °C, and 81 °C, respectively. According to AHAM, this variation would result in testing laboratories selecting different simmering settings, which would create variability in the simmering phase of the test. AHAM further believes this variability would cause issues with demonstrating compliance with standards and prevent consumers from accurately comparing energy use of products. AHAM stated that, given the short comment period provided on the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE should conduct additional work to understand and reduce this variation. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 11) DOE notes that the provisions specified in section 7.1.Z6.2 of EN 60350–2:2013 already minimize the variability associated with determining the turndown temperature. For example, the preliminary test to determine the turndown temperature requires that the average recorded temperature must be within the tolerance of 70 °C ± 0.5 °C throughout the period of 10 seconds before to 10 seconds after power to the surface unit is shut off. This tolerance helps to improve the accuracy of the turndown temperature that is eventually identified for the energy test. Moreover, section 7.1.Z6.2.3 of EN 60350–2:2013 places a tolerance on the actual turndown temperature used in the energy test. The test is invalid unless the actual turndown temperature corresponding to the moment the surface unit setting is changed falls within +1.0 Kelvin (K) to ¥0.5 K of the turndown temperature, Tc, determined during the preliminary test. In addition to evaluating overall repeatability of the surface unit energy consumption measurement, DOE conducted tests designed to investigate the impact of turndown temperature variations. Because DOE performed the 91427 full test method each time a surface unit was tested (i.e., the test to determine the turndown temperature, the test to determine the simmering setting, and the energy test), DOE captured a range of turndown temperatures that satisfied the tolerances in EN 60350–2:2013. Table III.4 includes sample tests for a surface unit on an electric coil cooking top and on a smooth–radiant cooking top, demonstrating the effects of varying the actual turndown temperature for the same simmering setting. DOE observed that the total measured per-cycle energy consumption from test to test exhibited a coefficient of variation of less than 1 percent for variations in turndown temperature that were within allowable tolerances, and DOE expects that the impacts on IAEC for an entire cooktop would be even less significant. As a result, DOE is maintaining the methodology for determining the turndown temperature as specified in EN 60350–2:2013. TABLE III.4—EFFECTS OF VARIED TURNDOWN TEMPERATURE ON TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION Cooking top unit Heating element type 1 ............. Coil ............................ 2 ............. Smooth—Radiant ...... Test Pre-determined turndown temp, Tc (°C) A B A B C D E 83.8 85.9 82.1 83.1 81.5 82.7 83.6 Determining the Simmering Setting AHAM commented that there is variability in determining the simmering setting for the simmer phase of the test. AHAM stated that the proposed test procedure does not specify an exact setting for the Actual turndown temp (°C) Final water temperature Tfinal (°C) 83.8 86.3 81.8 82.8 81.3 84.3 83.4 turndown temperature and because of the way cooking tops are designed, it is impossible to define a single approach for determining the simmering setting. AHAM noted that the simmering setting plays an important role in the overshoot temperature and the ability to maintain a temperature as close as possible to 90 Total percycle energy consumption (Wh) 92.0 91.6 91.5 92.0 92.7 91.7 91.5 278.7 276.6 188.7 191.7 189.1 188.1 190.3 Coefficient of variation (%) 0.38 0.67 °C during the simmer phase of the test. AHAM stated that based on its testing, the results of which are shown in Table III.5 and Table III.6, the simmering setting determined for the simmer phase is not consistent from laboratory to laboratory. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 11) TABLE III.5—AHAM ROUND ROBIN TESTING—ELECTRIC SMOOTH RADIANT SURFACE UNIT (1500W) SIMMERING SETTING VARIABILITY asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Lab 1 ............................................................................................................................................ Lab 2 ............................................................................................................................................ Lab 3 ............................................................................................................................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Final water temperature (°C) Simmering setting Test lab Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 4 3 5 16DER2 96 94 100.1 Energy use coefficient of variation (%) 16.3 91428 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations TABLE III.6—AHAM ROUND ROBIN TESTING—ELECTRIC SMOOTH INDUCTION SURFACE UNIT (1800W WITH BOOST) SIMMERING SETTING VARIABILITY Simmering setting Test lab Lab 1 ............................................................................................................................................ Lab 2 ............................................................................................................................................ Lab 3 ............................................................................................................................................ AHAM commented that the proposed DOE test procedure does not define a tolerance for staying as close as possible to the required simmer temperature of 90 °C without going below this value. AHAM stated that this can give rise to significant test burden by requiring multiple test runs for each surface unit to determine the turndown control setting that provides a simmer temperature as close as possible to 90 °C. AHAM added that, as indicated in Table III.5 and Table III.6, the simmering setting and the maximum water temperature during the simmer phase of the test varied and had a significant effect on the overall measured energy consumption. AHAM stated that this will lead to issues with enforcement testing and prevent consumers from accurately comparing energy use of products. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 9–10) However, AHAM also commented that it may be difficult to place a maximum temperature tolerance on the simmer phase of the test. According to AHAM, a surface unit may not be able to achieve a specified maximum tolerance depending on the unit’s controls (e.g., infinite switch or a step control). AHAM expressed concern that the uncertainty in these measurements using the proposed DOE test procedure could cause manufacturers to switch from step controls to more expensive infinite controls. AHAM stated that the test procedure must not dictate product design. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 10) AHAM further commented that due to the differences in resolution, sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measuring device, testing laboratories cannot precisely determine when the temperature of the water has reached 90 °C. AHAM stated that its members have considered using a smoothing average when the temperature briefly reaches 90 °C but immediately falls below that level to account for temperature measurement noise caused by the convection of water and by the temperature measurement setup itself. As a result, AHAM stated that minor oscillations of the measured temperature occur and the actual threshold of 90 °C cannot be determined. AHAM urged DOE to 4.5 4 3 Final water temperature (°C) Energy use coefficient of Variation (%) 94.7 93.9 90.9 10.1 address the oscillation issue before finalizing the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 12–13) AHAM commented that, as demonstrated by its round robin testing, these issues regarding the simmer phase of the test, result in a large variability in the overall measured energy consumption. AHAM urged DOE to further investigate these issues with the simmer phase and propose methods to reduce the variation in test results. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 10, 11) GE asserted that the AEC results from the AHAM round robin testing program, presented in Table III.7, which included three different units tested at three manufacturer laboratories, indicate that the simmer phase of the test is the largest contributor to the variation in test results. GE commented that significant variation in the measured AEC would obscure any proposed efficiency gains that could be realized by many of the technology options DOE considered in its standards analysis. (GE, No. 31 at p. 3) TABLE III.7—AHAM ROUND ROBIN TESTING—ELECTRIC COOKING TOPS COEFFICIENT OF VARIANCE Coefficient of variance of measured energy consumption (%) Cooking top technology Heat up to 90 °C phase asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Coil ............................................................................................................................................... Smooth—Radiant ......................................................................................................................... Smooth—Induction ...................................................................................................................... GE commented that measuring only the energy required to reach 90 °C would provide repeatable results and reduce the burden of determining the turndown temperature and simmering setting. As a result, GE recommended eliminating the simmer phase of the test. (GE, No. 31 at p. 3) Section 7.1.Z6.2.3 of EN 60350– 2:2013 includes instructions for determining the correct setting for the simmering phase of the test with minimal uncertainty. For the first test of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 a surface unit, the lowest simmering setting is selected. If during the simmering phase of the test the temperature of the water falls below 90 °C, the test is repeated using the next highest setting until the setting that maintains the water temperature above, but as close as possible to, 90 °C is identified. Based on DOE’s testing, only a single setting for each surface unit achieved a water temperature that met the requirements of the simmering phase of PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 2.1 1.1 3.5 20-Minute simmer phase 19.5 25.0 21.3 Total test 7.1 9.2 8.4 the test as specified in section 7.1.Z6.2.3 of EN 60350–2:2013. To demonstrate the effect of improper selection of the simmering setting, as shown in Table III.8, DOE investigated settings that were both higher and lower simmering settings for several surface units in the test sample. Assuming all aspects of the test procedure are conducted appropriately, the final measured water temperature is consistently positively correlated with the simmering setting so that there is no ambiguity regarding E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91429 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations which simmering setting will repeatedly correspond to the setting that maintains the water temperature above but as close as possible to 90 °C. As part of this investigation, DOE also compared the selected settings from the testing effort conducted in support of the August 2016 TP SNOPR to the more recent testing effort conducted in support of this final rule and found that the correct simmering setting did not change when the surface unit was retested. TABLE III.8—EFFECTS OF VARYING THE SIMMERING SETTING ON TOTAL PER-CYCLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION Cooking top unit Heating element type Control type 1 ............. Coil ............................................ Discrete Step .... 2 ............. Smooth-Radiant ........................ Discrete Step .... 3 ............. Smooth-Radiant ........................ Infinite ............... 4 ............. Smooth-Induction ...................... Discrete Step .... 5 ............. Smooth-Induction ...................... Discrete Step .... Test A C A F A B C D A B A B C Final water temp (°C) Simmering setting 2 ................................................ 2.5 ............................................. 2 ................................................ 3 ................................................ 40° from minimum * .................. 50° from minimum .................... 60° from minimum .................... 70° from minimum .................... 3 ................................................ 3.5 ............................................. 1 ................................................ 2 ................................................ 3 ................................................ 92.0 95.2 91.5 99.6 87.1 88.1 90.3 93.1 92.2 94.3 83.9 91.5 96.7 Total per-cycle energy consumption (Wh) 278.7 297.3 188.7 228.4 262.7 263.7 273.9 289.3 176.6 191.6 167.0 191.4 228.7 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES * For infinite controls, the simmering setting is the degrees of angular control knob rotation from the lowest input power setting. DOE’s testing presented in Table III.8 shows that if a lab selects simmering that is too high, the measured surface unit energy consumption will be significantly higher than at the correct simmering setting. DOE notes that the variability in the measured energy consumption observed in the AHAM round robin test results, as presented in Table III.5, Table III.6, and Table III.7 appears to be due in large part to the selection of different simmering settings and the resulting variation in the energy consumption during the simmering phase of the test. As discussed, DOE expects that correctly following the methodology of starting with the lowest simmering setting and repeating the test as necessary with the next highest setting until the setting that maintains the water temperature above but as close as possible to 90 °C is identified, will result in only a single appropriate simmering setting for a given surface unit. As presented in Table III.3, DOE’s testing showed that the total measured energy consumption did not vary significantly when consistently applying the methodology in section 7.1.Z6.2.3 of EN 60350–2:2013 for determining the simmering setting. With regard to AHAM’s comment concerning the difficulty of placing a maximum temperature tolerance on the simmering phase of the test, DOE concludes that the methodology in section 7.1.Z6.2.3 of EN 60350–2:2013 for determining the simmer setting eliminates the need to specify a maximum tolerance on the simmering temperature. By selecting the lowest simmering setting first and repeating the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 test as necessary with the next highest setting until the water temperature is as close to 90 °C as possible, an incremental increase in the final water temperature associated with each step increase in the power setting will become apparent. This information can then be used to determine the correct simmering setting without specifically limiting the final temperature. Given the impact that selecting the correct simmering setting has on overall energy consumption of a surface unit, DOE is amending appendix I in this final rule to require that the simmering setting selection for the energy test cycle of each cooking area or cooking zone be recorded. As noted in Table III.2, DOE’s test sample included products with both discrete step and infinite controls to investigate the effect different controls might have on variability during the simmering phase of the test. Based on DOE’s testing with different power level settings, as presented in Table III.8, DOE did not observe any differences in the process of selecting the correct simmering setting between the models with discrete step and models with infinite controls. Assuming reasonable increments (on the order of 10 degrees of rotation) as the setting is adjusted to determine the correct simmering setting, infinite controls do not require a fine tolerance on the selected setting that would substantially impact the percycle energy consumption. Additionally, DOE did not find that it was easier to maintain the water temperature closer to 90 °C with one control type compared to the other. The PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 test-to-test variation in total per-cycle energy consumption was also similar for cooking tops with infinite controls and cooking tops with discrete step controls. DOE also surveyed the cooking top models available in Europe, where EN 60350–2:2013 is already used to rate cooking tops. DOE observed that both products with step controls and with infinite controls were widely available on the European market. For the reasons discussed, DOE determines that the water-heating test procedure adopted in this final rule would not result in the unavailability of certain control types. Furthermore, as noted in section I.A of this document, based on the provisions under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), DOE designs its test procedures to produce test results that measure energy use during a representative average use cycle and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. Therefore, DOE focuses the development of its test procedure around the general use and operations performed by a consumer and not around specific product designs. DOE notes that a manufacturer may apply for a waiver from the test procedure if a basic model contains one or more design characteristics which either prevent testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures or cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). In such cases, a manufacturer may provide any alternate test procedures E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES known to the manufacturer to evaluate the performance of the product type in a manner representative of the energy consumption characteristics of the basic model. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii). Regarding AHAM’s comment on the difficulty of determining when the water temperature first reaches 90 °C to start the 20-minute simmering phase of Based on DOE’s review of the temperature fluctuations observed for all electric and gas cooking tops in its test sample, DOE finds that a 20-second period would accurately account for any minor temperature fluctuations after the water temperature initially reaches 90 °C. Allowing for temperature fluctuations around 90 °C during the first 20 seconds of the simmering phase is also consistent with the 20-second tolerance specified for determining the turndown temperature of a surface unit in section 7.1.Z6.2.2 of EN 60350–2:2013. DOE also notes that allowing for a 20 seconds of fluctuation about 90 °C at the start of the simmering phase does not significantly impact the total energy consumption measured for a surface unit. Table III.9 lists the final temperature and total per-cycle energy consumption for Test A and B that were also shown in Figure III.1. the test, DOE acknowledges that occasionally, when the temperature first reaches 90 °C, it may oscillate slightly above and below 90 °C due to noise in the temperature measurement. Based on DOE’s testing, DOE observed temperature fluctuations around 90 °C at the start of the simmering phase primarily during tests of electric coil TABLE III.9—EFFECT OF A 20-SECOND the heating element off during a critical TOLERANCE AT THE START OF THE phase of the test procedure (i.e., at the start of the simmer phase or when SIMMER PHASE Final water temperature Tfinal (°C) Test A ....... Test B ....... Total percycle energy consumption (Wh) 92.0 91.5 191.7 190.3 Based on the comments from interested parties on the difficulty of determining when the water temperature first reaches 90 °C to start the 20-minute simmering phase of the test and DOE’s analysis discussed, DOE is clarifying in this final rule that the 20minute simmering period starts when the water temperature first reaches 90 °C and does not drop below 90 °C for more than 20 seconds after initially reaching 90 °C. Heating Element Cycling AHAM commented that cycling of power to the heating element is unpredictable and causes variation in test results. AHAM stated that it is unknown if the surface unit will cycle VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 and smooth-radiant surface units. Figure III.1 shows an example of two separate tests conducted for the same surface unit on a smooth-radiant cooking top. After initially reaching 90 °C, the water temperature in each test drops below the 90 °C limit for no more than 20 seconds. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 determining the simmering setting). AHAM stated that the algorithm that governs the cycling of the heating element is important for cooking performance because it controls the temperature of the food being cooked. AHAM also noted that electric smooth cooking tops are equipped with a sensor that monitors the temperature of the glass surface and cycles the heating element as needed as a safety function to prevent the glass from breaking. AHAM commented that the uncertainty regarding how cycling of the heating element will impact test results, and test burden is a significant concern and could drive redesign of products. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 12) DOE recognizes that electric coil and smooth–radiant cooking tops typically control the heat input to the food load by cycling the heating element on and off at different rates based on the control setting rather than fully modulating the power to the heating element. DOE observed during its testing that during the heat-up phase of the test, when the E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 ER16DE16.025</GPH> 91430 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES surface unit is set to the maximum setting, the heating element typically remains on the entire time. When the control setting is turned down to a lower level for the simmering phase of the test, the heater cycles on and off to achieve a lower level of heat. DOE observed only one electric smooth– radiant surface unit in its sample for which the heater cycled on and off during the heat-up phase of the test. However, after cycling off, the heating element cycled back on within a few seconds and, as a result, the water temperature continued to rise at a fairly steady rate. DOE concludes from the infrequency of heating element cycling during the heat-up phase that it observed among all electric cooking tops during testing that it is unlikely that other electric smooth-radiant cooking tops would require any substantive amount of heating element cycling to protect the glass surface. Therefore, given the short duration and infrequency of heating element cycling that may occur when the surface unit is set at the maximum setting during the heat-up phase of the test, DOE does not expect any measurable impacts of heating element cycling on the total measured per-cycle energy consumption. Temperature Sensor Requirements AHAM commented that the accuracy of the water temperature measurement is a critical part of the test procedure, but that EN 60350–2:2013 does not specify whether a resistance temperature detector (RTD) type probe or a thermocouple should be used. AHAM noted that RTDs are highly accurate, but can be sensitive, expensive, and may not be compatible with induction cooking tops. AHAM also noted that thermocouples offer durability but are not as accurate. According to AHAM, a laboratory using an RTD may obtain different turndown temperature and simmering settings than one using a thermocouple, resulting in variation in the total energy consumption measurement. AHAM commented that DOE should require a thermocouple in the test procedure and investigate the specific type of thermocouple that should be required to standardize the water temperature measurement. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 12) DOE conducted its testing using a thermocouple and infers, based on the various references to thermocouples in EN 60350–2:2013 (e.g., use of thermocouples for other liquid heating measurements, reference to thermocouple standards in the bibliography), that the water-heating test method specified in EN 60350–2:2013 is VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 intended to be conducted using a thermocouple to measure water temperature. DOE also notes that similar IEC water-heating test standards, such as IEC 60705 Amendment 1 to Edition 4.0, ‘‘Household microwave ovens— Methods for measuring performance’’, specify thermocouples for measuring water temperature. For these reasons, DOE agrees with AHAM that the test procedure should clarify that a thermocouple should be used for measuring water temperature. Section 5.3 of EN 60350–2:2013 includes specifications for the water temperature measuring device, which includes requirements that the accuracy of the water temperature measuring device must be ±0.5 K of the temperature being measured. DOE notes that specific thermocouple types may have different accuracies. As a result, DOE concludes that specifying the thermocouple type is not necessary given that EN 60350–2:2013 already includes requirements for the accuracy of the water temperature measurement. Surface Unit Diameter Measurement AHAM commented that the proposed test procedure does not specify the equipment for measuring the surface unit cooking zone diameter, which is necessary for determining the size of the test cookware. According to AHAM, if the test procedure does not include requirements for the measuring equipment, the printed diameters of cooking tops may change to resemble standard sizes in the test procedure. To ensure consistency and accuracy in test measurements, AHAM stated that DOE should require a diameter measurement accurate to within ±1 mm and specify that the outer diameter of the cooking zone printed marking should be used for the measurement. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 13) DOE recognizes that measurements of surface unit cooking zone diameters will affect the test vessel diameters and load sizes selected for the test of electric cooking tops. DOE agrees that clarifying that the outer diameter of the cooking zone printed marking should be used for the measurement will provide more consistent measurements of surface unit cooking zone diameters. As a result, DOE is amending the test procedure in this final rule to clarify that the outer diameter of the cooking zone printed marking shall be used for the measurement. DOE does not find that specifying a tolerance on the accuracy of the surface unit diameter measurement in the test procedure is necessary. The provisions for measuring the dimensions of the cooking zone in section 6.2.Z2 of EN 60350–2:2013 and PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 91431 the cooking zone size categories in Table Z3 of EN 60350–2:2013 are provided in millimeters. DOE concludes that these values indicate that surface unit diameter measurements must be made to the nearest millimeter. Availability of Test Vessels AHAM commented that suppliers for test vessels are extremely limited and are located only in Europe, which adds time and cost for U.S. manufacturers. Furthermore, according to AHAM, if the test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance with standards, demand is expected to increase. AHAM stated that this may overburden existing suppliers, making it difficult for manufacturers and testing laboratories to procure test vessels in a timely manner and would make the test procedure unduly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 6, 13) AHAM stated that because testing has been limited and most manufacturers have only a single set of test vessels, AHAM has not yet been able to understand the durability of the test vessels. AHAM added that the quality of test vessels provided by suppliers in the United States has yet to be determined and may result in differences from test vessels procured from European suppliers. According to AHAM, DOE should identify acceptable suppliers in the United States and ensure that the test vessels are comparable from supplier to supplier. AHAM also stated that DOE should evaluate the durability of the test vessels to better quantify the test burden and how frequently test vessels need to be replaced. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 6, 13) Section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350–2:2013 includes detailed specifications for the materials and dimensions of the test vessels, such that any precision machine shop can construct the test vessels with the specified materials. DOE has also determined that test vessels meeting the requirements in EN 60350–2:2013 are available from multiple sources. DOE was able to source two full sets of test vessels, at two different points in time using different material stocks, from a small business precision machine shop. DOE also notes that the test methods and test vessels specified EN 60350–2:2013 are used in countries both within and outside of Europe, and that suppliers are not limited to those recommended in EN 60350–2:2013.15 To evaluate whether consistent test results can be produced using different 15 European cookware supplier recommended in EN 60350–2:2013: RYBU GmbH (http:// www.rybu.de) E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91432 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations sets of test vessels, DOE conducted testing after the August 2016 TP SNOPR using its two sets of test vessels. DOE conducted testing on four surface units on three cooking tops with both sets of test vessels. DOE’s test results presented in Table III.10 show that the variance of test results was, on average, 1.6 percent, which is similar to the overall variation in test results using the water-heating test method presented in Table III.3. Based on this testing, DOE has determined that test vessels constructed using the detailed specifications provided in section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350– 2:2013 produce reproducible results. TABLE III.10—VARIATION DUE TO DIFFERENT TEST VESSELS Surface unit location Cooking top unit 2 ............................................................ 4 ............................................................ 5 ............................................................ FL BR BR BR Each set of test vessels used in DOE’s testing also were subject to a different number of tests, but DOE’s observation is that the test vessels met the specifications provided section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350–2:2013 and remained within the allowable tolerances, such that the test procedure produces repeatable and reproducible results. The flatness of the test vessel bottoms have been observed to stay in tolerance for several years, but manufacturers may wish to examine the test vessels for compliance with the allowable tolerances more frequently. If the test vessels are no longer in tolerance, it may be possible to repair the equipment without replacing it. For the reasons discussed, DOE concludes that there are multiple sources that can supply the test vessels and that the specifications provided in section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350–2:2013 for the test vessels are sufficient. As a result, DOE is not including any additional requirements for suppliers and durability of the test vessels. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Final Rule Test Procedure Amendments Based on DOE’s testing and investigations discussed, DOE concludes that the water-heating test method is both repeatable and reproducible for electric cooking tops. DOE posits that the variation in test results observed in AHAM’s round robin testing may be related to the lack of familiarity with the test method rather than variability inherent to the test method itself. For these reasons, DOE is amending the test procedure in this final rule to incorporate by reference the testing provisions in EN 60350–2:2013 as proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR and presented, with the clarifications to the simmering temperature, temperature sensor requirements, and surface unit diameter measurement. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Surface unit diameter (in.) Jkt 241001 Simmering setting 6 6 6 6 2 3 2.5 3 2. Multi-Ring and Non-Circular Surface Units Many smooth–electric radiant cooking tops incorporate ‘‘multi-ring’’ elements that have multiple concentric heating elements for a single surface unit. When a single ring is selected for use, the smallest-diameter heating element is energized. Each setting which increases the number of rings sequentially energizes additional concentric heating elements, increasing the diameter of the surface unit accordingly. Multiple heating elements give the user flexibility to adjust the surface unit to fit a certain cookware size. Results from DOE testing presented in the December 2014 TP SNOPR showed a significant decrease in efficiency at the smaller-diameter settings as compared to the largestdiameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit. 81 FR 57374, 57384 (Aug. 22, 2016). As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, EN 60350–2:2013 requires that the energy consumption of only the largest diameter of a multi-ring surface unit be measured, unless an additional test vessel category is needed to meet the test vessel selection requirements in section 7.1.Z3 of EN 60350–2:2013, as explained in section III.C.1 of this document. In that case, one of the smaller-diameter settings of the multiring surface unit that matches the next best-fitting test vessel diameter must be tested. However, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to require each setting of the multi-ring surface unit be tested independently. 81 FR 57374, 57384–57385 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE noted that because each setting could be used as an individual surface unit, each setting should factor into the AEC of the cooking top. Specifically DOE proposed that each diameter setting of the multiring surface unit would be tested and included as a unique surface unit in the PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Cookware diameter (mm) 150 150 150 150 Average percycle energy consumption (Wh) 189.8 173.1 172.8 187.0 Coefficient of variation (%) 0.7 2.1 2.6 1.2 average energy consumption calculation for the cooking top. Id. The Joint Efficiency Advocates supported DOE’s proposal to require each diameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit to be tested separately. The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that testing each diameter setting separately will better capture the energy consumption of cooking tops with these elements and encourage manufacturers to develop ways to improve the efficiency of the smaller-diameter settings. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at p. 2) AHAM and GE opposed DOE’s proposal to require testing of each diameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit. AHAM stated that this proposal unduly increases the test burden, by up to 75 percent, depending on the number of heating elements. GE stated that because energy, in the form of radiation, escapes from the areas of the multi-ring element not covered by the test vessel when testing the inner ring heating elements, cooking tops with multi-ring surface units tested according to the proposed DOE test procedure will have a higher AEC than the same cooking top without multi-ring surface units. AHAM and GE also stated that requiring testing of each diameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit could drive manufacturers to eliminate this design, resulting in a loss of consumer utility of customizing element size to the size of their cookware. AHAM and GE noted that without these multi-ring surface units, consumers could use smaller pots on larger heating elements, which would result in 20-percent greater energy use 16 16 AHAM described two tests that were conducted on a multi-ring surface unit with a 210 mm test vessel. For the first test, the test vessel was placed on the inner ring as specified in the proposed test procedure with the small element activated. The second test was conducted with the test vessel placed in the center and the larger burner was E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91433 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations because the heating element is not completely covered by the cookware. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 5, 14; GE, No. 31 at pp. 3–4) AHAM and GE stated that based on the increased test burden, loss of consumer utility, and resulting inefficiency, DOE should remove the requirement to test each diameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit and instead follow EN 60350–2:2013 to only require testing of the largest measured diameter of multi-ring surface units. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 14; GE, No. 31 at p. 4) To better understand the utility provided by multi-ring surface units, DOE reviewed electric smooth–radiant cooking tops with multi-ring elements on the market in the United States. DOE estimates that multi-ring surface units add approximately 1.5 additional surface unit diameters per cooking top, providing consumers with the ability to better match cookware diameter to surface unit diameter. However, DOE is not aware of any data demonstrating how frequently consumers use the smaller diameter settings of multi-ring surface units. DOE agrees with AHAM and GE that removing the multi-ring surface unit functionality from a cooking top could lead to increased energy consumption. As shown in Table III.11, DOE tested two multi-ring elements with the next best-fitting cookware from a different standardized cookware category (see Table Z3 of EN 60350–2:2013). By testing each surface unit with a smaller diameter cookware, DOE simulated the additional energy use that would result if the surface unit did not have the multi-ring functionality. DOE found that the normalized surface unit per-cycle energy consumption of the surface unit increases by greater than 25 percent if the cookware diameter is not matched to the surface unit diameter. TABLE III.11—EFFECTS OF A SMALLER TEST VESSEL DIAMETER ON A MULTI-RING SURFACE UNIT Surface unit location Cooking top unit Based on the test results presented, DOE would expect an increase in actual cooking top energy consumption and loss of utility for consumers if the multiring feature were removed by manufacturers due to its negative impacts on the measured AEC. For these reasons, and in consideration of the uncertainty regarding the frequency of use of the smaller diameter settings of multi-ring surface units and the added testing burden associated with testing multi-ring surface units, DOE is not adopting a requirement that each diameter of a multi-ring surface unit be tested separately as part of the test method adopted in this final rule. Instead, DOE has determined that the provisions for testing multi-ring surface units in EN 60350–2:2013, which require that the energy consumption of only the largest diameter of a multi-ring surface unit be measured, unless an additional test vessel category is needed to meet the requirements of the test procedure, will produce an appropriate measurement of energy use for such surface units while minimizing testing burden and avoiding the unavailability of cooking tops with multi-ring surface units. DOE notes that the provisions in EN 60350–2:2013 ensure that if a cooking top with a multi-ring surface unit does not include other surface units with a variety of diameters, the smaller diameter settings of multi-ring surface FR Cookware diameter (mm) 305 BL asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 2 ........................................................................................ Maximum surface unit diameter (mm) 203 units would be tested to fulfill the cookware category requirements in EN 60350–2:2013. Therefore, DOE is incorporating by reference the provisions for testing multi-ring surface units in EN 60350–2:2013 as discussed. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference section 7.Z1 in EN 60350–02:2013, which specifies that for cooking zones that include a circular and an elliptical or rectangular part, only the circular section be tested. Additionally, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference section 7.1.Z4 and Annex ZA of EN 60350–2:2013, which define the center of elliptical and rectangular surface units by their geometric centers and provide the required test positions of test vessels on these kinds of surface units. 81 FR 57374, 57384 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE did not receive any comments on these proposed provisions regarding the testing of cooking zones that include a circular and an elliptical or rectangular part. DOE is adopting these provisions in this final rule. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE also maintained its proposal to not require testing of certain types of noncircular cooking top elements, specifically, bridge zones, warming plates, grills, griddles, and roaster extensions. DOE clarified that it was not proposing to require testing of bridge modes that couple several surface units 300 240 210 180 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 0.18 0.23 0.18 0.23 Increase in normalized energy consumption ........................ 29.2 ........................ 27.2 together for use as a warming plate or for use with a roasting pan. However, if the individual circular heating elements can be used independently of the bridge mode, DOE proposed that the individual circular heating elements should be tested and included in the calculation of cooking top AEC. 81 FR 57374, 57385 (Aug. 22, 2016). AHAM agreed with DOE’s proposal to not require testing of bridge zones, warming plates, grills and griddles. AHAM noted that these cooking top elements may not heat the test load to the temperature of 90 °C required under EN 60350–2:2013 and that the purpose of these cooking top elements is not to boil water. AHAM added that requiring testing of these elements would increase test burden and require the development of unique test vessels/ loads as well as further evaluation of repeatability and reproducibility. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 14) The SoCal IOUs stated that because DOE’s proposed test procedure already includes provisions for testing noncircular cooking top elements, no additional testing burden would be introduced by requiring testing of bridge zones, warming plates, grills and griddles. The SoCal IOUs recommended that DOE extend the water-heating test method to include these non-circular cooking top elements to ensure that sufficient data is collected to develop activated (as a consumer would, if this utility is removed). VerDate Sep<11>2014 Normalized surface unit energy consumption (Wh/g) E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91434 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES standards that maximize energy savings. (SoCal IOUs, No. 27 at p. 3) As noted in the December 2014 TP SNOPR, bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles are not intended for use with a typical circular piece of cookware. DOE also noted that appropriate test loads for these noncircular cooking top elements would depend on the intended function of each cooking top element. 79 FR 71894, 71906 (Dec. 3, 2014). Because DOE has not developed test loads for bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles, which are not intended for use with typical circular piece of cookware, the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR did not address these cooking top elements. DOE is only requiring testing of non-circular cooking top elements in cases where those elements are designed for circular pieces of cookware (e.g., bridge zone individual circular heating elements that can be used independently of the bridge mode). Because the additional equipment necessary for the test method to be representative would place an unreasonable burden on test laboratories and manufacturers, and for the reasons discussed, DOE is not requiring testing of bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE clarified that a flexible cooking area (i.e., a full-surface induction cooking zone, able to heat multiple items of cookware simultaneously, with independent control options for each piece of cookware) does not constitute a bridge mode. 81 FR 57374, 57385 (Aug. 22, 2016). As discussed in section III.C.1 of this document, DOE is incorporating by reference Annex ZA of EN 60350–2:2013 for testing flexible cooking areas, which specifies that for a cooking area without limitative marking, e.g., a full-surface induction zone, the number of controls is defined by the number of cookware items that can be used independently and simultaneously, and the number of controls determines the number of tests. 3. Gas Cooking Tops The test methods specified in the relevant sections of EN 60350–2:2013 were intended for use with only electric cooking tops. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to extend this water-heating test method to gas cooking tops based on the test provisions in another European waterheating test standard, EN 30–2–1:1998 Domestic cooking appliances burning gas—Part 2–1: Rational use of energy— General. EN 30–2–1 is similar to the electric cooking top water-heating test method in that it specifies a series of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 test vessels and water loads that are dependent on a nominal characteristic of the surface unit. EN 30–2–1 specifies the diameter of the test vessel and the mass of the water load based on the heat input of the gas burner being tested. 81 FR 57374, 57385–57386 (Aug. 22, 2016). However, DOE noted in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that because the two test methods differ slightly (e.g., differences in the test vessels, water load sizes, and heating phases measured during the test), the resulting measured energy consumption would not be comparable between gas and electric cooking tops. As a result, DOE did not propose to incorporate both test methods by reference. DOE noted that it was not aware of data showing that consumers cook food differently with gas cooking tops than with electric cooking tops. Thus, DOE proposed to extend the test methods specified for electric cooking tops in EN 60350– 2:2013 to gas cooking tops, but using the test vessel diameters and the corresponding water loads from EN 60350–2:2013 that most closely match the test vessel diameters specified in EN 30–2–1. DOE determined that using the same test vessels and water loads as specified for electric cooking tops, as well as the same general test method, would reduce the burden on manufacturers by minimizing the amount of new test equipment required to be purchased. 81 FR 57374, 57386 (Aug. 22, 2016). In addition, unlike for electric cooking tops, DOE did not propose to require a minimum number of cookware categories for the test of a gas cooking top. Given that the diameter of the gas flame cannot be adjusted when the burner is at its maximum setting, DOE determined that only the best fitting test vessel would be used for the surface unit test. Id. The SoCal IOUs supported the extension of the water-heating test method to gas cooking tops, but stated that DOE should conduct a sensitivity analysis of the impact of ambient temperature and pressure conditions on the test results for gas and electric cooking products. The SoCal IOUs stated that this will ensure consistent test results across various regions, climates, and altitudes. The SoCal IOUs also commented that validating the ambient condition requirements would address the impact of the proposed correction to the gas heating value to standard temperature and pressure conditions. (SoCal IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 2–3) As discussed in section III.C.1 of this final rule, DOE is incorporating the ambient air pressure and temperature conditions specified in section 5.1 of EN 60350–2:2013. As a result, these test PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 conditions will be standardized such that test results should not be impacted by tests being conducted in different locations. AHAM commented that it does not have any consumer data on the representativeness of the proposed water heating method for gas cooking tops, and DOE did not provide AHAM and manufacturers with enough time to collect such data and to understand whether the proposed test method provides representative results for gas cooking tops. AHAM further commented that DOE should conduct consumer surveys to collect the data necessary to support the proposed test method for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 15, 17) AHAM commented that DOE needs to assess the impact of using the electric cooking top test procedure for gas cooking tops. AHAM noted that Europe uses different test procedures for each technology because gas cooking tops use more of a system approach when compared to electric cooking tops. AHAM added that the heat transferred to the test load depends on the design of the burner, flow of gas, mass of the grate, and height of the grate from the burner. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 15) AHAM commented that because of the short comment period, it was not been able to run its proposed round robin testing program for gas cooking tops to evaluate the proposed test method. AHAM also noted that it was conducting investigative testing to compare DOE’s proposal to EN 30–2–1, as well as a combination of DOE’s proposed test procedure and the test vessels specified in EN 30–2–1. AHAM commented that it does not have the data to determine, nor has DOE demonstrated, that the proposed test procedure for gas cooking tops produces repeatable and reproducible test results. AHAM stated that DOE cannot rely on the CECED round robin testing to demonstrate repeatability and reproducibility because the CECED round robin did not test according to DOE’s proposed test procedure for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 3, 15) Because DOE has proposed to establish the same test procedure for electric cooking tops to gas, AHAM noted that the same testing issues it identified for electric cooking tops also apply for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 15) AHAM additionally commented that several manufacturers observed during testing that, in some instances, the overshoot temperature went beyond the simmer temperature of 90 °C, such that the turndown calculation showed a negative temperature value. According E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations to AHAM, this means that some products may not be able to complete a valid test. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 16–17) AHAM also noted that, based on its limited investigative testing, testing laboratories did not always center the test vessel because some grate designs cannot support the test vessels specified in DOE’s proposed test procedure. AHAM indicated that the test vessel was either unbalanced on the grates, or was too big for the design of the grates. As a result, laboratories selected either a larger or smaller test vessel to conduct a test. AHAM stated that DOE should investigate and address this issue before finalizing the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 16) As noted for electric cooking tops, DOE requested test data and information from AHAM’s testing of gas cooking tops to better understand the issues raised on their comments. DOE has not received this test data or information which would allow for a direct evaluation of the issues identified. As described in section III.C.1 of this document, DOE conducted testing after the August 2016 TP SNOPR to investigate the concerns raised by 91435 interested parties regarding potential sources of variability in the waterheating test method. In addition to the electric cooking top testing, DOE also conducted testing on five gas cooking tops that covered a range of manufacturers, burner input rates, installation widths, burner quantities, and grate weights. DOE’s test sample also included cooking tops marketed as either residential-style or commercialstyle. Table III.12 lists the characteristics for each of the gas cooking tops in the DOE test sample. TABLE III.12—DOE GAS COOKING TOPS TEST SAMPLE Cooking top unit 1 2 3 4 5 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ Width (in.) Number of burners 30 30 36 36 36 4 4 6 6 6 To evaluate the variability in test results, DOE conducted two to three tests on each burner. For each individual test, DOE performed the full test method, including the preliminary test required to determine the turndown temperature and simmering setting for a given burner. In addition, in evaluating the test-to-test variation, DOE included test results from previous testing conducted in support of the August 2016 TP SNOPR. The coefficient of variation for the measured AEC observed for DOE’s gas cooking top test sample was, on average, 1.0 percent. DOE also noted that the average percycle energy consumption coefficient of variation for each burner was 1.7 percent, which is similar to the variation observed for electric cooking tops presented in section III.C.1 of this document. Based on this testing, DOE concludes that the water-heating test method in EN 60350–2:2013, extended to gas cooking tops based on EN 30–2– 1, produces repeatable and reproducible test results. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Minimum input rate (Btu/h) 9,000 5,000 18,000 9,200 15,000 Maximum input rate (Btu/h) 9,000 15,000 18,000 15,000 18,500 Burner configuration Grate type Open ............................. Sealed ........................... Sealed—Stacked .......... Sealed—Stacked .......... Sealed ........................... Steel-wire ...................... Cast Iron ....................... Cast Iron ....................... Cast Iron (continuous) .. Cast Iron (continuous) .. Grate weight per burner (lbs) 0.5 3.7 4.2 5.8 7.0 shown in figure Z2 in section 7.1.Z6.2.2 of EN 60350–2:2013 is the difference between the maximum recorded water temperature and T70. DOE notes that the while the figure correctly shows that DTo = Tmax¥;T70, the text in section Average 7.1.Z6.2.2 of EN 60350–2:2013 annual enCoefficient Cooking top unit ergy conof variation incorrectly defines DTo as the highest sumption recorded temperature. The turndown (kBtu/yr) temperature for the energy test (Tc) is 4 ........................ 963.5 0.3% then calculated as Tc = 93 °C¥DTo. With 5 ........................ 893.1 0.3% regards to concerns that the overshoot temperature can be large enough such that the turndown calculation results in DOE observed similar variation in the a negative temperature value, DOE did turndown temperature for gas cooking not observe any cases during its testing tops as for electric cooking tops, and where the turndown temperature would noted that the observed variation in the approach a negative value. DOE notes turndown temperature did not that a negative turndown temperature measurably affect the variability in the would require a temperature overshoot per-cycle energy consumption. As noted during the preliminary turndown test of in III.C.1 of this document, the greater than 93 °C, and a final water provisions specified in section 7.1.Z6.2 temperature higher than the boiling of EN 60350–2:2013 reduce the point of water, whereas DOE typically variability associated with determining observed temperature overshoots of 10 the turndown temperature by including °C or less. In addition, EN 60350–2:2013 tolerances on the temperature at which specifies that if Tc is less than or equal gas flow to the burner is shut off. to 80 °C, then 80 °C is used as Tc. As discussed in section III.C.1 of this Similarly, DOE evaluated the TABLE III.13—COEFFICIENT OF VARIvariation in the simmering setting for ATION IN ANNUAL ENERGY CON- document, the preliminary test to determine the turndown temperature gas cooking tops, using the same test SUMPTION FOR GAS COOKING TOPS specifies that the test load be heated at methodology as for electric cooking the maximum input rate until the water tops. As part of its testing effort, DOE Average temperature reaches 70 °C (T70), at first selected the lowest setting and then annual enCoefficient Cooking top unit ergy conincrementally increased the setting in of variation which point the burner is immediately sumption shut off. After the burner is shut off, the each consecutive test until the (kBtu/yr) water temperature is recorded until it simmering temperature was above, but as close to, 90 °C as possible. DOE did 1 ........................ 640.4 2.4% has reached its maximum value above not observe any differences between gas 2 ........................ 854.4 1.4% T70. In this final rule, DOE is clarifying 3 ........................ 974.6 0.4% that the temperature overshoot (DTo), as and electric cooking tops regarding the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 TABLE III.13—COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION IN ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR GAS COOKING TOPS—Continued PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91436 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations process of selecting the correct simmering setting. Based on DOE’s test results, as presented in Table III.13, the water-heating test method, including the process for selecting the simmering setting, did not result in significant variability in test results. Furthermore, throughout its testing of gas cooking tops, which covered a range of burner/grate designs, DOE did not observe any difficulty or issues with positioning the test load on the grates. The maximum test vessel diameter specified in the test method for gas cooking tops is approximately 12 inches, which is a common pan diameter in the United States. For all of the cooking tops in DOE’s test sample, the grates were able to support the test vessel and water loads specified in the test method for the full duration of the test. None of the grates in DOE’s test sample exhibited signs that the test vessels and water loads were too big or heavy for the design of the grates. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to use the same test vessels and water loads as specified for electric cooking tops in EN 60350–2:2013, correlating those test vessel sizes to nominal burner input rate. Specifically, DOE proposed to include a table of burner input rates and test vessel sizes in section 2.7.2 of appendix I, along with the mass of the water load to be used in both English and Metric units. However, DOE incorrectly specified the mass of the water load in pounds for the 300 mm test vessel diameter, although the mass listed in kilograms (kg), 4.24 kg, was correct. As part of this final rule, DOE is correcting the conversion to English units for the 300 mm test vessel so that it correctly corresponds to the test vessel diameter and water load listed in EN 60350–2:2013. Table III.14 lists the correct test vessel diameters adopted for the test of conventional gas cooking tops. TABLE III.14—TEST VESSEL DIAMETERS AND WATER LOADS FOR THE TEST OF CONVENTIONAL GAS COOKING TOPS Nominal gas burner input rate Maximum Btu/ h (kW) 3,958 (1.16) ................................................................................................................................. 5,630 (1.65) ................................................................................................................................. 6,790 (1.99) ................................................................................................................................. 8,087 (2.37) ................................................................................................................................. >14,331 (4.2) ............................................................................................................................... asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Minimum Btu/h (kW) 5,596 (1.64) 6,756 (1.98) 8,053 (2.36) 14,331 (4.2) ........................ AHAM commented that the design of gas cooking top burners (i.e., shape, whether it is open versus sealed, or stacked) and grates (i.e., size, weight, material, distance from burner to grate, and whether the grates are continuous to allow a pot to be moved from one burner to another without lifting it) vary from one product to another and offer different consumer utility. AHAM also commented that each burner or grate design element affects how the test load is heated and the measured energy consumption. AHAM urged DOE to evaluate these design differences and their effect on the test procedure, including the resulting effect on repeatability and reproducibility, so that the test procedure does not dictate future design of burners and grates and result in a loss of consumer utility. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 15–16) The test procedure is designed to measure energy consumption that is representative of consumer use. As noted in Table III.12, DOE’s test sample included products with a range of burner types (stacked, sealed, and open), burner input rates, grate materials (steel wire and cast iron), and continuous and non-continuous grates. As shown in Table III.13, DOE’s testing demonstrated that the water-heating test method produces repeatable and reproducible results for gas cooking tops. DOE did not observe that any single design feature produced significant variation in test results. DOE VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 recognizes that certain design features relating to the burner and grate design may impact the measured energy use. DOE considers any consumer utility provided by different design features that may impact energy use as part of the energy conservation standards rulemaking when evaluating product classes and proposed standards. Sub-Zero expressed concern that limitations of the test procedure would unfairly impact the consumer utility offered by high performance commercial-style cooking products in a rulemaking to establish standards for these products. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 1) Sub-Zero commented that the commercial-style cooking top market segment appeals to consumers that demand performance similar to that found in restaurant equipment at a safety and convenience level that are necessary for residential use. Sub-Zero stated that these consumers use their products in a way that is often different from the typical household user. For example, Sub-Zero noted that users of commercial-style gas cooking tops often ´ saute at very high burner outputs, manipulate the pans to mix the ingredients like professional chefs, flame the contents, and operate most of the cooking top burners simultaneously. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at pp. 1–2) Sub-Zero opposed DOE’s proposal to test all gas cooking tops in the same manner despite commercial-style products differing markedly in PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Test vessel diameter inches (mm) 8.27 9.45 10.63 10.63 11.81 (210) (240) (270) (270) (300) Water load mass lbs (kg) 4.52 5.95 7.54 7.54 9.35 (2.05) (2.70) (3.42) (3.42) (4.24) construction and usage. Sub-Zero commented that gas burner design attributes such as safety, performance, efficiency are systematic, and that a change to one attribute significantly affects the others. Sub-Zero noted that specific design features associated with commercial-style gas cooking tops that impact efficiency include: • High input rate burners with large diameters and high controllability of the flame, for quicker heat-up times as well as the ability to simmer foods such as chocolates and sauces; • Heavy cast iron grates for better heat distribution and strength to support large loads; • Greater distance from the burner to the grate for heat distribution and reduction of carbon monoxide; and • Larger open area for primary and secondary air for combustion and exhaust of combustion byproducts. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at pp. 2–3) Sub-Zero requested that DOE reconsider the impact that the proposed test procedure will have on small, niche market, commercial-style cooking product manufacturers. Sub-Zero expressed concern that a single regulatory approach would not allow companies like Sub-Zero to adequately serve their customer base and would negatively impact consumer utility. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 3) In its testing of commercial-style gas cooking products, DOE did not identify any provisions of the test method that E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations would be more difficult for commercialstyle products to meet than residentialstyle products. Because the test procedure adopted in this final rule specifies a water-heating test method, DOE determined that the test procedure is representative of how consumers would use any gas cooking top, regardless of whether the cooking top is marketed as commercial-style. By correlating burner input rate to test vessel and water load size, the test method properly accounts for the grates’ ability to support large loads. Furthermore, DOE expects that benefits resulting from the improved controllability of the flame, high input rates for quicker heat-up times, and the design of the burner for low simmering settings, features cited by Sub-Zero as factors differentiating commercial-style cooking tops on the market, would be captured by the test method. Specifically, if the higher input rates result in faster heat-up times and the burner design allow for more precise simmering control, DOE expects that the cooking top may use less energy consumption during both the heat-up and simmering phase of the test as compared to other commercial-style cooking tops not equipped with these features. For the reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting its proposal from the August 2016 TP SNOPR for the test of gas cooking tops. The adopted test procedure for gas cooking tops uses the same test vessels and water loads as specified for electric cooking tops, but correlates them to the nominal burner input rate. The adopted test procedure follows the same general test methods proposed in EN 60350–2:2103 and incorporates the minor modifications originally proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, as clarified above, that are necessary to adapt the electric cooking top test procedure to the gas fuel type. D. Annual Energy Consumption In this final rule, DOE amends the cooking top test procedure to include a method to calculate both AEC and IAEC using the average of the test energy consumption measured for each surface unit of the cooking top, normalized to a representative water load size. DOE is also including a method to allocate a portion of the combined low-power mode energy consumption for combined cooking products to the conventional cooking top component. These amendments are discussed in the following sections. 1. Conventional Cooking Top Annual Energy Consumption In section 4.2.2 of the existing test procedure in appendix I, the AEC for electric and gas cooking tops and ovens is specified as the ratio of the annual useful cooking energy output to the cooking efficiency measured with an aluminum test block. The cooking efficiency is the average of the surface unit efficiencies measured for the cooking top. The annual useful cooking energy output was determined during the initial development of the cooking products test procedure. It correlated cooking field data to results obtained using the aluminum test block method and the DOE test procedure. In subsequent analyses for cooking products energy conservation standards and updates to the test procedure, the annual useful cooking energy output was scaled to adjust for changes in consumer cooking habits. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE pointed out that, unlike the existing test procedure in appendix I, EN 60350– 2:2013 does not include a method to determine surface unit efficiency and the total cooking top efficiency. DOE also identified several issues associated with specifying an efficiency metric for a water-heating test method. As a result, DOE proposed to include a method to calculate both AEC and IAEC. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016). Section 7.1.Z7.2 of EN 60350–2:2013 specifies that the energy consumption of the cooking top be normalized to 1,000 g of water. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that 1,000 g of water, which is associated with a test 91437 vessel diameter of approximately 6 inches, may not be representative of the average load used with cooking tops found in the U.S. market. To determine the representative load size for both electric and gas cooking tops, DOE reviewed the surface unit diameters and input rates for cooking tops (including those incorporated into combined cooking products) available on the market. Using the methodology in 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350–2 for selecting test vessel diameters, DOE determined that the average water load size for both electric and gas cooking top models available on the U.S. market was 2,853 g. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016). In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to calculate the normalized cooking top energy consumption for electric products as and the normalized cooking top energy consumption for gas product as Where: ECTE is the energy consumption of an electric cooking top calculated per 2,853 g of water, in Wh; ECTG is the energy consumption of a gas cooking top calculated per 2,853 g of water, in Wh; Etv is the energy consumption measured for a given test vessel, tv, in Wh; mtv is the mass of water in the test vessel, in g; and, ntv is the number of test vessels used to test the complete cooking top. Id. To extrapolate the cooking top’s normalized test energy consumption to an annual energy consumption, DOE considered the cooking top usage data regarding the frequency of cooking events from the 2009 DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS),17 presented in Table III.15. TABLE III.15—RECS 2009 USAGE DATA FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING TOPS RECS average cooking frequency (meals per day) a Smooth 1.21 1.21 1.25 Electric as listed here includes both smooth electric radiant and induction cooking tops. 17 Available online at: http://www.eia.gov/ consumption/residential/data/2009/. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 441.5 441.5 456.3 ER16DE16.027</GPH> Electric ......................................................................................................................................................... Smooth Electric a ......................................................................................................................................... Gas .............................................................................................................................................................. Annual cooking frequency (meals per year) 16DER2 ER16DE16.026</GPH> asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Cooking top type 91438 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations However, because RECS does not provide details about the cooking load (e.g., load size or composition) nor the duration of the cooking event, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to normalize the number of cooking cycles to account for differences between the duration of a cooking event represented in the RECS data and DOE’s proposed test load for measuring the energy consumption of the cooking top to calculate the AEC. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016). Based on DOE’s review of recent field energy consumption survey data of residential cooking 18 19 and analysis of energy consumption using test data from the DOE test sample and the RECS data presented above, DOE observed a significant difference between the AEC determined using the proposed test procedure and the RECS cooking frequency compared to the field energy consumption data. As a result, DOE determined that the number of cooking cycles per year used in the AEC calculation needs to be adjusted. 81 FR 57374, 57387–57388 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE used the average ratio between the maximum AEC measured in the DOE test sample and the estimated field energy use of both gas and electric cooking tops to determine a normalization factor of 0.47, which DOE proposed to apply to the number of cycles per year such that, NCE= 441.5 × 0.47 = 207.5 cooking cycles per year, the average number of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking event estimated for electric cooking tops. NCG = 456.3 × 0.47 = 214.5 cooking cycles per year, the average number of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking event estimated for gas cooking tops. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 22, 2016). The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE’s proposal for calculating AEC for cooking tops appears to be reasonable. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at p. 2) AHAM did not support DOE’s proposal to normalize the test energy consumption using a water load size of 2,853 g. AHAM stated that DOE did not provide its review of the cooking tops 18 California Energy Commission. 2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation Study, October 2010. Prepared for the California Energy Commission by KEMA, Inc. Contract No. 200– 2010–004. <http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2010publications/CEC-200-2010-004/CEC-2002010-004-V2.PDF> 19 FSEC 2010. Updated Miscellaneous Electricity Loads and Appliance Energy Usage Profiles for Use in Home Energy Ratings, the Building America Benchmark and Related Calculations. Published as FSEC–CR–1837–10, Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa, FL. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 available on the market for interested parties to evaluate, and that it was unclear whether DOE considered only cooking tops in its test sample or all cooking tops available on the market. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 18) In determining the water load size used to normalize the test energy consumption, DOE surveyed 335 electric cooking tops and 283 gas cooking tops available on the market in the United States.20 Using the rated electric surface unit diameter or gas burner input rate for each model, DOE determined the test vessel diameters and water load sizes that would be required to test each cooking top model. Based on this extensive review of cooking top models available on the market, DOE concludes that the water load size of 2,853 g used to normalize the test energy consumption is appropriate. For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting in this final rule its proposal to calculate the AEC of a conventional cooking top by multiplying the normalized test energy consumption of the cooking top by the normalized cooking frequency and the number of days in a year (365). IAEC for the cooking top is in turn calculated by adding the annual conventional cooking top combined low-power mode energy consumption. 2. Combined Cooking Products As noted in section III.A.1 of this document, DOE’s test procedures apply to conventional cooking tops, including the individual cooking top component of a combined cooking product. However, in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption can only be measured for the combined cooking product as a whole and not for the individual components. To determine the IAEC of only the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, DOE proposed to allocate a portion of the measured combined lowpower mode energy consumption for the combined cooking product to the conventional cooking top component based on the ratio of the annual cooking hours for the cooking top to the sum of the annual cooking hours for all components making up the combined cooking product. DOE also proposed to use the same apportioning method to determine the annual combined lowpower mode energy consumption for 20 DOE’s survey of cooking top surface units and corresponding test vessel sizes is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2012-BT-TP-0013-0033. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. 81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 22, 2016). As part of the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to use the following annual cooking hours to apportion the measured combined lowpower mode energy consumption for combined cooking products. For conventional cooking tops, DOE determined the annual cooking hours to be 213.1 hours based on the total inactive mode and off mode hours specified in the current version of appendix I, sections 4.2.2.1.2 and 4.2.2.2.2. For conventional ovens, DOE similarly determined the annual cooking hours to be 219.9, based on the total inactive mode and off mode hours specified in the current version of appendix I, section 4.1.2.3, and using the annual hours already established for a conventional oven. For microwave ovens, DOE determined the number of annual cooking hours to be 44.9 hours, based on consumer usage data presented in a February 4, 2013 NOPR proposing active mode test procedures for microwave ovens. 81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 22, 2016). In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to calculate the IAEC for the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product as the sum of the AEC and the portion of the combined cooking product’s annual combined low-power mode energy consumption allocated to the cooking top component. Because appendix I currently contains test procedures for microwave ovens that measure only standby mode and off mode test energy consumption, DOE also proposed to include an annual combined low-power mode energy consumption calculation for the microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. Id. The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE’s proposal to apportion the combined low-power mode energy consumption of combined cooking products appears to be reasonable. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at pp. 2–3) AHAM opposed the proposed apportionment approach, claiming that it would effectively set new standby power standards for conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19) AHAM commented that if the combined cooking product under test was a microwave/conventional range with two cavities consuming a total measured standby power of 4 Watts, standby mode energy use would be apportioned to both the microwave oven and conventional range components. AHAM and GE commented that third- E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations party laboratories would not know the inner workings of the appliance, and could not measure the standby power of only one portion of the product because many products have only one power cord and control panel. AHAM stated, therefore, that this approach would make it impossible for third-party laboratories to perform verification testing. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19; GE, No. 31 at p. 4) GE expressed concern that the DOE’s proposed amendments for combined cooking product standby power would inappropriately compare energy usage between products in a manner that would not represent actual consumer use. GE noted that apportioning standby power to the cooking top on a combined cooking product negatively impacts the cooking top IAEC. However, GE noted that on a majority of combined cooking products, the cooking tops controls consist of electromechanical switches that have no standby power. GE stated that, as a result, when comparing the IAEC between an electromechanically controlled stand-alone cooking top and a similarly controlled combined cooking product that has a cooking top, the combined product’s cooking top will appear to use more energy. (GE, No. 31 at p. 4) GE commented that rather than apportioning energy consumption, DOE should instead adopt the same prescriptive approach for cooking tops and combined cooking products that it has proposed for conventional oven energy conservation standards, to require that electronically controlled products be equipped with a switchmode power supply to manage the unit’s standby power. GE noted that this would enable consumers to accurately compare the energy use of cooking tops across combined and stand-alone cooking tops. In addition, GE stated that this approach would avoid effectively setting a new standard for conventional ovens through a test procedure change, and preclude any verification issues. (GE, No. 31 at p. 4) The proposed methodology to calculate the IAEC for the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product does not require a testing laboratory to understand the inner design or functionality of the product to conduct verification testing. As discussed above, the total measured standby energy consumption of the combined cooking product would be apportioned based on the ratio of the annual cooking hours for the cooking top to the sum of the annual cooking hours for all components making up the combined cooking product. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 As part of the concurrent standards rulemaking for conventional cooking products, DOE proposed standards for conventional cooking tops based on the IAEC metric. 81 FR 60784, 60785 (September 30, 2016). DOE is not proposing standards to include prescriptive standby power design requirements for the individual components of a combined cooking product. DOE also notes that the current standby power standard levels for microwave ovens apply only to standalone microwave ovens and did not include combined cooking products. 78 FR 36316, 36328 (June 17, 2013). DOE may consider the effects of setting prescriptive standby power design requirements for microwave ovens that are a part of a combined cooking product as part of a future rulemaking to consider standards for these products. DOE will consider how the methods for calculating the IAEC that are adopted in this final rule will impact stand-alone cooking tops and combined cooking products that include a cooking top as part of the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking for conventional cooking products. DOE will also consider as part of the standards rulemaking the merits of the approach of adopting a prescriptive standard for the power supply for conventional cooking tops. As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE is repealing the test procedures for conventional ovens in this final rule. As a result, DOE is not incorporating methods to calculate the IEAC for the conventional oven component of a combined cooking product. DOE is also modifying the test procedures codified at 10 CFR 430.23 that measure the energy consumption of combined cooking products to reflect the amendments adopted for appendix I in this final rule. 3. Full Fuel Cycle Metric In response to the August 2016 TP SNOPR, AGA and APGA commented that DOE should consider a full fuel cycle (FFC) energy use metric for measuring the total energy consumption of fuel gas and electricity for cooking products. AGA and APGA stated that, compared to a site energy use metric, an FFC metric that uses a correction factor provides a more comprehensive measurement that complies with the DOE policy to incorporate FFC in its appliance efficiency programs. AGA and APGA commented that direct comparisons of baseline and proposed efficiency standard levels are needed to inform all interested parties of the FFC implications of standards proposals, PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 91439 which can only be accomplished where energy savings opportunities are expressed in both site energy and FFC energy. (AGA and APGA, No. 28 at p. 3) As DOE has noted for other products, such as residential furnaces and boilers (81 FR 2628, 2638–2639 (Jan. 15, 2016)), DOE does not believe the test procedure is the appropriate vehicle for deriving an FFC energy use metric for cooking products. As discussed in the Notice of Policy Amendment Regarding Full-Fuel Cycle Analyses, DOE intends to use the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) as the basis for deriving the energy and emission multipliers used to conduct FFC analyses in support of energy conservation standards rulemakings. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). DOE also uses NEMS to derive factors to convert site electricity use or savings to primary energy consumption by the electric power sector. NEMS is updated annually in association with the preparation of the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook. Based on its experience to date, DOE expects that the energy and emission multipliers used to conduct FFC analyses will change each year. If DOE were to include a secondary FFC energy descriptor as part of the cooking products test procedure, DOE would need to update the test procedure annually. As part of the concurrent energy conservation standard rulemaking for conventional cooking products, DOE estimated the FFC energy savings and took those savings into account in proposing amended standards. 81 FR 60784, 60798, 60831– 60832 (Sept. 2, 2016). E. Installation Test Conditions In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to amend section 2.1 of the current appendix I, which defines installation test conditions for cooking products, to incorporate by reference the following test structures specified in ANSI Z21.1–2016 sections 5.1 and 5.19 for both gas and electric conventional cooking products: • Figure 7, ‘‘Test structure for built-in top surface cooking units and open top broiler units;’’ • Figure 5, ‘‘Test structure for floorsupported units not having elevated cooking sections;’’ and • Figure 6, ‘‘Test structure for floorsupported units having elevated cooking sections.’’ 81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 22, 2016). AGA and APGA supported incorporating by reference the test structure requirements in ANSI Z21.1. (AGA and AGPA, No. 28 at p. 3) AHAM opposed DOE’s proposal to require ANSI Z21.1 test structures for both gas E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 91440 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations and electric cooking products. AHAM asserted that this would increase testing burden for laboratories, requiring them to procure additional test structures if the products are not ANSI-listed. AHAM stated that if the cooking top is a UL-listed product, the UL specified test structure should be used, and that if the cooking top is covered by ANSI Z21.1, the ANSI specified test structure should be used. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19) DOE recognizes that requiring the test structures in ANSI Z21.1 for all conventional cooking products may increase testing burden. DOE notes that ANSI Z21.1 and UL 858 ‘‘Standard for Household Electric Ranges’’ include specific safety requirements for gas and electric cooking products, respectively. Because these standards include specific test structures for safety testing, which may be intended to represent worst-case installation configurations and operating conditions, DOE is not aware of data demonstrating that these test structures are representative of typical consumer use. For example, section 59.4 and 59.5 in UL 858 specify that the side walls of the test enclosures, including the walls that extend above the cooking surface, be installed as closely as possible to the side of the appliance. However, DOE notes that manufacturer’s installation instructions typically specify minimum clearances of walls and other structures surrounding the product when installing products in homes. DOE is also not aware of data showing how these test structures affect measured energy use. For these reasons, in this final rule, DOE is not including a requirement to install gas and electric conventional cooking products in accordance with the test structures specified in ANSI Z21.1. Instead, DOE is maintaining the existing installation requirements in appendix I. DOE notes these requirements do not preclude the use of any testing structures, as long as those structures comply with the installation requirements in appendix I. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify its definition of ‘‘built-in’’ and ‘‘freestanding’’ cooking products based on the definitions of installation configurations included in ANSI Z21.1. DOE proposed to clarify that ‘‘built-in’’ means a product that is enclosed in surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures on at least three sides, and that can be supported by surrounding cabinetry (e.g., drop-in cooking tops) or the floor (e.g., slide-in conventional ranges). DOE also proposed to clarify that ‘‘freestanding’’ means a product that is supported by the floor and is not designed to be enclosed by surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 structures. 81 FR 57374, 57388–57389. DOE did not receive any comments on the proposed clarifications to the definitions of ‘‘built-in’’ and ‘‘freestanding.’’ DOE is adopting these clarified definitions in this final rule. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that in general, where the test procedure references manufacturer instructions used to determine the installation conditions for the unit under test, those instructions must be those normally shipped with the product, or if only available online, the version of the instructions available online at the time of test. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE also noted that some manufacturer’s instructions may specify that the cooking product may be used in multiple installation conditions, such as built-in and freestanding. DOE stated that because built-in products are installed in configurations with more surrounding cabinetry that may limit airflow and venting compared to freestanding products, products capable of built-in installation configurations may require additional features such as exhaust fans or added insulation to meet the same safety requirements (e.g., surface temperature requirements specified in Table 12 of ANSI Z21.1) that impact energy use of the unit. As a result, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that if the manufacturer’s instructions specify that the cooking product may be used in multiple installation conditions, it should be installed according to the built-in configuration. Id. DOE did not receive any comments on these proposed clarifications. As a result, and for the reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting these clarifications regarding manufacturer’s instructions and installation requirements in this final rule. DOE also notes that some manufacturer instructions may specify multiple installation conditions for cooking tops (i.e., installed in a countertop up against a rear wall or in an island countertop with no rear wall.) Because the countertop with a rear wall may limit airflow and venting compared to an island installation, and as a result impact the energy use of the unit, DOE is clarifying in this final rule that if the manufacturer’s instructions specify that the cooking top may be used in multiple installation conditions, it shall be tested against, or as near as possible to, a rear wall. F. Technical Clarification to the Correction of the Gas Heating Value As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify in section 2.9.4 in the existing test PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 procedure in appendix I that the measurement of the heating value of natural gas or propane specified in appendix I be corrected to standard pressure and temperature conditions in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938. DOE noted that this clarification would ensure that the same correction methods are used by all operators of the test. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016). AGA and APGA supported the technical clarification to require that the gas heating value be corrected to standard and temperature conditions in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417. AGA and APGA stated that this would help ensure consistent test results in various testing laboratories. (AGA and APGA, No. 28 at p. 3) Because DOE did not receive any objections to its proposal, and for the reasons stated above, DOE is adopting the clarification that the measurement of the heating value of natural gas or propane specified in appendix I be corrected to standard pressure and temperature conditions in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938. G. Grammatical Changes to Certain Sections of Appendix I In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed minor grammatical corrections or modifications to clarify the text in certain sections of appendix I and proposed to remove the watt meter requirements specified in section 2.9.1.2 of appendix I, which are no longer used in the test procedure. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE did not receive comment on these proposals, and as a result, adopts these grammatical changes as part of this final rule. DOE notes that these minor modifications do not change the substance of the test methods or descriptions provided in these sections. H. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements EPCA requires that any new or amended test procedures for consumer products must be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that the proposed amendments to the test procedure would produce test results that measure the energy consumption of conventional cooking tops during representative use, and that the test procedures would not E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations be unduly burdensome to conduct. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE stated in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that, although the proposed test procedures differ from the method currently included in appendix I for testing cooking tops, the essential method of test which includes an initial temperature rise of the test load and a simmering phase, is performed in approximately the same amount of time as the existing test procedure in appendix I. DOE noted that the existing test equipment in appendix I would be replaced with the eight test vessels described in section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350–2:2013. DOE estimated that current testing represents a cost of roughly $700 per test for labor, with a one-time investment of $2,000 for test equipment ($1,000 for test blocks and $1,000 for instrumentation). DOE also noted that the proposed reusable test vessels would represent an additional one-time expense of $5,000 for the test vessels. DOE also noted in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that the only additional instrumentation required would be an absolute pressure transducer to measure the ambient air pressure of the test room. DOE estimated the cost of this transducer to be $100 or less for a model compatible with typical existing data collection systems used by the manufacturer. DOE noted that the allowable range of room air pressure specified in EN 60350–2:2013 is wide enough that a pressurized test chamber would not be required. Air pressure at elevations less than 3,000 feet above sea level falls within the range. DOE stated that it does not believe this additional cost represents an excessive burden for test laboratories or manufacturers given the significant investments necessary to manufacture, test and market consumer appliances. Given the similarities (in terms of the test equipment, test method, the time needed to perform the test, and the calculations necessary to determine IAEC), DOE stated in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that the proposed amendments to test procedure for cooking tops would not be unreasonably burdensome to conduct as compared to the existing test procedure in appendix I. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016). AHAM commented that it has not been able to fully evaluate the proposed test procedure to determine whether it is unduly burdensome to conduct. However, AHAM stated that based on its testing conducted at the time of its comments, the overall test is burdensome and there may be ways that DOE can reduce the test burden. AHAM stated that determining the appropriate simmering setting requires trial and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 error to meet the tolerances of the test procedure, which may require multiple test runs. Because of this, and because only one surface unit can be tested at a time and then must be cooled to ambient room temperature, testing time is variable and may increase substantially for a test laboratory that is unfamiliar with a unit or if a unit has more than the typical four surface units to test. AHAM added that DOE’s proposal to require testing of each individual each diameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit is overly burdensome, noting that a cooking top with dual- and tri-ring surface units would require seven tests, instead of four. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 5) GE commented that DOE’s proposed additional test procedure requirements beyond those in the Canadian and European test procedures make testing more burdensome while introducing more variability into test results. GE commented that DOE’s proposed test procedure would require approximately 25 separate tests and approximately 3 weeks for a standard unit, compared to four tests and approximately 2 days to test a standard unit for Canada. (GE, No. 31 at p. 2) DOE recognizes that the water-heating test procedure will typically require several repetitions of the test cycle to determine the appropriate setting for the simmering phase of the test. However, based on DOE’s testing, in cases where the water temperature falls below the minimum allowable simmering temperature of 90 °C, this typically occurs near the beginning of the simmering phase of the test. As a result, the test can be immediately stopped to conserve testing time. Additionally, by providing guidance on the acceptable oscillation of the water temperature about 90 °C during the first 20 seconds of the simmering phase of the test, as discussed in section III.C.1 of this document, the uncertainty regarding whether a test will pass or fail is reasonably reduced. DOE also observed from its testing that after conducting a few tests on a model, a test laboratory is able to better predict the appropriate simmering setting for other surface units on that cooking top, based on the ratio of simmer energy consumption to total energy consumption. As a result, DOE expects that as manufacturers and test laboratories conduct tests and become familiar with models, the time required for subsequent tests on a given model should decrease. Furthermore, DOE notes that the preliminary test to determine the turndown temperature does not need to be rerun prior to the next energy consumption test cycle on the same surface unit. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 91441 With regard to the time required to cool the appliance in between tests to achieve the normal non-operating temperature, section 5.5 of EN 60350– 2:2013 specifies that forced cooling may be used to assist in reducing the temperature of the appliance. DOE notes that this reduces the time to cool the appliance in between tests. In this final rule, DOE is clarifying that forced cooling may be used to reduce the temperature of the appliance to achieve the normal non-operating temperature as specified in section 5.5 of EN 60350– 2:2013. During its investigative testing conducted in support of this final rule, DOE observed that forced air cooling can reduce the time between tests by almost half for electric smooth–radiant cooking tops, electric coil cooking tops, and gas cooking tops. Because induction cooking tops directly heat the test vessel, minimizing heat transfer to the glass ceramic surface of the cooking top, the time to cool an induction cooking top is typically much shorter than for other cooking top types. In addition, as discussed in section III.C.2 of this final rule, DOE is not requiring that each setting of the multiring surface unit be tested independently and is instead aligning the test provisions with EN 60350– 2:2013 and the draft IEC 60350–2 to require testing of the largest measured diameter of multi-ring surface units only, unless an additional test vessel category is needed to meet the requirements of the test procedure. In that case, one of the smaller-diameter settings of the multi-ring surface that matches the next best-fitting test vessel diameter must be tested. As a result, DOE’s amended test procedure will in most cases require only one full test cycle (including the preliminary turndown test and energy cycle test) per surface unit or burner, and is equivalent to the number of tests required under EN 60350–2:2013. Using the example provided by AHAM of a cooking top with dual- and tri-ring surface units, DOE’s amended test procedure will require only four full test cycles, instead of seven. Based on the discussion above and DOE’s experience conducting tests using the amended test procedure, DOE estimates that testing of a cooking top model would require on average 2 to 3 days depending on the number of surface units or burners. As a result, DOE does not consider the amended test procedure to be unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE also notes that the test procedure used in Canada is equivalent to the existing DOE test procedure in appendix I, which involves heating a solid E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 91442 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations aluminum test block on each surface unit of the cooking top. That test procedure includes only one test block size for gas cooking tops and two test block sizes for electric cooking tops. DOE also notes that the aluminum test block is not compatible with induction cooking tops. The test method involves heating the test block at the maximum energy input setting. After the test block temperature increases by 144 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), the surface unit is immediately reduced to 25 percent ± 5 percent of the maximum power input for 15 ± 0.1 minutes. Based on DOE’s experience conducting tests using this test procedure, the second phase of the test requires trial and error to determine the appropriate simmering setting to achieve 25 percent ± 5 percent of the maximum power input because most electric cooking tops cycle the heating element on and off rather than fully modulating the input power. Therefore, the setting that achieves, on average, 25 percent ± 5 percent of the maximum power input will not be clear to a test technician at the start of the test and the setting selected must be evaluated after the test is complete test to determine if it meets the requirements. As a result, testing under the Canadian test procedure imposes a similar test burden as the water-heating test method adopted in this final rule. DOE previously noted that the reusable test vessels would represent a one-time expense of $5,000. As the test vessels are heated and cooled over time, it is possible that the test vessels bottoms will no longer meet the allowable tolerances for flatness. Based on discussions with test vessel suppliers, DOE notes that test vessels may need to be repaired or replaced after a few years of use, depending on their frequency of use. Certain test vessel diameters will be used more frequently than others, as certain surface unit diameters are more common in cooking tops on the U.S. market than others. Thus, DOE anticipates that the entire set of cookware would not need to be replaced or repaired at the same frequency. For the reasons discussed above, DOE has determined that the amended test procedure adopted in this final rule produces test results that measure the energy consumption of conventional cooking tops during representative use, and that the test procedures are not unduly burdensome to conduct. In the concurrent rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products, DOE proposed in an SNOPR published on September 2, 2016 to update the sampling plan requirements for cooking VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 products in 10 CFR 429.23(a) to include the AEC and IAEC metrics for conventional gas and electric cooking tops. 81 FR 60784, 60799. DOE did not receive any comments on this proposal in response to the September 2016 SNOPR. In this final rule, DOE is adopting these amendments to the sampling plan requirements for the selection of units for testing, as well as calculation procedures for determining a basic model’s represented rating in 10 CFR 429.23(a) for cooking products to include the AEC and IAEC metrics for conventional gas and electric cooking tops.21 Changes to the certification requirements in 10 CFR 429.23(b) will be addressed in the concurrent standards rulemaking. IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute ‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that when an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). As required by Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/ gc/office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 21 In the September 2016 SNOPR for the concurrent standards rulemaking for conventional cooking products, the first sentence of 10 CFR 429.23(a)(2)(i), ‘‘(i) The mean of the sample, where:’’, was unintentionally left out of the Federal Register publication. DOE is including this language in the amendments adopted in this final rule. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. This final rule would amend the test method for measuring the energy efficiency of conventional cooking tops, including methods applicable to induction cooking products and gas cooking tops with higher input rates. DOE has concluded that the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows: The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers or earns less than the average annual receipts specified in 13 CFR part 121. The threshold values set forth in these regulations use size standards and codes established by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) that are available at: http:// www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/ Size_Standards_Table.pdf. The threshold number for NAICS classification code 335221, titled ‘‘Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing,’’ is 1,500 employees or fewer; this classification includes manufacturers of residential conventional cooking products. As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE surveyed the AHAM member directory to identify manufacturers of residential conventional cooking tops. 81 FR 57374, 57390 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE also consulted publicly-available data, purchased company reports from vendors such as Dun and Bradstreet, and contacted manufacturers, where needed, to determine if they meet the SBA’s definition of a ‘‘small business manufacturing facility’’ and have their manufacturing facilities located within the United States. Based on the 2016 threshold number of workers for small business, DOE estimates that there are ten small businesses that manufacture conventional cooking products covered by the test procedure amendments. This number represents an increase from nine small businesses analyzed as part of the August 2016 TP SNOPR due to a change in the SBA’s threshold number of workers for NAICS classification code 335221 since the time of the SNOPR analysis.22 DOE further estimates that eight of these ten small businesses actually manufacture the products they sell. The other two are rebranders and 22 The SBA’s threshold number of workers for NAICS classification code 335221 changed from 750 at the time of the August 2016 TP SNOPR to 1,500 for this final rule. E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations do not manufacture the products they sell. In August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE concluded that the proposed test procedures for cooking tops that incorporate provisions from EN 60350– 2:2013 to address active mode energy consumption for all conventional cooking top technology types, including induction surface units and surface units with higher input rates, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 81 FR 57374, 57390 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE’s estimates for the cost of testing and of new test equipment, have not changed from the August 2016 TP SNOPR. The amended test procedure would be used to develop and test compliance with any future energy conservation standards for cooking tops that may be established by DOE. The test procedure amendments involve the measurement of active mode energy consumption through the use of a waterheating test method that requires different test equipment than previously specified for conventional cooking tops. The test equipment consists of a set of eight stainless steel test vessels. DOE estimates the cost for this new equipment to be approximately $5,000– $10,000, depending on the number of sets the manufacturer wishes to procure. DOE estimates a cost of approximately $46,288 for an average small manufacturer to test a full product line of induction surface units and surface units with high input rates not currently covered by the existing test procedure in appendix I. DOE updated this estimate to reflect the most recent changes to the small business classification, which includes the identification of an additional small manufacturer and the determination that two of the small businesses are rebranders and do not manufacture the products they sell. This updated estimate assumes $700 per test for labor with up to 66 total tests per manufacturer needed, assuming 21 models 23 with either four or six individual surface unit tests per cooking top model. This cost is small (0.07 percent) compared to the average annual revenue of the eight identified small businesses that manufacture cooking products in the United States, which DOE estimates to be over $162 million.24 In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that the proposed 23 DOE considered different configurations of the same basic model (where surface units were placed in different positions on the cooking top) as unique models. 24 Based on publicly available information from online sources such as Hoovers, Cortera, and Glassdoor. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 modification to the calculation of the IEAC of the cooking top portion of a combined cooking product requires the same methodology, test equipment, and test facilities used to measure the combined low-power mode energy consumption of stand-alone cooking products and would not result in any additional facility or testing costs. Additionally, DOE determined that its proposal to incorporate test structures from ANSI Z21.1 by reference to standardize the installation conditions used during the test of conventional cooking tops would not significantly impact small manufacturers under the applicable provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.25 81 FR 57374, 57390 (Aug. 22, 2016). As discussed in section III.E of this document, in this final rule, DOE is no longer including a requirement to install gas and electric conventional cooking products in accordance with the test structures specified in ANSI Z21.1. Instead, DOE is maintaining the existing installation requirements in appendix I. DOE notes these requirements would not preclude the use of any testing structures, as long as those structures comply with the installation requirements in appendix I. Because DOE is not changing the existing installation requirements, DOE concludes that these requirements will not significantly impact small manufacturers. After estimating the potential impacts to the updated list of small business and considering feedback from interested parties regarding test burdens, DOE concludes that the cost effects accruing from the final rule would not have a ‘‘significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,’’ and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE has submitted a certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Manufacturers of conventional cooking products must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any 25 DOE estimated a cost of $500 for an average small manufacturer to fabricate the test structures for the test of cooking tops and combined cooking products, which is negligible when compared to the average annual revenue of the eight identified small manufacturers. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 91443 amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including conventional cooking products. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910–1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for conventional cooking products. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91444 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at http:// energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply. H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference certain sections of the test standard published by CENELEC, titled ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance,’’ EN 60350–2:2013. EN 60350–2:2013 is an industry accepted European test procedure that measures cooking top energy consumption and performance. DOE has determined that EN 60350–2:2013, with the clarifications discussed in sections III.C.2, III.C.3 and III.D of this document, provides test methods for VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 estimated annual operating cost, standby mode power consumption, off mode power consumption, annual energy consumption, integrated annual energy consumption, or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of: (i) The mean of the sample, where: V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule. List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 429 Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. ¯ and x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi is the ith sample; Or, (ii) The upper 971⁄2 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.05, where: 10 CFR Part 430 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 22, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 429—CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 2. Section 429.23 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows: ■ § 429.23 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 * * * * * PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 4. Section 430.2 is amended by: a. Revising the definitions for ‘‘Conventional cooking top’’ and ‘‘Conventional oven’’; ■ b. Removing the definition of ‘‘Conventional range’’; ■ c. Revising the definition of ‘‘Cooking products’’; ■ d. Removing the definitions of ‘‘Microwave/conventional cooking top’’, ‘‘Microwave/conventional oven’’, and ‘‘Microwave/conventional range’’; and ■ e. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Microwave oven’’ and ‘‘Other cooking products’’. The revisions read as follows: ■ ■ § 430.2 Definitions. * Cooking products. (a) Sampling plan for selection of units for testing. (1) The requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to cooking products; and (2) For each basic model of cooking products a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that any represented value of PO 00000 ¯ And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the number of samples; and t0.975 is the t statistic for a 97.5% one-tailed confidence interval with n– 1 degrees of freedom (from appendix A). * * * * Conventional cooking top means a category of cooking products which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a horizontal surface containing one or more surface units that utilize a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating. This includes any conventional cooking top E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 ER16DE16.041</GPH> asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 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). determining the annual energy use metrics and are applicable to all residential conventional cooking tops sold in the United States. The test procedure adopted in this final rule references various sections of EN 60350–2:2013 that address test setup, instrumentation, test conduct, and measurement procedure. EN 60350– 2:2013 is readily available on the British Standards Institute’s Web site at http:// shop.bsigroup.com/. ER16DE16.028</GPH> 91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. The amendments to the test procedure for conventional cooking products adopted in this final rule incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the commercial standard, EN 60350–2:2013 ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs— Methods for measuring performance.’’ While the amended test procedure is not exclusively based on the provisions in this industry standard, many components of the test procedure have been adopted without amendment. DOE has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has received no comments objecting to their use. 91445 91446 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES component of a combined cooking product. * * * * * Conventional oven means a category of cooking products which is a household cooking appliance consisting of one or more compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. It does not include portable or countertop ovens which use electric resistance heating for the cooking or heating of food and are designed for an electrical supply of approximately 120 volts. This includes any conventional oven(s) component of a combined cooking product. Cooking products means consumer products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments. * * * * * Microwave oven means a category of cooking products which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a compartment designed to cook or heat food by means of microwave energy, including microwave ovens with or without thermal elements designed for surface browning of food and convection microwave ovens. This includes any microwave oven(s) component of a combined cooking product. * * * * * Other cooking products means any category of cooking products other than conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens. * * * * * ■ 5. Section 430.3 is amended by: ■ a. Removing paragraphs (i)(6) and (i)(8); ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (i)(7) and (i)(9) as (i)(6) and (i)(7); ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (l) through (u) as paragraphs (m) through (v), respectively; and ■ d. Adding new paragraph (l). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference. * * * * * (l) CENELEC. European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, 17, Avenue Marnix, B–1000 Brussels, phone: +32 2 519 68 71, available from the HIS Standards Store, https:// www.ihs.com/products/cenelecstandards.html VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 (1) EN 60350–2:2013, (‘‘EN 60350– 2:2013’’), Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance, (June 3, 2013), IBR approved for appendix I to subpart B, as follows: (i) Section 5—General conditions for the measurements, (excluding 5.4); (ii) Section 6—Dimensions and mass, Section 6.2—Cooking zones per hob; (iii) Section 7—Cooking zones and cooking areas, Section 7.1—Energy consumption and heating up time, (excluding 7.1.Z1, 7.1.Z5, 7.1.Z7); (iv)Annex ZA—Further requirements for measuring the energy consumption and heating up time for cooking areas; (v) Annex ZB—Aids for measuring the energy consumption; (vi)Annex ZC—Examples how to select and position a cookware set for measuring the heating up time (7.1.Z5) and energy consumption (7.1.Z6); (vii) Annex ZD—Example—Multiple zones; and (viii) Annex ZF—Normative references to international publications with their corresponding European publications. (2) [Reserved] * * * * * ■ 6. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows: § 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water consumption. * * * * * (i) Cooking products. (1) Determine the integrated annual electrical energy consumption for conventional electric cooking tops, including any integrated annual electrical energy consumption for combined cooking products according to sections 4.1.2.1.2 and 4.2.2.1 of appendix I to this subpart. For conventional gas cooking tops, the integrated annual electrical energy consumption shall be equal to the sum of the conventional cooking top annual electrical energy consumption, ECCE, as defined in section 4.1.2.2.2 or 4.2.2.2 of appendix I to this subpart, and the conventional cooking top annual combined low-power mode energy consumption, ECTSO, as defined in section 4.1.2.2.3 appendix I to this subpart, or the annual combined lowpower mode energy consumption for the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, ECCTLP, as defined in section 4.2.2.2 of appendix I to this subpart. (2) Determine the annual gas energy consumption for conventional gas cooking tops according to section 4.1.2.2.1 of appendix I to this subpart. (3) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption for conventional PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 cooking tops according to sections 4.1.2.1.2, 4.1.2.2.2, 4.2.2.1, and 4.2.2.2, respectively, of appendix I to this subpart. Round the integrated annual energy consumption to one significant digit. (4) The estimated annual operating cost corresponding to the energy consumption of a conventional cooking top, shall be the sum of the following products: (i) The integrated annual electrical energy consumption for any electric energy usage, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, as determined in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section, times the representative average unit cost for electricity, in dollars per kWh, as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act; plus (ii) The total annual gas energy consumption for any natural gas usage, in British thermal units (Btu) per year, as determined in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this section, times the representative average unit cost for natural gas, in dollars per Btu, as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act; plus (iii) The total annual gas energy consumption for any propane usage, in Btu per year, as determined in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this section, times the representative average unit cost for propane, in dollars per Btu, as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act. (5) 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. (6) For convertible cooking appliances, there shall be— (i) An estimated annual operating cost and an integrated annual energy consumption which represent values for the operation of the appliance with natural gas; and (ii) An estimated annual operating cost and an integrated annual energy consumption which represent values for the operation of the appliance with LPgas. (7) Determine the estimated annual operating cost for convertible cooking appliances that represents natural gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section, according to paragraph (i)(4) of this section, using the total annual gas energy consumption for natural gas times the representative average unit cost for natural gas. (8) Determine the estimated annual operating cost for convertible cooking appliances that represents LP-gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations this section, according to paragraph (i)(4) of this section, using the representative average unit cost for propane times the total annual energy consumption of the test gas, either propane or natural gas. (9) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption for convertible cooking appliances that represents natural gas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section, according to paragraph (i)(3) of this section, when the appliance is tested with natural gas. (10) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption for convertible cooking appliances that represents LPgas usage, as described in paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of this section, according to paragraph (i)(3) of this section, when the appliance is tested with either natural gas or propane. (11) 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 I to this subpart. * * * * * ■ 7. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows: Appendix I to Subpart B of Part 430— Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Cooking Products asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Note: Any representation related to energy or power consumption of cooking products made after June 14, 2017 must be based upon results generated under this test procedure. Upon the compliance date(s) of any energy conservation standard(s) for cooking products, use of the applicable provisions of this test procedure to demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standard will also be required. 1. Definitions The following definitions apply to the test procedures in this appendix, including the test procedures incorporated by reference: 1.1 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, electric inductive heating, or microwave energy. 1.2 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. 1.3 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 products include the following products: Conventional range, microwave/conventional cooking top, microwave/conventional oven, and microwave/conventional range. 1.4 Combined low-power mode means the aggregate of available modes other than active mode, but including the delay start mode portion of active mode. 1.5 Cooking area is 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 is either— (1) An area where no clear limitative markings for cookware are visible on the surface of the cooking top; or (2) An area with limitative markings. 1.6 Cooking zone is a conventional cooking top surface that is either a single electric resistance heating element or 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. 1.7 Cooking top control is 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. 1.8 Cycle finished mode is a standby mode in which a conventional cooking top provides continuous status display following operation in active mode. 1.9 Drop-in means the product is supported by horizontal surface cabinetry. 1.10 EN 60350–2:2013 means the CENELEC test standard titled, ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs— Methods for measuring performance,’’ Publication 60350–2 (2013) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 1.11 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. 1.12 IEC 62301 (First Edition) means the test standard published by the International Electrotechnical Commission, titled ‘‘Household electrical appliances— Measurement of standby power,’’ Publication 62301 (First Edition 2005–06) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 1.13 IEC 62301 (Second Edition) means the test standard published by the International Electrotechnical Commission, titled ‘‘Household electrical appliances— Measurement of standby power,’’ Publication 62301 (Edition 2.0 2011–01) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 1.14 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. 1.15 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. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 91447 1.16 Normal non-operating temperature means a temperature of all areas of an appliance to be tested that is within 5 °F (2.8 °C) of the temperature that the identical areas of the same basic model of the appliance would attain if it remained in the test room for 24 hours while not operating with all oven doors closed. 1.17 Off mode means any mode in which a cooking 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. 1.18 Standard cubic foot (or liter (L)) of gas means that quantity of gas that occupies 1 cubic foot (or alternatively expressed in L) when saturated with water vapor at a temperature of 60 °F (15.6 °C) and a pressure of 30 inches of mercury (101.6 kPa) (density of mercury equals 13.595 grams per cubic centimeter). 1.19 Standby mode means any mode in which a cooking 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. 1.20 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. 1.21 Symbol usage. The following identity relationships are provided to help clarify the symbology used throughout this procedure. A—Number of Hours in a Year C—Specific Heat E—Energy Consumed H—Heating Value of Gas K—Conversion for Watt-hours to Kilowatthours or Btu to kBtu Ke—3.412 Btu/Wh, Conversion for Watthours to Btu M—Mass n—Number of Units P—Power Q—Gas Flow Rate T—Temperature t—Time V—Volume of Gas Consumed 2. Test Conditions 2.1 Installation. 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 appliance and 1 foot beyond both sides of the appliance, and with no side walls. Install a drop-in or built-in cooking product in a test enclosure in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. If the E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 91448 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES manufacturer’s instructions specify that the cooking product may be used in multiple installation conditions, install the appliance according to the built-in configuration and, for cooking tops, with the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical wall which extends at least 1 foot above the appliance and 1 foot beyond both sides of the appliance. 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. 2.1.1 Conventional electric cooking tops. Connect these products to an electrical supply circuit with voltage as specified in section 2.2.1 of this appendix with a watthour meter installed in the circuit. The watthour meter shall be as described in section 2.8.1.1 of this appendix. For standby mode and off mode testing, install these products in accordance with Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), disregarding the provisions regarding batteries and the determination, classification, and testing of relevant modes. 2.1.2 Conventional gas cooking tops. Connect these products to a gas supply line with a gas meter installed between the supply line and the appliance being tested, according to manufacturer’s specifications. The gas meter shall be as described in section 2.8.2 of this appendix. Connect conventional gas cooking tops with electrical ignition devices or other electrical components to an electrical supply circuit of nameplate voltage with a watt-hour meter installed in the circuit. The watt-hour meter shall be as described in section 2.8.1.1 of this appendix. For standby mode and off mode testing, install these products in accordance with Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), disregarding the provisions regarding batteries and the determination, classification, and testing of relevant modes. 2.1.3 Microwave ovens, excluding any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. Install the microwave oven in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and connect to an electrical supply circuit with voltage as specified in section 2.2.1 of this appendix. Install the microwave oven also in accordance with Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), disregarding the provisions regarding batteries and the determination, classification, and testing of relevant modes. A watt meter shall be installed in the circuit and shall be as described in section 2.8.1.2 of this appendix. 2.1.4 Combined cooking products standby mode and off mode. For standby mode and off mode testing of combined cooking products, install these products in accordance with Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), disregarding the provisions regarding batteries and the determination, classification, and testing of relevant modes. 2.2 Energy supply. 2.2.1 Electrical supply. 2.2.1.1 Voltage. For the test of conventional cooking tops, maintain the electrical supply requirements specified in Section 5.2 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). For microwave oven testing, maintain the electrical supply to the unit at 240/120 volts ±1 percent. For combined cooking product standby mode and off mode measurements, maintain the electrical supply to the unit at 240/120 volts ±1 percent. Maintain the electrical supply frequency for all products at 60 hertz ±1 percent. 2.2.2.1 Gas burner adjustments. Test conventional gas cooking tops with all of the gas burners adjusted in accordance with the installation or operation instructions provided by the manufacturer. In every case, adjust the burner with sufficient air flow to prevent a yellow flame or a flame with yellow tips. 2.2.2.2 Natural gas. For testing convertible cooking appliances or appliances which are designed to operate using only 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 (1743.6 to 2490.8 Pa). The regulator outlet pressure shall equal the manufacturer’s recommendation. The natural gas supplied should have a heating value of approximately 1,025 Btu per standard cubic foot (38.2 kJ/L). The actual gross heating value, Hn, in Btu per standard cubic foot (kJ/L), for the natural gas to be used in the test shall be obtained either from measurements made by the manufacturer conducting the test using equipment that meets the requirements described in section 2.8.4 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 2.8.4 of this appendix. 2.2.2.3 Propane. For testing convertible cooking appliances with propane or for testing appliances which are designed to operate using only LP-gas, maintain the propane pressure immediately ahead of all controls of the unit under test at 11 to 13 inches of water column (2740 to 3238 Pa). The regulator outlet pressure shall equal the manufacturer’s recommendation. The propane supplied should have a heating value of approximately 2,500 Btu per standard cubic foot (93.2 kJ/L). Obtain the actual gross heating value, Hp, in Btu per standard cubic foot (kJ/L), 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 2.8.4 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 2.8.4 of this appendix. 2.2.2.4 Test gas. Test a basic model of a convertible cooking appliance with natural gas or propane. Test with natural gas any basic model of a conventional cooking top that is designed to operate using only natural gas as the energy source. Test with propane gas any basic model of a conventional cooking top which is designed to operate using only LP gas as the gas energy source. 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. 2.5 Ambient room test conditions 2.5.1 Active mode ambient room air temperature. During the active mode test for conventional cooking tops, maintain the ambient room air temperature and pressure specified in Section 5.1 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 2.5.2 Standby mode and off mode ambient temperature. For standby mode and off mode testing, maintain room ambient air temperature conditions as specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 2.6 Normal non-operating temperature. All areas of the appliance to be tested must attain the normal non-operating temperature, as defined in section 1.16 of this appendix, before any testing begins. Measure the applicable normal non-operating temperature using the equipment specified in sections 2.8.3.1 and 2.8.3.2 of this appendix. For conventional cooking tops, forced cooling may be used to assist in reducing the temperature of the appliance, as specified in Section 5.5 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 2.7 Conventional cooking top test vessels 2.7.1 Conventional electric cooking top test vessels. The test vessels and water amounts required for the test of conventional electric cooking tops must meet the requirements specified in Section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 2.7.2 Conventional gas cooking top test vessels. The test vessels for conventional gas cooking tops must be constructed according to Section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). Use the following test vessel diameters and water amounts to test gas cooking zones having the burner input rates as specified: Nominal gas burner input rate Minimum Btu/h (kW) 3,958 (1.16) ........................................................................................................................... 5,630 (1.65) ........................................................................................................................... 6,790 (1.99) ........................................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Test vessel diameter inches (mm) Maximum Btu/h (kW) Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 5,596 (1.64) 6,756 (1.98) 8,053 (2.36) E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 8.27 (210) 9.45 (240) 10.63 (270) Water load mass lbs (kg) 4.52 (2.05) 5.95 (2.70) 7.54 (3.42) Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Nominal gas burner input rate Test vessel diameter inches (mm) Maximum Btu/h (kW) 8,087 (2.37) ........................................................................................................................... >14,331 (4.2) ......................................................................................................................... asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Minimum Btu/h (kW) 14,331 (4.2) .......................... 2.8 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the following instruments, as appropriate: 2.8.1 Electrical Measurements. 2.8.1.1 Watt-hour meter. The watt-hour meter for measuring the electrical energy consumption of conventional cooking tops must have a resolution as specified in Table Z1 of Section 5.3 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). The watt-hour meter for measuring the electrical energy consumption of microwave ovens must have a resolution of 0.1 watt-hour (0.36 kJ) or less and a maximum error no greater than 1.5 percent of the measured value. 2.8.1.2 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter used to measure standby mode and off mode power must meet the requirements specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). For microwave oven standby mode and off mode testing, 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 requirements specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition). 2.8.2 Gas Measurements. 2.8.2.1 Positive displacement meters. The gas meter to be used for measuring the gas consumed by the gas burners of the conventional cooking top must have a resolution of 0.01 cubic foot (0.28 L) 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 (62.3 L/h). 2.8.3 Temperature measurement equipment. 2.8.3.1 Room temperature indicating system. For the test of microwave ovens, the room temperature indicating system must have an error no greater than ±1 °F (±0.6 °C) over the range 65° to 90 °F (18 °C to 32 °C). For conventional cooking tops, the room temperature indicating system must be as specified in Table Z1 of Section 5.3 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 2.8.3.2 Temperature indicator system for measuring surface temperatures. Measure the temperature of any surface of a conventional cooking top by means of a thermocouple in firm contact with the surface. The temperature indicating system must have an error no greater than ±1 °F (±0.6 °C) over the range 65° to 90 °F (18 °C to 32 °C). 2.8.3.3 Water temperature indicating system. For the test of conventional cooking tops, measure the test vessel water temperature by means of a thermocouple as VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 specified in Table Z1 of Section 5.3 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 2.8.3.4 Room air pressure indicating system. For the test of conventional cooking tops, the room air pressure indicating system must be as specified in Table Z1 of Section 5.3 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 2.8.4 Heating Value. Measure the heating value of the natural gas or propane with an instrument and associated readout device that has a maximum error no greater than ±0.5% of the measured value and a resolution of ±0.2% or less of the full scale reading of the indicator instrument. Correct the heating value of natural gas or propane to standard pressure and temperature conditions in accordance with U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938. 2.8.5 Scale. The scale used to measure the mass of the water amount must be as specified in Table Z1 of Section 5.3 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 3. Test Methods and Measurements 3.1. Test methods. 3.1.1 Conventional cooking top. Establish the test conditions set forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix. Turn off the gas flow to the conventional oven(s), if so equipped. The temperature of the conventional cooking top must be its normal non-operating temperature as defined in section 1.16 and described in section 2.6 of this appendix. For conventional electric cooking tops, select the test vessel(s) and test position(s) according to Sections 6.2.Z1, 7.1.Z2, 7.1.Z3, 7.1.Z4, Annex ZA to ZD, and Annex ZF of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). When measuring the surface unit cooking zone diameter, the outer diameter of the cooking zone printed marking shall be used for the measurement. For conventional gas cooking tops, select the appropriate test vessel(s) from the test vessels specified in section 2.7.2 of this appendix based on the burner input rate. Use the test methods set forth in Section 7.1.Z6 of EN 60350–2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of electric and gas cooking zones and electric cooking areas. The temperature overshoot, DT0, calculated in Section 7.1.Z6.2.2 is the difference between the highest recorded temperature value and T70 as shown in Figure Z2. During the simmering energy consumption measurement specified in Section 7.1.Z6.3, the 20-minute simmering period starts when the water temperature first reaches 90 °C and does not drop below 90 °C for more than 20 seconds after initially reaching 90 °C. Do not test specialty cooking zones that are for use only with non-circular cookware, such as bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 10.63 (270) 11.81 (300) 91449 Water load mass lbs (kg) 7.54 (3.42) 9.35 (4.24) 3.1.1.1 Conventional cooking top standby mode and off mode power except for any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Establish the standby mode and off mode testing conditions set forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix. For conventional cooking tops 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) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), allow sufficient time for the conventional cooking top 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 3.1.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.1.2 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 the stabilization period specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 (First Edition), and use the average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First Edition), but with a single test period of 10 minutes +0/¥2 sec after an additional stabilization period until the clock time reaches 3:33. 3.1.1.1.1 If the conventional cooking top has an inactive mode, as defined in section 1.14 of this appendix, measure and record the average inactive mode power of the conventional cooking top, PIA, in watts. 3.1.1.1.2 If the conventional cooking top has an off mode, as defined in section 1.17 of this appendix, measure and record the average off mode power of the conventional cooking top, POM, in watts. 3.1.2 Combined cooking product standby mode and off mode power. Establish the standby mode and off mode testing conditions set forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix. For combined cooking 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) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), allow sufficient time for the combined cooking 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 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2 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 the stabilization period specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 (First Edition), and use the average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First Edition), but with a single E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of operating in standby mode. Record the average off mode power, POM, for the microwave oven off mode power test, as determined in section 3.2.3 of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of operating in off mode. 4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements 4.1 Conventional cooking top. 4.1.1 Conventional cooking top energy consumption. 4.1.1.1 Energy consumption for electric cooking tops. Calculate the energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, ECTE, in Watt-hours (kJ), using the following equation: Where: ntv = the total number of tests conducted for the conventional electric cooking top Etv = the energy consumption measured for each test with a given test vessel, tv, in Wh mtv is the mass of water used for the test, in g 2853 = the representative water load mass, in g 4.1.1.2 Gas energy consumption for conventional gas cooking tops. Calculate the energy consumption of the conventional gas cooking top, ECTG, in Btus (kJ) using the following equation: Where: ntv = the total number of tests conducted for the conventional gas cooking top mtv = the mass of the water used to test a given cooking zone or area Etvg = (VCT × H), the gas energy consumption measured for each test with a given test vessel, tv, in Btu (kJ) Where: VCT = total gas consumption in standard cubic feet (L) for the gas surface unit test as measured in section 3.2.1.1 of this appendix. H = either Hn or Hp, the heating value of the gas used in the test as specified in sections 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.3 of this appendix, expressed in Btus per standard cubic foot (kJ/L) of gas. 2853 = the representative water load mass, in g 4.1.1.3 Electrical energy consumption for conventional gas cooking tops. Calculate the energy consumption of the conventional gas cooking top, ECTGE, in Watt-hours (kJ) using the following equation: ER16DE16.031</GPH> cooking top, POM, in watts as specified in section 3.1.1.1.2 of this appendix. 3.2.2 Combined cooking product standby mode and off mode power. Make measurements as specified in section 3.1.2 of this appendix. If the combined cooking product is capable of operating in inactive mode, as defined in section 1.15 of this appendix, measure the average inactive mode power of the combined cooking product, PIA, in watts as specified in section 3.1.2.1 of this appendix. If the combined cooking product is capable of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1.17 of this appendix, measure the average off mode power of the combined cooking product, POM, in watts as specified in section 3.1.2.2 of this appendix. 3.2.3 Microwave oven standby mode and off mode power except for any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. Make measurements as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). If the microwave oven is capable of operating in standby mode, as defined in section 1.19 of this appendix, measure the average standby mode power of the microwave oven, PSB, in watts as specified in section 3.1.3.1 of this appendix. If the microwave oven is capable of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1.17 of this appendix, measure the average off mode power of the microwave oven, POM, as specified in section 3.1.3.1. 3.3 Recorded values. 3.3.1 Record the test room temperature, TR, at the start and end of each conventional cooking top or combined cooking product test, as determined in section 2.5 of this appendix. 3.3.2 Record the relative air pressure at the start of the test and at the end of the test in hectopascals (hPa). 3.3.3 For conventional cooking tops and combined cooking products, record the standby mode and off mode test measurements PIA and POM, if applicable. 3.3.4 For each test of an electric cooking area or cooking zone, record the values listed in 7.1.Z6.3 in EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) and the total test electric energy consumption, ETV. 3.3.5 For each test of a conventional gas surface unit, record the gas volume consumption, VCT; the time until the power setting is reduced, tc; the time when the simmering period starts, t90; the initial temperature of the water; the water temperature when the setting is reduced, Tc; the water temperature at the end of the test, Ts; and the electrical energy for ignition of the burners, EIC. 3.3.6 Record the heating value, Hn, as determined in section 2.2.2.2 of this appendix for the natural gas supply. 3.3.7 Record the heating value, Hp, as determined in section 2.2.2.3 of this appendix for the propane supply. 3.3.8 Record the simmering setting selected in accordance with section 7.1.Z6.2.3. 3.3.9 For microwave ovens except for any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product, record the average standby mode power, PSB, for the microwave oven standby mode, as determined in section 3.2.3 ER16DE16.030</GPH> test period of 10 minutes +0/¥2 sec after an additional stabilization period until the clock time reaches 3:33. 3.1.2.1 If the combined cooking product has an inactive mode, as defined in section 1.14 of this appendix, measure and record the average inactive mode power of the combined cooking product, PIA, in watts. 3.1.2.2 If the combined cooking product has an off mode, as defined in section 1.17 of this appendix, measure and record the average off mode power of the combined cooking product, POM, in watts. 3.1.3 Microwave oven. 3.1.3.1 Microwave oven test standby mode and off mode power except for any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. Establish the testing conditions set forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix. For microwave ovens that drop from a higher power state to a lower power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), allow sufficient time for the microwave oven 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 units in which power varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 and use the average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First Edition), but with a single test period of 10 minutes +0/¥2 sec after an additional stabilization period until the clock time reaches 3:33. If a microwave oven is capable of operation in either standby mode or off mode, as defined in sections 1.19 and 1.17 of this appendix, respectively, or both, test the microwave oven in each mode in which it can operate. 3.2 Test measurements. 3.2.1 Conventional cooking top test energy consumption. 3.2.1.1 Conventional cooking area or cooking zone energy consumption. Measure the energy consumption for each electric cooking zone and cooking area, in watt-hours (kJ) of electricity according to section 7.1.Z6.3 of EN 60350–2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). For the gas surface unit under test, measure the volume of gas consumption, VCT, in standard cubic feet (L) of gas and any electrical energy, EIC, consumed by an ignition device of a gas heating element or other electrical components required for the operation of the conventional gas cooking top in watt-hours (kJ). 3.2.1.2 Conventional cooking top standby mode and off mode power except for any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Make measurements as specified in section 3.1.1.1 of this appendix. If the conventional cooking top is capable of operating in inactive mode, as defined in section 1.15 of this appendix, measure the average inactive mode power of the conventional cooking top, PIA, in watts as specified in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this appendix. If the conventional cooking top is capable of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1.17 of this appendix, measure the average off mode power of the conventional Where: E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 ER16DE16.029</GPH> asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 91450 ntv = the total number of tests conducted for the conventional gas cooking top mtv = the mass of the water used to test a given cooking zone or area EIC = the electrical energy consumed in watthours (kJ) by a gas surface unit as measured in section 3.2.1.1 of this appendix. 2853 = the representative water load mass, in g 4.1.2 Conventional cooking top annual energy consumption. 4.1.2.1 Conventional electric cooking top. 4.1.2.1.1 Annual energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top. Calculate the annual energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, ECA, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year, defined as: ECA = ECTE × K × NCE Where: K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours. NCE = 207.5 cooking cycles per year, the average number of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking event estimated for conventional electric cooking tops. ECTE = energy consumption of the conventional electric cooking top as defined in section 4.1.1.1 of this appendix. 4.1.2.1.2 Integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top. Calculate the integrated annual electrical energy consumption, EIAEC, of a conventional electric cooking top, except for any conventional electric cooking top component of a combined cooking product, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year, defined as: E1AEC = ECA + ECTLP Where: ECA = the annual energy consumption of the conventional electric cooking top as defined in section 4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. ECTLP = conventional cooking top annual combined low-power mode energy consumption = [(PIA × SIA) + (POM × SOM)] × K, Where: PIA = conventional cooking top inactive mode power, in watts, as measured in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this appendix. POM = conventional cooking top off mode power, in watts, as measured in section 3.1.1.1.2 of this appendix. If the conventional cooking top has both inactive mode and off mode annual hours, SIA and SOM both equal 4273.4; If the conventional cooking top has an inactive mode but no off mode, the inactive mode annual hours, SIA, is equal to 8546.9, and the off mode annual hours, SOM, is equal to 0; If the conventional cooking top has an off mode but no inactive mode, SIA is equal to 0, and SOM is equal to 8546.9; K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours. 4.1.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top 4.1.2.2.1 Annual gas energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top. Calculate the annual gas energy consumption, ECCG, in kBtus (kJ) per year for a conventional gas cooking top, defined as: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 ECCG = ECTG × K × NCG Where: NCG = 214.5 cooking cycles per year, the average number of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking event estimated for conventional gas cooking tops. ECTG = gas energy consumption of the conventional gas cooking top as defined in section 4.1.1.2 of this appendix. K = 0.001 conversion factor for Btu to kBtu. 4.1.2.2.2 Annual electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top. Calculate the annual electrical energy consumption, ECCE, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year for a conventional gas cooking top, defined as: ECCE = ECTGE × K × NCG Where: NCG = 214.5 cooking cycles per year, the average number of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking event estimated for conventional gas cooking tops. ECTGE = secondary electrical energy consumption of the conventional gas cooking top as defined in section 4.1.1.3 of this appendix. K = 0.001 conversion factor for Wh to kWh. 4.1.2.2.3 Integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top. Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption, EIAEC, of a conventional gas cooking top, except for any conventional gas cooking top component of a combined cooking product, in kBtus (kJ) per year, defined as: E1AEC = ECC + (ECTSO × Ke) Where: ECC = ECCG + (ECCE × Ke) the total annual energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top Where: ECCG = the primary annual energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix. ECCE = the secondary annual energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix. Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh (3.6 kJ/Wh), conversion factor of watt-hours to Btus. ECTSO = conventional cooking top annual combined low-power mode energy consumption = [(PIA × SIA) + (POM × SOM)] × K, Where: PIA = conventional cooking top inactive mode power, in watts, as measured in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this appendix. POM = conventional cooking top off mode power, in watts, as measured in section 3.1.1.1.2 of this appendix. If the conventional cooking top has both inactive mode and off mode annual hours, SIA and SOM both equal 4273.4; If the conventional cooking top has an inactive mode but no off mode, the inactive mode annual hours, SIA, is equal to 8546.9, and the off mode annual hours, SOM, is equal to 0; PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 91451 If the conventional cooking top has an off mode but no inactive mode, SIA is equal to 0, and SOM is equal to 8546.9; K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours. 4.2 Combined cooking products. 4.2.1 Combined cooking product annual combined low-power mode energy consumption. Calculate the combined cooking product annual combined low-power mode energy consumption, ECCLP, defined as: ECCLP = (PIA × SIA) + (POM × SOM)] × K, Where: PIA = combined cooking product inactive mode power, in watts, as measured in section 3.1.2.1 of this appendix. POM = combined cooking product off mode power, in watts, as measured in section 3.1.2.2 of this appendix. STOT equals the total number of inactive mode and off mode hours per year, 8,329.2; If the combined cooking product has both inactive mode and off mode, SIA and SOM both equal STOT/2; If the combined cooking product has an inactive mode but no off mode, the inactive mode annual hours, SIA, is equal to STOT, and the off mode annual hours, SOM, is equal to 0; If the combined cooking product has an off mode but no inactive mode, SIA is equal to 0, and SOM is equal to STOT; K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours. 4.2.2 Integrated annual energy consumption of any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. 4.2.2.1 Integrated annual energy consumption of any conventional electric cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top component of a combined cooking product, EIAEC, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year and defined as: EIAEC = ECA + ECCTLP Where, ECA = the annual energy consumption of the conventional electric cooking top as defined in section 4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. ECCTLP = annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, in kWh (kJ) per year, calculated as: Where: ECCLP = combined cooking product annual combined low-power mode energy consumption, determined in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. HCT = 213.1 hours per year, the average number of cooking hours per year for a conventional cooking top. HT = HOV + HCT + HMWO Where: HOV = average number of cooking hours per year for a conventional oven, which E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 ER16DE16.032</GPH> asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 91452 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations ECCTLP = annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, in kWh (kJ) per year, calculated as: Calculate the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption of a microwave oven component of a combined cooking product, ECMWOLP, in kWh (kJ) per year, and defined as: Where: ECCLP = combined cooking product annual combined low-power mode energy consumption, determined in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. HCT = 213.1 hours per year, the average number of cooking hours per year for a conventional cooking top. HT = HOV + HCT + HMWO Where: HOV = average number of cooking hours per year for a conventional oven, which is equal to 219.9 hours per year. If the combined cooking product does not include a conventional oven, then HOV = 0. HMWO = average number of cooking hours per year for a microwave oven, which is equal to 44.9 hours per year. If the combined cooking product does not include a microwave oven, then HMWO = 0. 4.2.3 Annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. Where: ECCLP = combined cooking product annual combined low-power mode energy consumption, determined in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. HMWO = 44.9 hours per year, the average number of cooking hours per year for a microwave oven. HT = HOV + HCT + HMWO HOV = average number of cooking hours per year for a conventional oven, which is equal to 219.9 hours per year. If the combined cooking product does not include a conventional oven, then HOV = 0. HCT = average number of cooking hours per year for a conventional cooking top, which is equal to 213.1 hours per year. If the combined cooking product does not include a conventional cooking top, then HCT = 0. [FR Doc. 2016–29077 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 am] ER16DE16.034</GPH> BILLING CODE 6450–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Dec 15, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\16DER2.SGM 16DER2 ER16DE16.033</GPH> asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES is equal to 219.9 hours per year. If the combined cooking product does not include a conventional oven, then HOV = 0. HMWO = average number of cooking hours per year for a microwave oven, which is equal to 44.9 hours per year. If the combined cooking product does not include a microwave oven, then HMWO = 0. 4.2.2.2 Integrated annual energy consumption of any conventional gas cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top component of a combined cooking product, EIAEC, in kBtus (kJ) per year and defined as: EIAEC = ECC + (ECCTLP × Ke) Where, ECC = ECCG + ECCE, the total annual energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, Where: ECCG = the annual gas energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix. ECCE = the annual electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix. Ke = 3.412 kBtu/kWh (3,600 kJ/kWh), conversion factor for kilowatt-hours to kBtus.

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 91418-91452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29077]



[[Page 91417]]

Vol. 81

Friday,

No. 242

December 16, 2016

Part IV





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 430





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

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 91418]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013]
RIN 1904-AC71


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those 
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not 
be publicly available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013. The docket 
Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all 
documents, including public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by 
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-6590. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
    Ms. Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 256-7432. Email: 
Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
certain sections of the following industry standard into 10 CFR part 
430:
    (1) EN 60350-2:2013 ``Household electric cooking appliances, Part 
2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance'', July 2013.
     Copies of EN 60350-2:2013, a European standard approved by 
the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), 
can be obtained from the British Standards Institute (BSI Group), 389 
Chiswick High Road, London, W4 4AL, United Kingdom, or by going to 
http://shop.bsigroup.com/.
    See section IV.N for a further discussion of this standard.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. The January 2013 TP NOPR
    2. The December 2014 TP SNOPR
    3. The August 2016 TP SNOPR
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Scope
    1. Induction Cooking Tops
    2. Combined Cooking Products
    3. Gas Cooking Tops With High Input Rates
    B. Repeal of the Conventional Oven Test Procedure
    C. Water Heating Test Method
    1. Incorporation by Reference of EN 60350-2:2013
    2. Multi-Ring and Non-Circular Surface Units
    3. Gas Cooking Tops
    D. Annual Energy Consumption
    1. Conventional Cooking Top Annual Energy Consumption
    2. Combined Cooking Products
    3. Full Fuel Cycle Metric
    E. Installation Test Conditions
    F. Technical Clarification to the Correction of the Gas Heating 
Value
    G. Grammatical Changes to Certain Sections of Appendix I
    H. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
    N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

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

[[Page 91419]]

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

A. Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') \1\ sets forth a 
variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part B of 
title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon 
incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), 
establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Other Than Automobiles.'' These include cooking products,\2\ and 
specifically conventional cooking tops \3\ and conventional ovens,\4\ 
the primary subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended 
through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-11 (April 30, 2015).
    \2\ DOE's regulations define ``cooking products'' as one of the 
following classes: Conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, 
conventional ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges 
and other cooking products. (10 CFR 430.2)
    \3\ Conventional cooking top means a class of kitchen ranges and 
ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a 
horizontal surface containing one or more surface units which 
include either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. (10 CFR 
430.2)
    \4\ Conventional oven means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens 
which is a household cooking appliance consisting of one or more 
compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of 
either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. It does not 
include portable or countertop ovens which use electric resistance 
heating for the cooking or heating of food and are designed for an 
electrical supply of approximately 120 volts. (10 CFR 430.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency 
of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to 
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA.
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or 
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual 
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use 
cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish a proposed test procedure and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on it. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(2))
    Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must 
determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would 
alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as 
determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If 
DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured 
efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy 
conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) DOE 
recognizes that the test procedure amendments adopted in this final 
rule will affect the measured energy use of some conventional cooking 
products. However, the current energy conservation standards for 
conventional cooking products are a prescriptive design standard 
prohibiting constant burning pilots for all gas cooking products 
manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. (10 CFR 430.32(j)) Because 
there are currently no performance-based standards for conventional 
cooking products, the EPCA provisions discussed in this preamble do not 
apply to this rulemaking.
    DOE is currently considering amendments to the existing Federal 
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products in a 
concurrent rulemaking, (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005). DOE will use 
the test procedure amendments adopted in this final rule as the basis 
for standards development in the concurrent energy conservation 
standards rulemaking.
    DOE is establishing in this final rule that use of the amended test 
procedure for compliance with DOE energy conservation standards or 
representations with respect to energy consumption of conventional 
cooking products is required on the compliance date of any revised 
energy conservation standards, which are being considered in a 
concurrent rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005). The existing 
test procedure for conventional cooking products must be used for any 
representations related to standby mode and off mode energy consumption 
of conventional cooking tops, but not including combined cooking 
products. Any representation related to energy or power consumption of 
cooking products made 180 days after the publication of this final rule 
in the Federal Register, including for combined cooking products, must 
be based upon results generated under the amended test procedure.
    This final rule fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review 
its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that 
its next evaluation of this test procedure will occur in a manner 
consistent with the timeline set out in this provision.

B. Background

    DOE's test procedures for conventional cooking tops, conventional 
ovens, and microwave ovens are codified at appendix I to subpart B of 
10 CFR part 430 (appendix I).
    DOE established the test procedures for conventional cooking 
products in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 10, 
1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120-20128. DOE revised its test procedures for 
cooking products to more accurately measure their efficiency and energy 
use, and published the revisions as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 
(Oct. 3, 1997). These test procedure amendments included: (1) A 
reduction in the annual useful cooking energy; (2) a reduction in the 
number of self-cleaning oven cycles per year; and (3) incorporation of 
portions of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 
705-1988, ``Methods for measuring the performance of microwave ovens 
for household and similar purposes,'' and Amendment 2-1993 for the 
testing of microwave ovens. Id. The test procedures for conventional 
cooking products establish provisions for determining estimated annual 
operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the ratio of cooking 
energy output to cooking energy input), and energy factor (defined as 
the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to total annual energy 
input). 10 CFR 430.23(i); appendix I. These provisions for conventional 
cooking products are not currently used for compliance with any energy 
conservation standards because the present standards are design 
requirements; in addition, there is no EnergyGuide \5\ labeling program 
for cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 91420]]

certain active mode testing provisions, for residential dishwashers, 
dehumidifiers, and conventional cooking products. DOE published a final 
rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, the October 2012 Final Rule), 
adopting standby and off mode provisions that satisfy the EPCA 
requirement that DOE include measures of standby mode and off mode 
power in its test procedures for residential products, if technically 
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
1. The January 2013 TP NOPR
    On January 30, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR) (78 FR 6232, the January 2013 TP NOPR) proposing amendments to 
appendix I that would allow for measuring the active mode energy 
consumption of induction cooking products (i.e., conventional cooking 
tops equipped with induction heating technology for one or more surface 
units \6\ on the cooking top). DOE proposed to incorporate induction 
cooking tops by amending the definition of ``conventional cooking top'' 
to include induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE proposed to 
require for all cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with 
induction technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the solid 
aluminum test blocks currently specified in the test procedure for 
cooking tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: an 
aluminum body and a stainless steel base. In the January 2013 TP NOPR, 
DOE also proposed amendments to include a clarification that the test 
block size be determined using the smallest dimension of the electric 
surface unit. 78 FR 6232, 6234 (Jan. 30, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2. The December 2014 TP SNOPR
    On December 3, 2014, DOE published a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) (79 FR 71894, the December 2014 TP SNOPR), 
modifying its proposal from the January 2013 TP NOPR for measuring the 
energy efficiency of induction cooking tops. DOE proposed to add a 
layer of thermal grease between the stainless steel base and aluminum 
body of the hybrid test block to facilitate heat transfer between the 
two pieces. DOE also proposed additional test equipment for electric 
surface units with large diameters (both induction and electric 
resistance) and gas cooking top burners with high input rates. 79 FR 
71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). In addition, DOE proposed methods to test non-
circular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible 
concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction cooking tops. Id.
    In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed to incorporate 
methods for measuring conventional oven volume, clarify that the 
existing oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of 
input rate, and provide a method to measure the energy consumption and 
efficiency of conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 
71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). On July 3, 2015, DOE published a final rule 
addressing the test procedure amendments for conventional ovens only. 
(80 FR 37954, the July 2015 TP Final Rule).
3. The August 2016 TP SNOPR
    On August 22, 2016, DOE published an additional SNOPR (81 FR 57374, 
the August 2016 TP SNOPR) in which DOE modified its proposal from the 
December 2014 TP SNOPR for testing conventional cooking tops. Based on 
review of the public comments received in response to the December 2014 
TP SNOPR and a series of manufacturer interviews conducted in February 
and March 2015 to discuss key concerns regarding the hybrid test block 
method proposed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its 
proposal for testing conventional cooking tops with a hybrid test 
block. Instead, DOE proposed to amend its test procedure for 
conventional electric cooking tops to incorporate by reference the 
relevant selections from European standard EN 60350-2:2013 ``Household 
electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring 
performance'' (EN 60350-2:2013). DOE also revised its proposals for 
testing non-circular electric surface units, electric surface units 
with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction 
cooking tops. In addition, DOE proposed to extend the test methods in 
EN 60350-2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops 
by correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including 
input rates that exceed 14,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h). 
DOE also proposed to modify the calculations of conventional cooking 
top annual energy consumption (AEC) and integrated annual energy 
consumption (IAEC) to account for the proposed water-heating test 
method. Additionally, in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to 
incorporate by reference certain test structures for conventional 
cooking tops contained in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
Z21.1-2016 ``Household cooking gas appliances'' (ANSI Z21.1-2016) and 
addressed minor technical changes that did not alter the substance of 
the existing test methods. 81 FR 57374, 57376-57377 (Aug. 22, 2016).
    With regard to conventional ovens, DOE determined that, based on 
further review of public comments and data provided by manufacturers, 
the conventional oven test procedure does not accurately represent 
consumer use as it favors conventional ovens with low thermal mass and 
does not capture cooking performance-related benefits due to increased 
thermal mass of the oven cavity. As a result, DOE also proposed in the 
August 2016 TP SNOPR to repeal the regulatory provisions establishing 
the test procedures of conventional ovens. 81 FR 57374, 57376 (Aug. 22, 
2016).
    In response to the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE received multiple 
comments urging it to extend the comment period. The Association of 
Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) commented that the test procedure 
proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR is completely different from DOE's 
previously proposed versions, and that a 30-day comment period does not 
provide sufficient time for interested parties to comment. AHAM stated 
that because DOE's proposal is completely new, it should be treated as 
a NOPR pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2) with no less than 60 days for 
public comment, including the opportunity to provide oral comments. 
AHAM also opposed the development of test procedures and proposed 
standards in parallel, and commented that DOE should finalize the test 
procedure before continuing with proposed standards. According to AHAM, 
manufacturers were required to divide their resources to address the 
concurrent proposals, and thus were given insufficient time to respond 
to either. AHAM stated that, as a result, DOE has denied interested 
parties the opportunity to evaluate the accuracy, repeatability, 
reproducibility and test burden of the proposed test procedure, which 
AHAM claimed DOE has not assessed itself. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 2, 3, 6, 
7)
    AHAM also asserted that the brief comment period does not provide 
interested parties with enough time to identify potential ambiguities 
in the test procedure, which it believes would lead to numerous 
requests for guidance after the test procedure is finalized, some of 
which could impact the measured energy use and DOE's interpretation of 
the anti-backsliding rule (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). AHAM also cautioned 
DOE about enforcement challenges due to manufacturers and third-party

[[Page 91421]]

laboratories different interpretations of the test procedure. (AHAM, 
No. 30 at pp. 4-5, 7)
    AHAM described conducting a round robin testing program to 
understand and evaluate the water-heating test method in the draft 
version of IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2.0 ``Household electric 
cooking appliances-Part 2: Hobs-Method for measuring performance'' (IEC 
60350-2),\7\ which is similar to the water-heating test method DOE has 
proposed. AHAM noted that the round robin testing for electric cooking 
tops was scheduled to be completed by December 2016. AHAM also noted 
that it further plans to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility 
of DOE's proposed test procedure for gas cooking tops, and expects to 
complete a smaller-scale round robin testing program for gas cooking 
tops by mid-January 2017. AHAM does not expect this testing to be 
completed in the comment period provided in the August 2016 TP SNOPR 
and requested that DOE extend the comment period until January 31, 
2017. AHAM also noted that because DOE's proposed test procedure 
differs from the international version of the water-heating test 
procedure that was used in AHAM's round robin testing program, AHAM's 
results cannot evaluate to what extent DOE's modifications to the test 
method will add variation to test results. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 1, 4-5, 
6; AHAM, No. 30 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Furthermore, AHAM stated that if DOE continues to develop the test 
procedure and standards in parallel, DOE should issue a notice of data 
availability and/or supplemental proposed test procedure to address 
AHAM's comments, conduct additional testing, and gather more 
information. AHAM stated that DOE should provide no fewer than 30 days 
to comment on that notice, and preferably 60 days if changes are 
significant. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 2, 8)
    GE Appliances, a Haier Company (GE), Whirlpool Corporation 
(Whirlpool), and Sub-Zero Group, Inc. (Sub-Zero) supported AHAM's 
comments. (GE, No. 31 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 29 at p. 1; Sub-Zero, No. 
25 at p. 1) Sub-Zero added that requiring interested parties to 
substantively comment concurrently on both a new test procedure and a 
proposed standard for previously unregulated products is significantly 
burdensome to the industry. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 1) GE also 
commented that at the time it submitted comments on the August 2016 TP 
SNOPR, it had been able to obtain results for only approximately 25 
percent of its models, for reasons including the lack of availability 
of test vessels and difficulty in obtaining valid test runs. GE 
commented that DOE should pause the rulemaking process and engage in 
additional outreach with manufacturers to ensure that the issues raised 
by AHAM are appropriately evaluated and addressed. (GE, No. 31 at pp. 
1-2)
    Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and Electric 
(SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) (collectively, the 
Southern California investor-owned utilities (SoCal IOUs)) also 
commented that the proposed water-heating test method represents a 
significant change from DOE's previously proposed hybrid block test 
method and, as a result, DOE should extend the comment period to allow 
time for interested parties to evaluate the test procedure. (SoCal 
IOUs, No. 27 at p. 3) The American Gas Association (AGA) and American 
Public Gas Association (APGA) similarly stated that their comments will 
not be as comprehensive as they would have been if DOE had extended the 
comment period. (AGA and APGA, No. 26 at pp. 1-2)
    DOE considered and evaluated water-heating test methods based on 
the IEC test procedure as part of the January 2013 TP NOPR and December 
2014 TP SNOPR. 78 FR 6232, 6239-6241 (Jan. 30, 2013); 79 FR 71894, 
71900-71903 (Dec. 3, 2014). As a result, DOE does not consider its 
proposal in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to be completely new and 
warranting treatment as a NOPR.
    As discussed in section III.C.2 of this final rule, DOE is not 
requiring that each setting of the multi-ring surface unit be tested 
independently. Instead, DOE is aligning the test provisions with EN 
60350-2:2013 to require testing of the largest measured diameter of 
multi-ring surface units only, unless an additional test vessel 
category is needed to meet the test vessel selection requirements in 
section 7.1.Z3 of EN 60350-2:2013, as explained in III.C.1. In that 
case, one of the smaller-diameter settings of the multi-ring surface 
unit that matches the next best-fitting test vessel diameter must be 
tested. As a result, the test procedure adopted in this final rule is 
equivalent to the test procedure considered and used in AHAM's round 
robin testing program.
    As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, multiple manufacturers 
that produce and sell products in both the United States and Europe 
supported the use of the water-heating test method in IEC 60350-2. BSH 
Home Appliances Corporation (BSH) specifically noted that this test 
procedure is applied in Europe for its Energy Conservation Program and 
that international test laboratories and manufacturers have 
successfully used this test method. 81 FR 57374, 57382 (Aug. 22, 2016). 
DOE agrees that manufacturers that also produce and sell conventional 
cooking tops in Europe are likely to already have experience with the 
water-heating test method adopted in this final rule. DOE further 
observes that because AHAM and other manufacturers also participate in 
the development of IEC 60350-2,\8\ these interested parties are likely 
already familiar with the repeatability, reproducibility and test 
burden associated with the provisions from EN 60350-2:2013 adopted in 
this final rule. Accordingly, DOE does not find that a comment period 
extension for the test procedure is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 91422]]

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

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR 430 Appendix I, ``Uniform 
Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional 
Cooking Products,'' as follows:
     Repeals the provisions in the existing cooking products 
test procedure relating to conventional ovens;
     Incorporates by reference the relevant sections of EN 
60350-2:2013, which uses a water-heating test method to measure the 
energy consumption of electric cooking tops;
     Extends the water-heating test method specified in EN 
60350-2:2013 to gas cooking tops by correlating the burner input rate 
and test vessel diameters specified in EN 30-2-1:1998 Domestic cooking 
appliances burning gas--Part 2-1: Rational use of energy--General (EN 
30-2-1) to the test vessel diameters and water loads already included 
in EN 60350-2:2013;
     Adopts a modified water quantity, different than the 
quantity specified in EN 60350-2:2013, used to normalize the total 
energy consumption of the cooking top to estimate a representative AEC 
for the U.S. market;
     Clarifies that for all cooking tops, specialty surface 
units such as bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles are 
not covered by appendix I;
     Clarifies that the 20-minute simmering period starts when 
the water temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C and does not drop below 
90 [deg]C for more than 20 seconds after initially reaching 90 [deg]C;
     Adopts a calculation of the AEC and IAEC of conventional 
cooking tops;
     Defines the term ``combined cooking product'' as a cooking 
product that combines a conventional cooking product with other 
appliance functionality, which may or may not include another cooking 
product;
     Clarifies that the active mode test procedures in appendix 
I applies to the conventional cooking top component of a combined 
cooking product and includes a method to apportion the combined low-
power mode energy consumption measured for the combined cooking product 
to the individual cooking top component of the combined cooking 
product;
     Clarifies that the measurement of the heating value of 
natural gas or propane specified in section 2.9.4 of appendix I be 
corrected to standard pressure and temperature conditions in accordance 
with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938; and
     Corrects grammatical errors in certain sections of 
appendix I that serve as clarifications and do not change the substance 
of the test method.
    In this final rule, DOE is also modifying the requirements in 10 
CFR 430.23 to align with the changes adopted for appendix I, clarifying 
test procedures for the measurement of energy consumption for cooking 
tops.
    Finally, DOE amends the sampling plan requirements in 10 CFR 429.23 
``Conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens'' to 
include AEC and IAEC for conventional cooking tops.

III. Discussion

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

A. Scope

    As discussed in section I.A of this document, DOE has the authority 
to amend test procedures for covered products. EPCA identifies kitchen 
ranges and ovens as a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) In a 
final rule published on September 8, 1998 (63 FR 48038), DOE amended 
its regulations in certain places to substitute the term ``kitchen 
ranges and ovens'' with ``cooking products.'' DOE regulations currently 
define ``cooking products'' as consumer products that are used as the 
major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat 
different types of food by one or more of the following sources of 
heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist 
of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units and/or 
one or more heating compartments, and must be one of the following 
classes: Conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional 
ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges and other cooking 
products. 10 CFR 430.2
    In this final rule, DOE is addressing test procedures for 
conventional cooking tops and is repealing the test procedures for 
conventional ovens. In addition, because DOE regulations currently 
continue to use the term ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' and other terms 
in certain places to describe the products that are the subject of this 
rulemaking, DOE is amending its regulations codified at 10 CFR 430 to 
consistently refer to the products as ``cooking products.''
1. Induction Cooking Tops
    As discussed in section I of this final rule, the test procedures 
currently specified in appendix I do not apply to induction cooking 
products. In the January 2013 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the 
definition of ``conventional cooking top'' to include products that 
feature electric inductive heating surface units. 78 FR 6232, 6234-6235 
(Jan. 30, 2013). DOE similarly proposed in the January 2013 TP NOPR to 
revise the definition of ``active mode'' included in appendix I to 
account for electric inductive heating, consistent with the proposed 
definition of ``conventional cooking top.'' Id. In comments on the 
January 2013 TP NOPR, manufacturers did not oppose amended definitions 
to include induction cooking. 79 FR 71894, 71897 (Dec. 3, 2014). 
Additionally, DOE did not receive any comments on its proposal to 
revise the definitions in the December 2014 TP SNOPR and August 2016 TP 
SNOPR. As a result, DOE is amending the definitions of ``conventional 
cooking top'' and ``active mode'' in this final rule to account for 
induction technology, as discussed above.
2. Combined Cooking Products
    Certain residential household cooking appliances combine a 
conventional cooking product component with other appliance 
functionality, which may or may not perform a cooking-related function. 
Examples of such ``combined cooking products'' include a

[[Page 91423]]

conventional range, which combines a conventional cooking top and one 
or more conventional ovens; a microwave/conventional cooking top, which 
combines a microwave oven and a conventional cooking top; a microwave/
conventional oven, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional 
oven; and a microwave/conventional range, which combines a microwave 
oven and a conventional oven in separate compartments and a 
conventional cooking top. Because combined cooking products may consist 
of multiple classes of cooking products, any potential conventional 
cooking top or oven energy conservation standard would apply to the 
individual components of the combined cooking product. Thus, DOE stated 
in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that the proposed cooking top test 
procedures would also apply to the individual conventional cooking top 
portion of a combined cooking product. 81 FR 57374, 57378 (Aug. 22, 
2016). Because combined cooking products are a kind of cooking product 
that combines a conventional cooking product with other appliance 
functionality and not a distinct product class, DOE proposed in the 
August 2016 TP SNOPR to remove the definitions of the various kinds of 
combined cooking products currently included in 10 CFR 430.2, and then 
proposed to add a definition of ``combined cooking product'' to 
appendix I, as this definition would be related to the test of combined 
cooking products and is not a unique product class itself. Id. DOE also 
noted that the definitions of ``conventional cooking top,'' 
``conventional oven,'' ``microwave oven,'' and ``other cooking 
products'' refer to these products as classes of cooking products. 
Because these are more general product categories and not specific 
product classes, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to amend the 
definitions of conventional cooking top, conventional oven, microwave 
oven, and other cooking products in 10 CFR 430.2 to reflect this 
clarification. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments on its proposal to revise the 
definitions related to combined cooking products and cooking product 
categories. For the reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting these 
amended definitions in this final rule.
    As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE observed that for 
combined cooking products, the annual combined low-power mode energy 
consumption can only be measured for the combined cooking product and 
not the individual components. 81 FR 57374, 57378 (Aug. 22, 2016). As 
discussed in section III.D.2 of this document, DOE is adopting the 
methods proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to calculate the IAEC of 
the conventional cooking top component separately by allocating a 
portion of the combined low-power mode energy consumption measured for 
the combined cooking product to the conventional cooking top component 
using the estimated annual cooking hours for the given components 
comprising the combined cooking product. Similarly for microwave ovens, 
DOE is adopting the methods proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to 
allocate a portion of the combined low-power mode energy consumption 
measured for the combined cooking product to the microwave oven 
component, based on the estimated annual cooking hours for the given 
components comprising the combined cooking product.
3. Gas Cooking Tops With High Input Rates
    In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to amend the 
conventional cooking top test procedure in appendix I to measure the 
energy use of gas surface units with high input rates and noted that 
the current definition for ``conventional cooking top'' in 10 CFR 430.2 
already covers conventional gas cooking products with higher input 
rates (including commercial-style gas cooking products), as these 
products are household cooking appliances with surface units or 
compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of a 
gas flame. DOE considers a cooking top burner with a high input rate to 
be a burner rated greater than 14,000 Btu/h. 79 FR 71894, 71897 (Dec. 
3, 2014). DOE did not receive any comments on this interpretation of 
the definition of ``conventional cooking top.'' In addition, as 
discussed in section III.C.3 of this document, DOE is adopting test 
methods to measure the energy consumption of conventional gas cooking 
tops that use a range of test vessel diameters and water loads that are 
selected based on the input rate of the burner, including those with 
burners having input rates greater than 14,000 Btu/h (including 
commercial-style gas cooking tops). As a result, DOE maintains the 
interpretation for this final rule that the definition for 
``conventional cooking top'' in 10 CFR 430.2 covers conventional gas 
cooking products with higher input rates, including commercial-style 
cooking tops.

B. Repeal of the Conventional Oven Test Procedure

    As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that 
commercial-style ovens typically incorporate design features (e.g., 
heavier-gauge cavity construction, high input rate burners, extension 
racks) that result in inherently lower efficiencies than for 
residential-style ovens with comparable cavity sizes, due to the 
greater thermal mass of the cavity and racks when measured using the 
test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. 81 FR 57374, 
57379 (Aug. 22, 2016). Furthermore, DOE concluded that certain 
additional factors that are not currently addressed in the test 
procedure, such as the impact of door openings on thermal recovery, 
could, if included in the test procedure, alter the efficiencies of 
commercial-style ovens relative to the efficiencies of residential-
style ovens. For these reasons, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP 
SNOPR to repeal the provisions in appendix I for measuring conventional 
oven IAEC. In addition, because DOE proposed to repeal the provisions 
for measuring conventional oven IAEC, DOE also proposed to remove the 
reference to AHAM OV-1-2011 ``Procedures for the Determination and 
Expression of the Volume of Household Microwave and Conventional 
Ovens'' contained in 10 CFR 430.3. Id.
    AHAM supported DOE's proposal to repeal the provisions in appendix 
I for measuring conventional oven IAEC. AHAM asserted that, in general, 
test procedures should be adopted and revised to accommodate products 
on the market. AHAM stated that products should not have to adapt to 
the test procedure, which could result in a loss of consumer utility, 
as would be the case with the existing test procedure for conventional 
ovens. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 18) The Appliance Standards Awareness 
Project, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, 
National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and 
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (collectively, the Joint 
Efficiency Advocates) and the SoCal IOUs encouraged DOE to initiate 
work to develop a test procedure for conventional ovens. The Joint 
Efficiency Advocates added that a test procedure for conventional ovens 
would allow DOE to set performance standards for ovens in the future 
that could achieve significant energy savings and provide information 
to consumers about the cooking efficiency of conventional

[[Page 91424]]

ovens. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at pp. 1-2; SoCal IOUs, No. 
27 at p. 3)
    Because DOE did not receive any objections to its proposal, and for 
the reasons stated, DOE is repealing the test procedures pertaining to 
conventional ovens in this final rule.

C. Water Heating Test Method

    In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the relevant 
sections from EN 60350-2:2013 for measuring electric cooking top energy 
consumption. DOE is also extending the testing methods in EN 60350-
2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by 
correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate. These 
amendments are discussed in the following sections.
1. Incorporation by Reference of EN 60350-2:2013
    The test method to measure the energy consumption of each electric 
cooking top surface unit provided in EN 60350-2:2013 consists of two 
phases. The first phase of the EN 60350-2 test requires heating a 
water-filled test vessel on a surface unit to a calculated ``turndown 
temperature'' at the maximum energy input setting. During the second 
phase of the test, the power input is reduced to a setting that will 
maintain the water temperature above 90 [deg]C (a simmering 
temperature) but as close to 90 [deg]C as possible without additional 
adjustment of the low-power setting.\9\ The test ends 20 minutes after 
the temperature first increases above 90 [deg]C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    To determine the turndown temperature, Tc, EN 60350-
2:2013 requires an initial test to determine the number of degrees that 
the temperature continues to rise after turning the unit off from the 
maximum energy input setting. This initial measurement involves heating 
the water-filled test vessel at the maximum energy input setting until 
the water temperature reaches 70 [deg]C, T70, at which point 
the power is switched off.\10\ The water temperature is measured as it 
continues to rise after the power is switched off. The temperature 
overshoot, [Delta]T0, is calculated as the highest measured 
water temperature minus T70. Tc is then 
calculated as 93 [deg]C minus [Delta]T0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ To obtain a higher accuracy of the temperature measurement, 
T70 is determined by the average of the recorded 
temperature between the time to reach 70 [deg]C, t70, 
minus 10 seconds, and t70 plus 10 seconds. If the result 
is within the tolerance of 70 [deg]C  0.5 [deg]C, then 
this temperature is noted. If not, the test is repeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                        Table III.1--EN 60350-2:2013 Test Vessel Diameter and Water Load
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Mass of the                                                  Standard
  Test vessel diameter inches (mm)      water load       Corresponding surface unit diameter         cookware
                                         lbs (kg)                    inches (mm)                     category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.72 (120)..........................     1.43 (0.65)          3.93 <= x < 5.12 (100 <= x < 130)               A
5.91 (150)..........................     2.27 (1.03)          5.12 <= x < 6.30 (130 <= x < 160)
7.09 (180)..........................     3.31 (1.50)          6.30 <= x < 7.48 (160 <= x < 190)               B
8.27 (210)..........................     4.52 (2.05)          7.48 <= x < 8.66 (190 <= x < 220)                C
9.45 (240)..........................     5.95 (2.70)          8.66 <= x < 9.84 (220 <= x < 250)
10.63 (270).........................     7.54 (3.42)         9.84 <= x < 11.02 (250 <= x < 280)               D
11.81 (300).........................     9.35 (4.24)        11.02 <= x < 12.20 (280 <= x < 310)
12.99 (330).........................    11.33 (5.14)       12.20 <= x < 12.99 (310 <= x <= 330)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of test vessels needed to assess the energy consumption 
of the cooking top is based on the number of controls that can be 
independently but simultaneously operated on the cooking top. By 
assessing the number of independent controls and not just the marked 
surface units, the test procedure accounts for cooking tops with 
cooking zones that do not have limitative markings. Each independently 
controlled surface unit or area of a ``cooking zone'' is tested 
individually. The temperature of the water and the total input energy 
consumption is measured throughout the test. EN 60350-2:2013 specifies 
that the total cooking top energy consumption is determined as the 
average of the energy consumed during each independent test divided by 
the mass of the water load used for the test. This average energy 
consumption in Watt-hours (Wh) is then normalized to a standard water 
load size (1,000 grams (g)) to determine the average per-cycle energy 
consumption of the cooking top. Normalizing to a single load size 
ensures that manufacturers are not penalized for offering a variety of 
surface unit diameters to consumers.
    For standard circular electric surface units, the test vessel with 
a diameter that most closely matches the surface unit diameter is 
selected. Different surface units on a cooking top can be tested with 
the same test vessel diameter. However, if the number of independent 
controls/surface units for the cooking top exceeds two, the selected 
test vessels must come from at least two cookware categories. This 
means that one or more of the surface units on the cooking top will be 
tested with the next best-matched test vessel in another cookware 
category. By adding this requirement, EN 603050-2:2013 accounts for the 
variety of cookware that would be used on the cooking top and prevents 
the test procedure from penalizing cooking tops that have a range of 
surface unit sizes with a range of surface unit input rates.
    For cooking tops without defined surface units, such as cooking 
tops with full-surface induction cooking zones, EN 60350-2:2013 
specifies a method to select the appropriate test position for each 
test vessel based on a pattern starting from the geometric center of 
the

[[Page 91425]]

cooking zone. Instead of requiring that test vessels be selected based 
on best fit, the test vessel diameters are explicitly defined, and vary 
with the number of controls, to capture how different cookware types 
may be used on the unmarked cooking surface.
    As part of the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE conducted a series of 
interviews with manufacturers, as well as analyzed test results from 
DOE's water-heating testing and results from round robin testing 
performed in 2011 by the European Committee of Domestic Equipment 
Manufacturers (CECED) 11 12 to evaluate the repeatability 
and reproducibility of EN 60350-2:2013. Based on this evaluation, DOE 
determined that the test methods to measure surface unit energy 
consumption specified in EN 60350-2:2013 produce sufficiently 
repeatable and reproducible test results. DOE also noted that the test 
vessels specified in EN 60350-2:2013 are compatible with all cooking 
top types, and that the range of test vessel diameters cover the full 
range of surface unit diameters available on the U.S. market. 81 FR 
57374, 57382-57384 (Aug. 22, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and 
Sustainable Economic Development--Technical Unit Energy Efficiency 
(ENEA-UTEE), ``CECED Round Robin Tests for Hobs and Microwave 
Ovens--Final Report for Hobs,'' July 2011.
    \12\ The CECED round robin testing program included 3 cooking 
top technologies (electric solid plate, electric smooth--radiant, 
and electric smooth--induction) tested at 12 different test 
facilities (6 manufacturer test labs and 6 independent test labs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to incorporate by 
reference certain sections of EN 60350-2:2013.\13\ Specifically, DOE 
proposed to incorporate Section 5, ``General conditions for the 
measurements,'' which outlines the test room and test equipment 
conditions; Section 6.2, ``Cooking zones per hob,'' which outlines how 
to determine the number of controls and the dimensions of the cooking 
zones; and Section 7.1, ``Energy consumption and heating up time,'' 
which outlines both the test methods and equipment required to measure 
cooking top energy consumption. DOE proposed to omit Section 7.1.Z5, 
``Procedure for measuring the heating up time,'' as it is not required 
to calculate the overall energy consumption of the cooking top and 
would increase manufacturer test burden. Additionally, DOE proposed to 
omit Section 7.1.Z7, ``Evaluation and calculation,'' as DOE proposed an 
alternative method to normalize the measured cooking top energy 
consumption discussed further in section III.D.1 of this document. DOE 
also proposed to incorporate by reference Annex ZA through Annex ZF of 
EN 60350-2:2013, which provide further requirements for measuring the 
energy consumption, clarify test vessel construction, and provide 
examples for how to select the appropriate test vessels. DOE also 
proposed to include many of the definitions related to the measure of 
cooking top energy consumption specified in Section 3 of EN 60350-
2:2013. However, due to differences in terminology between the United 
States and Europe, such as the use of the word hob for cooking top, DOE 
proposed to explicitly define relevant terms from Section 3 of EN 
60350-2:2013 in appendix I. 81 FR 57374, 57384 (Aug. 22, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The test procedure also includes test methods to measure 
heat distribution and other forms of cooking performance not related 
to the energy consumption of the cooking top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE received a number of 
comments regarding the proposed water-heating test method. These 
comments are discussed in the following sections.
Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Representativeness of the Water-
Heating Test Method
    The SoCal IOUs and Joint Efficiency Advocates supported DOE's 
proposal to incorporate by reference EN 60350-2:2013. The SoCal IOUs 
added that this test method is more representative of actual cooking 
compared to the hybrid block test method. (SoCal IOUs, No. 27 at p. 2; 
Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at p. 2)
    AHAM commented that it does not have consumer data on the 
representativeness of the water-heating test method and interested 
parties were not provided with enough time to collect this data. AHAM 
further commented that DOE should conduct consumer surveys to collect 
the data necessary to support the proposed test procedure. (AHAM, No. 
30 at p. 8) Nonetheless, AHAM agreed that the best test method for 
cooking tops would be a water-heating test method even though it 
opposed DOE's proposed test procedure. AHAM believes that DOE must 
determine whether the test is repeatable and reproducible and address 
the significant issues raised by interested parties before finalizing 
the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 2, 3, 4-5) AHAM objected to 
the use of CECED round robin testing conducted 5 years ago on European 
products, which have different designs (e.g., different heating 
element/burner construction), to demonstrate the repeatability and 
reproducibility of DOE's proposed test procedure. AHAM noted that the 
CECED round robin testing included only testing of a single surface 
unit for each cooking top, and that DOE's proposed test procedure is 
not the same as the test procedure evaluated in the CECED round robin 
testing. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 3, 8)
    AHAM commented that its round robin testing, which included four 
test units encompassing a different combination of controls and heating 
elements relevant to the U.S. market, showed a much higher variance in 
test results. AHAM's submitted its measured values for the coefficient 
of variance of test results from laboratory to laboratory of 7.1 
percent, 9.2 percent, and 8.4 percent for electric coil, electric 
smooth-radiant, and electric smooth-induction cooking tops, 
respectively. Based on this round robin testing, AHAM stated that EN 
60350-2:2013 does not produce reproducible test results and that more 
work is needed to reduce this variation. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 8-9)
    GE commented that, based on the variation in test results shown in 
the AHAM round robin testing program, there will be significant risks 
of setting energy conservation standards at unachievable levels. GE 
commented that because cooking products have limited technology options 
to improve efficiency, setting a standard based on a test procedure 
with significant variation in test results could cause products to 
become obsolete and create significant issues with the enforcement of 
standards. (GE, No. 31 at p. 2)
    With regards to the CECED round robin test results, DOE notes that, 
based on product teardowns conducted as part of the concurrent 
standards rulemaking, the heating elements and glass cooking surfaces 
used in electric smooth cooking tops are typically purchased parts that 
are manufactured by companies that produce and supply these parts to 
countries worldwide.\14\ As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE 
also notes that while the solid plate cooking top technology evaluated 
in the CECED round robin testing program is not available on the U.S. 
market, DOE anticipates that the results obtained for this technology 
type are most similar to those obtained for electric coil cooking tops 
because in both cases the electric resistance heating element is in 
direct contact with the cooking vessel. Additionally, based on its 
review of

[[Page 91426]]

electric cooking tops, DOE observed that both U.S. and European models 
use similar controls (i.e., both step and infinite). Because the 
electric cooking top controls and technologies available on the U.S. 
market are the same or similar to those available in Europe, the CECED 
round robin test results are appropriate for evaluating the 
repeatability and reproducibility of the water-heating test method 
proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ DOE observed during product teardowns conducted for the 
concurrent energy conservation standards for conventional cooking 
products that many electric smooth cooking top heating elements are 
supplied by E.G.O. Worldwide (http://www.egoproducts.com/en/home/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as discussed in section III.C.2, DOE is not requiring 
that each setting of the multi-ring surface unit be tested 
independently. Instead, DOE is aligning the test provisions for multi-
ring surface units with those in EN 60350-2:2013. As a result, the test 
procedure used in the CECED round robin testing program does not 
contain any significant differences from the test procedure for 
electric cooking tops adopted in this final rule.
    After the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE conducted additional testing to 
investigate concerns raised by interested parties regarding potential 
sources of variability in the water-heating test method. DOE conducted 
testing on five electric cooking tops incorporating different heating 
technologies and control types (i.e., either controls that can adjust 
surface unit power input only in discrete increments or those that 
provide essentially infinite power input adjustment). Table III.2 
includes a list of the heating and control characteristics for each of 
the cooking tops in the DOE test sample.

     Table III.2--Electric Cooking Tops Evaluated for the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Cooking top unit         Heating technology        Control type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................  Coil.................  Discrete Step.
2.........................  Smooth--Radiant......  Discrete Step.
3.........................  Smooth--Radiant......  Infinite.
4.........................  Smooth--Induction....  Discrete Step.
5.........................  Smooth--Induction....  Discrete Step.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each model, DOE conducted testing on surface units capturing a 
range of heating element sizes. To evaluate the variability in test 
results, DOE conducted 2-3 tests per surface unit. For each individual 
test, DOE performed the full surface unit test method, including the 
preliminary test required to determine the turndown temperature and 
simmering setting for a given surface unit. To further evaluate the 
repeatability and reproducibility of test results, DOE varied test 
operators for surface unit tests. In addition, in evaluating variation 
in tests results, DOE included test results from previous testing of 
these test units conducted in support of the August 2016 TP SNOPR.
    Table III.3 lists the coefficient of variation of the measured 
energy consumption among all of DOE's tests for each surface unit. The 
average coefficient of variation observed for DOE's test sample was 1.2 
percent, which was slightly lower than the average coefficient of 
variation of 1.6 percent determined as part of the CECED round robin 
testing program, and in no case did the coefficient of variation for 
any individual surface unit exceed 2.0 percent.

            Table III.3--Variation in Electric Cooking Top Surface Unit Total Test Energy Consumption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Average per-   Coefficient
                                   Surface unit       Surface unit      Cookware      cycle energy        of
       Cooking top unit              location           diameter     diameter  (mm)    consumption    variation
                                                          (in.)                           (Wh)           (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  BR                                 6             150           202.1     1.0
                               BL                                 6             180           275.1     1.4
2............................  FL                                 9             240           500.9     1.8
                               BR                                 6             150           192.2     0.4
                               FL                                 6             150           189.8     0.7
3............................  BR                                 6             150           184.4     1.0
4............................  FR                                 7             180           239.2     0.6
                               BR                                 6             150           173.1     2.0
5............................  FL                                 7             180           266.8     1.1
                               FL                                 6             150           185.9     2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on DOE's testing and the CECED round robin testing, and 
because DOE expects that the coefficient of variation of the results 
for an overall cooking top will not exceed the coefficient of variation 
of the results for an individual surface unit, DOE concludes that the 
water-heating test method in EN 60350-2:2013 produces repeatable and 
reproducible test results. To better understand the higher variation in 
test results observed as part of AHAM's round robin testing, DOE 
requested the test data from AHAM for comparison. At the time of this 
final rule analysis, DOE had not received this test data for direct 
evaluation. Therefore, as discussed in the following sections, DOE 
conducted further testing itself to evaluate specific water-heating 
test method conditions (e.g., turndown temperature and setting) that 
could potentially have contributed to the variation in test results 
observed in AHAM's round robin testing.
Turndown Temperature
    AHAM commented that there is variability in determining the 
turndown temperature because switching off power to a surface unit is 
not an automated process and cannot always be performed immediately 
after the water temperature reaches 70 [deg]C during the preliminary 
turndown test. AHAM stated that this introduces variability in results 
depending on the accuracy, resolution, and response time of the 
temperature measuring device. AHAM

[[Page 91427]]

presented test data from its round robin test program for an electric 
coil surface unit for which the three testing laboratories determined 
turndown temperatures of 82.3 [deg]C, 80 [deg]C, and 81 [deg]C, 
respectively. According to AHAM, this variation would result in testing 
laboratories selecting different simmering settings, which would create 
variability in the simmering phase of the test. AHAM further believes 
this variability would cause issues with demonstrating compliance with 
standards and prevent consumers from accurately comparing energy use of 
products. AHAM stated that, given the short comment period provided on 
the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE should conduct additional work to 
understand and reduce this variation. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 11)
    DOE notes that the provisions specified in section 7.1.Z6.2 of EN 
60350-2:2013 already minimize the variability associated with 
determining the turndown temperature. For example, the preliminary test 
to determine the turndown temperature requires that the average 
recorded temperature must be within the tolerance of 70 [deg]C  0.5 [deg]C throughout the period of 10 seconds before to 10 
seconds after power to the surface unit is shut off. This tolerance 
helps to improve the accuracy of the turndown temperature that is 
eventually identified for the energy test. Moreover, section 7.1.Z6.2.3 
of EN 60350-2:2013 places a tolerance on the actual turndown 
temperature used in the energy test. The test is invalid unless the 
actual turndown temperature corresponding to the moment the surface 
unit setting is changed falls within +1.0 Kelvin (K) to -0.5 K of the 
turndown temperature, Tc, determined during the preliminary 
test.
    In addition to evaluating overall repeatability of the surface unit 
energy consumption measurement, DOE conducted tests designed to 
investigate the impact of turndown temperature variations. Because DOE 
performed the full test method each time a surface unit was tested 
(i.e., the test to determine the turndown temperature, the test to 
determine the simmering setting, and the energy test), DOE captured a 
range of turndown temperatures that satisfied the tolerances in EN 
60350-2:2013. Table III.4 includes sample tests for a surface unit on 
an electric coil cooking top and on a smooth-radiant cooking top, 
demonstrating the effects of varying the actual turndown temperature 
for the same simmering setting. DOE observed that the total measured 
per-cycle energy consumption from test to test exhibited a coefficient 
of variation of less than 1 percent for variations in turndown 
temperature that were within allowable tolerances, and DOE expects that 
the impacts on IAEC for an entire cooktop would be even less 
significant. As a result, DOE is maintaining the methodology for 
determining the turndown temperature as specified in EN 60350-2:2013.

                                     Table III.4--Effects of Varied Turndown Temperature on Total Energy Consumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Pre-determined                    Final water     Total per-
                                                                              turndown        Actual        temperature    cycle energy     Coefficient
 Cooking top unit         Heating element  type              Test            temp, Tc     turndown  temp      Tfinal        consumption    of variation
                                                                             ([deg]C)        ([deg]C)        ([deg]C)          (Wh)             (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................  Coil............................  A                             83.8            83.8            92.0           278.7            0.38
                                                      B                             85.9            86.3            91.6           276.6
2.................  Smooth--Radiant.................  A                             82.1            81.8            91.5           188.7            0.67
                                                      B                             83.1            82.8            92.0           191.7
                                                      C                             81.5            81.3            92.7           189.1
                                                      D                             82.7            84.3            91.7           188.1
                                                      E                             83.6            83.4            91.5           190.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determining the Simmering Setting
    AHAM commented that there is variability in determining the 
simmering setting for the simmer phase of the test. AHAM stated that 
the proposed test procedure does not specify an exact setting for the 
turndown temperature and because of the way cooking tops are designed, 
it is impossible to define a single approach for determining the 
simmering setting. AHAM noted that the simmering setting plays an 
important role in the overshoot temperature and the ability to maintain 
a temperature as close as possible to 90 [deg]C during the simmer phase 
of the test. AHAM stated that based on its testing, the results of 
which are shown in Table III.5 and Table III.6, the simmering setting 
determined for the simmer phase is not consistent from laboratory to 
laboratory. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 11)

      Table III.5--AHAM Round Robin Testing--Electric Smooth Radiant Surface Unit (1500W) Simmering Setting
                                                   Variability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Final water     Energy use
                             Test lab                                 Simmering     temperature   coefficient of
                                                                       setting        ([deg]C)    variation  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lab 1............................................................               4           96              16.3
Lab 2............................................................               3           94
Lab 3............................................................               5          100.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 91428]]


   Table III.6--AHAM Round Robin Testing--Electric Smooth Induction Surface Unit (1800W With boost) Simmering
                                               Setting Variability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Final water     Energy use
                             Test lab                                Simmering      temperature   coefficient of
                                                                      setting        ([deg]C)     Variation  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lab 1............................................................            4.5            94.7            10.1
Lab 2............................................................            4              93.9
Lab 3............................................................            3              90.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that the proposed DOE test procedure does not define 
a tolerance for staying as close as possible to the required simmer 
temperature of 90 [deg]C without going below this value. AHAM stated 
that this can give rise to significant test burden by requiring 
multiple test runs for each surface unit to determine the turndown 
control setting that provides a simmer temperature as close as possible 
to 90 [deg]C. AHAM added that, as indicated in Table III.5 and Table 
III.6, the simmering setting and the maximum water temperature during 
the simmer phase of the test varied and had a significant effect on the 
overall measured energy consumption. AHAM stated that this will lead to 
issues with enforcement testing and prevent consumers from accurately 
comparing energy use of products. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 9-10)
    However, AHAM also commented that it may be difficult to place a 
maximum temperature tolerance on the simmer phase of the test. 
According to AHAM, a surface unit may not be able to achieve a 
specified maximum tolerance depending on the unit's controls (e.g., 
infinite switch or a step control). AHAM expressed concern that the 
uncertainty in these measurements using the proposed DOE test procedure 
could cause manufacturers to switch from step controls to more 
expensive infinite controls. AHAM stated that the test procedure must 
not dictate product design. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 10)
    AHAM further commented that due to the differences in resolution, 
sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measuring device, testing 
laboratories cannot precisely determine when the temperature of the 
water has reached 90 [deg]C. AHAM stated that its members have 
considered using a smoothing average when the temperature briefly 
reaches 90 [deg]C but immediately falls below that level to account for 
temperature measurement noise caused by the convection of water and by 
the temperature measurement setup itself. As a result, AHAM stated that 
minor oscillations of the measured temperature occur and the actual 
threshold of 90 [deg]C cannot be determined. AHAM urged DOE to address 
the oscillation issue before finalizing the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 
30 at pp. 12-13)
    AHAM commented that, as demonstrated by its round robin testing, 
these issues regarding the simmer phase of the test, result in a large 
variability in the overall measured energy consumption. AHAM urged DOE 
to further investigate these issues with the simmer phase and propose 
methods to reduce the variation in test results. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 
10, 11)
    GE asserted that the AEC results from the AHAM round robin testing 
program, presented in Table III.7, which included three different units 
tested at three manufacturer laboratories, indicate that the simmer 
phase of the test is the largest contributor to the variation in test 
results. GE commented that significant variation in the measured AEC 
would obscure any proposed efficiency gains that could be realized by 
many of the technology options DOE considered in its standards 
analysis. (GE, No. 31 at p. 3)

              Table III.7--AHAM Round Robin Testing--Electric Cooking Tops Coefficient of Variance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Coefficient of variance of measured energy
                                                                                 consumption  (%)
                     Cooking top technology                      -----------------------------------------------
                                                                  Heat up to  90     20-Minute
                                                                   [deg]C phase    simmer  phase    Total test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coil............................................................             2.1            19.5             7.1
Smooth--Radiant.................................................             1.1            25.0             9.2
Smooth--Induction...............................................             3.5            21.3             8.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GE commented that measuring only the energy required to reach 90 
[deg]C would provide repeatable results and reduce the burden of 
determining the turndown temperature and simmering setting. As a 
result, GE recommended eliminating the simmer phase of the test. (GE, 
No. 31 at p. 3)
    Section 7.1.Z6.2.3 of EN 60350-2:2013 includes instructions for 
determining the correct setting for the simmering phase of the test 
with minimal uncertainty. For the first test of a surface unit, the 
lowest simmering setting is selected. If during the simmering phase of 
the test the temperature of the water falls below 90 [deg]C, the test 
is repeated using the next highest setting until the setting that 
maintains the water temperature above, but as close as possible to, 90 
[deg]C is identified.
    Based on DOE's testing, only a single setting for each surface unit 
achieved a water temperature that met the requirements of the simmering 
phase of the test as specified in section 7.1.Z6.2.3 of EN 60350-
2:2013. To demonstrate the effect of improper selection of the 
simmering setting, as shown in Table III.8, DOE investigated settings 
that were both higher and lower simmering settings for several surface 
units in the test sample. Assuming all aspects of the test procedure 
are conducted appropriately, the final measured water temperature is 
consistently positively correlated with the simmering setting so that 
there is no ambiguity regarding

[[Page 91429]]

which simmering setting will repeatedly correspond to the setting that 
maintains the water temperature above but as close as possible to 90 
[deg]C. As part of this investigation, DOE also compared the selected 
settings from the testing effort conducted in support of the August 
2016 TP SNOPR to the more recent testing effort conducted in support of 
this final rule and found that the correct simmering setting did not 
change when the surface unit was retested.

                               Table III.8--Effects of Varying the Simmering Setting on Total Per-Cycle Energy Consumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Total per-
                                                                                                                            Final water    cycle energy
  Cooking top unit      Heating element type           Control type                  Test            Simmering setting     temp ([deg]C)    consumption
                                                                                                                                               (Wh)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................  Coil...................  Discrete Step...............  A                    2.....................            92.0           278.7
                                                                             C                    2.5...................            95.2           297.3
2...................  Smooth-Radiant.........  Discrete Step...............  A                    2.....................            91.5           188.7
                                                                             F                    3.....................            99.6           228.4
3...................  Smooth-Radiant.........  Infinite....................  A                    40[deg] from minimum *            87.1           262.7
                                                                             B                    50[deg] from minimum..            88.1           263.7
                                                                             C                    60[deg] from minimum..            90.3           273.9
                                                                             D                    70[deg] from minimum..            93.1           289.3
4...................  Smooth-Induction.......  Discrete Step...............  A                    3.....................            92.2           176.6
                                                                             B                    3.5...................            94.3           191.6
5...................  Smooth-Induction.......  Discrete Step...............  A                    1.....................            83.9           167.0
                                                                             B                    2.....................            91.5           191.4
                                                                             C                    3.....................            96.7           228.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For infinite controls, the simmering setting is the degrees of angular control knob rotation from the lowest input power setting.

    DOE's testing presented in Table III.8 shows that if a lab selects 
simmering that is too high, the measured surface unit energy 
consumption will be significantly higher than at the correct simmering 
setting. DOE notes that the variability in the measured energy 
consumption observed in the AHAM round robin test results, as presented 
in Table III.5, Table III.6, and Table III.7 appears to be due in large 
part to the selection of different simmering settings and the resulting 
variation in the energy consumption during the simmering phase of the 
test. As discussed, DOE expects that correctly following the 
methodology of starting with the lowest simmering setting and repeating 
the test as necessary with the next highest setting until the setting 
that maintains the water temperature above but as close as possible to 
90 [deg]C is identified, will result in only a single appropriate 
simmering setting for a given surface unit. As presented in Table 
III.3, DOE's testing showed that the total measured energy consumption 
did not vary significantly when consistently applying the methodology 
in section 7.1.Z6.2.3 of EN 60350-2:2013 for determining the simmering 
setting.
    With regard to AHAM's comment concerning the difficulty of placing 
a maximum temperature tolerance on the simmering phase of the test, DOE 
concludes that the methodology in section 7.1.Z6.2.3 of EN 60350-2:2013 
for determining the simmer setting eliminates the need to specify a 
maximum tolerance on the simmering temperature. By selecting the lowest 
simmering setting first and repeating the test as necessary with the 
next highest setting until the water temperature is as close to 90 
[deg]C as possible, an incremental increase in the final water 
temperature associated with each step increase in the power setting 
will become apparent. This information can then be used to determine 
the correct simmering setting without specifically limiting the final 
temperature. Given the impact that selecting the correct simmering 
setting has on overall energy consumption of a surface unit, DOE is 
amending appendix I in this final rule to require that the simmering 
setting selection for the energy test cycle of each cooking area or 
cooking zone be recorded.
    As noted in Table III.2, DOE's test sample included products with 
both discrete step and infinite controls to investigate the effect 
different controls might have on variability during the simmering phase 
of the test. Based on DOE's testing with different power level 
settings, as presented in Table III.8, DOE did not observe any 
differences in the process of selecting the correct simmering setting 
between the models with discrete step and models with infinite 
controls. Assuming reasonable increments (on the order of 10 degrees of 
rotation) as the setting is adjusted to determine the correct simmering 
setting, infinite controls do not require a fine tolerance on the 
selected setting that would substantially impact the per-cycle energy 
consumption. Additionally, DOE did not find that it was easier to 
maintain the water temperature closer to 90 [deg]C with one control 
type compared to the other. The test-to-test variation in total per-
cycle energy consumption was also similar for cooking tops with 
infinite controls and cooking tops with discrete step controls. DOE 
also surveyed the cooking top models available in Europe, where EN 
60350-2:2013 is already used to rate cooking tops. DOE observed that 
both products with step controls and with infinite controls were widely 
available on the European market.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE determines that the water-heating 
test procedure adopted in this final rule would not result in the 
unavailability of certain control types. Furthermore, as noted in 
section I.A of this document, based on the provisions under 42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(3), DOE designs its test procedures to produce test results 
that measure energy use during a representative average use cycle and 
that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. Therefore, DOE focuses the 
development of its test procedure around the general use and operations 
performed by a consumer and not around specific product designs. DOE 
notes that a manufacturer may apply for a waiver from the test 
procedure if a basic model contains one or more design characteristics 
which either prevent testing of the basic model according to the 
prescribed test procedures or cause the prescribed test procedures to 
evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true 
energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate 
comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). In such cases, a manufacturer 
may provide any alternate test procedures

[[Page 91430]]

known to the manufacturer to evaluate the performance of the product 
type in a manner representative of the energy consumption 
characteristics of the basic model. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).
    Regarding AHAM's comment on the difficulty of determining when the 
water temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C to start the 20-minute 
simmering phase of the test, DOE acknowledges that occasionally, when 
the temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C, it may oscillate slightly 
above and below 90 [deg]C due to noise in the temperature measurement. 
Based on DOE's testing, DOE observed temperature fluctuations around 90 
[deg]C at the start of the simmering phase primarily during tests of 
electric coil and smooth-radiant surface units. Figure III.1 shows an 
example of two separate tests conducted for the same surface unit on a 
smooth-radiant cooking top. After initially reaching 90 [deg]C, the 
water temperature in each test drops below the 90 [deg]C limit for no 
more than 20 seconds.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.025

    Based on DOE's review of the temperature fluctuations observed for 
all electric and gas cooking tops in its test sample, DOE finds that a 
20-second period would accurately account for any minor temperature 
fluctuations after the water temperature initially reaches 90 [deg]C.
    Allowing for temperature fluctuations around 90 [deg]C during the 
first 20 seconds of the simmering phase is also consistent with the 20-
second tolerance specified for determining the turndown temperature of 
a surface unit in section 7.1.Z6.2.2 of EN 60350-2:2013. DOE also notes 
that allowing for a 20 seconds of fluctuation about 90 [deg]C at the 
start of the simmering phase does not significantly impact the total 
energy consumption measured for a surface unit. Table III.9 lists the 
final temperature and total per-cycle energy consumption for Test A and 
B that were also shown in Figure III.1.

 Table III.9--Effect of a 20-Second Tolerance at the Start of the Simmer
                                  Phase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Final water     Total per-
                                            temperature    cycle energy
                                              Tfinal        consumption
                                             ([deg]C)          (Wh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test A..................................            92.0           191.7
Test B..................................            91.5           190.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments from interested parties on the difficulty of 
determining when the water temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C to start 
the 20-minute simmering phase of the test and DOE's analysis discussed, 
DOE is clarifying in this final rule that the 20-minute simmering 
period starts when the water temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C and 
does not drop below 90 [deg]C for more than 20 seconds after initially 
reaching 90 [deg]C.
Heating Element Cycling
    AHAM commented that cycling of power to the heating element is 
unpredictable and causes variation in test results. AHAM stated that it 
is unknown if the surface unit will cycle the heating element off 
during a critical phase of the test procedure (i.e., at the start of 
the simmer phase or when determining the simmering setting). AHAM 
stated that the algorithm that governs the cycling of the heating 
element is important for cooking performance because it controls the 
temperature of the food being cooked. AHAM also noted that electric 
smooth cooking tops are equipped with a sensor that monitors the 
temperature of the glass surface and cycles the heating element as 
needed as a safety function to prevent the glass from breaking. AHAM 
commented that the uncertainty regarding how cycling of the heating 
element will impact test results, and test burden is a significant 
concern and could drive redesign of products. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 12)
    DOE recognizes that electric coil and smooth-radiant cooking tops 
typically control the heat input to the food load by cycling the 
heating element on and off at different rates based on the control 
setting rather than fully modulating the power to the heating element. 
DOE observed during its testing that during the heat-up phase of the 
test, when the

[[Page 91431]]

surface unit is set to the maximum setting, the heating element 
typically remains on the entire time. When the control setting is 
turned down to a lower level for the simmering phase of the test, the 
heater cycles on and off to achieve a lower level of heat. DOE observed 
only one electric smooth-radiant surface unit in its sample for which 
the heater cycled on and off during the heat-up phase of the test. 
However, after cycling off, the heating element cycled back on within a 
few seconds and, as a result, the water temperature continued to rise 
at a fairly steady rate. DOE concludes from the infrequency of heating 
element cycling during the heat-up phase that it observed among all 
electric cooking tops during testing that it is unlikely that other 
electric smooth-radiant cooking tops would require any substantive 
amount of heating element cycling to protect the glass surface. 
Therefore, given the short duration and infrequency of heating element 
cycling that may occur when the surface unit is set at the maximum 
setting during the heat-up phase of the test, DOE does not expect any 
measurable impacts of heating element cycling on the total measured 
per-cycle energy consumption.
Temperature Sensor Requirements
    AHAM commented that the accuracy of the water temperature 
measurement is a critical part of the test procedure, but that EN 
60350-2:2013 does not specify whether a resistance temperature detector 
(RTD) type probe or a thermocouple should be used. AHAM noted that RTDs 
are highly accurate, but can be sensitive, expensive, and may not be 
compatible with induction cooking tops. AHAM also noted that 
thermocouples offer durability but are not as accurate. According to 
AHAM, a laboratory using an RTD may obtain different turndown 
temperature and simmering settings than one using a thermocouple, 
resulting in variation in the total energy consumption measurement. 
AHAM commented that DOE should require a thermocouple in the test 
procedure and investigate the specific type of thermocouple that should 
be required to standardize the water temperature measurement. (AHAM, 
No. 30 at p. 12)
    DOE conducted its testing using a thermocouple and infers, based on 
the various references to thermocouples in EN 60350-2:2013 (e.g., use 
of thermocouples for other liquid heating measurements, reference to 
thermocouple standards in the bibliography), that the water-heating 
test method specified in EN 60350-2:2013 is intended to be conducted 
using a thermocouple to measure water temperature. DOE also notes that 
similar IEC water-heating test standards, such as IEC 60705 Amendment 1 
to Edition 4.0, ``Household microwave ovens--Methods for measuring 
performance'', specify thermocouples for measuring water temperature. 
For these reasons, DOE agrees with AHAM that the test procedure should 
clarify that a thermocouple should be used for measuring water 
temperature.
    Section 5.3 of EN 60350-2:2013 includes specifications for the 
water temperature measuring device, which includes requirements that 
the accuracy of the water temperature measuring device must be 0.5 K of the temperature being measured. DOE notes that specific 
thermocouple types may have different accuracies. As a result, DOE 
concludes that specifying the thermocouple type is not necessary given 
that EN 60350-2:2013 already includes requirements for the accuracy of 
the water temperature measurement.
Surface Unit Diameter Measurement
    AHAM commented that the proposed test procedure does not specify 
the equipment for measuring the surface unit cooking zone diameter, 
which is necessary for determining the size of the test cookware. 
According to AHAM, if the test procedure does not include requirements 
for the measuring equipment, the printed diameters of cooking tops may 
change to resemble standard sizes in the test procedure. To ensure 
consistency and accuracy in test measurements, AHAM stated that DOE 
should require a diameter measurement accurate to within 1 
mm and specify that the outer diameter of the cooking zone printed 
marking should be used for the measurement. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 13)
    DOE recognizes that measurements of surface unit cooking zone 
diameters will affect the test vessel diameters and load sizes selected 
for the test of electric cooking tops. DOE agrees that clarifying that 
the outer diameter of the cooking zone printed marking should be used 
for the measurement will provide more consistent measurements of 
surface unit cooking zone diameters. As a result, DOE is amending the 
test procedure in this final rule to clarify that the outer diameter of 
the cooking zone printed marking shall be used for the measurement. DOE 
does not find that specifying a tolerance on the accuracy of the 
surface unit diameter measurement in the test procedure is necessary. 
The provisions for measuring the dimensions of the cooking zone in 
section 6.2.Z2 of EN 60350-2:2013 and the cooking zone size categories 
in Table Z3 of EN 60350-2:2013 are provided in millimeters. DOE 
concludes that these values indicate that surface unit diameter 
measurements must be made to the nearest millimeter.
Availability of Test Vessels
    AHAM commented that suppliers for test vessels are extremely 
limited and are located only in Europe, which adds time and cost for 
U.S. manufacturers. Furthermore, according to AHAM, if the test 
procedure is required to demonstrate compliance with standards, demand 
is expected to increase. AHAM stated that this may overburden existing 
suppliers, making it difficult for manufacturers and testing 
laboratories to procure test vessels in a timely manner and would make 
the test procedure unduly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 
6, 13)
    AHAM stated that because testing has been limited and most 
manufacturers have only a single set of test vessels, AHAM has not yet 
been able to understand the durability of the test vessels. AHAM added 
that the quality of test vessels provided by suppliers in the United 
States has yet to be determined and may result in differences from test 
vessels procured from European suppliers. According to AHAM, DOE should 
identify acceptable suppliers in the United States and ensure that the 
test vessels are comparable from supplier to supplier. AHAM also stated 
that DOE should evaluate the durability of the test vessels to better 
quantify the test burden and how frequently test vessels need to be 
replaced. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 6, 13)
    Section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350-2:2013 includes detailed specifications 
for the materials and dimensions of the test vessels, such that any 
precision machine shop can construct the test vessels with the 
specified materials. DOE has also determined that test vessels meeting 
the requirements in EN 60350-2:2013 are available from multiple 
sources. DOE was able to source two full sets of test vessels, at two 
different points in time using different material stocks, from a small 
business precision machine shop. DOE also notes that the test methods 
and test vessels specified EN 60350-2:2013 are used in countries both 
within and outside of Europe, and that suppliers are not limited to 
those recommended in EN 60350-2:2013.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ European cookware supplier recommended in EN 60350-2:2013: 
RYBU GmbH (http://www.rybu.de)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate whether consistent test results can be produced using 
different

[[Page 91432]]

sets of test vessels, DOE conducted testing after the August 2016 TP 
SNOPR using its two sets of test vessels. DOE conducted testing on four 
surface units on three cooking tops with both sets of test vessels. 
DOE's test results presented in Table III.10 show that the variance of 
test results was, on average, 1.6 percent, which is similar to the 
overall variation in test results using the water-heating test method 
presented in Table III.3. Based on this testing, DOE has determined 
that test vessels constructed using the detailed specifications 
provided in section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350-2:2013 produce reproducible 
results.

                                                  Table III.10--Variation due to Different Test Vessels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Average per-
                                                                           Surface unit      Simmering       Cookware      cycle energy   Coefficient of
            Cooking top unit                  Surface unit location       diameter (in.)      setting      diameter (mm)    consumption    variation (%)
                                                                                                                               (Wh)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2......................................  FL                                            6               2             150           189.8             0.7
4......................................  BR                                            6               3             150           173.1             2.1
5......................................  BR                                            6             2.5             150           172.8             2.6
                                         BR                                            6               3             150           187.0             1.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each set of test vessels used in DOE's testing also were subject to 
a different number of tests, but DOE's observation is that the test 
vessels met the specifications provided section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350-
2:2013 and remained within the allowable tolerances, such that the test 
procedure produces repeatable and reproducible results. The flatness of 
the test vessel bottoms have been observed to stay in tolerance for 
several years, but manufacturers may wish to examine the test vessels 
for compliance with the allowable tolerances more frequently. If the 
test vessels are no longer in tolerance, it may be possible to repair 
the equipment without replacing it. For the reasons discussed, DOE 
concludes that there are multiple sources that can supply the test 
vessels and that the specifications provided in section 7.1.Z2 of EN 
60350-2:2013 for the test vessels are sufficient. As a result, DOE is 
not including any additional requirements for suppliers and durability 
of the test vessels.
Final Rule Test Procedure Amendments
    Based on DOE's testing and investigations discussed, DOE concludes 
that the water-heating test method is both repeatable and reproducible 
for electric cooking tops. DOE posits that the variation in test 
results observed in AHAM's round robin testing may be related to the 
lack of familiarity with the test method rather than variability 
inherent to the test method itself. For these reasons, DOE is amending 
the test procedure in this final rule to incorporate by reference the 
testing provisions in EN 60350-2:2013 as proposed in the August 2016 TP 
SNOPR and presented, with the clarifications to the simmering 
temperature, temperature sensor requirements, and surface unit diameter 
measurement.
2. Multi-Ring and Non-Circular Surface Units
    Many smooth-electric radiant cooking tops incorporate ``multi-
ring'' elements that have multiple concentric heating elements for a 
single surface unit. When a single ring is selected for use, the 
smallest-diameter heating element is energized. Each setting which 
increases the number of rings sequentially energizes additional 
concentric heating elements, increasing the diameter of the surface 
unit accordingly. Multiple heating elements give the user flexibility 
to adjust the surface unit to fit a certain cookware size. Results from 
DOE testing presented in the December 2014 TP SNOPR showed a 
significant decrease in efficiency at the smaller-diameter settings as 
compared to the largest-diameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit. 
81 FR 57374, 57384 (Aug. 22, 2016).
    As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, EN 60350-2:2013 requires 
that the energy consumption of only the largest diameter of a multi-
ring surface unit be measured, unless an additional test vessel 
category is needed to meet the test vessel selection requirements in 
section 7.1.Z3 of EN 60350-2:2013, as explained in section III.C.1 of 
this document. In that case, one of the smaller-diameter settings of 
the multi-ring surface unit that matches the next best-fitting test 
vessel diameter must be tested. However, DOE proposed in the August 
2016 TP SNOPR to require each setting of the multi-ring surface unit be 
tested independently. 81 FR 57374, 57384-57385 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE 
noted that because each setting could be used as an individual surface 
unit, each setting should factor into the AEC of the cooking top. 
Specifically DOE proposed that each diameter setting of the multi-ring 
surface unit would be tested and included as a unique surface unit in 
the average energy consumption calculation for the cooking top. Id.
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates supported DOE's proposal to require 
each diameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit to be tested 
separately. The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that testing each 
diameter setting separately will better capture the energy consumption 
of cooking tops with these elements and encourage manufacturers to 
develop ways to improve the efficiency of the smaller-diameter 
settings. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at p. 2)
    AHAM and GE opposed DOE's proposal to require testing of each 
diameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit. AHAM stated that this 
proposal unduly increases the test burden, by up to 75 percent, 
depending on the number of heating elements. GE stated that because 
energy, in the form of radiation, escapes from the areas of the multi-
ring element not covered by the test vessel when testing the inner ring 
heating elements, cooking tops with multi-ring surface units tested 
according to the proposed DOE test procedure will have a higher AEC 
than the same cooking top without multi-ring surface units. AHAM and GE 
also stated that requiring testing of each diameter setting of a multi-
ring surface unit could drive manufacturers to eliminate this design, 
resulting in a loss of consumer utility of customizing element size to 
the size of their cookware. AHAM and GE noted that without these multi-
ring surface units, consumers could use smaller pots on larger heating 
elements, which would result in 20-percent greater energy use \16\

[[Page 91433]]

because the heating element is not completely covered by the cookware. 
(AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 5, 14; GE, No. 31 at pp. 3-4) AHAM and GE stated 
that based on the increased test burden, loss of consumer utility, and 
resulting inefficiency, DOE should remove the requirement to test each 
diameter setting of a multi-ring surface unit and instead follow EN 
60350-2:2013 to only require testing of the largest measured diameter 
of multi-ring surface units. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 14; GE, No. 31 at p. 
4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ AHAM described two tests that were conducted on a multi-
ring surface unit with a 210 mm test vessel. For the first test, the 
test vessel was placed on the inner ring as specified in the 
proposed test procedure with the small element activated. The second 
test was conducted with the test vessel placed in the center and the 
larger burner was activated (as a consumer would, if this utility is 
removed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To better understand the utility provided by multi-ring surface 
units, DOE reviewed electric smooth-radiant cooking tops with multi-
ring elements on the market in the United States. DOE estimates that 
multi-ring surface units add approximately 1.5 additional surface unit 
diameters per cooking top, providing consumers with the ability to 
better match cookware diameter to surface unit diameter. However, DOE 
is not aware of any data demonstrating how frequently consumers use the 
smaller diameter settings of multi-ring surface units.
    DOE agrees with AHAM and GE that removing the multi-ring surface 
unit functionality from a cooking top could lead to increased energy 
consumption. As shown in Table III.11, DOE tested two multi-ring 
elements with the next best-fitting cookware from a different 
standardized cookware category (see Table Z3 of EN 60350-2:2013). By 
testing each surface unit with a smaller diameter cookware, DOE 
simulated the additional energy use that would result if the surface 
unit did not have the multi-ring functionality. DOE found that the 
normalized surface unit per-cycle energy consumption of the surface 
unit increases by greater than 25 percent if the cookware diameter is 
not matched to the surface unit diameter.

                                  Table III.11--Effects of a Smaller Test Vessel Diameter on a Multi-Ring Surface Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            Normalized
                                                                                              Maximum                      surface unit     Increase in
                Cooking top unit                          Surface unit location            surface unit      Cookware         energy        normalized
                                                                                           diameter (mm)   diameter (mm)    consumption       energy
                                                                                                                              (Wh/g)        consumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..............................................  FR                                                  305             300            0.18  ..............
                                                                                                                     240            0.23            29.2
                                                 BL                                                  203             210            0.18  ..............
                                                                                                                     180            0.23            27.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the test results presented, DOE would expect an increase 
in actual cooking top energy consumption and loss of utility for 
consumers if the multi-ring feature were removed by manufacturers due 
to its negative impacts on the measured AEC. For these reasons, and in 
consideration of the uncertainty regarding the frequency of use of the 
smaller diameter settings of multi-ring surface units and the added 
testing burden associated with testing multi-ring surface units, DOE is 
not adopting a requirement that each diameter of a multi-ring surface 
unit be tested separately as part of the test method adopted in this 
final rule. Instead, DOE has determined that the provisions for testing 
multi-ring surface units in EN 60350-2:2013, which require that the 
energy consumption of only the largest diameter of a multi-ring surface 
unit be measured, unless an additional test vessel category is needed 
to meet the requirements of the test procedure, will produce an 
appropriate measurement of energy use for such surface units while 
minimizing testing burden and avoiding the unavailability of cooking 
tops with multi-ring surface units. DOE notes that the provisions in EN 
60350-2:2013 ensure that if a cooking top with a multi-ring surface 
unit does not include other surface units with a variety of diameters, 
the smaller diameter settings of multi-ring surface units would be 
tested to fulfill the cookware category requirements in EN 60350-
2:2013. Therefore, DOE is incorporating by reference the provisions for 
testing multi-ring surface units in EN 60350-2:2013 as discussed.
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by 
reference section 7.Z1 in EN 60350-02:2013, which specifies that for 
cooking zones that include a circular and an elliptical or rectangular 
part, only the circular section be tested. Additionally, DOE proposed 
to incorporate by reference section 7.1.Z4 and Annex ZA of EN 60350-
2:2013, which define the center of elliptical and rectangular surface 
units by their geometric centers and provide the required test 
positions of test vessels on these kinds of surface units. 81 FR 57374, 
57384 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE did not receive any comments on these 
proposed provisions regarding the testing of cooking zones that include 
a circular and an elliptical or rectangular part. DOE is adopting these 
provisions in this final rule.
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE also maintained its proposal to 
not require testing of certain types of non-circular cooking top 
elements, specifically, bridge zones, warming plates, grills, griddles, 
and roaster extensions. DOE clarified that it was not proposing to 
require testing of bridge modes that couple several surface units 
together for use as a warming plate or for use with a roasting pan. 
However, if the individual circular heating elements can be used 
independently of the bridge mode, DOE proposed that the individual 
circular heating elements should be tested and included in the 
calculation of cooking top AEC. 81 FR 57374, 57385 (Aug. 22, 2016).
    AHAM agreed with DOE's proposal to not require testing of bridge 
zones, warming plates, grills and griddles. AHAM noted that these 
cooking top elements may not heat the test load to the temperature of 
90 [deg]C required under EN 60350-2:2013 and that the purpose of these 
cooking top elements is not to boil water. AHAM added that requiring 
testing of these elements would increase test burden and require the 
development of unique test vessels/loads as well as further evaluation 
of repeatability and reproducibility. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 14) The SoCal 
IOUs stated that because DOE's proposed test procedure already includes 
provisions for testing non-circular cooking top elements, no additional 
testing burden would be introduced by requiring testing of bridge 
zones, warming plates, grills and griddles. The SoCal IOUs recommended 
that DOE extend the water-heating test method to include these non-
circular cooking top elements to ensure that sufficient data is 
collected to develop

[[Page 91434]]

standards that maximize energy savings. (SoCal IOUs, No. 27 at p. 3)
    As noted in the December 2014 TP SNOPR, bridge zones, warming 
plates, grills, and griddles are not intended for use with a typical 
circular piece of cookware. DOE also noted that appropriate test loads 
for these non-circular cooking top elements would depend on the 
intended function of each cooking top element. 79 FR 71894, 71906 (Dec. 
3, 2014). Because DOE has not developed test loads for bridge zones, 
warming plates, grills, and griddles, which are not intended for use 
with typical circular piece of cookware, the test procedure proposed in 
the August 2016 TP SNOPR did not address these cooking top elements. 
DOE is only requiring testing of non-circular cooking top elements in 
cases where those elements are designed for circular pieces of cookware 
(e.g., bridge zone individual circular heating elements that can be 
used independently of the bridge mode). Because the additional 
equipment necessary for the test method to be representative would 
place an unreasonable burden on test laboratories and manufacturers, 
and for the reasons discussed, DOE is not requiring testing of bridge 
zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles.
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE clarified that a flexible cooking 
area (i.e., a full-surface induction cooking zone, able to heat 
multiple items of cookware simultaneously, with independent control 
options for each piece of cookware) does not constitute a bridge mode. 
81 FR 57374, 57385 (Aug. 22, 2016). As discussed in section III.C.1 of 
this document, DOE is incorporating by reference Annex ZA of EN 60350-
2:2013 for testing flexible cooking areas, which specifies that for a 
cooking area without limitative marking, e.g., a full-surface induction 
zone, the number of controls is defined by the number of cookware items 
that can be used independently and simultaneously, and the number of 
controls determines the number of tests.
3. Gas Cooking Tops
    The test methods specified in the relevant sections of EN 60350-
2:2013 were intended for use with only electric cooking tops. In the 
August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to extend this water-heating test 
method to gas cooking tops based on the test provisions in another 
European water-heating test standard, EN 30-2-1:1998 Domestic cooking 
appliances burning gas--Part 2-1: Rational use of energy--General. EN 
30-2-1 is similar to the electric cooking top water-heating test method 
in that it specifies a series of test vessels and water loads that are 
dependent on a nominal characteristic of the surface unit. EN 30-2-1 
specifies the diameter of the test vessel and the mass of the water 
load based on the heat input of the gas burner being tested. 81 FR 
57374, 57385-57386 (Aug. 22, 2016).
    However, DOE noted in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that because the two 
test methods differ slightly (e.g., differences in the test vessels, 
water load sizes, and heating phases measured during the test), the 
resulting measured energy consumption would not be comparable between 
gas and electric cooking tops. As a result, DOE did not propose to 
incorporate both test methods by reference. DOE noted that it was not 
aware of data showing that consumers cook food differently with gas 
cooking tops than with electric cooking tops. Thus, DOE proposed to 
extend the test methods specified for electric cooking tops in EN 
60350-2:2013 to gas cooking tops, but using the test vessel diameters 
and the corresponding water loads from EN 60350-2:2013 that most 
closely match the test vessel diameters specified in EN 30-2-1. DOE 
determined that using the same test vessels and water loads as 
specified for electric cooking tops, as well as the same general test 
method, would reduce the burden on manufacturers by minimizing the 
amount of new test equipment required to be purchased. 81 FR 57374, 
57386 (Aug. 22, 2016). In addition, unlike for electric cooking tops, 
DOE did not propose to require a minimum number of cookware categories 
for the test of a gas cooking top. Given that the diameter of the gas 
flame cannot be adjusted when the burner is at its maximum setting, DOE 
determined that only the best fitting test vessel would be used for the 
surface unit test. Id.
    The SoCal IOUs supported the extension of the water-heating test 
method to gas cooking tops, but stated that DOE should conduct a 
sensitivity analysis of the impact of ambient temperature and pressure 
conditions on the test results for gas and electric cooking products. 
The SoCal IOUs stated that this will ensure consistent test results 
across various regions, climates, and altitudes. The SoCal IOUs also 
commented that validating the ambient condition requirements would 
address the impact of the proposed correction to the gas heating value 
to standard temperature and pressure conditions. (SoCal IOUs, No. 27 at 
pp. 2-3) As discussed in section III.C.1 of this final rule, DOE is 
incorporating the ambient air pressure and temperature conditions 
specified in section 5.1 of EN 60350-2:2013. As a result, these test 
conditions will be standardized such that test results should not be 
impacted by tests being conducted in different locations.
    AHAM commented that it does not have any consumer data on the 
representativeness of the proposed water heating method for gas cooking 
tops, and DOE did not provide AHAM and manufacturers with enough time 
to collect such data and to understand whether the proposed test method 
provides representative results for gas cooking tops. AHAM further 
commented that DOE should conduct consumer surveys to collect the data 
necessary to support the proposed test method for gas cooking tops. 
(AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 15, 17)
    AHAM commented that DOE needs to assess the impact of using the 
electric cooking top test procedure for gas cooking tops. AHAM noted 
that Europe uses different test procedures for each technology because 
gas cooking tops use more of a system approach when compared to 
electric cooking tops. AHAM added that the heat transferred to the test 
load depends on the design of the burner, flow of gas, mass of the 
grate, and height of the grate from the burner. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 15) 
AHAM commented that because of the short comment period, it was not 
been able to run its proposed round robin testing program for gas 
cooking tops to evaluate the proposed test method. AHAM also noted that 
it was conducting investigative testing to compare DOE's proposal to EN 
30-2-1, as well as a combination of DOE's proposed test procedure and 
the test vessels specified in EN 30-2-1. AHAM commented that it does 
not have the data to determine, nor has DOE demonstrated, that the 
proposed test procedure for gas cooking tops produces repeatable and 
reproducible test results. AHAM stated that DOE cannot rely on the 
CECED round robin testing to demonstrate repeatability and 
reproducibility because the CECED round robin did not test according to 
DOE's proposed test procedure for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 30 at 
pp. 3, 15)
    Because DOE has proposed to establish the same test procedure for 
electric cooking tops to gas, AHAM noted that the same testing issues 
it identified for electric cooking tops also apply for gas cooking 
tops. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 15)
    AHAM additionally commented that several manufacturers observed 
during testing that, in some instances, the overshoot temperature went 
beyond the simmer temperature of 90 [deg]C, such that the turndown 
calculation showed a negative temperature value. According

[[Page 91435]]

to AHAM, this means that some products may not be able to complete a 
valid test. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 16-17)
    AHAM also noted that, based on its limited investigative testing, 
testing laboratories did not always center the test vessel because some 
grate designs cannot support the test vessels specified in DOE's 
proposed test procedure. AHAM indicated that the test vessel was either 
unbalanced on the grates, or was too big for the design of the grates. 
As a result, laboratories selected either a larger or smaller test 
vessel to conduct a test. AHAM stated that DOE should investigate and 
address this issue before finalizing the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 30 
at p. 16)
    As noted for electric cooking tops, DOE requested test data and 
information from AHAM's testing of gas cooking tops to better 
understand the issues raised on their comments. DOE has not received 
this test data or information which would allow for a direct evaluation 
of the issues identified. As described in section III.C.1 of this 
document, DOE conducted testing after the August 2016 TP SNOPR to 
investigate the concerns raised by interested parties regarding 
potential sources of variability in the water-heating test method. In 
addition to the electric cooking top testing, DOE also conducted 
testing on five gas cooking tops that covered a range of manufacturers, 
burner input rates, installation widths, burner quantities, and grate 
weights. DOE's test sample also included cooking tops marketed as 
either residential-style or commercial-style. Table III.12 lists the 
characteristics for each of the gas cooking tops in the DOE test 
sample.

                                                     Table III.12--DOE Gas Cooking Tops Test Sample
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                Grate
                                               Number of     Minimum      Maximum                                                             weight per
        Cooking top unit         Width (in.)    burners     input rate   input rate     Burner configuration             Grate type             burner
                                                             (Btu/h)      (Btu/h)                                                               (lbs)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................           30            4        9,000        9,000  Open......................  Steel-wire................          0.5
2..............................           30            4        5,000       15,000  Sealed....................  Cast Iron.................          3.7
3..............................           36            6       18,000       18,000  Sealed--Stacked...........  Cast Iron.................          4.2
4..............................           36            6        9,200       15,000  Sealed--Stacked...........  Cast Iron (continuous)....          5.8
5..............................           36            6       15,000       18,500  Sealed....................  Cast Iron (continuous)....          7.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate the variability in test results, DOE conducted two to 
three tests on each burner. For each individual test, DOE performed the 
full test method, including the preliminary test required to determine 
the turndown temperature and simmering setting for a given burner. In 
addition, in evaluating the test-to-test variation, DOE included test 
results from previous testing conducted in support of the August 2016 
TP SNOPR. The coefficient of variation for the measured AEC observed 
for DOE's gas cooking top test sample was, on average, 1.0 percent. DOE 
also noted that the average per-cycle energy consumption coefficient of 
variation for each burner was 1.7 percent, which is similar to the 
variation observed for electric cooking tops presented in section 
III.C.1 of this document. Based on this testing, DOE concludes that the 
water-heating test method in EN 60350-2:2013, extended to gas cooking 
tops based on EN 30-2-1, produces repeatable and reproducible test 
results.

 Table III.13--Coefficient of Variation in Annual Energy Consumption for
                            Gas Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Average
                                                   annual    Coefficient
               Cooking top unit                    energy         of
                                                consumption   variation
                                                 (kBtu/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................        640.4         2.4%
2.............................................        854.4         1.4%
3.............................................        974.6         0.4%
4.............................................        963.5         0.3%
5.............................................        893.1         0.3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE observed similar variation in the turndown temperature for gas 
cooking tops as for electric cooking tops, and noted that the observed 
variation in the turndown temperature did not measurably affect the 
variability in the per-cycle energy consumption. As noted in III.C.1 of 
this document, the provisions specified in section 7.1.Z6.2 of EN 
60350-2:2013 reduce the variability associated with determining the 
turndown temperature by including tolerances on the temperature at 
which gas flow to the burner is shut off.
    As discussed in section III.C.1 of this document, the preliminary 
test to determine the turndown temperature specifies that the test load 
be heated at the maximum input rate until the water temperature reaches 
70 [deg]C (T70), at which point the burner is immediately 
shut off. After the burner is shut off, the water temperature is 
recorded until it has reached its maximum value above T70. 
In this final rule, DOE is clarifying that the temperature overshoot 
([Delta]To), as shown in figure Z2 in section 7.1.Z6.2.2 of 
EN 60350-2:2013 is the difference between the maximum recorded water 
temperature and T70. DOE notes that the while the figure 
correctly shows that [Delta]To = Tmax-
;T70, the text in section 7.1.Z6.2.2 of EN 60350-2:2013 
incorrectly defines [Delta]To as the highest recorded 
temperature. The turndown temperature for the energy test 
(Tc) is then calculated as Tc = 93 [deg]C-
[Delta]To. With regards to concerns that the overshoot 
temperature can be large enough such that the turndown calculation 
results in a negative temperature value, DOE did not observe any cases 
during its testing where the turndown temperature would approach a 
negative value. DOE notes that a negative turndown temperature would 
require a temperature overshoot during the preliminary turndown test of 
greater than 93 [deg]C, and a final water temperature higher than the 
boiling point of water, whereas DOE typically observed temperature 
overshoots of 10 [deg]C or less. In addition, EN 60350-2:2013 specifies 
that if Tc is less than or equal to 80 [deg]C, then 80 
[deg]C is used as Tc.
    Similarly, DOE evaluated the variation in the simmering setting for 
gas cooking tops, using the same test methodology as for electric 
cooking tops. As part of its testing effort, DOE first selected the 
lowest setting and then incrementally increased the setting in each 
consecutive test until the simmering temperature was above, but as 
close to, 90 [deg]C as possible. DOE did not observe any differences 
between gas and electric cooking tops regarding the

[[Page 91436]]

process of selecting the correct simmering setting. Based on DOE's test 
results, as presented in Table III.13, the water-heating test method, 
including the process for selecting the simmering setting, did not 
result in significant variability in test results.
    Furthermore, throughout its testing of gas cooking tops, which 
covered a range of burner/grate designs, DOE did not observe any 
difficulty or issues with positioning the test load on the grates. The 
maximum test vessel diameter specified in the test method for gas 
cooking tops is approximately 12 inches, which is a common pan diameter 
in the United States. For all of the cooking tops in DOE's test sample, 
the grates were able to support the test vessel and water loads 
specified in the test method for the full duration of the test. None of 
the grates in DOE's test sample exhibited signs that the test vessels 
and water loads were too big or heavy for the design of the grates.
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to use the same test 
vessels and water loads as specified for electric cooking tops in EN 
60350-2:2013, correlating those test vessel sizes to nominal burner 
input rate. Specifically, DOE proposed to include a table of burner 
input rates and test vessel sizes in section 2.7.2 of appendix I, along 
with the mass of the water load to be used in both English and Metric 
units. However, DOE incorrectly specified the mass of the water load in 
pounds for the 300 mm test vessel diameter, although the mass listed in 
kilograms (kg), 4.24 kg, was correct. As part of this final rule, DOE 
is correcting the conversion to English units for the 300 mm test 
vessel so that it correctly corresponds to the test vessel diameter and 
water load listed in EN 60350-2:2013. Table III.14 lists the correct 
test vessel diameters adopted for the test of conventional gas cooking 
tops.

        Table III.14--Test Vessel Diameters and Water Loads for the Test of Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Nominal gas burner input rate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Test vessel     Water load
                                                                   Maximum Btu/h     diameter      mass lbs (kg)
                       Minimum  Btu/h (kW)                             (kW)         inches (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,958 (1.16)....................................................    5,596 (1.64)      8.27 (210)     4.52 (2.05)
5,630 (1.65)....................................................    6,756 (1.98)      9.45 (240)     5.95 (2.70)
6,790 (1.99)....................................................    8,053 (2.36)     10.63 (270)     7.54 (3.42)
8,087 (2.37)....................................................    14,331 (4.2)     10.63 (270)     7.54 (3.42)
>14,331 (4.2)...................................................  ..............     11.81 (300)     9.35 (4.24)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that the design of gas cooking top burners (i.e., 
shape, whether it is open versus sealed, or stacked) and grates (i.e., 
size, weight, material, distance from burner to grate, and whether the 
grates are continuous to allow a pot to be moved from one burner to 
another without lifting it) vary from one product to another and offer 
different consumer utility. AHAM also commented that each burner or 
grate design element affects how the test load is heated and the 
measured energy consumption. AHAM urged DOE to evaluate these design 
differences and their effect on the test procedure, including the 
resulting effect on repeatability and reproducibility, so that the test 
procedure does not dictate future design of burners and grates and 
result in a loss of consumer utility. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 15-16)
    The test procedure is designed to measure energy consumption that 
is representative of consumer use. As noted in Table III.12, DOE's test 
sample included products with a range of burner types (stacked, sealed, 
and open), burner input rates, grate materials (steel wire and cast 
iron), and continuous and non-continuous grates. As shown in Table 
III.13, DOE's testing demonstrated that the water-heating test method 
produces repeatable and reproducible results for gas cooking tops. DOE 
did not observe that any single design feature produced significant 
variation in test results. DOE recognizes that certain design features 
relating to the burner and grate design may impact the measured energy 
use. DOE considers any consumer utility provided by different design 
features that may impact energy use as part of the energy conservation 
standards rulemaking when evaluating product classes and proposed 
standards.
    Sub-Zero expressed concern that limitations of the test procedure 
would unfairly impact the consumer utility offered by high performance 
commercial-style cooking products in a rulemaking to establish 
standards for these products. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 1) Sub-Zero 
commented that the commercial-style cooking top market segment appeals 
to consumers that demand performance similar to that found in 
restaurant equipment at a safety and convenience level that are 
necessary for residential use. Sub-Zero stated that these consumers use 
their products in a way that is often different from the typical 
household user. For example, Sub-Zero noted that users of commercial-
style gas cooking tops often saut[eacute] at very high burner outputs, 
manipulate the pans to mix the ingredients like professional chefs, 
flame the contents, and operate most of the cooking top burners 
simultaneously. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at pp. 1-2)
    Sub-Zero opposed DOE's proposal to test all gas cooking tops in the 
same manner despite commercial-style products differing markedly in 
construction and usage. Sub-Zero commented that gas burner design 
attributes such as safety, performance, efficiency are systematic, and 
that a change to one attribute significantly affects the others. Sub-
Zero noted that specific design features associated with commercial-
style gas cooking tops that impact efficiency include:
     High input rate burners with large diameters and high 
controllability of the flame, for quicker heat-up times as well as the 
ability to simmer foods such as chocolates and sauces;
     Heavy cast iron grates for better heat distribution and 
strength to support large loads;
     Greater distance from the burner to the grate for heat 
distribution and reduction of carbon monoxide; and
     Larger open area for primary and secondary air for 
combustion and exhaust of combustion byproducts. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at 
pp. 2-3)
    Sub-Zero requested that DOE reconsider the impact that the proposed 
test procedure will have on small, niche market, commercial-style 
cooking product manufacturers. Sub-Zero expressed concern that a single 
regulatory approach would not allow companies like Sub-Zero to 
adequately serve their customer base and would negatively impact 
consumer utility. (Sub-Zero, No. 25 at p. 3)
    In its testing of commercial-style gas cooking products, DOE did 
not identify any provisions of the test method that

[[Page 91437]]

would be more difficult for commercial-style products to meet than 
residential-style products. Because the test procedure adopted in this 
final rule specifies a water-heating test method, DOE determined that 
the test procedure is representative of how consumers would use any gas 
cooking top, regardless of whether the cooking top is marketed as 
commercial-style. By correlating burner input rate to test vessel and 
water load size, the test method properly accounts for the grates' 
ability to support large loads. Furthermore, DOE expects that benefits 
resulting from the improved controllability of the flame, high input 
rates for quicker heat-up times, and the design of the burner for low 
simmering settings, features cited by Sub-Zero as factors 
differentiating commercial-style cooking tops on the market, would be 
captured by the test method. Specifically, if the higher input rates 
result in faster heat-up times and the burner design allow for more 
precise simmering control, DOE expects that the cooking top may use 
less energy consumption during both the heat-up and simmering phase of 
the test as compared to other commercial-style cooking tops not 
equipped with these features.
    For the reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting its proposal from 
the August 2016 TP SNOPR for the test of gas cooking tops. The adopted 
test procedure for gas cooking tops uses the same test vessels and 
water loads as specified for electric cooking tops, but correlates them 
to the nominal burner input rate. The adopted test procedure follows 
the same general test methods proposed in EN 60350-2:2103 and 
incorporates the minor modifications originally proposed in the August 
2016 TP SNOPR, as clarified above, that are necessary to adapt the 
electric cooking top test procedure to the gas fuel type.

D. Annual Energy Consumption

    In this final rule, DOE amends the cooking top test procedure to 
include a method to calculate both AEC and IAEC using the average of 
the test energy consumption measured for each surface unit of the 
cooking top, normalized to a representative water load size. DOE is 
also including a method to allocate a portion of the combined low-power 
mode energy consumption for combined cooking products to the 
conventional cooking top component. These amendments are discussed in 
the following sections.
1. Conventional Cooking Top Annual Energy Consumption
    In section 4.2.2 of the existing test procedure in appendix I, the 
AEC for electric and gas cooking tops and ovens is specified as the 
ratio of the annual useful cooking energy output to the cooking 
efficiency measured with an aluminum test block. The cooking efficiency 
is the average of the surface unit efficiencies measured for the 
cooking top. The annual useful cooking energy output was determined 
during the initial development of the cooking products test procedure. 
It correlated cooking field data to results obtained using the aluminum 
test block method and the DOE test procedure. In subsequent analyses 
for cooking products energy conservation standards and updates to the 
test procedure, the annual useful cooking energy output was scaled to 
adjust for changes in consumer cooking habits.
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE pointed out that, unlike the 
existing test procedure in appendix I, EN 60350-2:2013 does not include 
a method to determine surface unit efficiency and the total cooking top 
efficiency. DOE also identified several issues associated with 
specifying an efficiency metric for a water-heating test method. As a 
result, DOE proposed to include a method to calculate both AEC and 
IAEC. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016).
    Section 7.1.Z7.2 of EN 60350-2:2013 specifies that the energy 
consumption of the cooking top be normalized to 1,000 g of water. In 
the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that 1,000 g of water, which is 
associated with a test vessel diameter of approximately 6 inches, may 
not be representative of the average load used with cooking tops found 
in the U.S. market. To determine the representative load size for both 
electric and gas cooking tops, DOE reviewed the surface unit diameters 
and input rates for cooking tops (including those incorporated into 
combined cooking products) available on the market. Using the 
methodology in 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350-2 for selecting test vessel 
diameters, DOE determined that the average water load size for both 
electric and gas cooking top models available on the U.S. market was 
2,853 g. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016).
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to calculate the 
normalized cooking top energy consumption for electric products as
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.026

and the normalized cooking top energy consumption for gas product as
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.027


Where:

ECTE is the energy consumption of an electric cooking top calculated 
per 2,853 g of water, in Wh;
ECTG is the energy consumption of a gas cooking top calculated per 
2,853 g of water, in Wh;
Etv is the energy consumption measured for a given test vessel, tv, 
in Wh;
mtv is the mass of water in the test vessel, in g; and,
ntv is the number of test vessels used to test the complete cooking 
top.
Id.

    To extrapolate the cooking top's normalized test energy consumption 
to an annual energy consumption, DOE considered the cooking top usage 
data regarding the frequency of cooking events from the 2009 DOE Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) Residential Energy Consumption Survey 
(RECS),\17\ presented in Table III.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Table III.15--RECS 2009 Usage Data for Conventional Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       RECS average      Annual cooking
         Cooking top type           cooking frequency  frequency  (meals
                                     (meals per day)       per year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric..........................               1.21              441.5
Smooth Electric \a\...............               1.21              441.5
Gas...............................               1.25              456.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Smooth Electric as listed here includes both smooth electric radiant
  and induction cooking tops.


[[Page 91438]]

    However, because RECS does not provide details about the cooking 
load (e.g., load size or composition) nor the duration of the cooking 
event, DOE proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to normalize the number 
of cooking cycles to account for differences between the duration of a 
cooking event represented in the RECS data and DOE's proposed test load 
for measuring the energy consumption of the cooking top to calculate 
the AEC. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016). Based on DOE's review of 
recent field energy consumption survey data of residential cooking \18\ 
\19\ and analysis of energy consumption using test data from the DOE 
test sample and the RECS data presented above, DOE observed a 
significant difference between the AEC determined using the proposed 
test procedure and the RECS cooking frequency compared to the field 
energy consumption data. As a result, DOE determined that the number of 
cooking cycles per year used in the AEC calculation needs to be 
adjusted. 81 FR 57374, 57387-57388 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE used the 
average ratio between the maximum AEC measured in the DOE test sample 
and the estimated field energy use of both gas and electric cooking 
tops to determine a normalization factor of 0.47, which DOE proposed to 
apply to the number of cycles per year such that,

NCE= 441.5 x 0.47 = 207.5 cooking cycles per year, the average 
number of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a 
cooking event estimated for electric cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ California Energy Commission. 2009 California Residential 
Appliance Saturation Study, October 2010. Prepared for the 
California Energy Commission by KEMA, Inc. Contract No. 200-2010-
004. <http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-200-2010-004/CEC-200-2010-004-V2.PDF
    \19\ FSEC 2010. Updated Miscellaneous Electricity Loads and 
Appliance Energy Usage Profiles for Use in Home Energy Ratings, the 
Building America Benchmark and Related Calculations. Published as 
FSEC-CR-1837-10, Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa, FL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE's proposal for 
calculating AEC for cooking tops appears to be reasonable. (Joint 
Efficiency Advocates, No. 32 at p. 2) AHAM did not support DOE's 
proposal to normalize the test energy consumption using a water load 
size of 2,853 g. AHAM stated that DOE did not provide its review of the 
cooking tops available on the market for interested parties to 
evaluate, and that it was unclear whether DOE considered only cooking 
tops in its test sample or all cooking tops available on the market. 
(AHAM, No. 30 at p. 18)
    In determining the water load size used to normalize the test 
energy consumption, DOE surveyed 335 electric cooking tops and 283 gas 
cooking tops available on the market in the United States.\20\ Using 
the rated electric surface unit diameter or gas burner input rate for 
each model, DOE determined the test vessel diameters and water load 
sizes that would be required to test each cooking top model. Based on 
this extensive review of cooking top models available on the market, 
DOE concludes that the water load size of 2,853 g used to normalize the 
test energy consumption is appropriate. For these reasons, and for the 
reasons discussed above, DOE is adopting in this final rule its 
proposal to calculate the AEC of a conventional cooking top by 
multiplying the normalized test energy consumption of the cooking top 
by the normalized cooking frequency and the number of days in a year 
(365). IAEC for the cooking top is in turn calculated by adding the 
annual conventional cooking top combined low-power mode energy 
consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2. Combined Cooking Products
    As noted in section III.A.1 of this document, DOE's test procedures 
apply to conventional cooking tops, including the individual cooking 
top component of a combined cooking product. However, in the August 
2016 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that the annual combined low-power mode energy 
consumption can only be measured for the combined cooking product as a 
whole and not for the individual components. To determine the IAEC of 
only the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking 
product, DOE proposed to allocate a portion of the measured combined 
low-power mode energy consumption for the combined cooking product to 
the conventional cooking top component based on the ratio of the annual 
cooking hours for the cooking top to the sum of the annual cooking 
hours for all components making up the combined cooking product. DOE 
also proposed to use the same apportioning method to determine the 
annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for any microwave 
oven component of a combined cooking product. 81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 
22, 2016).
    As part of the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to use the 
following annual cooking hours to apportion the measured combined low-
power mode energy consumption for combined cooking products. For 
conventional cooking tops, DOE determined the annual cooking hours to 
be 213.1 hours based on the total inactive mode and off mode hours 
specified in the current version of appendix I, sections 4.2.2.1.2 and 
4.2.2.2.2. For conventional ovens, DOE similarly determined the annual 
cooking hours to be 219.9, based on the total inactive mode and off 
mode hours specified in the current version of appendix I, section 
4.1.2.3, and using the annual hours already established for a 
conventional oven. For microwave ovens, DOE determined the number of 
annual cooking hours to be 44.9 hours, based on consumer usage data 
presented in a February 4, 2013 NOPR proposing active mode test 
procedures for microwave ovens. 81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 22, 2016).
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to calculate the IAEC for 
the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product as 
the sum of the AEC and the portion of the combined cooking product's 
annual combined low-power mode energy consumption allocated to the 
cooking top component. Because appendix I currently contains test 
procedures for microwave ovens that measure only standby mode and off 
mode test energy consumption, DOE also proposed to include an annual 
combined low-power mode energy consumption calculation for the 
microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. Id.
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE's proposal to 
apportion the combined low-power mode energy consumption of combined 
cooking products appears to be reasonable. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, 
No. 32 at pp. 2-3)
    AHAM opposed the proposed apportionment approach, claiming that it 
would effectively set new standby power standards for conventional 
cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens. (AHAM, No. 30 at 
p. 19) AHAM commented that if the combined cooking product under test 
was a microwave/conventional range with two cavities consuming a total 
measured standby power of 4 Watts, standby mode energy use would be 
apportioned to both the microwave oven and conventional range 
components. AHAM and GE commented that third-

[[Page 91439]]

party laboratories would not know the inner workings of the appliance, 
and could not measure the standby power of only one portion of the 
product because many products have only one power cord and control 
panel. AHAM stated, therefore, that this approach would make it 
impossible for third-party laboratories to perform verification 
testing. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19; GE, No. 31 at p. 4)
    GE expressed concern that the DOE's proposed amendments for 
combined cooking product standby power would inappropriately compare 
energy usage between products in a manner that would not represent 
actual consumer use. GE noted that apportioning standby power to the 
cooking top on a combined cooking product negatively impacts the 
cooking top IAEC. However, GE noted that on a majority of combined 
cooking products, the cooking tops controls consist of 
electromechanical switches that have no standby power. GE stated that, 
as a result, when comparing the IAEC between an electromechanically 
controlled stand-alone cooking top and a similarly controlled combined 
cooking product that has a cooking top, the combined product's cooking 
top will appear to use more energy. (GE, No. 31 at p. 4)
    GE commented that rather than apportioning energy consumption, DOE 
should instead adopt the same prescriptive approach for cooking tops 
and combined cooking products that it has proposed for conventional 
oven energy conservation standards, to require that electronically 
controlled products be equipped with a switch-mode power supply to 
manage the unit's standby power. GE noted that this would enable 
consumers to accurately compare the energy use of cooking tops across 
combined and stand-alone cooking tops. In addition, GE stated that this 
approach would avoid effectively setting a new standard for 
conventional ovens through a test procedure change, and preclude any 
verification issues. (GE, No. 31 at p. 4)
    The proposed methodology to calculate the IAEC for the conventional 
cooking top component of a combined cooking product does not require a 
testing laboratory to understand the inner design or functionality of 
the product to conduct verification testing. As discussed above, the 
total measured standby energy consumption of the combined cooking 
product would be apportioned based on the ratio of the annual cooking 
hours for the cooking top to the sum of the annual cooking hours for 
all components making up the combined cooking product.
    As part of the concurrent standards rulemaking for conventional 
cooking products, DOE proposed standards for conventional cooking tops 
based on the IAEC metric. 81 FR 60784, 60785 (September 30, 2016). DOE 
is not proposing standards to include prescriptive standby power design 
requirements for the individual components of a combined cooking 
product. DOE also notes that the current standby power standard levels 
for microwave ovens apply only to standalone microwave ovens and did 
not include combined cooking products. 78 FR 36316, 36328 (June 17, 
2013). DOE may consider the effects of setting prescriptive standby 
power design requirements for microwave ovens that are a part of a 
combined cooking product as part of a future rulemaking to consider 
standards for these products.
    DOE will consider how the methods for calculating the IAEC that are 
adopted in this final rule will impact stand-alone cooking tops and 
combined cooking products that include a cooking top as part of the 
concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking for conventional 
cooking products. DOE will also consider as part of the standards 
rulemaking the merits of the approach of adopting a prescriptive 
standard for the power supply for conventional cooking tops.
    As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE is repealing 
the test procedures for conventional ovens in this final rule. As a 
result, DOE is not incorporating methods to calculate the IEAC for the 
conventional oven component of a combined cooking product.
    DOE is also modifying the test procedures codified at 10 CFR 430.23 
that measure the energy consumption of combined cooking products to 
reflect the amendments adopted for appendix I in this final rule.
3. Full Fuel Cycle Metric
    In response to the August 2016 TP SNOPR, AGA and APGA commented 
that DOE should consider a full fuel cycle (FFC) energy use metric for 
measuring the total energy consumption of fuel gas and electricity for 
cooking products. AGA and APGA stated that, compared to a site energy 
use metric, an FFC metric that uses a correction factor provides a more 
comprehensive measurement that complies with the DOE policy to 
incorporate FFC in its appliance efficiency programs. AGA and APGA 
commented that direct comparisons of baseline and proposed efficiency 
standard levels are needed to inform all interested parties of the FFC 
implications of standards proposals, which can only be accomplished 
where energy savings opportunities are expressed in both site energy 
and FFC energy. (AGA and APGA, No. 28 at p. 3)
    As DOE has noted for other products, such as residential furnaces 
and boilers (81 FR 2628, 2638-2639 (Jan. 15, 2016)), DOE does not 
believe the test procedure is the appropriate vehicle for deriving an 
FFC energy use metric for cooking products. As discussed in the Notice 
of Policy Amendment Regarding Full-Fuel Cycle Analyses, DOE intends to 
use the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) as the basis for 
deriving the energy and emission multipliers used to conduct FFC 
analyses in support of energy conservation standards rulemakings. 77 FR 
49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). DOE also uses NEMS to derive factors to convert 
site electricity use or savings to primary energy consumption by the 
electric power sector. NEMS is updated annually in association with the 
preparation of the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook. Based on its experience 
to date, DOE expects that the energy and emission multipliers used to 
conduct FFC analyses will change each year. If DOE were to include a 
secondary FFC energy descriptor as part of the cooking products test 
procedure, DOE would need to update the test procedure annually. As 
part of the concurrent energy conservation standard rulemaking for 
conventional cooking products, DOE estimated the FFC energy savings and 
took those savings into account in proposing amended standards. 81 FR 
60784, 60798, 60831-60832 (Sept. 2, 2016).

E. Installation Test Conditions

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

     Figure 7, ``Test structure for built-in top surface 
cooking units and open top broiler units;''
     Figure 5, ``Test structure for floor-supported units 
not having elevated cooking sections;'' and
     Figure 6, ``Test structure for floor-supported units 
having elevated cooking sections.''

81 FR 57374, 57388 (Aug. 22, 2016).
    AGA and APGA supported incorporating by reference the test 
structure requirements in ANSI Z21.1. (AGA and AGPA, No. 28 at p. 3) 
AHAM opposed DOE's proposal to require ANSI Z21.1 test structures for 
both gas

[[Page 91440]]

and electric cooking products. AHAM asserted that this would increase 
testing burden for laboratories, requiring them to procure additional 
test structures if the products are not ANSI-listed. AHAM stated that 
if the cooking top is a UL-listed product, the UL specified test 
structure should be used, and that if the cooking top is covered by 
ANSI Z21.1, the ANSI specified test structure should be used. (AHAM, 
No. 30 at p. 19)
    DOE recognizes that requiring the test structures in ANSI Z21.1 for 
all conventional cooking products may increase testing burden. DOE 
notes that ANSI Z21.1 and UL 858 ``Standard for Household Electric 
Ranges'' include specific safety requirements for gas and electric 
cooking products, respectively. Because these standards include 
specific test structures for safety testing, which may be intended to 
represent worst-case installation configurations and operating 
conditions, DOE is not aware of data demonstrating that these test 
structures are representative of typical consumer use. For example, 
section 59.4 and 59.5 in UL 858 specify that the side walls of the test 
enclosures, including the walls that extend above the cooking surface, 
be installed as closely as possible to the side of the appliance. 
However, DOE notes that manufacturer's installation instructions 
typically specify minimum clearances of walls and other structures 
surrounding the product when installing products in homes. DOE is also 
not aware of data showing how these test structures affect measured 
energy use. For these reasons, in this final rule, DOE is not including 
a requirement to install gas and electric conventional cooking products 
in accordance with the test structures specified in ANSI Z21.1. 
Instead, DOE is maintaining the existing installation requirements in 
appendix I. DOE notes these requirements do not preclude the use of any 
testing structures, as long as those structures comply with the 
installation requirements in appendix I.
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify its definition 
of ``built-in'' and ``freestanding'' cooking products based on the 
definitions of installation configurations included in ANSI Z21.1. DOE 
proposed to clarify that ``built-in'' means a product that is enclosed 
in surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures on at 
least three sides, and that can be supported by surrounding cabinetry 
(e.g., drop-in cooking tops) or the floor (e.g., slide-in conventional 
ranges). DOE also proposed to clarify that ``freestanding'' means a 
product that is supported by the floor and is not designed to be 
enclosed by surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures. 
81 FR 57374, 57388-57389. DOE did not receive any comments on the 
proposed clarifications to the definitions of ``built-in'' and 
``freestanding.'' DOE is adopting these clarified definitions in this 
final rule.
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE noted that in general, where the 
test procedure references manufacturer instructions used to determine 
the installation conditions for the unit under test, those instructions 
must be those normally shipped with the product, or if only available 
online, the version of the instructions available online at the time of 
test. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE also noted that some 
manufacturer's instructions may specify that the cooking product may be 
used in multiple installation conditions, such as built-in and 
freestanding. DOE stated that because built-in products are installed 
in configurations with more surrounding cabinetry that may limit 
airflow and venting compared to freestanding products, products capable 
of built-in installation configurations may require additional features 
such as exhaust fans or added insulation to meet the same safety 
requirements (e.g., surface temperature requirements specified in Table 
12 of ANSI Z21.1) that impact energy use of the unit. As a result, DOE 
proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that if the manufacturer's 
instructions specify that the cooking product may be used in multiple 
installation conditions, it should be installed according to the built-
in configuration. Id. DOE did not receive any comments on these 
proposed clarifications. As a result, and for the reasons discussed 
above, DOE is adopting these clarifications regarding manufacturer's 
instructions and installation requirements in this final rule.
    DOE also notes that some manufacturer instructions may specify 
multiple installation conditions for cooking tops (i.e., installed in a 
countertop up against a rear wall or in an island countertop with no 
rear wall.) Because the countertop with a rear wall may limit airflow 
and venting compared to an island installation, and as a result impact 
the energy use of the unit, DOE is clarifying in this final rule that 
if the manufacturer's instructions specify that the cooking top may be 
used in multiple installation conditions, it shall be tested against, 
or as near as possible to, a rear wall.

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

    As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify 
in section 2.9.4 in the existing test procedure in appendix I that the 
measurement of the heating value of natural gas or propane specified in 
appendix I be corrected to standard pressure and temperature conditions 
in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938. 
DOE noted that this clarification would ensure that the same correction 
methods are used by all operators of the test. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 
22, 2016).
    AGA and APGA supported the technical clarification to require that 
the gas heating value be corrected to standard and temperature 
conditions in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular 
C417. AGA and APGA stated that this would help ensure consistent test 
results in various testing laboratories. (AGA and APGA, No. 28 at p. 3) 
Because DOE did not receive any objections to its proposal, and for the 
reasons stated above, DOE is adopting the clarification that the 
measurement of the heating value of natural gas or propane specified in 
appendix I be corrected to standard pressure and temperature conditions 
in accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular C417, 1938.

G. Grammatical Changes to Certain Sections of Appendix I

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

H. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

    EPCA requires that any new or amended test procedures for consumer 
products must be reasonably designed to produce test results which 
measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating 
cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or 
period of use, and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(3))
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that the proposed 
amendments to the test procedure would produce test results that 
measure the energy consumption of conventional cooking tops during 
representative use, and that the test procedures would not

[[Page 91441]]

be unduly burdensome to conduct. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016).
    DOE stated in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that, although the proposed 
test procedures differ from the method currently included in appendix I 
for testing cooking tops, the essential method of test which includes 
an initial temperature rise of the test load and a simmering phase, is 
performed in approximately the same amount of time as the existing test 
procedure in appendix I. DOE noted that the existing test equipment in 
appendix I would be replaced with the eight test vessels described in 
section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350-2:2013. DOE estimated that current testing 
represents a cost of roughly $700 per test for labor, with a one-time 
investment of $2,000 for test equipment ($1,000 for test blocks and 
$1,000 for instrumentation). DOE also noted that the proposed reusable 
test vessels would represent an additional one-time expense of $5,000 
for the test vessels. DOE also noted in the August 2016 TP SNOPR that 
the only additional instrumentation required would be an absolute 
pressure transducer to measure the ambient air pressure of the test 
room. DOE estimated the cost of this transducer to be $100 or less for 
a model compatible with typical existing data collection systems used 
by the manufacturer. DOE noted that the allowable range of room air 
pressure specified in EN 60350-2:2013 is wide enough that a pressurized 
test chamber would not be required. Air pressure at elevations less 
than 3,000 feet above sea level falls within the range. DOE stated that 
it does not believe this additional cost represents an excessive burden 
for test laboratories or manufacturers given the significant 
investments necessary to manufacture, test and market consumer 
appliances. Given the similarities (in terms of the test equipment, 
test method, the time needed to perform the test, and the calculations 
necessary to determine IAEC), DOE stated in the August 2016 TP SNOPR 
that the proposed amendments to test procedure for cooking tops would 
not be unreasonably burdensome to conduct as compared to the existing 
test procedure in appendix I. 81 FR 57374, 57389 (Aug. 22, 2016).
    AHAM commented that it has not been able to fully evaluate the 
proposed test procedure to determine whether it is unduly burdensome to 
conduct. However, AHAM stated that based on its testing conducted at 
the time of its comments, the overall test is burdensome and there may 
be ways that DOE can reduce the test burden. AHAM stated that 
determining the appropriate simmering setting requires trial and error 
to meet the tolerances of the test procedure, which may require 
multiple test runs. Because of this, and because only one surface unit 
can be tested at a time and then must be cooled to ambient room 
temperature, testing time is variable and may increase substantially 
for a test laboratory that is unfamiliar with a unit or if a unit has 
more than the typical four surface units to test. AHAM added that DOE's 
proposal to require testing of each individual each diameter setting of 
a multi-ring surface unit is overly burdensome, noting that a cooking 
top with dual- and tri-ring surface units would require seven tests, 
instead of four. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 5)
    GE commented that DOE's proposed additional test procedure 
requirements beyond those in the Canadian and European test procedures 
make testing more burdensome while introducing more variability into 
test results. GE commented that DOE's proposed test procedure would 
require approximately 25 separate tests and approximately 3 weeks for a 
standard unit, compared to four tests and approximately 2 days to test 
a standard unit for Canada. (GE, No. 31 at p. 2)
    DOE recognizes that the water-heating test procedure will typically 
require several repetitions of the test cycle to determine the 
appropriate setting for the simmering phase of the test. However, based 
on DOE's testing, in cases where the water temperature falls below the 
minimum allowable simmering temperature of 90 [deg]C, this typically 
occurs near the beginning of the simmering phase of the test. As a 
result, the test can be immediately stopped to conserve testing time. 
Additionally, by providing guidance on the acceptable oscillation of 
the water temperature about 90 [deg]C during the first 20 seconds of 
the simmering phase of the test, as discussed in section III.C.1 of 
this document, the uncertainty regarding whether a test will pass or 
fail is reasonably reduced. DOE also observed from its testing that 
after conducting a few tests on a model, a test laboratory is able to 
better predict the appropriate simmering setting for other surface 
units on that cooking top, based on the ratio of simmer energy 
consumption to total energy consumption. As a result, DOE expects that 
as manufacturers and test laboratories conduct tests and become 
familiar with models, the time required for subsequent tests on a given 
model should decrease. Furthermore, DOE notes that the preliminary test 
to determine the turndown temperature does not need to be rerun prior 
to the next energy consumption test cycle on the same surface unit.
    With regard to the time required to cool the appliance in between 
tests to achieve the normal non-operating temperature, section 5.5 of 
EN 60350-2:2013 specifies that forced cooling may be used to assist in 
reducing the temperature of the appliance. DOE notes that this reduces 
the time to cool the appliance in between tests. In this final rule, 
DOE is clarifying that forced cooling may be used to reduce the 
temperature of the appliance to achieve the normal non-operating 
temperature as specified in section 5.5 of EN 60350-2:2013. During its 
investigative testing conducted in support of this final rule, DOE 
observed that forced air cooling can reduce the time between tests by 
almost half for electric smooth-radiant cooking tops, electric coil 
cooking tops, and gas cooking tops. Because induction cooking tops 
directly heat the test vessel, minimizing heat transfer to the glass 
ceramic surface of the cooking top, the time to cool an induction 
cooking top is typically much shorter than for other cooking top types.
    In addition, as discussed in section III.C.2 of this final rule, 
DOE is not requiring that each setting of the multi-ring surface unit 
be tested independently and is instead aligning the test provisions 
with EN 60350-2:2013 and the draft IEC 60350-2 to require testing of 
the largest measured diameter of multi-ring surface units only, unless 
an additional test vessel category is needed to meet the requirements 
of the test procedure. In that case, one of the smaller-diameter 
settings of the multi-ring surface that matches the next best-fitting 
test vessel diameter must be tested. As a result, DOE's amended test 
procedure will in most cases require only one full test cycle 
(including the preliminary turndown test and energy cycle test) per 
surface unit or burner, and is equivalent to the number of tests 
required under EN 60350-2:2013. Using the example provided by AHAM of a 
cooking top with dual- and tri-ring surface units, DOE's amended test 
procedure will require only four full test cycles, instead of seven.
    Based on the discussion above and DOE's experience conducting tests 
using the amended test procedure, DOE estimates that testing of a 
cooking top model would require on average 2 to 3 days depending on the 
number of surface units or burners. As a result, DOE does not consider 
the amended test procedure to be unduly burdensome to conduct.
    DOE also notes that the test procedure used in Canada is equivalent 
to the existing DOE test procedure in appendix I, which involves 
heating a solid

[[Page 91442]]

aluminum test block on each surface unit of the cooking top. That test 
procedure includes only one test block size for gas cooking tops and 
two test block sizes for electric cooking tops. DOE also notes that the 
aluminum test block is not compatible with induction cooking tops. The 
test method involves heating the test block at the maximum energy input 
setting. After the test block temperature increases by 144 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F), the surface unit is immediately reduced to 25 
percent  5 percent of the maximum power input for 15  0.1 minutes. Based on DOE's experience conducting tests using 
this test procedure, the second phase of the test requires trial and 
error to determine the appropriate simmering setting to achieve 25 
percent  5 percent of the maximum power input because most 
electric cooking tops cycle the heating element on and off rather than 
fully modulating the input power. Therefore, the setting that achieves, 
on average, 25 percent  5 percent of the maximum power 
input will not be clear to a test technician at the start of the test 
and the setting selected must be evaluated after the test is complete 
test to determine if it meets the requirements. As a result, testing 
under the Canadian test procedure imposes a similar test burden as the 
water-heating test method adopted in this final rule.
    DOE previously noted that the reusable test vessels would represent 
a one-time expense of $5,000. As the test vessels are heated and cooled 
over time, it is possible that the test vessels bottoms will no longer 
meet the allowable tolerances for flatness. Based on discussions with 
test vessel suppliers, DOE notes that test vessels may need to be 
repaired or replaced after a few years of use, depending on their 
frequency of use. Certain test vessel diameters will be used more 
frequently than others, as certain surface unit diameters are more 
common in cooking tops on the U.S. market than others. Thus, DOE 
anticipates that the entire set of cookware would not need to be 
replaced or repaired at the same frequency.
    For the reasons discussed above, DOE has determined that the 
amended test procedure adopted in this final rule produces test results 
that measure the energy consumption of conventional cooking tops during 
representative use, and that the test procedures are not unduly 
burdensome to conduct.
    In the concurrent rulemaking to establish energy conservation 
standards for conventional cooking products, DOE proposed in an SNOPR 
published on September 2, 2016 to update the sampling plan requirements 
for cooking products in 10 CFR 429.23(a) to include the AEC and IAEC 
metrics for conventional gas and electric cooking tops. 81 FR 60784, 
60799. DOE did not receive any comments on this proposal in response to 
the September 2016 SNOPR. In this final rule, DOE is adopting these 
amendments to the sampling plan requirements for the selection of units 
for testing, as well as calculation procedures for determining a basic 
model's represented rating in 10 CFR 429.23(a) for cooking products to 
include the AEC and IAEC metrics for conventional gas and electric 
cooking tops.\21\ Changes to the certification requirements in 10 CFR 
429.23(b) will be addressed in the concurrent standards rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that 
when an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being 
required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice 
of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis (FRFA). As required by Executive Order 13272, 
``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 
53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 
February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on 
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking 
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available 
on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. This final rule would amend the test method for measuring the 
energy efficiency of conventional cooking tops, including methods 
applicable to induction cooking products and gas cooking tops with 
higher input rates. DOE has concluded that the rule would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
factual basis for this certification is as follows:
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity 
to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs 
less than a threshold number of workers or earns less than the average 
annual receipts specified in 13 CFR part 121. The threshold values set 
forth in these regulations use size standards and codes established by 
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) that are 
available at: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. The threshold number for NAICS classification 
code 335221, titled ``Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing,'' is 
1,500 employees or fewer; this classification includes manufacturers of 
residential conventional cooking products.
    As discussed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE surveyed the AHAM 
member directory to identify manufacturers of residential conventional 
cooking tops. 81 FR 57374, 57390 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE also consulted 
publicly-available data, purchased company reports from vendors such as 
Dun and Bradstreet, and contacted manufacturers, where needed, to 
determine if they meet the SBA's definition of a ``small business 
manufacturing facility'' and have their manufacturing facilities 
located within the United States. Based on the 2016 threshold number of 
workers for small business, DOE estimates that there are ten small 
businesses that manufacture conventional cooking products covered by 
the test procedure amendments. This number represents an increase from 
nine small businesses analyzed as part of the August 2016 TP SNOPR due 
to a change in the SBA's threshold number of workers for NAICS 
classification code 335221 since the time of the SNOPR analysis.\22\ 
DOE further estimates that eight of these ten small businesses actually 
manufacture the products they sell. The other two are rebranders and

[[Page 91443]]

do not manufacture the products they sell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE concluded that the proposed test 
procedures for cooking tops that incorporate provisions from EN 60350-
2:2013 to address active mode energy consumption for all conventional 
cooking top technology types, including induction surface units and 
surface units with higher input rates, would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 81 FR 57374, 
57390 (Aug. 22, 2016). DOE's estimates for the cost of testing and of 
new test equipment, have not changed from the August 2016 TP SNOPR. The 
amended test procedure would be used to develop and test compliance 
with any future energy conservation standards for cooking tops that may 
be established by DOE. The test procedure amendments involve the 
measurement of active mode energy consumption through the use of a 
water-heating test method that requires different test equipment than 
previously specified for conventional cooking tops. The test equipment 
consists of a set of eight stainless steel test vessels. DOE estimates 
the cost for this new equipment to be approximately $5,000-$10,000, 
depending on the number of sets the manufacturer wishes to procure.
    DOE estimates a cost of approximately $46,288 for an average small 
manufacturer to test a full product line of induction surface units and 
surface units with high input rates not currently covered by the 
existing test procedure in appendix I. DOE updated this estimate to 
reflect the most recent changes to the small business classification, 
which includes the identification of an additional small manufacturer 
and the determination that two of the small businesses are rebranders 
and do not manufacture the products they sell. This updated estimate 
assumes $700 per test for labor with up to 66 total tests per 
manufacturer needed, assuming 21 models \23\ with either four or six 
individual surface unit tests per cooking top model. This cost is small 
(0.07 percent) compared to the average annual revenue of the eight 
identified small businesses that manufacture cooking products in the 
United States, which DOE estimates to be over $162 million.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ DOE considered different configurations of the same basic 
model (where surface units were placed in different positions on the 
cooking top) as unique models.
    \24\ Based on publicly available information from online sources 
such as Hoovers, Cortera, and Glassdoor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE determined that the proposed 
modification to the calculation of the IEAC of the cooking top portion 
of a combined cooking product requires the same methodology, test 
equipment, and test facilities used to measure the combined low-power 
mode energy consumption of stand-alone cooking products and would not 
result in any additional facility or testing costs. Additionally, DOE 
determined that its proposal to incorporate test structures from ANSI 
Z21.1 by reference to standardize the installation conditions used 
during the test of conventional cooking tops would not significantly 
impact small manufacturers under the applicable provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.\25\ 81 FR 57374, 57390 (Aug. 22, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As discussed in section III.E of this document, in this final rule, 
DOE is no longer including a requirement to install gas and electric 
conventional cooking products in accordance with the test structures 
specified in ANSI Z21.1. Instead, DOE is maintaining the existing 
installation requirements in appendix I. DOE notes these requirements 
would not preclude the use of any testing structures, as long as those 
structures comply with the installation requirements in appendix I. 
Because DOE is not changing the existing installation requirements, DOE 
concludes that these requirements will not significantly impact small 
manufacturers.
    After estimating the potential impacts to the updated list of small 
business and considering feedback from interested parties regarding 
test burdens, DOE concludes that the cost effects accruing from the 
final rule would not have a ``significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of a 
FRFA is not warranted. DOE has submitted a certification and supporting 
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of conventional cooking products must certify to DOE 
that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation 
standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test 
data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including 
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including 
conventional cooking products. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The 
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by 
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the 
certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

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

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

[[Page 91444]]

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

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

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

[[Page 91445]]

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy 
Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 
32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule 
authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The amendments to the test procedure for conventional cooking 
products adopted in this final rule incorporate testing methods 
contained in certain sections of the commercial standard, EN 60350-
2:2013 ``Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs--Methods 
for measuring performance.'' While the amended test procedure is not 
exclusively based on the provisions in this industry standard, many 
components of the test procedure have been adopted without amendment. 
DOE has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it 
fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA 
(i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for 
public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on 
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has 
received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

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

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

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

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household 
appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 430

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 22, 2016.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 429.23 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.23   Cooking products.

    (a) Sampling plan for selection of units for testing. (1) The 
requirements of Sec.  429.11 are applicable to cooking products; and
    (2) For each basic model of cooking products a sample of sufficient 
size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that any 
represented value of estimated annual operating cost, standby mode 
power consumption, off mode power consumption, annual energy 
consumption, integrated annual energy consumption, or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.028
    

and x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi 
is the ith sample;
    Or,
    (ii) The upper 97\1/2\ percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true 
mean divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.041

And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is 
the number of samples; and t0.975 is the t statistic for 
a 97.5% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom 
(from appendix A).
* * * * *

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. Section 430.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions for ``Conventional cooking top'' and 
``Conventional oven'';
0
b. Removing the definition of ``Conventional range'';
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Cooking products'';
0
d. Removing the definitions of ``Microwave/conventional cooking top'', 
``Microwave/conventional oven'', and ``Microwave/conventional range''; 
and
0
e. Revising the definitions of ``Microwave oven'' and ``Other cooking 
products''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

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

[[Page 91446]]

component of a combined cooking product.
* * * * *
    Conventional oven means a category of cooking products which is a 
household cooking appliance consisting of one or more compartments 
intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of either a gas 
flame or electric resistance heating. It does not include portable or 
countertop ovens which use electric resistance heating for the cooking 
or heating of food and are designed for an electrical supply of 
approximately 120 volts. This includes any conventional oven(s) 
component of a combined cooking product.
    Cooking products means consumer products that are used as the major 
household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat 
different types of food by one or more of the following sources of 
heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist 
of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units and/or 
one or more heating compartments.
* * * * *
    Microwave oven means a category of cooking products which is a 
household cooking appliance consisting of a compartment designed to 
cook or heat food by means of microwave energy, including microwave 
ovens with or without thermal elements designed for surface browning of 
food and convection microwave ovens. This includes any microwave 
oven(s) component of a combined cooking product.
* * * * *
    Other cooking products means any category of cooking products other 
than conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave 
ovens.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (i)(6) and (i)(8);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (i)(7) and (i)(9) as (i)(6) and (i)(7);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (l) through (u) as paragraphs (m) through 
(v), respectively; and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (l).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (l) CENELEC. European Committee for Electrotechnical 
Standardization, 17, Avenue Marnix, B-1000 Brussels, phone: +32 2 519 
68 71, available from the HIS Standards Store, https://www.ihs.com/products/cenelec-standards.html
    (1) EN 60350-2:2013, (``EN 60350-2:2013''), Household electric 
cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance, 
(June 3, 2013), IBR approved for appendix I to subpart B, as follows:
    (i) Section 5--General conditions for the measurements, (excluding 
5.4);
    (ii) Section 6--Dimensions and mass, Section 6.2--Cooking zones per 
hob;
    (iii) Section 7--Cooking zones and cooking areas, Section 7.1--
Energy consumption and heating up time, (excluding 7.1.Z1, 7.1.Z5, 
7.1.Z7);
    (iv)Annex ZA--Further requirements for measuring the energy 
consumption and heating up time for cooking areas;
    (v) Annex ZB--Aids for measuring the energy consumption;
    (vi)Annex ZC--Examples how to select and position a cookware set 
for measuring the heating up time (7.1.Z5) and energy consumption 
(7.1.Z6);
    (vii) Annex ZD--Example--Multiple zones; and
    (viii) Annex ZF--Normative references to international publications 
with their corresponding European publications.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
6. 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 integrated annual 
electrical energy consumption for conventional electric cooking tops, 
including any integrated annual electrical energy consumption for 
combined cooking products according to sections 4.1.2.1.2 and 4.2.2.1 
of appendix I to this subpart. For conventional gas cooking tops, the 
integrated annual electrical energy consumption shall be equal to the 
sum of the conventional cooking top annual electrical energy 
consumption, ECCE, as defined in section 4.1.2.2.2 or 
4.2.2.2 of appendix I to this subpart, and the conventional cooking top 
annual combined low-power mode energy consumption, ECTSO, as 
defined in section 4.1.2.2.3 appendix I to this subpart, or the annual 
combined low-power mode energy consumption for the conventional cooking 
top component of a combined cooking product, ECCTLP, as 
defined in section 4.2.2.2 of appendix I to this subpart.
    (2) Determine the annual gas energy consumption for conventional 
gas cooking tops according to section 4.1.2.2.1 of appendix I to this 
subpart.
    (3) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption for 
conventional cooking tops according to sections 4.1.2.1.2, 4.1.2.2.2, 
4.2.2.1, and 4.2.2.2, respectively, of appendix I to this subpart. 
Round the integrated annual energy consumption to one significant 
digit.
    (4) The estimated annual operating cost corresponding to the energy 
consumption of a conventional cooking top, shall be the sum of the 
following products:
    (i) The integrated annual electrical energy consumption for any 
electric energy usage, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, as determined 
in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section, times the 
representative average unit cost for electricity, in dollars per kWh, 
as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act; plus
    (ii) The total annual gas energy consumption for any natural gas 
usage, in British thermal units (Btu) per year, as determined in 
accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this section, times the 
representative average unit cost for natural gas, in dollars per Btu, 
as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act; plus
    (iii) The total annual gas energy consumption for any propane 
usage, in Btu per year, as determined in accordance with paragraph 
(i)(2) of this section, times the representative average unit cost for 
propane, in dollars per Btu, as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    (5) 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.
    (6) For convertible cooking appliances, there shall be--
    (i) An estimated annual operating cost and an integrated annual 
energy consumption which represent values for the operation of the 
appliance with natural gas; and
    (ii) An estimated annual operating cost and an integrated annual 
energy consumption which represent values for the operation of the 
appliance with LP-gas.
    (7) Determine the estimated annual operating cost for convertible 
cooking appliances that represents natural gas usage, as described in 
paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section, according to paragraph (i)(4) of 
this section, using the total annual gas energy consumption for natural 
gas times the representative average unit cost for natural gas.
    (8) Determine the estimated annual operating cost for convertible 
cooking appliances that represents LP-gas usage, as described in 
paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of

[[Page 91447]]

this section, according to paragraph (i)(4) of this section, using the 
representative average unit cost for propane times the total annual 
energy consumption of the test gas, either propane or natural gas.
    (9) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption for 
convertible cooking appliances that represents natural gas usage, as 
described in paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section, according to 
paragraph (i)(3) of this section, when the appliance is tested with 
natural gas.
    (10) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption for 
convertible cooking appliances that represents LP-gas usage, as 
described in paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of this section, according to 
paragraph (i)(3) of this section, when the appliance is tested with 
either natural gas or propane.
    (11) 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 I to this subpart.
* * * * *

0
7. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix I to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Cooking Products

    Note:  Any representation related to energy or power consumption 
of cooking products made after June 14, 2017 must be based upon 
results generated under this test procedure. Upon the compliance 
date(s) of any energy conservation standard(s) for cooking products, 
use of the applicable provisions of this test procedure to 
demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standard will 
also be required.

1. Definitions

    The following definitions apply to the test procedures in this 
appendix, including the test procedures incorporated by reference:
    1.1 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, electric inductive heating, or microwave energy.
    1.2 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.
    1.3 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.
    1.4 Combined low-power mode means the aggregate of available 
modes other than active mode, but including the delay start mode 
portion of active mode.
    1.5 Cooking area is 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 is either--
    (1) An area where no clear limitative markings for cookware are 
visible on the surface of the cooking top; or
    (2) An area with limitative markings.
    1.6 Cooking zone is a conventional cooking top surface that is 
either a single electric resistance heating element or 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.
    1.7 Cooking top control is 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.
    1.8 Cycle finished mode is a standby mode in which a 
conventional cooking top provides continuous status display 
following operation in active mode.
    1.9 Drop-in means the product is supported by horizontal surface 
cabinetry.
    1.10 EN 60350-2:2013 means the CENELEC test standard titled, 
``Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs--Methods for 
measuring performance,'' Publication 60350-2 (2013) (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    1.11 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.
    1.12 IEC 62301 (First Edition) means the test standard published 
by the International Electrotechnical Commission, titled ``Household 
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Publication 
62301 (First Edition 2005-06) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3).
    1.13 IEC 62301 (Second Edition) means the test standard 
published by the International Electrotechnical Commission, titled 
``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' 
Publication 62301 (Edition 2.0 2011-01) (incorporated by reference; 
see Sec.  430.3).
    1.14 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.
    1.15 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.
    1.16 Normal non-operating temperature means a temperature of all 
areas of an appliance to be tested that is within 5[emsp14][deg]F 
(2.8 [deg]C) of the temperature that the identical areas of the same 
basic model of the appliance would attain if it remained in the test 
room for 24 hours while not operating with all oven doors closed.
    1.17 Off mode means any mode in which a cooking 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.
    1.18 Standard cubic foot (or liter (L)) of gas means that 
quantity of gas that occupies 1 cubic foot (or alternatively 
expressed in L) when saturated with water vapor at a temperature of 
60[emsp14][deg]F (15.6 [deg]C) and a pressure of 30 inches of 
mercury (101.6 kPa) (density of mercury equals 13.595 grams per 
cubic centimeter).
    1.19 Standby mode means any mode in which a cooking 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.
    1.20 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.
    1.21 Symbol usage. The following identity relationships are 
provided to help clarify the symbology used throughout this 
procedure.

A--Number of Hours in a Year
C--Specific Heat
E--Energy Consumed
H--Heating Value of Gas
K--Conversion for Watt-hours to Kilowatt-hours or Btu to kBtu
Ke--3.412 Btu/Wh, Conversion for Watt-hours to Btu
M--Mass
n--Number of Units
P--Power
Q--Gas Flow Rate
T--Temperature
t--Time
V--Volume of Gas Consumed

2. Test Conditions

    2.1 Installation. 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 appliance and 
1 foot beyond both sides of the appliance, and with no side walls. 
Install a drop-in or built-in cooking product in a test enclosure in 
accordance with manufacturer's instructions. If the

[[Page 91448]]

manufacturer's instructions specify that the cooking product may be 
used in multiple installation conditions, install the appliance 
according to the built-in configuration and, for cooking tops, with 
the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical 
wall which extends at least 1 foot above the appliance and 1 foot 
beyond both sides of the appliance. 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.
    2.1.1 Conventional electric cooking tops. Connect these products 
to an electrical supply circuit with voltage as specified in section 
2.2.1 of this appendix with a watt-hour meter installed in the 
circuit. The watt-hour meter shall be as described in section 
2.8.1.1 of this appendix. For standby mode and off mode testing, 
install these products in accordance with Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 
of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3), disregarding the provisions regarding batteries and the 
determination, classification, and testing of relevant modes.
    2.1.2 Conventional gas cooking tops. Connect these products to a 
gas supply line with a gas meter installed between the supply line 
and the appliance being tested, according to manufacturer's 
specifications. The gas meter shall be as described in section 2.8.2 
of this appendix. Connect conventional gas cooking tops with 
electrical ignition devices or other electrical components to an 
electrical supply circuit of nameplate voltage with a watt-hour 
meter installed in the circuit. The watt-hour meter shall be as 
described in section 2.8.1.1 of this appendix. For standby mode and 
off mode testing, install these products in accordance with Section 
5, Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), disregarding the provisions regarding 
batteries and the determination, classification, and testing of 
relevant modes.
    2.1.3 Microwave ovens, excluding any microwave oven component of 
a combined cooking product. Install the microwave oven in accordance 
with the manufacturer's instructions and connect to an electrical 
supply circuit with voltage as specified in section 2.2.1 of this 
appendix. Install the microwave oven also in accordance with Section 
5, Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), disregarding the provisions regarding 
batteries and the determination, classification, and testing of 
relevant modes. A watt meter shall be installed in the circuit and 
shall be as described in section 2.8.1.2 of this appendix.
    2.1.4 Combined cooking products standby mode and off mode. For 
standby mode and off mode testing of combined cooking products, 
install these products in accordance with Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 
of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3), disregarding the provisions regarding batteries and the 
determination, classification, and testing of relevant modes.
    2.2 Energy supply.
    2.2.1 Electrical supply.
    2.2.1.1 Voltage. For the test of conventional cooking tops, 
maintain the electrical supply requirements specified in Section 5.2 
of EN 60350-2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). For 
microwave oven testing, maintain the electrical supply to the unit 
at 240/120 volts 1 percent. For combined cooking product 
standby mode and off mode measurements, maintain the electrical 
supply to the unit at 240/120 volts 1 percent. Maintain 
the electrical supply frequency for all products at 60 hertz 1 percent.
    2.2.2.1 Gas burner adjustments. Test conventional gas cooking 
tops with all of the gas burners adjusted in accordance with the 
installation or operation instructions provided by the manufacturer. 
In every case, adjust the burner with sufficient air flow to prevent 
a yellow flame or a flame with yellow tips.
    2.2.2.2 Natural gas. For testing convertible cooking appliances 
or appliances which are designed to operate using only 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 (1743.6 to 
2490.8 Pa). The regulator outlet pressure shall equal the 
manufacturer's recommendation. The natural gas supplied should have 
a heating value of approximately 1,025 Btu per standard cubic foot 
(38.2 kJ/L). The actual gross heating value, Hn, in Btu 
per standard cubic foot (kJ/L), for the natural gas to be used in 
the test shall be obtained either from measurements made by the 
manufacturer conducting the test using equipment that meets the 
requirements described in section 2.8.4 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 2.8.4 of this appendix.
    2.2.2.3 Propane. For testing convertible cooking appliances with 
propane or for testing appliances which are designed to operate 
using only LP-gas, maintain the propane pressure immediately ahead 
of all controls of the unit under test at 11 to 13 inches of water 
column (2740 to 3238 Pa). The regulator outlet pressure shall equal 
the manufacturer's recommendation. The propane supplied should have 
a heating value of approximately 2,500 Btu per standard cubic foot 
(93.2 kJ/L). Obtain the actual gross heating value, Hp, 
in Btu per standard cubic foot (kJ/L), 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 2.8.4 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 2.8.4 of this appendix.
    2.2.2.4 Test gas. Test a basic model of a convertible cooking 
appliance with natural gas or propane. Test with natural gas any 
basic model of a conventional cooking top that is designed to 
operate using only natural gas as the energy source. Test with 
propane gas any basic model of a conventional cooking top which is 
designed to operate using only LP gas as the gas energy source.
    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.
    2.5 Ambient room test conditions
    2.5.1 Active mode ambient room air temperature. During the 
active mode test for conventional cooking tops, maintain the ambient 
room air temperature and pressure specified in Section 5.1 of EN 
60350-2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.5.2 Standby mode and off mode ambient temperature. For standby 
mode and off mode testing, maintain room ambient air temperature 
conditions as specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.6 Normal non-operating temperature. All areas of the appliance 
to be tested must attain the normal non-operating temperature, as 
defined in section 1.16 of this appendix, before any testing begins. 
Measure the applicable normal non-operating temperature using the 
equipment specified in sections 2.8.3.1 and 2.8.3.2 of this 
appendix. For conventional cooking tops, forced cooling may be used 
to assist in reducing the temperature of the appliance, as specified 
in Section 5.5 of EN 60350-2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  430.3).
    2.7 Conventional cooking top test vessels
    2.7.1 Conventional electric cooking top test vessels. The test 
vessels and water amounts required for the test of conventional 
electric cooking tops must meet the requirements specified in 
Section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350-2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  430.3).
    2.7.2 Conventional gas cooking top test vessels. The test 
vessels for conventional gas cooking tops must be constructed 
according to Section 7.1.Z2 of EN 60350-2:2013 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3). Use the following test vessel diameters 
and water amounts to test gas cooking zones having the burner input 
rates as specified:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Nominal gas burner input rate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Test vessel    Water load mass
                                                                Maximum Btu/h   diameter inches      lbs (kg)
                      Minimum Btu/h (kW)                             (kW)             (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,958 (1.16).................................................     5,596 (1.64)       8.27 (210)      4.52 (2.05)
5,630 (1.65).................................................     6,756 (1.98)       9.45 (240)      5.95 (2.70)
6,790 (1.99).................................................     8,053 (2.36)      10.63 (270)      7.54 (3.42)

[[Page 91449]]

 
8,087 (2.37).................................................     14,331 (4.2)      10.63 (270)      7.54 (3.42)
>14,331 (4.2)................................................  ...............      11.81 (300)      9.35 (4.24)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.8 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the 
following instruments, as appropriate:
    2.8.1 Electrical Measurements.
    2.8.1.1 Watt-hour meter. The watt-hour meter for measuring the 
electrical energy consumption of conventional cooking tops must have 
a resolution as specified in Table Z1 of Section 5.3 of EN 60350-
2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). The watt-hour 
meter for measuring the electrical energy consumption of microwave 
ovens must have a resolution of 0.1 watt-hour (0.36 kJ) or less and 
a maximum error no greater than 1.5 percent of the measured value.
    2.8.1.2 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter 
used to measure standby mode and off mode power must meet the 
requirements specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). For 
microwave oven standby mode and off mode testing, 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 requirements specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 
62301 (Second Edition).
    2.8.2 Gas Measurements.
    2.8.2.1 Positive displacement meters. The gas meter to be used 
for measuring the gas consumed by the gas burners of the 
conventional cooking top must have a resolution of 0.01 cubic foot 
(0.28 L) 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 (62.3 L/h).
    2.8.3 Temperature measurement equipment.
    2.8.3.1 Room temperature indicating system. For the test of 
microwave ovens, the room temperature indicating system must have an 
error no greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F (0.6 
[deg]C) over the range 65[deg] to 90[emsp14][deg]F (18 [deg]C to 32 
[deg]C). For conventional cooking tops, the room temperature 
indicating system must be as specified in Table Z1 of Section 5.3 of 
EN 60350-2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.8.3.2 Temperature indicator system for measuring surface 
temperatures. Measure the temperature of any surface of a 
conventional cooking top by means of a thermocouple in firm contact 
with the surface. The temperature indicating system must have an 
error no greater than 1[emsp14][deg]F (0.6 
[deg]C) over the range 65[deg] to 90[emsp14][deg]F (18 [deg]C to 32 
[deg]C).
    2.8.3.3 Water temperature indicating system. For the test of 
conventional cooking tops, measure the test vessel water temperature 
by means of a thermocouple as specified in Table Z1 of Section 5.3 
of EN 60350-2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.8.3.4 Room air pressure indicating system. For the test of 
conventional cooking tops, the room air pressure indicating system 
must be as specified in Table Z1 of Section 5.3 of EN 60350-2:2013 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.8.4 Heating Value. Measure the heating value of the natural 
gas or propane with an instrument and associated readout device that 
has a maximum error no greater than 0.5% of the measured 
value and a resolution of 0.2% or less of the full scale 
reading of the indicator instrument. Correct the heating value of 
natural gas or propane to standard pressure and temperature 
conditions in accordance with U.S. Bureau of Standards, circular 
C417, 1938.
    2.8.5 Scale. The scale used to measure the mass of the water 
amount must be as specified in Table Z1 of Section 5.3 of EN 60350-
2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).

3. Test Methods and Measurements

    3.1. Test methods.
    3.1.1 Conventional cooking top. Establish the test conditions 
set forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix. Turn off 
the gas flow to the conventional oven(s), if so equipped. The 
temperature of the conventional cooking top must be its normal non-
operating temperature as defined in section 1.16 and described in 
section 2.6 of this appendix. For conventional electric cooking 
tops, select the test vessel(s) and test position(s) according to 
Sections 6.2.Z1, 7.1.Z2, 7.1.Z3, 7.1.Z4, Annex ZA to ZD, and Annex 
ZF of EN 60350-2:2013 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). 
When measuring the surface unit cooking zone diameter, the outer 
diameter of the cooking zone printed marking shall be used for the 
measurement. For conventional gas cooking tops, select the 
appropriate test vessel(s) from the test vessels specified in 
section 2.7.2 of this appendix based on the burner input rate. Use 
the test methods set forth in Section 7.1.Z6 of EN 60350-2:2013 to 
measure the energy consumption of electric and gas cooking zones and 
electric cooking areas. The temperature overshoot, 
[Delta]T0, calculated in Section 7.1.Z6.2.2 is the 
difference between the highest recorded temperature value and 
T70 as shown in Figure Z2. During the simmering energy 
consumption measurement specified in Section 7.1.Z6.3, the 20-minute 
simmering period starts when the water temperature first reaches 90 
[deg]C and does not drop below 90 [deg]C for more than 20 seconds 
after initially reaching 90 [deg]C. Do not test specialty cooking 
zones that are for use only with non-circular cookware, such as 
bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles.
    3.1.1.1 Conventional cooking top standby mode and off mode power 
except for any conventional cooking top component of a combined 
cooking product. Establish the standby mode and off mode testing 
conditions set forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this 
appendix. For conventional cooking tops 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) (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), allow sufficient time for the 
conventional cooking top 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 
3.1.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.1.2 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 the stabilization period specified 
in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 (First Edition), and use 
the average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 
5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First Edition), but with a single test period 
of 10 minutes +0/-2 sec after an additional stabilization period 
until the clock time reaches 3:33.
    3.1.1.1.1 If the conventional cooking top has an inactive mode, 
as defined in section 1.14 of this appendix, measure and record the 
average inactive mode power of the conventional cooking top, 
PIA, in watts.
    3.1.1.1.2 If the conventional cooking top has an off mode, as 
defined in section 1.17 of this appendix, measure and record the 
average off mode power of the conventional cooking top, 
POM, in watts.
    3.1.2 Combined cooking product standby mode and off mode power. 
Establish the standby mode and off mode testing conditions set forth 
in section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix. For combined 
cooking 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) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3), allow sufficient time for the combined cooking 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 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2 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 the 
stabilization period specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 
62301 (First Edition), and use the average power approach described 
in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First Edition), but 
with a single

[[Page 91450]]

test period of 10 minutes +0/-2 sec after an additional 
stabilization period until the clock time reaches 3:33.
    3.1.2.1 If the combined cooking product has an inactive mode, as 
defined in section 1.14 of this appendix, measure and record the 
average inactive mode power of the combined cooking product, 
PIA, in watts.
    3.1.2.2 If the combined cooking product has an off mode, as 
defined in section 1.17 of this appendix, measure and record the 
average off mode power of the combined cooking product, 
POM, in watts.
    3.1.3 Microwave oven.
    3.1.3.1 Microwave oven test standby mode and off mode power 
except for any microwave oven component of a combined cooking 
product. Establish the testing conditions set forth in section 2, 
Test Conditions, of this appendix. For microwave ovens that drop 
from a higher power state to a lower power state as discussed in 
Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), allow sufficient time 
for the microwave oven 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 units in which power varies as a function of displayed 
time in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 and use the average 
power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 
62301 (First Edition), but with a single test period of 10 minutes 
+0/-2 sec after an additional stabilization period until the clock 
time reaches 3:33. If a microwave oven is capable of operation in 
either standby mode or off mode, as defined in sections 1.19 and 
1.17 of this appendix, respectively, or both, test the microwave 
oven in each mode in which it can operate.
    3.2 Test measurements.
    3.2.1 Conventional cooking top test energy consumption.
    3.2.1.1 Conventional cooking area or cooking zone energy 
consumption. Measure the energy consumption for each electric 
cooking zone and cooking area, in watt-hours (kJ) of electricity 
according to section 7.1.Z6.3 of EN 60350-2:2013 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3). For the gas surface unit under test, 
measure the volume of gas consumption, VCT, in standard 
cubic feet (L) of gas and any electrical energy, EIC, 
consumed by an ignition device of a gas heating element or other 
electrical components required for the operation of the conventional 
gas cooking top in watt-hours (kJ).
    3.2.1.2 Conventional cooking top standby mode and off mode power 
except for any conventional cooking top component of a combined 
cooking product. Make measurements as specified in section 3.1.1.1 
of this appendix. If the conventional cooking top is capable of 
operating in inactive mode, as defined in section 1.15 of this 
appendix, measure the average inactive mode power of the 
conventional cooking top, PIA, in watts as specified in 
section 3.1.1.1.1 of this appendix. If the conventional cooking top 
is capable of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1.17 of 
this appendix, measure the average off mode power of the 
conventional cooking top, POM, in watts as specified in 
section 3.1.1.1.2 of this appendix.
    3.2.2 Combined cooking product standby mode and off mode power. 
Make measurements as specified in section 3.1.2 of this appendix. If 
the combined cooking product is capable of operating in inactive 
mode, as defined in section 1.15 of this appendix, measure the 
average inactive mode power of the combined cooking product, 
PIA, in watts as specified in section 3.1.2.1 of this 
appendix. If the combined cooking product is capable of operating in 
off mode, as defined in section 1.17 of this appendix, measure the 
average off mode power of the combined cooking product, 
POM, in watts as specified in section 3.1.2.2 of this 
appendix.
    3.2.3 Microwave oven standby mode and off mode power except for 
any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. Make 
measurements as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). If 
the microwave oven is capable of operating in standby mode, as 
defined in section 1.19 of this appendix, measure the average 
standby mode power of the microwave oven, PSB, in watts 
as specified in section 3.1.3.1 of this appendix. If the microwave 
oven is capable of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1.17 
of this appendix, measure the average off mode power of the 
microwave oven, POM, as specified in section 3.1.3.1.
    3.3 Recorded values.
    3.3.1 Record the test room temperature, TR, at the 
start and end of each conventional cooking top or combined cooking 
product test, as determined in section 2.5 of this appendix.
    3.3.2 Record the relative air pressure at the start of the test 
and at the end of the test in hectopascals (hPa).
    3.3.3 For conventional cooking tops and combined cooking 
products, record the standby mode and off mode test measurements 
PIA and POM, if applicable.
    3.3.4 For each test of an electric cooking area or cooking zone, 
record the values listed in 7.1.Z6.3 in EN 60350-2:2013 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and the total test 
electric energy consumption, ETV.
    3.3.5 For each test of a conventional gas surface unit, record 
the gas volume consumption, VCT; the time until the power 
setting is reduced, tc; the time when the simmering 
period starts, t90; the initial temperature of the water; 
the water temperature when the setting is reduced, Tc; 
the water temperature at the end of the test, Ts; and the 
electrical energy for ignition of the burners, EIC.
    3.3.6 Record the heating value, Hn, as determined in 
section 2.2.2.2 of this appendix for the natural gas supply.
    3.3.7 Record the heating value, Hp, as determined in 
section 2.2.2.3 of this appendix for the propane supply.
    3.3.8 Record the simmering setting selected in accordance with 
section 7.1.Z6.2.3.
    3.3.9 For microwave ovens except for any microwave oven 
component of a combined cooking product, record the average standby 
mode power, PSB, for the microwave oven standby mode, as 
determined in section 3.2.3 of this appendix for a microwave oven 
capable of operating in standby mode. Record the average off mode 
power, POM, for the microwave oven off mode power test, 
as determined in section 3.2.3 of this appendix for a microwave oven 
capable of operating in off mode.

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

    4.1 Conventional cooking top.
    4.1.1 Conventional cooking top energy consumption.
    4.1.1.1 Energy consumption for electric cooking tops. Calculate 
the energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, 
ECTE, in Watt-hours (kJ), using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.029

Where:

ntv = the total number of tests conducted for the 
conventional electric cooking top
Etv = the energy consumption measured for each test with 
a given test vessel, tv, in Wh
mtv is the mass of water used for the test, in g
2853 = the representative water load mass, in g

    4.1.1.2 Gas energy consumption for conventional gas cooking 
tops. Calculate the energy consumption of the conventional gas 
cooking top, ECTG, in Btus (kJ) using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.030

Where:

ntv = the total number of tests conducted for the 
conventional gas cooking top
mtv = the mass of the water used to test a given cooking 
zone or area
Etvg = (VCT x H), the gas energy consumption 
measured for each test with a given test vessel, tv, in Btu (kJ)

Where:

VCT = total gas consumption in standard cubic feet (L) 
for the gas surface unit test as measured in section 3.2.1.1 of this 
appendix.
H = either Hn or Hp, the heating value of the 
gas used in the test as specified in sections 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.3 of 
this appendix, expressed in Btus per standard cubic foot (kJ/L) of 
gas.
2853 = the representative water load mass, in g

    4.1.1.3 Electrical energy consumption for conventional gas 
cooking tops. Calculate the energy consumption of the conventional 
gas cooking top, ECTGE, in Watt-hours (kJ) using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.031

Where:


[[Page 91451]]


ntv = the total number of tests conducted for the 
conventional gas cooking top
mtv = the mass of the water used to test a given cooking 
zone or area
EIC = the electrical energy consumed in watt-hours (kJ) 
by a gas surface unit as measured in section 3.2.1.1 of this 
appendix.
2853 = the representative water load mass, in g

    4.1.2 Conventional cooking top annual energy consumption.
    4.1.2.1 Conventional electric cooking top.
    4.1.2.1.1 Annual energy consumption of a conventional electric 
cooking top. Calculate the annual energy consumption of a 
conventional electric cooking top, ECA, in kilowatt-hours 
(kJ) per year, defined as:

ECA = ECTE x K x NCE

Where:

K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours.
NCE = 207.5 cooking cycles per year, the average number 
of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking 
event estimated for conventional electric cooking tops.
ECTE = energy consumption of the conventional electric 
cooking top as defined in section 4.1.1.1 of this appendix.
    4.1.2.1.2 Integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional 
electric cooking top. Calculate the integrated annual electrical 
energy consumption, EIAEC, of a conventional electric 
cooking top, except for any conventional electric cooking top 
component of a combined cooking product, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per 
year, defined as:

E1AEC = ECA + ECTLP

Where:

ECA = the annual energy consumption of the conventional 
electric cooking top as defined in section 4.1.2.1.1 of this 
appendix.
ECTLP = conventional cooking top annual combined low-
power mode energy consumption = [(PIA x SIA) + 
(POM x SOM)] x K,

    Where:
    PIA = conventional cooking top inactive mode power, 
in watts, as measured in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this appendix.
    POM = conventional cooking top off mode power, in 
watts, as measured in section 3.1.1.1.2 of this appendix.
    If the conventional cooking top has both inactive mode and off 
mode annual hours, SIA and SOM both equal 
4273.4;
    If the conventional cooking top has an inactive mode but no off 
mode, the inactive mode annual hours, SIA, is equal to 
8546.9, and the off mode annual hours, SOM, is equal to 
0;
    If the conventional cooking top has an off mode but no inactive 
mode, SIA is equal to 0, and SOM is equal to 
8546.9;
    K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-
hours.

    4.1.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top
    4.1.2.2.1 Annual gas energy consumption of a conventional gas 
cooking top. Calculate the annual gas energy consumption, 
ECCG, in kBtus (kJ) per year for a conventional gas 
cooking top, defined as:
ECCG = ECTG x K x NCG

Where:

NCG = 214.5 cooking cycles per year, the average number 
of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking 
event estimated for conventional gas cooking tops.
ECTG = gas energy consumption of the conventional gas 
cooking top as defined in section 4.1.1.2 of this appendix.
K = 0.001 conversion factor for Btu to kBtu.

    4.1.2.2.2 Annual electrical energy consumption of a conventional 
gas cooking top. Calculate the annual electrical energy consumption, 
ECCE, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year for a conventional 
gas cooking top, defined as:

ECCE = ECTGE x K x NCG

Where:

NCG = 214.5 cooking cycles per year, the average number 
of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking 
event estimated for conventional gas cooking tops.
ECTGE = secondary electrical energy consumption of the 
conventional gas cooking top as defined in section 4.1.1.3 of this 
appendix.
K = 0.001 conversion factor for Wh to kWh.

    4.1.2.2.3 Integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional 
gas cooking top. Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption, 
EIAEC, of a conventional gas cooking top, except for any 
conventional gas cooking top component of a combined cooking 
product, in kBtus (kJ) per year, defined as:

E1AEC = ECC + (ECTSO x Ke)

Where:

ECC = ECCG + (ECCE x Ke) 
the total annual energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking 
top

    Where:

    ECCG = the primary annual energy consumption of a 
conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.2.2.1 of 
this appendix.
    ECCE = the secondary annual energy consumption of a 
conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.2.2.2 of 
this appendix.
    Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh (3.6 kJ/Wh), conversion factor of 
watt-hours to Btus.
ECTSO = conventional cooking top annual combined low-
power mode energy consumption = [(PIA x SIA) + 
(POM x SOM)] x K,

    Where:

    PIA = conventional cooking top inactive mode power, 
in watts, as measured in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this appendix.
    POM = conventional cooking top off mode power, in 
watts, as measured in section 3.1.1.1.2 of this appendix.
    If the conventional cooking top has both inactive mode and off 
mode annual hours, SIA and SOM both equal 
4273.4;
    If the conventional cooking top has an inactive mode but no off 
mode, the inactive mode annual hours, SIA, is equal to 
8546.9, and the off mode annual hours, SOM, is equal to 
0;
    If the conventional cooking top has an off mode but no inactive 
mode, SIA is equal to 0, and SOM is equal to 
8546.9;
    K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-
hours.

    4.2 Combined cooking products.
    4.2.1 Combined cooking product annual combined low-power mode 
energy consumption. Calculate the combined cooking product annual 
combined low-power mode energy consumption, ECCLP, 
defined as:

ECCLP = (PIA x SIA) + (POM x SOM)] x K,

Where:

PIA = combined cooking product inactive mode power, in 
watts, as measured in section 3.1.2.1 of this appendix.
POM = combined cooking product off mode power, in watts, 
as measured in section 3.1.2.2 of this appendix.
STOT equals the total number of inactive mode and off 
mode hours per year, 8,329.2;
If the combined cooking product has both inactive mode and off mode, 
SIA and SOM both equal STOT/2;
If the combined cooking product has an inactive mode but no off 
mode, the inactive mode annual hours, SIA, is equal to 
STOT, and the off mode annual hours, SOM, is 
equal to 0;
    If the combined cooking product has an off mode but no inactive 
mode, SIA is equal to 0, and SOM is equal to 
STOT;
    K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-
hours.

    4.2.2 Integrated annual energy consumption of any conventional 
cooking top component of a combined cooking product.
    4.2.2.1 Integrated annual energy consumption of any conventional 
electric cooking top component of a combined cooking product. 
Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional 
electric cooking top component of a combined cooking product, 
EIAEC, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year and defined as:

EIAEC = ECA + ECCTLP

Where,

ECA = the annual energy consumption of the conventional electric 
cooking top as defined in section 4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
ECCTLP = annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for the 
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, in 
kWh (kJ) per year, calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.032

Where:

ECCLP = combined cooking product annual combined low-power mode 
energy consumption, determined in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.
HCT = 213.1 hours per year, the average number of cooking hours per 
year for a conventional cooking top.

    HT = HOV + HCT + 
HMWO

    Where:

    HOV = average number of cooking hours per year for a 
conventional oven, which

[[Page 91452]]

is equal to 219.9 hours per year. If the combined cooking product 
does not include a conventional oven, then HOV = 0.
    HMWO = average number of cooking hours per year for a 
microwave oven, which is equal to 44.9 hours per year. If the 
combined cooking product does not include a microwave oven, then 
HMWO = 0.

    4.2.2.2 Integrated annual energy consumption of any conventional 
gas cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Calculate 
the integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional gas 
cooking top component of a combined cooking product, 
EIAEC, in kBtus (kJ) per year and defined as:

EIAEC = ECC + (ECCTLP x Ke)

Where,

ECC = ECCG + ECCE, the total annual energy consumption of a 
conventional gas cooking top,

    Where:

    ECCG = the annual gas energy consumption of a conventional gas 
cooking top as determined in section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix.
    ECCE = the annual electrical energy consumption of a 
conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.2.2.2 of 
this appendix.
Ke = 3.412 kBtu/kWh (3,600 kJ/kWh), conversion factor for kilowatt-
hours to kBtus.
ECCTLP = annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for the 
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, in 
kWh (kJ) per year, calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.033

Where:

ECCLP = combined cooking product annual combined low-power mode 
energy consumption, determined in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.
HCT = 213.1 hours per year, the average number of cooking hours per 
year for a conventional cooking top.

HT = HOV + HCT + HMWO

    Where:

    HOV = average number of cooking hours per year for a 
conventional oven, which is equal to 219.9 hours per year. If the 
combined cooking product does not include a conventional oven, then 
HOV = 0.
    HMWO = average number of cooking hours per year for a 
microwave oven, which is equal to 44.9 hours per year. If the 
combined cooking product does not include a microwave oven, then 
HMWO = 0.

    4.2.3 Annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for any 
microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. Calculate 
the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption of a microwave 
oven component of a combined cooking product, ECMWOLP, in 
kWh (kJ) per year, and defined as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE16.034

Where:

ECCLP = combined cooking product annual combined low-power mode 
energy consumption, determined in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.
HMWO = 44.9 hours per year, the average number of cooking hours per 
year for a microwave oven.

HT = HOV + HCT + HMWO

    Where:

    HOV = average number of cooking hours per year for a 
conventional oven, which is equal to 219.9 hours per year. If the 
combined cooking product does not include a conventional oven, then 
HOV = 0.
    HCT = average number of cooking hours per year for a 
conventional cooking top, which is equal to 213.1 hours per year. If 
the combined cooking product does not include a conventional cooking 
top, then HCT = 0.

[FR Doc. 2016-29077 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P