Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products, 39211-39220 [2019-16892]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39211
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 84, No. 154
Friday, August 9, 2019
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
RIN 1904–AE36
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Cooking Products
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
On April 25, 2018, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) published
a notification of petition from the
Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM) to withdraw,
and immediately stay the effectiveness
of, the conventional cooking top test
procedure. Based on the review of
public comments and data received in
response to this petition, DOE proposes
to withdraw the test procedure for
conventional cooking tops established
under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA). DOE has
tentatively determined that the
conventional cooking top test procedure
may not accurately represent consumer
use for gas cooking tops, may not be
repeatable or reproducible for both gas
and electric cooking tops, and is overly
burdensome to conduct.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested on or before
October 8, 2019. DOE will hold a public
meeting on this proposed rule. The
details for that public meeting will be
provided in a subsequent notice
published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments,
identified by ‘‘[Test Procedure for
Cooking Products],’’ by any of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: CookProducts2018TP0004@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2018–BT–TP–0004 and/or RIN
1904–AE36 in the subject line of the
message.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Aug 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
3. Mail: Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Office,
Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–
0121. If possible, please submit all items
on a compact disc (CD), in which case
it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 586–6636. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents, or
comments received, go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of the General Counsel, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585. Email: Celia.Sher@
hq.doe.gov; (202) 287–6122.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
intends to include the following
industry standards, previously
incorporated by reference into 10 CFR
part 430:
(1) International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) Standard 62301,
Household electrical appliances—
Measurement of standby power,’’
Publication 62301 (First Edition 2005–
06).
(2) IEC 62301 Household electrical
appliances—Measurement of standby
power, (Edition 2.0 2011–01).
Copies of IEC 62301 (First Edition)
and IEC 62301 (Second Edition) can be
obtained from the American National
Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212)
642–4900, or go to https://
webstore.ansi.org.
See Section IV.M. for a further
discussion of these standards.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
III. Discussion
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771
and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
E. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act
I. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Description of Material Incorporated by
Reference
V. Public Participation
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Kitchen ranges and ovens are
included in the list of ‘‘covered
products’’ for which DOE is authorized
to establish and amend energy
conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 430.2
include definitions for ‘‘cooking
products,’’ which cover cooking
appliances that use gas, electricity, or
microwave energy as the source of heat;
as well as specific types of cooking
products, including conventional
cooking tops, conventional ovens,
microwave ovens, and other cooking
products. DOE’s energy conservation
standards and test procedures for
cooking products are currently
prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(j) and 10
CFR 430.23(i), respectively. (Note that
DOE does not currently have an energy
conservation standard for cooktops.)
The following sections discuss DOE’s
authority to establish test procedures for
cooking products and relevant
background information regarding
DOE’s consideration to withdraw the
test procedures for conventional
cooking tops.
A. Authority
Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or
the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C.
6291–6309, as codified), established the
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
39212
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Automobiles,2 a program covering most
major household appliances, which
includes cooking products, and
specifically conventional cooking tops,3
the subject of this NOPR. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10))
Under EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and
enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of the Act specifically
include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295),
and the authority to require information
and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must
use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to
DOE that their products comply with
the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making
representations about the efficiency of
those consumer products (42 U.S.C.
6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the products comply with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products.
EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and
not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE’s test
procedures for conventional cooking
tops are codified at appendix I to
subpart B of title 10 of the CFR part 430
(‘‘appendix I’’).
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Background
DOE originally established test
procedures for cooking products in a
final rule published in the Federal
Register on May 10, 1978. 43 FR 20108,
2 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270
(October 23, 2018).
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. This
includes any conventional cooking top component
of a combined cooking product. 10 CFR 430.2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Aug 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
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-clean
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.4 The test procedures
for consumer 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. Aside from
the provisions for measuring standby
power of microwave ovens, all other
provisions for consumer cooking
products are not currently used for
compliance with any energy
conservation standards because the
present standards are design
requirements.
DOE subsequently conducted a
rulemaking to address standby and off
mode energy consumption, as well as
certain active mode (i.e., fan-only mode)
testing provisions, for consumer cooking
products. DOE published a final rule on
October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, the
‘‘October 2012 TP 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))
On January 30, 2013, DOE published
a NOPR (78 FR 6232, the ‘‘January 2013
TP NOPR’’) proposing amendments to
appendix I that would allow for testing
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 on the
cooking top. DOE proposed to
incorporate induction cooking tops by
amending the definition of
‘‘conventional cooking top’’ to include
4 DOE subsequently withdrew the test procedures
for measuring the active mode of microwave ovens
in a July 22, 2010 final rule. 75 FR 42579. DOE has
adopted test procedure provisions to measure the
standby and off mode energy use of microwave
ovens. See 78 FR 4015.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 specified at that time in the test
procedure for cooking tops with hybrid
test blocks comprising two separate
pieces: An aluminum body and a
stainless steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234
(Jan. 30, 2013).
On December 3, 2014, DOE published
an SNOPR (the ‘‘December 2014 TP
SNOPR’’), in which DOE modified its
proposal from the January 2013 TP
NOPR in response to comments from
interested parties to specify different
test equipment that would allow for
measuring the energy efficiency of
induction cooking tops, and would
include an additional test block size for
electric surface units with large
diameters (both induction and electric
resistance). 79 FR 71894. In addition,
DOE proposed methods to test noncircular 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 amendments to add a larger
test block size to test gas cooking top
burners with higher input rates. Id.
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR,
DOE also proposed methods for
measuring conventional oven volume,
clarification that the existing oven test
block must be used to test all ovens
regardless of input rate, and a method
to measure the energy consumption and
efficiency of conventional ovens
equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR
71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). DOE published the
July 2015 TP Final Rule adopting the
test procedure amendments discussed
above for conventional ovens only. 80
FR 37954.
On June 10, 2015, DOE published a
NOPR (the ‘‘June 2015 NOPR’’)
proposing new and amended energy
conservation standards for consumer
conventional ovens. 80 FR 33030. As
discussed in the June 2015 NOPR, DOE
received a significant number of
comments raising issues with the
repeatability and reproducibility of the
proposed hybrid test block test method
for cooking tops in response to the
December 2014 TP SNOPR and in
separate interviews conducted with
consumer cooking product
manufacturers in February and March of
2015. 80 FR 33030, 33039–33040 (June
10, 2015). A number of manufacturers
that produce and sell products in
Europe supported the use of a waterheating test method and harmonization
with IEC Standard 60350–2 Edition 2,
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
‘‘Household electric appliances—Part 2:
Hobs—Method for measuring
performance’’ (‘‘IEC Standard 60350–2’’)
for measuring the energy consumption
of electric cooking tops. These
manufacturers stated that the test
methods in IEC Standard 60350–2 are
compatible with all electric cooking top
types, specify additional cookware
diameters to account for the variety of
surface unit sizes on the market, and use
test loads that represent real-world
cooking top loads. Efficiency advocates
also recommended that DOE require
water-heating test methods to produce a
measure of cooking efficiency for
conventional cooking tops that is more
representative of actual cooking
performance than the hybrid test block
method. 80 FR 33030, 33039–33040
(June 10, 2015). For these reasons, DOE
decided to defer its decision regarding
adoption of energy conservation
standards for conventional cooking tops
until a representative, repeatable and
reproducible test method for cooking
tops was finalized. 80 FR 33030, 33040
(June 10, 2015).
DOE published an additional test
procedure SNOPR on August 22, 2016
(81 FR 57374) (the ‘‘August 2016 TP
SNOPR’’) that proposed amendments to
the test procedures for conventional
cooking tops. Given the feedback from
interested parties discussed above and
based on the additional testing and
analysis conducted for the test
procedure rulemaking, in the August
2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its
proposal for testing conventional
cooking tops with a hybrid test block.
Instead, DOE proposed to amend its test
procedure to incorporate by reference
the relevant sections of IEC Standard
60350–2, which provide a water-heating
test method to measure the energy
consumption of electric cooking tops.
The test method specifies the quantity
of water to be heated in a standardized
test vessel whose size is selected based
on the diameter of the surface unit
under test. 81 FR 57374, 57381–57384.
DOE also proposed to extend the test
methods provided in European standard
EN 60350–2:2013 ‘‘Household electric
cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs—
Methods for measuring performance’’
EN 60530–2:2013 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 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374,
57385–57386. In addition, DOE also
proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR
to include methods for both electric and
gas cooking tops to calculate the annual
energy consumption and the integrated
annual energy consumption to account
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Aug 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
for the proposed water-heating test
method. 81 FR 57374, 57387–57388.
In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE
proposed to repeal the conventional
oven test procedure. DOE determined
that the conventional oven test
procedure may 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. 81 FR 57374, 57378–
57379.
On December 16, 2016, DOE
published a final rule (the ‘‘December
2016 TP Final Rule’’) repealing the test
procedures for conventional ovens for
the reasons discussed, and adopting the
test procedure amendments for
conventional cooking tops proposed in
the August 2016 TP SNOPR that, among
other things: (1) Incorporated by
reference the relevant sections of
European Standard EN 60350–2:2013,
which uses a water-heating test method
to measure the energy consumption of
electric cooking tops; (2) extended the
water-heating test method specified in
EN 60350–2:2013 to gas cooking tops;
and (3) clarified 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. 81
FR 91418.
C. AHAM Petition for Reconsideration
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides
among other things, that ‘‘[e]ach agency
shall give an interested person the right
to petition for the issuance, amendment,
or repeal of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e))
DOE received a petition from AHAM
requesting that DOE reconsider its
December 2016 TP Final Rule. In its
petition, AHAM requested that DOE
undertake a rulemaking to withdraw the
test procedure for conventional cooking
tops, while maintaining the repeal of the
oven test procedure that was part of the
Final Rule. In the interim, AHAM
sought an immediate stay of the
effectiveness of the Final Rule,
including the requirement that
manufacturers use the final test
procedure to make energy-related
claims. In its petition, AHAM claimed
that its analyses showed that the test
procedure is not representative for gas
cooking tops and, for gas and electric
cooking tops, has such a high level of
variation it will not produce accurate
results for certification and enforcement
purposes and will not assist consumers
in making purchasing decisions based
on energy efficiency. DOE published
AHAM’s petition on April 25, 2018, and
requested comments and information on
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39213
whether DOE should undertake a
rulemaking to consider the proposal
contained in the petition. 80 FR 17944.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to
withdraw the test procedure for
conventional cooking tops after
evaluating new information and data
produced by AHAM and other
interested parties that suggest the test
procedure yields inconsistent results
and is unnecessarily burdensome to
conduct. The following discussion
addresses substantive comments 5
received by DOE on AHAM’s petition to
withdraw the cooking top test
procedure.
III. Discussion
The current test procedure in
Appendix I for cooking products
measures the integrated annual energy
consumption of both gas and electric
cooking tops. The integrated annual
energy consumption comprises active
mode energy consumption of each
surface unit on the cooking top, as well
as the combined low-power mode
energy consumption of the cooking top.
In general, to measure the active mode
energy consumption of each surface
unit, a specified amount of water is
heated in a vessel at maximum power
(‘‘heat-up’’ period) until a threshold
temperature is reached, and then the
power is turned down such that the
water is left to simmer at just above 90
degrees Centigrade (°C) for 20 minutes
(‘‘simmering’’ period). The active mode
energy consumption is the measured
energy used during the entire heat-up
and simmering periods.
AHAM asserted in its petition that the
current test procedure for cooking
products is (1) not repeatable or
reproducible for both gas and electric
cooking tops, (2) is unduly burdensome
to conduct, and (3) is not representative
for gas cooking tops. In support of its
assertions, AHAM submitted results
from round-robin testing it conducted
and data provided in its petition
request. (AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 9, 16, 28,
39) 6
AHAM asserted in the petition and
reiterated in comments that the test
procedure is not repeatable nor
5 DOE received a number of comments that were
not relevant to the topic of AHAM’s petition. DOE
has not addressed these comments, as they are
outside the scope of this NOPR.
6 A notation in the form ‘‘AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 9,
17, 28, 39’’ identifies a written comment: (1) Made
by AHAM; (2) recorded in document number 2 that
is filed in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket
No. EERE–2018–BT–TP–0004) and available for
review at www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears
on pages 9, 17, 28, and 39 of document number 2.
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
39214
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
reproducible for gas cooking tops.
AHAM’s round robin testing of four
laboratories showed a level of lab-to-lab
variation in the cooking top gas energy
consumption among four different
cooking top models (3.02%, 3.63%,
9.67%, and 7.99%) that AHAM stated is
higher than the acceptable level of
variation, which it assumed to be 2
percent. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 4)
AHAM’s data showed that a large
contributor to this variation was the
simmer portion of the test, and AHAM’s
investigations found that a possible
cause is that the gas flow is highly
sensitive to the gas burner knob
position. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 5) BSH
Home Appliances Corporation (BSH),
Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and
GE Appliances (GEA) also commented
that determining the simmer setting is
difficult. BSH found that four or five
trials per burner were necessary to find
the correct simmer setting that would
keep the water temperature above 90 °C.
(BSH, No. 22 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 20
at p. 2; GEA, No. 26 at p. 3) GEA found
that two to six trials per burner were
necessary to find the correct simmer
setting. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 3) Whirlpool
also commented that it experienced
problems with accuracy in determining
the turndown temperature, particularly
in instances where a technician was
performing multiple tasks in the
laboratory and not paying strict
attention to water temperatures.
(Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 2) AHAM and
Whirlpool also commented that DOE
did not address pan warpage as a
possible factor in repeatability. (AHAM,
No. 2 at p. 38; Whirlpool, No. 20 at p.
4)
AHAM asserted in its petition that
DOE did not properly conduct a round
robin test to ensure the test procedure
is reproducible. AHAM commented that
DOE only changed testers but used the
same laboratory equipment, which
AHAM asserted is insufficient for
demonstrating reproducibility. (AHAM,
No. 2 at p. 17) Whirlpool, BSH, GEA,
and Electrolux Home Products
(Electrolux) agreed with AHAM’s
comment regarding DOE’s round robin
test. (Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 2; BSH, No.
22 at p. 2; GEA, No. 26 at p. 4;
Electrolux, No. 21 at p. 2)
AHAM also asserted in the petition
that the current test procedure is not
repeatable or reproducible for electric
cooking tops. AHAM stated that DOE
did not properly evaluate element
cycling in electric cooking tops, which
could affect the repeatability of the test
procedure. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 34) GEA,
Whirlpool, BSH, and Electrolux agreed
with this in their comments. (GEA, No.
26 at pp. 3–4; Whirlpool, No. 20 at p.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Aug 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
2; BSH, No. 22 at p. 3; Electrolux, No.
21 at p. 2) Additionally, AHAM noted
that new voluntary Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) safety standards (UL
858) could require redesigning the
element cycling, which could further
cause repeatability issues with the test
procedure. (AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 36–37)
BSH and Electrolux indicated it was
unknown at that time how new electric
cooking tops would respond due to the
new safety standards. (BSH, No. 22 at p.
5; Electrolux, No. 21 at p. 2) Whirlpool
indicated design changes to coil
elements were required to meet UL 858,
which resulted in increased cycling
frequency over shorter durations.
(Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 3)
AHAM also asserted in its petition
that the test procedure is overly
burdensome, and that DOE
underestimated the amount of burden
imposed by the test procedure.
Specifically, AHAM stated that the
required test vessels would cost $9,500
per set for each laboratory, and that the
laboratory infrastructure would have to
be significantly upgraded to maintain
the air temperature tolerance of ±2
degrees Fahrenheit (°F),7 as some
current laboratories can only maintain
±5 °F. (AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 20, 42) Felix
Storch, Inc. submitted a comment in
support of the AHAM petition, and
stated that the fixed costs of the test
procedure would have a greater impact
for small business that produce lower
volumes. (Felix Storch, No. 10 at p. 1)
BSH and GEA both commented that the
test procedure would require substantial
improvements to their laboratories to
meet these requirements. (BSH, No. 22
at p. 5; GEA, No. 26 at p. 7)
Additionally, AHAM reported that
testing time for a gas cooking top ranged
from 23–26 hours per unit. (AHAM, No.
25 at p. 2) GEA found that the test
procedure required 18 hours, on
average, to test a four-burner cooking
top. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 7)
AHAM also asserted in its petition
that the test procedure is not
representative for gas cooking tops. It
commented that Europe uses a different
test standard for gas cooking tops,
which differs from the test standard for
electric cooking tops, because the
simmering and heat-up characteristics
vary for different electric cooking top
technologies (e.g., coil, smooth-radiant,
smooth-induction), whereas there are
not different types of gas heating
technologies. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 10)
Therefore, according to AHAM, gas
7 The test procedure adopted in the December
2016 TP Final Rule specifies an ambient air
temperature tolerance of ±2 °C, which is equivalent
to ±3.6 °F.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
cooking top testing does not require a
simmer portion in the test. (AHAM, No.
2 at p. 15) Additionally, AHAM asserted
that the stainless steel cooking vessels
used for electric testing are not
appropriate for gas cooking top testing,
because stainless steel has a lower level
of conduction than aluminum. (AHAM,
No. 2 at p. 14) BSH similarly asserted
that the cookware used for electric
cooking tops would not be
representative for gas cooking tops.
(BSH, No. 22 at p. 4) AHAM also stated
that some burners are optimized for
specific cooking purposes, and a water
boiling test is not representative of how
these burners are actually used. AHAM
commented that small burners take 35–
37 minutes to reach 90 °C, which is
unacceptable for consumers. (AHAM,
No. 25 at p. 3) BSH and Electrolux
commented that water boiling is not
representative of all gas cooking top use.
(BSH, No. 22 at p. 4; Electrolux, No. 21
at p. 3)
DOE also received a joint submission
from Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
San Diego Gas and Electric, and
Southern California Edison (California
Investor Owned Utilities (CAIOUs)) and
a joint submission from Appliance
Standards Awareness Project,
Consumers Union, National Consumer
Law Center, Natural Resources Defense
Council, and Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance (Joint Advocates).
The CAIOUs and Joint Advocates stated
they are not aware of any information to
suggest that consumers actually use gas
cooking tops differently from electric
cooking tops, and further stated that the
test procedure should be aligned
between those two products. (CAIOU,
No. 15 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 24
at p. 1) The CAIOUs and Joint
Advocates support the process DOE
went through in developing the test
procedure, which they stated was
rigorous and which included multiple
rounds of comments from stakeholders
and appropriate modifications to the
test procedure in response to these
comments. (CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 1; Joint
Advocates, No. 24 at p. 1) The CAIOUs
and Joint Advocates also support DOE’s
original testing and conclusions about
repeatability, with the CAIOUs stating
that they agree with DOE’s data
indicating that the coefficient of
variation in test results is less than 2.0
percent if the test procedure is followed
correctly. (CAIOU, No. 15 at pp. 2, 3;
Joint Advocates No. 24 at p. 3) The
CAIOUs and Joint Advocates stated that
AHAM’s round robin testing is different
from the actual test procedure, so no
conclusion can be drawn from AHAM’s
data. The CAIOUs and Joint Advocates
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
pointed to round robin testing
conducted by the European Committee
of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers
that DOE evaluated in its rulemaking,
with the Joint Advocates suggesting that
DOE could conduct its own round robin
testing to confirm that the test
procedure is repeatable and
reproducible. (CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 2;
Joint Advocates, No. 24 at pp. 2, 3)
39215
Table III.1 summarizes the results of
testing DOE conducted subsequent to
receipt of the AHAM petition in which
DOE performed multiple test
replications on a single burner (i.e.
‘‘surface unit’’). Table III.1 indicates that
the coefficient of variation for each
surface unit’s energy consumption was
no greater than 2 percent for all the
units in the test sample.
DOE is conducting additional testing,
including for gas cooktops, in response
to these stakeholder comments. These
additional tests will evaluate both testto-test repeatability and lab-to-lab
reproducibility.
To date, DOE has completed testing of
ten electric cooking tops to investigate
issues raised in AHAM’s petition. For a
subset of these tests, DOE specifically
evaluated repeatability of test results.
TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF REPEATABILITY TESTS FOR ELECTRIC COOKING TOPS
Cooking top unit
Heating element type
Surface unit
location
1 ..........................
2 ..........................
Smooth—Radiant .......................................................
Smooth—Radiant .......................................................
3 ..........................
4 ..........................
5 ..........................
Smooth—Radiant .......................................................
Smooth—Induction .....................................................
Smooth—Induction .....................................................
BL ......................
BR ......................
FL .......................
FL .......................
FL .......................
BL ......................
the pattern and frequency of heating
element on-off cycles varied).
DOE estimated the time required for
performing the test procedure in
appendix I. Based on its testing, DOE
estimates that a single cooking top
surface unit requires around six 90minute test periods to conduct the
complete test procedure, which
includes about an hour of cool-down
per test period. In total, a cooking top
with four surface units requires around
36 work-hours to complete, of which 12
hours require active monitoring by the
testing technician.
TABLE III.2—SUMMARY OF CYCLING
DOE recognizes that the results of its
TESTS ON ELECTRIC COOKING TOP
testing
and the results achieved by
UNIT
AHAM show differences have causes
yet to be identified. Certainly both sets
Heat-up
Test
Cycling speed *
energy
of tests were conducted by skilled
replication
(Wh)
technicians who understand both the
product and the test requirements. DOE
1 .............. Slow .........................
143.3
tentatively determines that existence of
2 .............. Medium ....................
147.0
3 .............. Fast ..........................
147.0 these differences suggests that
4 .............. Fast ..........................
146.2 additional investigation of repeatability
5 .............. Slow .........................
146.2 and reproducibility of the test procedure
6 .............. Slow .........................
144.8 is warranted. Further, DOE believes that
7 .............. Slow .........................
142.7 differences in test results are indicative
8 .............. very fast ...................
144.6 of the test not being representative of
9 .............. Fast ..........................
145.0 energy use or efficiency during an
10 ............ medium ....................
146.7 average use cycle. As such, it would be
Coefficient ..................................
1.0%
unduly burdensome to subject those
of Varimanufacturers seeking to make
ation.
representations as to the efficiency of
* The qualitative cycling speed is based on their products to the requirement to
the duty cycle frequency, ranging from around conduct such tests while DOE
0.5 cycles/min for ‘‘slow’’, to more than 3 cyinvestigates the issues presented.
cles/min for ‘‘very fast.’’
Therefore, DOE proposes to withdraw
The results in Table III.2 indicate that the cooking top test procedure in
the manner in which an electric cooking appendix I to subpart B of part 430.
top surface unit cycled during the heatUpon consideration of the comments
up period could vary between tests (i.e., received, DOE will determine whether
Additionally, DOE examined the
specific behavior of electric cooking
tops within its test sample that exhibit
cycling behavior. For these test units,
the control algorithm turns the heating
element on and off intermittently during
the heat-up period, typically in order to
prevent excessive cooking top surface
temperatures. Table III.2 summarizes
these results for a representative electric
cooking top that exhibited varying
degrees of cycling behavior during
testing.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Number of test
replications
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Aug 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10
4
2
2
2
3
Average
surface unit
test energy
consumption
(Wh)
191.7
196.3
400.6
365.9
340.9
348.2
Coefficient of
variation
(%)
2.0
1.3
1.0
0.3
1.3
0.7
to proceed with a final rule to withdraw
the test procedure. Because a DOE test
method is necessary to develop a
performance-based energy conservation
standard, if DOE were to ultimately
withdraw the test procedure, DOE
would need to conduct additional
testing and gather additional data to
determine any appropriate test
procedure for use in developing a
subsequent energy conservation
standard.
Both the CAIOUs and Joint Advocates
asserted that since there is not a
performance-based efficiency standard
for cooking tops, there is no need to stay
the effectiveness of the test procedure.
(CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 3; Joint Advocates,
No. 24 at pp. 1,4) DOE notes that EPCA
requires that a manufacturer making
representations of efficiency must use
the DOE test procedure, even if there is
no standard. Thus, there may be a cost
to leaving in place a test procedure that
yields inconsistent results and is
unnecessarily burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Both the CAIOUs
and Joint Advocates also stated that the
cooking top test procedure is necessary
for consumers to make informed
purchasing choices relative to energy
use and efficiency. (CAIOU, No. 15 at p.
3; Joint Advocates, No. 24 at pp. 1, 4)
However, this statement is true only if
the test procedure yields accurate
results. Multiple commenters have
submitted data and information
indicating that repeated attempts to
follow the test procedure lead to
inaccurate results. This suggests that the
cooking products test procedure, as
conducted by testing laboratories that
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
39216
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
may not be familiar with its provisions,
does not provide information that is
potentially beneficial to consumers.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this NOPR
constitutes a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was subject to
review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Review Under Executive Orders
13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President
issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13771,
‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs.’’ The E.O. 13771
stated the policy of the executive branch
is to be prudent and financially
responsible in the expenditure of funds,
from both public and private sources.
E.O. 13771 stated that it is essential to
manage the costs associated with the
governmental imposition of private
expenditures required to comply with
Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017,
the President issued E.O. 13777,
‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda.’’ E.O. 13777 required the head
of each agency designate an agency
official as its Regulatory Reform Officer
(RRO). Each RRO oversees the
implementation of regulatory reform
initiatives and policies to ensure that
agencies effectively carry out regulatory
reforms, consistent with applicable law.
Further, E.O. 13777 requires the
establishment of a regulatory task force
at each agency. The regulatory task force
is required to make recommendations to
the agency head regarding the repeal,
replacement, or modification of existing
regulations, consistent with applicable
law. At a minimum, each regulatory
reform task force must attempt to
identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job
creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or
ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with regulatory
reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the
requirements of Information Quality
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to
that Act, in particular those regulations
that rely in whole or in part on data,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Aug 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
information, or methods that are not
publicly available or that are
insufficiently transparent to meet the
standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement
Executive Orders or other Presidential
directives that have been subsequently
rescinded or substantially modified.
DOE initially concludes that this
rulemaking, which would repeal the test
procedure for cooktops on the basis that
it does not meet the EPCA requirement
that a test procedure be designed to
measure energy use or efficiency during
a representative average use cycle or
period of use and not be unduly
burdensome to conduct, is consistent
with the directives set forth in these
executive orders. This action is
expected to be a deregulatory action
consistent with E.O. 13771 because
manufacturers wanting to make
voluntary representations of energy
efficiency would be required to use the
test procedure, which DOE has found
does not comport with the statutory
requirements. Repeal of the test
procedure would allow manufacturers
making voluntary representations to
determine the best way to make such
representations, until such time as DOE
promulgates, through rulemaking, a new
test procedure.
C. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment,
unless the agency certifies that the rule,
if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website (https://energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed the proposed
withdrawal of the cooking tops test
procedure under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003.
DOE uses the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) small business
size standards to determine whether
manufacturers qualify as small
businesses, which are listed by the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). The SBA considers a
business entity to be a small business,
if, together with its affiliates, it employs
less than a threshold number of workers
specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 2017
NAICS code for cooking tops is 335210,
small electrical appliance
manufacturing. The threshold number
for NAICS code 335210 is 1,500
employees. This employee threshold
includes all employees in a business’s
parent company and any other
subsidiaries.
DOE conducted a focused inquiry into
small business manufacturers of
products covered by this rulemaking.
DOE primarily used the Compliance
Certification Database in DOE’s
Compliance Certification Management
System for cooking products to create a
list of companies that sell cooking tops.
DOE identified a total of 24 distinct
companies that sell cooking tops in the
United States.
DOE reviewed these companies to
determine whether the entities met the
SBA’s definition of ‘‘small business’’
and screened out any companies that do
not offer products covered by this
rulemaking, do not meet the definition
of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are foreignowned and operated. Based on this
review, DOE has identified 12 domestic
manufacturers of cooking tops that are
potential small businesses. Through this
analysis, DOE has determined the
expected effects of this rulemaking on
these covered small businesses and
whether an IRFA was needed (i.e.,
whether DOE could certify that this
rulemaking would not have a significant
impact).
DOE is proposing to withdraw the
cooking tops test procedure for
manufacturers. This would not increase
manufacturer’s testing burden or add
any costs to any manufacturers, small or
large. Therefore, DOE concludes that the
impacts of this proposal would not have
a ‘‘significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,’’
and that the preparation of an IRFA is
not warranted. DOE will transmit the
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).
D. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
Manufacturers of cooking tops must
certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy
conservation standards. In certifying
compliance, manufacturers must test
their products according to the DOE test
procedures for cooking products,
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
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.
E. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this proposed rule, DOE proposes
test procedure amendments that it
expects will be used to develop and
implement future energy conservation
standards for 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 proposed rule
would revoke the existing test
procedures. The existing test procedures
are not used for determining compliance
with an energy conservation standard
and as such, their revocation would not
affect the amount, quality or
distribution of energy usage, and,
therefore, would 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.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on federal agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt state law or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Aug 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
that have Federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the states and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has
examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would 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
proposed 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)
Therefore, no further action is required
by Executive Order 13132.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 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. 61 FR 4729 (Feb.
7, 1996). Regarding the review required
by section 3(a), 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39217
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section
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
proposed rule meets the relevant
standards of Executive Order 12988.
H. 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
proposed regulatory action likely to
result 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 them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820. DOE’s policy statement is also
available at https://energy.gov/gc/officegeneral-counsel. DOE examined this
proposed 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.
I. 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
proposed rule would not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
39218
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988),
DOE has determined that this proposed
rule would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
K. Review Under the 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 federal agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under information quality
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 NOPR under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
L. 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
proposed significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgates 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 proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action to propose the
withdrawal of the cooking products test
procedure is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, it would not have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Aug 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
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.
M. Description of Materials
Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference the following
test standards: (1) IEC 62301, Household
electrical appliances—Measurement of
standby power,’’ Publication 62301
(First Edition 2005–06), section 5; and
(2) IEC 62301 Household electrical
appliances—Measurement of standby
power, (Edition 2.0 2011–01), sections 4
and 5. These standards include test
conditions and testing procedures for
measuring the average standby mode
and average off mode power
consumption of microwaves and were
previously incorporated in appendix I.
Copies of IEC 62301 (First Edition)
and IEC 62301 (Second Edition) can be
obtained from the American National
Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212)
642–4900, or go to https://
webstore.ansi.org.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule before or after the public meeting,
but no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this proposed rule. Interested parties
may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this NOPR.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to https://
www.regulations.gov information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute,
such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter
referred to as confidential business
information or CBI). Comments
submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section below.
DOE processes submissions made
through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments
will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large
volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your
comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment
tracking number that https://
www.regulations.gov provides after you
have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand
delivery/courier, or mail also will be
posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do
not include it in your comment or any
accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a
cover letter. Include your first and last
names, email address, telephone
number, and optional mailing address.
The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include
any comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email to:
CookProducts2018TP0004@ee.doe.gov
or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make
its own determination about the
confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its
determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include: (1)
A description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality; (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person that would result
from public disclosure; (6) when such
information might lose its confidential
character due to the passage of time; and
(7) why disclosure of the information
would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
DOE welcomes comments on any
aspect of this proposal, without
restriction.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Aug 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signed in Washington, DC, on: August 1,
2019.
Daniel R Simmons,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
§ 430.3
[Amended]
2. Section 430.3 is amended by:
a. Removing paragraph (l); and
b. Redesignating paragraphs (m)
through (v) as (l) through (u).
■ 3. 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. Determine the
standby power for microwave ovens,
excluding any microwave oven
component of a combined cooking
product, according to section 3.2.1 of
appendix I to this subpart. Round
standby power to the nearest 0.1 watt.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. 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:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39219
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 Drop-in means the product is
supported by horizontal surface cabinetry.
1.5 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).
1.6 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).
1.7 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.
1.8 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.
1.9 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.
2. Test Conditions
2.1 Installation. Install a drop-in or builtin cooking product in a test enclosure in
accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.
If the manufacturer’s instructions specify that
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
39220
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the cooking product may be used in multiple
installation conditions, install the appliance
according to the built-in configuration.
Completely assemble the product with all
handles, knobs, guards, and similar
components mounted in place. Position any
electric resistance heaters and baffles in
accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions.
2.1.1 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 2.6.1.1
of this appendix.
2.2 Energy supply.
2.2.1 Electrical supply.
2.2.1.1 Voltage. For microwave oven
testing, 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.
2.3 Air circulation. Maintain air
circulation in the room sufficient to secure a
reasonably uniform temperature distribution,
but do not cause a direct draft on the unit
under test.
2.4 Ambient room test conditions
2.4.1 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).
2.5 Normal non-operating temperature.
All areas of the appliance to be tested must
attain the normal non-operating temperature,
as defined in section 1.7 of this appendix,
before any testing begins. Measure the
applicable normal non-operating temperature
using the equipment specified in sections
2.6.2.1 of this appendix.
2.6 Instrumentation. Perform all test
measurements using the following
instruments, as appropriate:
2.6.1 Electrical measurements.
2.6.1.1 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).
2.6.2 Temperature measurement
equipment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Aug 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
2.6.2.1 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).
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
3. Test Methods and Measurements
RIN 1904–AD90
3.1. Test methods.
3.1.1 Microwave oven.
3.1.1.1 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 1.9 and
1.8 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 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 1.9 of this appendix, measure the
average standby mode power of the
microwave oven, PSB, in watts as specified
in section 3.1.1.1 of this appendix. If the
microwave oven is capable of operating in off
mode, as defined in section 1.8 of this
appendix, measure the average off mode
power of the microwave oven, POM, as
specified in section 3.1.1.1.
3.3 Recorded values.
3.3.1 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 3.2.1
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 3.2.1 of this appendix
for a microwave oven capable of operating in
off mode.
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Unfired
Hot Water Storage Tanks
[FR Doc. 2019–16892 Filed 8–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0021]
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is initiating an effort to
determine whether to amend the current
uniform national standard for unfired
hot water storage tanks (‘‘UFHWSTs’’).
Under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975, as amended,
DOE must review this standard at least
once every six years and publish either
a notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘NOPR’’) to propose an amended
standard (or standards) for UFHWSTs or
a notice of determination that the
existing standard does not need to be
amended. This request for information
(‘‘RFI’’) seeks to solicit information from
the public to help DOE determine
whether an amended standard for
UFHWSTs would result a significant
energy savings and whether such a
standard would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. DOE
welcomes written comments from the
public on any subject within the scope
of this document (including topics not
raised in this RFI).
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before September 23,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0021, by
any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email:
UnfiredCommercialWH2017STD0021@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2017–BT–STD–0021 in the
subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39211-39220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16892]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 39211]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
RIN 1904-AE36
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 25, 2018, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
published a notification of petition from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to withdraw, and immediately stay the
effectiveness of, the conventional cooking top test procedure. Based on
the review of public comments and data received in response to this
petition, DOE proposes to withdraw the test procedure for conventional
cooking tops established under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA). DOE has tentatively determined that the conventional cooking
top test procedure may not accurately represent consumer use for gas
cooking tops, may not be repeatable or reproducible for both gas and
electric cooking tops, and is overly burdensome to conduct.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before
October 8, 2019. DOE will hold a public meeting on this proposed rule.
The details for that public meeting will be provided in a subsequent
notice published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments,
identified by ``[Test Procedure for Cooking Products],'' by any of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004 and/or RIN 1904-AE36 in the subject line of
the message.
3. Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please
submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, or
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celia Sher, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585. Email: [email protected]; (202) 287-6122.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE intends to include the following
industry standards, previously incorporated by reference into 10 CFR
part 430:
(1) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301,
Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,''
Publication 62301 (First Edition 2005-06).
(2) IEC 62301 Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power, (Edition 2.0 2011-01).
Copies of IEC 62301 (First Edition) and IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W
43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to
https://webstore.ansi.org.
See Section IV.M. for a further discussion of these standards.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Description of Material Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Kitchen ranges and ovens are included in the list of ``covered
products'' for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy
conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.2 include definitions for ``cooking
products,'' which cover cooking appliances that use gas, electricity,
or microwave energy as the source of heat; as well as specific types of
cooking products, including conventional cooking tops, conventional
ovens, microwave ovens, and other cooking products. DOE's energy
conservation standards and test procedures for cooking products are
currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(j) and 10 CFR 430.23(i),
respectively. (Note that DOE does not currently have an energy
conservation standard for cooktops.) The following sections discuss
DOE's authority to establish test procedures for cooking products and
relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration to
withdraw the test procedures for conventional cooking tops.
A. Authority
Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than
[[Page 39212]]
Automobiles,\2\ a program covering most major household appliances,
which includes cooking products, and specifically conventional cooking
tops,\3\ the subject of this NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
\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. This
includes any conventional cooking top component of a combined
cooking product. 10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer
products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE's test procedures for conventional cooking tops
are codified at appendix I to subpart B of title 10 of the CFR part 430
(``appendix I'').
B. Background
DOE originally established test procedures for 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-clean 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.\4\ The test procedures for consumer 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. Aside from the provisions for
measuring standby power of microwave ovens, all other provisions for
consumer cooking products are not currently used for compliance with
any energy conservation standards because the present standards are
design requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE subsequently withdrew the test procedures for measuring
the active mode of microwave ovens in a July 22, 2010 final rule. 75
FR 42579. DOE has adopted test procedure provisions to measure the
standby and off mode energy use of microwave ovens. See 78 FR 4015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off
mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode (i.e., fan-only
mode) testing provisions, for consumer cooking products. DOE published
a final rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, the ``October 2012 TP
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))
On January 30, 2013, DOE published a NOPR (78 FR 6232, the
``January 2013 TP NOPR'') proposing amendments to appendix I that would
allow for testing 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 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 specified at that time in the test procedure for cooking
tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: An
aluminum body and a stainless steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234 (Jan. 30,
2013).
On December 3, 2014, DOE published an SNOPR (the ``December 2014 TP
SNOPR''), in which DOE modified its proposal from the January 2013 TP
NOPR in response to comments from interested parties to specify
different test equipment that would allow for measuring the energy
efficiency of induction cooking tops, and would include an additional
test block size for electric surface units with large diameters (both
induction and electric resistance). 79 FR 71894. 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 amendments to add a larger test block size to test gas cooking
top burners with higher input rates. Id.
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed methods for
measuring conventional oven volume, clarification that the existing
oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input
rate, and a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of
conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec.
3, 2014). DOE published the July 2015 TP Final Rule adopting the test
procedure amendments discussed above for conventional ovens only. 80 FR
37954.
On June 10, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (the ``June 2015 NOPR'')
proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional ovens. 80 FR 33030. As discussed in the June 2015 NOPR,
DOE received a significant number of comments raising issues with the
repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed hybrid test block
test method for cooking tops in response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR
and in separate interviews conducted with consumer cooking product
manufacturers in February and March of 2015. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040
(June 10, 2015). A number of manufacturers that produce and sell
products in Europe supported the use of a water-heating test method and
harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2,
[[Page 39213]]
``Household electric appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Method for measuring
performance'' (``IEC Standard 60350-2'') for measuring the energy
consumption of electric cooking tops. These manufacturers stated that
the test methods in IEC Standard 60350-2 are compatible with all
electric cooking top types, specify additional cookware diameters to
account for the variety of surface unit sizes on the market, and use
test loads that represent real-world cooking top loads. Efficiency
advocates also recommended that DOE require water-heating test methods
to produce a measure of cooking efficiency for conventional cooking
tops that is more representative of actual cooking performance than the
hybrid test block method. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040 (June 10, 2015). For
these reasons, DOE decided to defer its decision regarding adoption of
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops until a
representative, repeatable and reproducible test method for cooking
tops was finalized. 80 FR 33030, 33040 (June 10, 2015).
DOE published an additional test procedure SNOPR on August 22, 2016
(81 FR 57374) (the ``August 2016 TP SNOPR'') that proposed amendments
to the test procedures for conventional cooking tops. Given the
feedback from interested parties discussed above and based on the
additional testing and analysis conducted for the test procedure
rulemaking, in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its proposal for
testing conventional cooking tops with a hybrid test block. Instead,
DOE proposed to amend its test procedure to incorporate by reference
the relevant sections of IEC Standard 60350-2, which provide a water-
heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric
cooking tops. The test method specifies the quantity of water to be
heated in a standardized test vessel whose size is selected based on
the diameter of the surface unit under test. 81 FR 57374, 57381-57384.
DOE also proposed to extend the test methods provided in European
standard EN 60350-2:2013 ``Household electric cooking appliances Part
2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance'' EN 60530-2:2013 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 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374, 57385-57386. In addition, DOE also
proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to include methods for both
electric and gas cooking tops to calculate the annual energy
consumption and the integrated annual energy consumption to account for
the proposed water-heating test method. 81 FR 57374, 57387-57388.
In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to repeal the
conventional oven test procedure. DOE determined that the conventional
oven test procedure may 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. 81 FR 57374, 57378-57379.
On December 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule (the ``December
2016 TP Final Rule'') repealing the test procedures for conventional
ovens for the reasons discussed, and adopting the test procedure
amendments for conventional cooking tops proposed in the August 2016 TP
SNOPR that, among other things: (1) Incorporated by reference the
relevant sections of European Standard EN 60350-2:2013, which uses a
water-heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric
cooking tops; (2) extended the water-heating test method specified in
EN 60350-2:2013 to gas cooking tops; and (3) clarified 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. 81 FR 91418.
C. AHAM Petition for Reconsideration
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.,
provides among other things, that ``[e]ach agency shall give an
interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE received a petition from AHAM
requesting that DOE reconsider its December 2016 TP Final Rule. In its
petition, AHAM requested that DOE undertake a rulemaking to withdraw
the test procedure for conventional cooking tops, while maintaining the
repeal of the oven test procedure that was part of the Final Rule. In
the interim, AHAM sought an immediate stay of the effectiveness of the
Final Rule, including the requirement that manufacturers use the final
test procedure to make energy-related claims. In its petition, AHAM
claimed that its analyses showed that the test procedure is not
representative for gas cooking tops and, for gas and electric cooking
tops, has such a high level of variation it will not produce accurate
results for certification and enforcement purposes and will not assist
consumers in making purchasing decisions based on energy efficiency.
DOE published AHAM's petition on April 25, 2018, and requested comments
and information on whether DOE should undertake a rulemaking to
consider the proposal contained in the petition. 80 FR 17944.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to withdraw the test procedure for
conventional cooking tops after evaluating new information and data
produced by AHAM and other interested parties that suggest the test
procedure yields inconsistent results and is unnecessarily burdensome
to conduct. The following discussion addresses substantive comments \5\
received by DOE on AHAM's petition to withdraw the cooking top test
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOE received a number of comments that were not relevant to
the topic of AHAM's petition. DOE has not addressed these comments,
as they are outside the scope of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
The current test procedure in Appendix I for cooking products
measures the integrated annual energy consumption of both gas and
electric cooking tops. The integrated annual energy consumption
comprises active mode energy consumption of each surface unit on the
cooking top, as well as the combined low-power mode energy consumption
of the cooking top. In general, to measure the active mode energy
consumption of each surface unit, a specified amount of water is heated
in a vessel at maximum power (``heat-up'' period) until a threshold
temperature is reached, and then the power is turned down such that the
water is left to simmer at just above 90 degrees Centigrade ([deg]C)
for 20 minutes (``simmering'' period). The active mode energy
consumption is the measured energy used during the entire heat-up and
simmering periods.
AHAM asserted in its petition that the current test procedure for
cooking products is (1) not repeatable or reproducible for both gas and
electric cooking tops, (2) is unduly burdensome to conduct, and (3) is
not representative for gas cooking tops. In support of its assertions,
AHAM submitted results from round-robin testing it conducted and data
provided in its petition request. (AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 9, 16, 28, 39)
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A notation in the form ``AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 9, 17, 28, 39''
identifies a written comment: (1) Made by AHAM; (2) recorded in
document number 2 that is filed in the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004) and available for review at
www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears on pages 9, 17, 28, and 39
of document number 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM asserted in the petition and reiterated in comments that the
test procedure is not repeatable nor
[[Page 39214]]
reproducible for gas cooking tops. AHAM's round robin testing of four
laboratories showed a level of lab-to-lab variation in the cooking top
gas energy consumption among four different cooking top models (3.02%,
3.63%, 9.67%, and 7.99%) that AHAM stated is higher than the acceptable
level of variation, which it assumed to be 2 percent. (AHAM, No. 25 at
p. 4) AHAM's data showed that a large contributor to this variation was
the simmer portion of the test, and AHAM's investigations found that a
possible cause is that the gas flow is highly sensitive to the gas
burner knob position. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 5) BSH Home Appliances
Corporation (BSH), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and GE Appliances
(GEA) also commented that determining the simmer setting is difficult.
BSH found that four or five trials per burner were necessary to find
the correct simmer setting that would keep the water temperature above
90 [deg]C. (BSH, No. 22 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 2; GEA, No. 26
at p. 3) GEA found that two to six trials per burner were necessary to
find the correct simmer setting. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 3) Whirlpool also
commented that it experienced problems with accuracy in determining the
turndown temperature, particularly in instances where a technician was
performing multiple tasks in the laboratory and not paying strict
attention to water temperatures. (Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 2) AHAM and
Whirlpool also commented that DOE did not address pan warpage as a
possible factor in repeatability. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 38; Whirlpool, No.
20 at p. 4)
AHAM asserted in its petition that DOE did not properly conduct a
round robin test to ensure the test procedure is reproducible. AHAM
commented that DOE only changed testers but used the same laboratory
equipment, which AHAM asserted is insufficient for demonstrating
reproducibility. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 17) Whirlpool, BSH, GEA, and
Electrolux Home Products (Electrolux) agreed with AHAM's comment
regarding DOE's round robin test. (Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 2; BSH, No.
22 at p. 2; GEA, No. 26 at p. 4; Electrolux, No. 21 at p. 2)
AHAM also asserted in the petition that the current test procedure
is not repeatable or reproducible for electric cooking tops. AHAM
stated that DOE did not properly evaluate element cycling in electric
cooking tops, which could affect the repeatability of the test
procedure. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 34) GEA, Whirlpool, BSH, and Electrolux
agreed with this in their comments. (GEA, No. 26 at pp. 3-4; Whirlpool,
No. 20 at p. 2; BSH, No. 22 at p. 3; Electrolux, No. 21 at p. 2)
Additionally, AHAM noted that new voluntary Underwriters Laboratories
(UL) safety standards (UL 858) could require redesigning the element
cycling, which could further cause repeatability issues with the test
procedure. (AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 36-37) BSH and Electrolux indicated it
was unknown at that time how new electric cooking tops would respond
due to the new safety standards. (BSH, No. 22 at p. 5; Electrolux, No.
21 at p. 2) Whirlpool indicated design changes to coil elements were
required to meet UL 858, which resulted in increased cycling frequency
over shorter durations. (Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 3)
AHAM also asserted in its petition that the test procedure is
overly burdensome, and that DOE underestimated the amount of burden
imposed by the test procedure. Specifically, AHAM stated that the
required test vessels would cost $9,500 per set for each laboratory,
and that the laboratory infrastructure would have to be significantly
upgraded to maintain the air temperature tolerance of 2
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F),\7\ as some current laboratories can only
maintain 5 [deg]F. (AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 20, 42) Felix
Storch, Inc. submitted a comment in support of the AHAM petition, and
stated that the fixed costs of the test procedure would have a greater
impact for small business that produce lower volumes. (Felix Storch,
No. 10 at p. 1) BSH and GEA both commented that the test procedure
would require substantial improvements to their laboratories to meet
these requirements. (BSH, No. 22 at p. 5; GEA, No. 26 at p. 7)
Additionally, AHAM reported that testing time for a gas cooking top
ranged from 23-26 hours per unit. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 2) GEA found that
the test procedure required 18 hours, on average, to test a four-burner
cooking top. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The test procedure adopted in the December 2016 TP Final
Rule specifies an ambient air temperature tolerance of 2
[deg]C, which is equivalent to 3.6 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM also asserted in its petition that the test procedure is not
representative for gas cooking tops. It commented that Europe uses a
different test standard for gas cooking tops, which differs from the
test standard for electric cooking tops, because the simmering and
heat-up characteristics vary for different electric cooking top
technologies (e.g., coil, smooth-radiant, smooth-induction), whereas
there are not different types of gas heating technologies. (AHAM, No. 2
at p. 10) Therefore, according to AHAM, gas cooking top testing does
not require a simmer portion in the test. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 15)
Additionally, AHAM asserted that the stainless steel cooking vessels
used for electric testing are not appropriate for gas cooking top
testing, because stainless steel has a lower level of conduction than
aluminum. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 14) BSH similarly asserted that the
cookware used for electric cooking tops would not be representative for
gas cooking tops. (BSH, No. 22 at p. 4) AHAM also stated that some
burners are optimized for specific cooking purposes, and a water
boiling test is not representative of how these burners are actually
used. AHAM commented that small burners take 35-37 minutes to reach 90
[deg]C, which is unacceptable for consumers. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 3) BSH
and Electrolux commented that water boiling is not representative of
all gas cooking top use. (BSH, No. 22 at p. 4; Electrolux, No. 21 at p.
3)
DOE also received a joint submission from Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison
(California Investor Owned Utilities (CAIOUs)) and a joint submission
from Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumers Union, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (Joint Advocates). The CAIOUs and Joint
Advocates stated they are not aware of any information to suggest that
consumers actually use gas cooking tops differently from electric
cooking tops, and further stated that the test procedure should be
aligned between those two products. (CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 2; Joint
Advocates, No. 24 at p. 1) The CAIOUs and Joint Advocates support the
process DOE went through in developing the test procedure, which they
stated was rigorous and which included multiple rounds of comments from
stakeholders and appropriate modifications to the test procedure in
response to these comments. (CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 1; Joint Advocates,
No. 24 at p. 1) The CAIOUs and Joint Advocates also support DOE's
original testing and conclusions about repeatability, with the CAIOUs
stating that they agree with DOE's data indicating that the coefficient
of variation in test results is less than 2.0 percent if the test
procedure is followed correctly. (CAIOU, No. 15 at pp. 2, 3; Joint
Advocates No. 24 at p. 3) The CAIOUs and Joint Advocates stated that
AHAM's round robin testing is different from the actual test procedure,
so no conclusion can be drawn from AHAM's data. The CAIOUs and Joint
Advocates
[[Page 39215]]
pointed to round robin testing conducted by the European Committee of
Domestic Equipment Manufacturers that DOE evaluated in its rulemaking,
with the Joint Advocates suggesting that DOE could conduct its own
round robin testing to confirm that the test procedure is repeatable
and reproducible. (CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 24 at
pp. 2, 3)
DOE is conducting additional testing, including for gas cooktops,
in response to these stakeholder comments. These additional tests will
evaluate both test-to-test repeatability and lab-to-lab
reproducibility.
To date, DOE has completed testing of ten electric cooking tops to
investigate issues raised in AHAM's petition. For a subset of these
tests, DOE specifically evaluated repeatability of test results. Table
III.1 summarizes the results of testing DOE conducted subsequent to
receipt of the AHAM petition in which DOE performed multiple test
replications on a single burner (i.e. ``surface unit''). Table III.1
indicates that the coefficient of variation for each surface unit's
energy consumption was no greater than 2 percent for all the units in
the test sample.
Table III.1--Summary of Repeatability Tests for Electric Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
surface unit
Cooking top unit Heating element Surface unit Number of test test energy Coefficient of
type location replications consumption variation (%)
(Wh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Smooth--Radiant. BL............. 10 191.7 2.0
2............................ Smooth--Radiant. BR............. 4 196.3 1.3
FL............. 2 400.6 1.0
3............................ Smooth--Radiant. FL............. 2 365.9 0.3
4............................ Smooth--Inductio FL............. 2 340.9 1.3
n.
5............................ Smooth--Inductio BL............. 3 348.2 0.7
n.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE examined the specific behavior of electric
cooking tops within its test sample that exhibit cycling behavior. For
these test units, the control algorithm turns the heating element on
and off intermittently during the heat-up period, typically in order to
prevent excessive cooking top surface temperatures. Table III.2
summarizes these results for a representative electric cooking top that
exhibited varying degrees of cycling behavior during testing.
Table III.2--Summary of Cycling Tests on Electric Cooking Top Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat-up
Test replication Cycling speed * energy
(Wh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Slow................... 143.3
2................................... Medium................. 147.0
3................................... Fast................... 147.0
4................................... Fast................... 146.2
5................................... Slow................... 146.2
6................................... Slow................... 144.8
7................................... Slow................... 142.7
8................................... very fast.............. 144.6
9................................... Fast................... 145.0
10.................................. medium................. 146.7
Coefficient of Variation............ ....................... 1.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The qualitative cycling speed is based on the duty cycle frequency,
ranging from around 0.5 cycles/min for ``slow'', to more than 3 cycles/
min for ``very fast.''
The results in Table III.2 indicate that the manner in which an
electric cooking top surface unit cycled during the heat-up period
could vary between tests (i.e., the pattern and frequency of heating
element on-off cycles varied).
DOE estimated the time required for performing the test procedure
in appendix I. Based on its testing, DOE estimates that a single
cooking top surface unit requires around six 90-minute test periods to
conduct the complete test procedure, which includes about an hour of
cool-down per test period. In total, a cooking top with four surface
units requires around 36 work-hours to complete, of which 12 hours
require active monitoring by the testing technician.
DOE recognizes that the results of its testing and the results
achieved by AHAM show differences have causes yet to be identified.
Certainly both sets of tests were conducted by skilled technicians who
understand both the product and the test requirements. DOE tentatively
determines that existence of these differences suggests that additional
investigation of repeatability and reproducibility of the test
procedure is warranted. Further, DOE believes that differences in test
results are indicative of the test not being representative of energy
use or efficiency during an average use cycle. As such, it would be
unduly burdensome to subject those manufacturers seeking to make
representations as to the efficiency of their products to the
requirement to conduct such tests while DOE investigates the issues
presented.
Therefore, DOE proposes to withdraw the cooking top test procedure
in appendix I to subpart B of part 430. Upon consideration of the
comments received, DOE will determine whether to proceed with a final
rule to withdraw the test procedure. Because a DOE test method is
necessary to develop a performance-based energy conservation standard,
if DOE were to ultimately withdraw the test procedure, DOE would need
to conduct additional testing and gather additional data to determine
any appropriate test procedure for use in developing a subsequent
energy conservation standard.
Both the CAIOUs and Joint Advocates asserted that since there is
not a performance-based efficiency standard for cooking tops, there is
no need to stay the effectiveness of the test procedure. (CAIOU, No. 15
at p. 3; Joint Advocates, No. 24 at pp. 1,4) DOE notes that EPCA
requires that a manufacturer making representations of efficiency must
use the DOE test procedure, even if there is no standard. Thus, there
may be a cost to leaving in place a test procedure that yields
inconsistent results and is unnecessarily burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)) Both the CAIOUs and Joint Advocates also stated that
the cooking top test procedure is necessary for consumers to make
informed purchasing choices relative to energy use and efficiency.
(CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 3; Joint Advocates, No. 24 at pp. 1, 4) However,
this statement is true only if the test procedure yields accurate
results. Multiple commenters have submitted data and information
indicating that repeated attempts to follow the test procedure lead to
inaccurate results. This suggests that the cooking products test
procedure, as conducted by testing laboratories that
[[Page 39216]]
may not be familiar with its provisions, does not provide information
that is potentially beneficial to consumers.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
NOPR constitutes a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735
(Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was subject to review under
the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the OMB.
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' The
E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent
and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both
public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated that it is essential to
manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O.
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' E.O. 13777 required
the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory
Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of
regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies
effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable
law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory
task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to
make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal,
replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with
applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must
attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or
methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other
Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or
substantially modified.
DOE initially concludes that this rulemaking, which would repeal
the test procedure for cooktops on the basis that it does not meet the
EPCA requirement that a test procedure be designed to measure energy
use or efficiency during a representative average use cycle or period
of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct, is consistent with the
directives set forth in these executive orders. This action is expected
to be a deregulatory action consistent with E.O. 13771 because
manufacturers wanting to make voluntary representations of energy
efficiency would be required to use the test procedure, which DOE has
found does not comport with the statutory requirements. Repeal of the
test procedure would allow manufacturers making voluntary
representations to determine the best way to make such representations,
until such time as DOE promulgates, through rulemaking, a new test
procedure.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed the proposed withdrawal of the cooking tops test
procedure under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003.
DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business
size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small
businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS). The SBA considers a business entity to
be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less
than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. The
2017 NAICS code for cooking tops is 335210, small electrical appliance
manufacturing. The threshold number for NAICS code 335210 is 1,500
employees. This employee threshold includes all employees in a
business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers
of products covered by this rulemaking. DOE primarily used the
Compliance Certification Database in DOE's Compliance Certification
Management System for cooking products to create a list of companies
that sell cooking tops. DOE identified a total of 24 distinct companies
that sell cooking tops in the United States.
DOE reviewed these companies to determine whether the entities met
the SBA's definition of ``small business'' and screened out any
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not
meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and
operated. Based on this review, DOE has identified 12 domestic
manufacturers of cooking tops that are potential small businesses.
Through this analysis, DOE has determined the expected effects of this
rulemaking on these covered small businesses and whether an IRFA was
needed (i.e., whether DOE could certify that this rulemaking would not
have a significant impact).
DOE is proposing to withdraw the cooking tops test procedure for
manufacturers. This would not increase manufacturer's testing burden or
add any costs to any manufacturers, small or large. Therefore, DOE
concludes that the impacts of this proposal would not have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE
will transmit the 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).
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of cooking tops must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according
to the DOE test procedures for cooking products,
[[Page 39217]]
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. 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.
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for 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 proposed rule would revoke the existing test
procedures. The existing test procedures are not used for determining
compliance with an energy conservation standard and as such, their
revocation would not affect the amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, would 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.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10,
1999), imposes certain requirements on federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt state law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the states and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed rule and has determined that it would 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 proposed
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)
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 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.
61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section
3(a), 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 section 3(a) and section 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 proposed rule meets the
relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
H. 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 proposed regulatory action likely to result 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 them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this proposed
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.
I. 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 proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution.
[[Page 39218]]
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a
Family Policymaking Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would
not result in any takings that might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
K. Review Under the 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 federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality 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 NOPR under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
L. 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 proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates 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 proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action to propose the withdrawal of the cooking
products test procedure 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.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following test standards: (1) IEC 62301, Household electrical
appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Publication 62301 (First
Edition 2005-06), section 5; and (2) IEC 62301 Household electrical
appliances--Measurement of standby power, (Edition 2.0 2011-01),
sections 4 and 5. These standards include test conditions and testing
procedures for measuring the average standby mode and average off mode
power consumption of microwaves and were previously incorporated in
appendix I.
Copies of IEC 62301 (First Edition) and IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W
43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to
https://webstore.ansi.org.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this NOPR.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
confidential business information or CBI). Comments submitted through
https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section below.
DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail.
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or
mail also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not
want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in
which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses.
[[Page 39219]]
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email to:
[email protected] or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will
make its own determination about the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, without
restriction.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signed in Washington, DC, on: August 1, 2019.
Daniel R Simmons,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 430.3 [Amended]
0
2. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (l); and
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (m) through (v) as (l) through (u).
0
3. 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. Determine the standby power for microwave
ovens, excluding any microwave oven component of a combined cooking
product, according to section 3.2.1 of appendix I to this subpart.
Round standby power to the nearest 0.1 watt.
* * * * *
0
4. 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 Drop-in means the product is supported by horizontal surface
cabinetry.
1.5 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).
1.6 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).
1.7 Normal non-operating temperature means a temperature of all
areas of an appliance to be tested that is within 5 [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.
1.8 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.
1.9 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.
2. Test Conditions
2.1 Installation. Install a drop-in or built-in cooking product
in a test enclosure in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
If the manufacturer's instructions specify that
[[Page 39220]]
the cooking product may be used in multiple installation conditions,
install the appliance according to the built-in configuration.
Completely assemble the product with all handles, knobs, guards, and
similar components mounted in place. Position any electric
resistance heaters and baffles in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions.
2.1.1 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 2.6.1.1 of this appendix.
2.2 Energy supply.
2.2.1 Electrical supply.
2.2.1.1 Voltage. For microwave oven testing, 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.
2.3 Air circulation. Maintain air circulation in the room
sufficient to secure a reasonably uniform temperature distribution,
but do not cause a direct draft on the unit under test.
2.4 Ambient room test conditions
2.4.1 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).
2.5 Normal non-operating temperature. All areas of the appliance
to be tested must attain the normal non-operating temperature, as
defined in section 1.7 of this appendix, before any testing begins.
Measure the applicable normal non-operating temperature using the
equipment specified in sections 2.6.2.1 of this appendix.
2.6 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the
following instruments, as appropriate:
2.6.1 Electrical measurements.
2.6.1.1 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).
2.6.2 Temperature measurement equipment.
2.6.2.1 Room temperature indicating system. For the test of
microwave ovens, the room temperature indicating system must have an
error no greater than 1 [deg]F (0.6 [deg]C)
over the range 65[deg] to 90 [deg]F (18 [deg]C to 32 [deg]C).
3. Test Methods and Measurements
3.1. Test methods.
3.1.1 Microwave oven.
3.1.1.1 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 1.9 and 1.8
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 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 1.9 of this appendix, measure the average standby
mode power of the microwave oven, PSB, in watts as specified in
section 3.1.1.1 of this appendix. If the microwave oven is capable
of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1.8 of this
appendix, measure the average off mode power of the microwave oven,
POM, as specified in section 3.1.1.1.
3.3 Recorded values.
3.3.1 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 3.2.1 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
3.2.1 of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of operating in
off mode.
[FR Doc. 2019-16892 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
