Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products, 50757-50767 [2020-16102]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
50757
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 85, No. 160
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
2 CFR Part 200
Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements
Office of Management and
Budget.
ACTION: Guidance.
AGENCY:
This document announces the
availability of the 2020 Compliance
Supplement (2020 Supplement) for the
Office of Management and Budget’s
uniform administrative requirements,
cost principles, and audit requirements
regulations. This document also offers
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the 2020 Supplement.
DATES: The 2020 Supplement replaces
the 2019 Supplement and applies to
fiscal year audits beginning after June
30, 2019. All comments to the 2020
Supplement must be in writing and
received by October 10, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Late comments will be
considered to the extent practicable.
Comments will be reviewed and
addressed, when appropriate, in the
2021 Compliance Supplement.
Electronic mail comments may be
submitted to: https://
www.regulations.gov. Please include ‘‘2
CFR part 200 Subpart F—Audit
Requirements, Appendix XI-Compliance
Supplement—2020’’ in the subject line
and the full body of your comments in
the text of the electronic message and as
an attachment. Please include your
name, title, organization, postal address,
telephone number, and email address in
the text of the message. Comments may
also be sent to: GrantsTeam@
omb.eop.gov.
Please note that all public comments
received are subject to the Freedom of
Information Act and will be posted in
their entirety, including any personal
and/or business confidential
information provided. Do not include
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
performance goals for these new
COVID–19 programs.
Timothy F. Soltis,
Deputy Controller.
[FR Doc. 2020–17987 Filed 8–17–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110–01–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
SUMMARY:
any information you would not like to
be made publically available.
The 2020 Supplement is available
online on the OMB home page at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
offices/offm.
Recipients and auditors should contact
their cognizant or oversight agency for
audit, or Federal awarding agency, as
appropriate under the circumstances.
The Federal agency contacts are listed
in appendix III of the Supplement.
Subrecipients should contact their passthrough entity. Federal agencies should
contact Gil Tran at Hai_M._Tran@
omb.eop.gov or (202) 395–3052 or the
OMB Grants team at GrantsTeam@
omb.eop.gov.
The 2020
Supplement (2 CFR part 200, subpart F,
appendix XI) adds 3 new programs,
deletes 6 expired programs and provides
updates on many other programs, where
necessary. Consistent with the
President’s Management Agenda, Cross
Agency Priority (CAP) goal number 8,
‘‘Results-Oriented Accountability for
Grants,’’ Federal awarding agencies are
encouraged to begin a paradigm shift in
grants management from one heavy on
compliance to a balanced approach that
includes establishing measurable
program and project goals and analyzing
data to improve results. To that end, the
2020 Compliance Supplement continues
the reduction of the compliance areas
for auditor review in part 2, Matrix from
a maximum of twelve to six, which was
first implemented in the 2019
Supplement, and requires a review for
performance reporting for 29 programs
under part 4. OMB will work with
Federal awarding agencies in future
Supplements that will further
emphasize the review on performance.
This year’s Supplement also includes
guidance related to Coronavirus
administrative relief included in the
four OMB memoranda in appendix VII
of the Supplement. OMB plans to work
with Federal awarding agencies to
identify the new COVID–19 programs
with special compliance and reporting
requirements that will be included as an
Addendum to this Supplement, as
appropriate. OMB intends to balance the
review of both compliance and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
On August 9, 2019, as a result
of a petition from the Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers
(AHAM) and data received in response
to that petition, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing
to withdraw the test procedure for
conventional cooking tops established
under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA). In this final
rule, DOE withdraws the test procedure
for conventional cooking tops under
EPCA. DOE has determined that the
conventional cooking tops test
procedure is not representative of
energy use or efficiency during an
average use cycle and is overly
burdensome to conduct.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
September 17, 2020. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications
listed in this rule was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register on April
8, 2011 and December 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The docket is available for
review at https://www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the https://www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
index may not be publicly available,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at:
https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041. The
docket web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all
documents in the docket.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50758
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Authority and Background
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
includes 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.
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. The
following sections discuss DOE’s
authority to establish test procedures for
cooking products and relevant
background information regarding
DOE’s determination to withdraw the
test procedures for conventional
cooking tops.
Table of Contents
A. Authority
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. AHAM Petition for Reconsideration
II. Synopsis of Final Rule
III. Discussion
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review 658
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 of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order
13132
G. Review Under Executive Order
12988
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 Materials
Incorporated by Reference
N. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary 667
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
Automobiles,2 a program covering most
major household appliances, which
includes cooking products, and
specifically conventional cooking tops,3
the subject of this rule. (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),
energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C.
6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6294), and the authority to require
information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 10 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
established provisions for determining
estimated annual operating cost,
cooking efficiency (defined as the ratio
of cooking energy output to cooking
energy input), and energy factor
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.
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(defined as the ratio of annual useful
cooking energy output to total annual
energy input) at 10 CFR 430.23(i) and
appendix I. As described in the
following discussion, 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
conventional 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 noncircular electric surface units, electric
surface units with flexible concentric
cooking zones, and full-surface
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
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,
‘‘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 their view 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50759
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 European
standard EN 60350–2:2013, 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 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 favored
conventional ovens with low thermal
mass and did 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
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
50760
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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
cooking top test procedure, 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 energyrelated claims. In its petition, AHAM
claimed that its analyses showed that
the test procedure adopted in the
December 2016 TP Final Rule 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. Based on the
review of public comments and data
received in response to AHAM’s
petition, on August 9, 2019, DOE
published a NOPR proposing to
withdraw the test procedure for
conventional cooking tops (the ‘‘August
2019 NOPR’’). In that NOPR, DOE
tentatively determined that the
conventional cooking tops 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. DOE
held a public meeting on October 9,
2019 to hear oral comments and solicit
information and data relevant to the
August 2019 NOPR.
The following sections of this
preamble respond to comments received
on the August 2019 NOPR and during
the NOPR public meeting.
II. Synopsis of Final Rule
In this rule, DOE withdraws the test
procedure for conventional cooking tops
because testing conducted by DOE and
outside parties using that test procedure
yields inconsistent results. As a result,
the outcomes of such testing are
unreliable and it is unduly burdensome
to leave that test procedure in place and
require cooking top tests be conducted
using that test method without further
study to resolve those inconsistencies.
III. Discussion
The current test procedure in
appendix I for cooking tops 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.
DOE published its August 2019 NOPR
proposing to withdraw the current test
procedure for conventional cooking tops
as a result of testing data AHAM
submitted in its petition and in
subsequent comments that was
inconsistent with DOE’s own testing
results. With respect to gas cooking
tops, AHAM’s round robin testing of
four laboratories showed a level of labto-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) 5
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 also asserted in the petition
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) As discussed in the August 2019
NOPR, DOE conducted testing of ten
electric cooking tops to investigate
issues raised in AHAM’s petition. See
84 FR 39215. For a subset of these tests,
DOE specifically examined repeatability
of test results. DOE performed multiple
test replications on a set of individual
heating elements (i.e., ‘‘surface units’’),
and its test results indicated 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 I summarizes
these results.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
TABLE I—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 ......................
5 A notation in the form of ‘‘AHAM, No. 25 at p.
4’’ identifies a written comment: (1) Made by
AHAM; (2) recorded in document number 25 that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
is filed in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket
No. EERE–2018–BT–TP–0004) and available for
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Number of
test
replications
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
review at https://www.regulations.gov; and (3) that
appears on page 4 of document number 25.
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
As further discussed in the August
2019 NOPR, DOE also performed
multiple tests on a single electric
cooking top surface unit addressing the
issue of element cycling in response to
50761
AHAM’s petition. See 84 FR 39215.
Table II summarizes these results.
TABLE II—SUMMARY OF CYCLING TESTS ON ELECTRIC COOKING TOP UNIT
Heat-up
energy
(Wh)
Test replication
Cycling speed *
1 ..................................................................................................
2 ..................................................................................................
3 ..................................................................................................
4 ..................................................................................................
5 ..................................................................................................
6 ..................................................................................................
7 ..................................................................................................
8 ..................................................................................................
9 ..................................................................................................
10 ................................................................................................
Coefficient of Variation ...............................................................
slow ............................................................................................
medium .......................................................................................
fast ..............................................................................................
fast ..............................................................................................
slow ............................................................................................
slow ............................................................................................
slow ............................................................................................
very fast ......................................................................................
fast ..............................................................................................
medium .......................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
143.2
147.0
147.0
146.2
146.2
144.8
142.7
144.6
145.0
146.7
1.0%
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
* 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.’’
DOE recognized that both its tests and
AHAM’s were conducted by skilled
technicians who understand both the
product and test requirements. DOE
tentatively concluded in the August
2019 NOPR that the differences in its
testing results and the results achieved
by AHAM suggested that additional
investigation of repeatability and
reproducibility of the test procedure
was warranted. DOE stated its belief that
the differences in test results were
indicative of the test not being
representative of energy use or
efficiency during an average use cycle,
as required by 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of
EPCA. 84 FR 39215.
In support of DOE’s August 2019
NOPR to withdraw the cooking tops test
procedure, AHAM re-submitted its prior
comments on its petition as well as new
comments that its test data demonstrate
that DOE’s cooking top test procedure
does not produce accurate,
reproducible, and representative results,
and is overly burdensome to conduct.
(AHAM, No. 35 at p. 2) With regard to
representativeness, AHAM asserted that
the test procedure is not representative
of consumer use as required under 42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), particularly for gas
cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4,
Exhibit B at pp. 2–3) AHAM stated that,
among other things, small burners are
not typically used for boiling water, but
that is what DOE’s cooking tops test
procedure measures. Id. AHAM
reiterated its previous argument that
DOE extended a test meant for electric
cooking tops to gas cooking tops
without doing sufficient study to
determine whether the electric test
procedure it adopted would measure
representative results for gas cooking
tops. (AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at p.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
10, Exhibit B at p. 2) AHAM commented
that separate international and industry
standards exist for gas cooking tops, and
both these methods use a ‘‘bring to boil’’
test, as opposed to a simmer test.
(AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at p. 12)
AHAM asserted that the residual heat
loss of a gas burner on simmer is
significantly different than simmer on
an electric unit where the electric unit
retains heat from the cooking top.
(AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at p. 14)
AHAM commented that a gas cooking
top’s ability to maintain simmer in the
absence of retained heat is largely a
function of grate to burner relationships,
burner design, valve design, and pan
position. (AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at
p. 12) According to AHAM, this
relationship is not accounted for in the
electric cooking tops test because it does
not need to be, but AHAM believes it
does need to be addressed in a test
applicable to gas cooking tops. (AHAM,
No. 35 at Exhibit A at p. 12)
Additionally, AHAM presented data
indicating that the conventional cooking
tops test procedure may not be
reproducible across labs for both gas
and electric cooking tops. AHAM
submitted data showing that repeated
attempts by experienced technicians to
follow the test procedure led to
inaccurate results. (AHAM, No. 35 at p.
2, Exhibit A at pp. 22, 33) AHAM
responded to stakeholder comments that
AHAM’s data is faulty because DOE’s
most recent testing on the repeatability
of test results for electric cooking tops,
summarized in Table I of this rule and
in Table III.1 of the August 2019 NOPR,
demonstrated the test procedure is not
highly variable. AHAM clarified that,
while their testing results are similar to
DOE’s with regard to repeatability, DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
has not evaluated reproducibility like
AHAM has, and those lab-to-lab results
form a significant basis upon which
AHAM relies in its petition. (AHAM,
No. 35 at p. 3) AHAM asserted that the
results of its round–robin testing
showed high levels of lab-to-lab
variation, demonstrating that the test
procedure is not reproducible. (AHAM,
No. 35 at p. 3, Exhibit A at pp. 22, 33)
AHAM argued that test procedures must
be reproducible, at different laboratories
and with different technicians, in order
to be considered reasonably designed
under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA. Id.
AHAM stated their appreciation that
DOE is conducting additional testing to
evaluate both repeatability and
reproducibility and urged DOE to
conduct this testing in different
laboratories, not just with different
technicians, in order to truly test
reproducibility. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4)
AHAM additionally commented that
the consensus standard working group
in Europe has also indicated that, after
gaining experience with its electric
test—upon which DOE had based its
electric cooking top test and gas cooking
top test—significant variation is being
seen in the simmer portion of the test.
AHAM believes this further highlights
the need for DOE to withdraw its
cooking top test procedure until a more
accurate test procedure is available and
has been vetted through round-robin
testing in the United States. (AHAM,
No. 35 at p. 4)
With regard to test burden, AHAM
presented data that the existing test
procedure is unduly burdensome to
conduct as written, as it takes about 20
hours for an average four burner cooking
top and the test procedure requires
testing of every single burner
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
50762
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
individually. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 3)
AHAM commented that DOE’s testing
found even longer test times, with DOE
stating in the August 2019 NOPR that in
‘‘total, a cooking top with four surface
units requires around 36 work hours to
complete.’’ (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4)
Additionally, at the public meeting for
the conventional cooking tops test
procedure held on October 9, 2019,
AHAM stated that manufacturers would
have to make a significant investment to
meet the stringent ambient conditions
specified in the test procedure. (AHAM,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp.
52–53) 6
Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool),
and GE Appliances (GEA) submitted
comments in support of AHAM’s
positions. Whirlpool commented that
the test procedure has so much variation
that the reported energy performance
values are not accurate or meaningful
for consumers to use. (Whirlpool, No. 36
at p. 2) Whirlpool further asserted that
the test procedure is very timeconsuming and labor-intensive, as it
must be monitored almost continuously
with frequent manual adjustments made
by the technician. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at
p. 2) At the conventional cooking tops
public meeting held on October 9, 2019,
Whirlpool stated that testing to the
requirements of the test procedure
would be a substantial laboratory
requirement, the cost of which has not
been captured. Whirlpool estimated it
would have to build approximately six
new laboratories to enable it to conduct
testing of its products. (Whirlpool,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp.
34–35) GEA echoed AHAM’s comments
that its members were careful when
conducting the previous testing in
accordance with the DOE test
procedure, and that it is the test
procedure itself and unaccounted for
differences in various cooking
technologies that contribute to the
higher-than-expected variation in test
results. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2) GEA
reiterated its prior comments that the
test procedure is unduly burdensome, in
terms of the required testing time and
resources necessary to complete such
testing. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2)
Additionally, GEA commented that
future changes to the U.S. safety
standards for electric cooking tops may
6 A notation in the form of ‘‘AHAM, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp. 52–53’’ identifies
a written comment: (1) Made by AHAM; (2) stated
during the Public Meeting whose transcript is
available as document number 38 that is filed in the
docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2018–
BT–TP–0004) and available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears on pages
52 through 53 of the transcript, document number
38.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
adversely impact results from the
cooking tops test procedure. GEA stated
that future improvements in the relevant
safety standards, if any, could also
negatively impact the repeatability,
reproducibility, and representativeness
of the cooktop test procedure. (GEA, No.
31 at p. 2)
In response to the August 2019 NOPR,
DOE also received a joint submission
from Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric
(SDG&E), and Southern California
Edison (SCE) (California Investor
Owned Utilities (CA IOUs)) and a joint
submission from the Appliance
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP),
California Energy Commission and
Natural Resources Defense Council
(Joint Advocates). These stakeholders
were opposed to the withdrawal of the
conventional cooking tops test
procedure. The CA IOUs commented
that DOE’s proposed withdrawal is
beyond its statutory authority, arguing
that EPCA only authorizes DOE to
prescribe or amend test procedures, not
withdraw them without replacement.
(CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 1) The CA IOUs
and the Joint Advocates similarly
commented that DOE’s proposal to
withdraw the cooking tops test
procedure is not supported by DOE’s
own investigation and testing. (Joint
Advocates, No. 37 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No.
34 at p. 2) Both stakeholders noted that,
in light of AHAM’s 2018 petition, DOE
re-verified its water-based test
procedure efficacy and found that the
coefficient of variation for each surface
unit’s energy consumption did not
exceed two percent of all units in the
sample, which suggest the test
procedure is repeatable for electric
cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2;
Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) The
Joint Advocates commented that even if
there are outstanding questions around
repeatability or reproducibility, these
have no bearing on whether the test
procedure is representative or unduly
burdensome to conduct. The Joint
Advocates, with similar comments from
the CA IOUs, stated that DOE provides
no evidence in the August 2019 NOPR
that the test procedure is not
representative of consumer use nor any
evidence that the test itself is unduly
burdensome. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at
p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2) The Joint
Advocates commented that withdrawing
the test procedure prior to additional
testing and publication of the results for
stakeholder comment would be
unwarranted and harmful to consumers.
(Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) Further,
the Joint Advocates stated that
withdrawing the test procedure would
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
be unwarranted because, in the absence
of performance standards for cooking
tops, manufacturers are not currently
required to use the test procedure. Id.
Additionally, the Joint Advocates stated
they were unaware of any
manufacturers that make efficiency
representations for cooking tops. Id.
The CA IOUs similarly requested that
DOE consider conducting additional
round-robin testing in an effort to
further understand the overall variation
in results and to further explore the
reasons for the discrepancies with
results achieved via DOE testing and
other industry testing, particularly for
gas cooking tops in light of AHAM’s
limited sample size for these products.
(CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2) The CA IOUs
commented that, at the NOPR public
meeting, AHAM suggested that ambient
conditions impact the repeatability of
the test procedure. In response, the CA
IOUs provided in their written
comments that ambient conditions are
specified in the test procedure, and thus
in a controlled laboratory atmosphere,
unexpected changes in a controlled
conditioned space should not be the
cause for significant changes in the
performance results from one test run to
another. Therefore, the CA IOUs
suggested that the true causes for
discrepancies in the test results remain
mostly unknown. In the absence of
additional energy performance data and
analysis to further understand why this
test procedure may not be repeatable or
reproducible for both gas and electric
cooking tops, the CA IOUs deemed the
withdrawal of the test procedure to be
premature. Id.
The CA IOUs further commented that
they continue to support the waterbased test procedure, believing it to be
a straightforward representation of
residential cooking top use, regardless
of fuel type (gas or electric). They noted
that the water heating method has been
widely adopted in Europe and
elsewhere, and they asserted that the 20minute simmer portion of the test is
representative of an ‘‘average household
cooking duration.’’ The CA IOUs are not
aware of any vetted operational studies
or reports suggesting gas cooking tops
are not used for heating and/or
maintaining a liquid (i.e., water) at a
specified temperature. Id.
Recognizing that any additional
performance testing can be burdensome,
the CA IOUs commented that once
manufacturers and third-party test
laboratories acquire all required testing
materials to accurately and effectively
run the test procedure, the burden is far
less considerable. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at
p. 3) Lastly, the Joint Advocates argued
that DOE’s statement in the August 2019
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
NOPR that ‘‘the cooking products test
procedure, as conducted by testing
laboratories that may not be familiar
with its provisions, does not provide
information that is potentially beneficial
to consumers,’’ does not support DOE’s
proposal to withdraw the test
procedure. The Joint Advocates
commented that this statement is true
for any test procedure, as any laboratory
conducting testing using any test
procedure must be sufficiently familiar
with the procedure to accurately
conduct the test. (Joint Advocates, No.
37 at p. 3)
As previously stated, test procedures
promulgated by DOE must be
reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure the energy
efficiency of a conventional cooking top
during a representative average use
cycle or period of use as determined by
DOE. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The Federal
test procedure must also not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. Id.
Stakeholders have raised valid concerns
relating to the representativeness of the
conventional cooking tops test
procedure. The test data submitted by
AHAM is inconsistent with DOE’s own
published testing data, to date. DOE’s
test data for electric cooktops shows
small variations, though those tests were
conducted within one lab. AHAM’s labto-lab test results showed high levels of
variation for gas and electric cooktops.7
This inconsistency indicates that the
test may not be reproducible across labs.
DOE has not identified the cause of this
variation, as DOE’s published testing to
date has involved only single lab testing
of electric cooking tops and no actual
tests of gas cooktops.
Reproducible test procedures are
necessary to ensure that testing results
are consistent from test-to-test and labto-lab, especially for compliance testing.
Variability in test results indicates the
test procedure is not representative of
consumer use, as required by 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3) of EPCA. To ensure that the
cooking tops test procedure measures
energy use during a representative
average use cycle or period of use, DOE
concludes that further investigation is
necessary. Before DOE can determine
any appropriate test procedure for use
in developing a subsequent energy
conservation standard, DOE must
conduct additional testing and gather
additional data, including testing at
additional laboratories, and publish
such data for public comment.
Because DOE determines the cooking
tops test procedure is not representative,
the testing cost and testing time
7 See
AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at Table 1, p.
33.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
associated with the test procedure are
unnecessarily burdensome and cannot
be justified. There is currently no
performance-based energy conservation
standard for conventional cooking tops,
and so a test procedure is required only
if manufacturers are making
representations of energy efficiency.
DOE finds there is no benefit to either
consumers or manufacturers to leave in
place a test procedure for which there
are substantial questions as to the test’s
accuracy and reliability for making
efficiency representations. Moreover,
from a market perspective, there is harm
in requiring manufacturers to incur the
cost of a test procedure for
communicating energy efficiency to
consumers that yields inaccurate
results.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA,
DOE has the authority to withdraw a
test procedure that is not representative
of an average use cycle or period of use
and is unduly burdensome to conduct.
Under this authority, DOE is able to
withdraw test procedure rules that it
discovers are faulty. DOE similarly
invoked this authority when it repealed
the conventional oven test procedure in
the December 2016 TP Final Rule
because it did not accurately represent
consumer use. Notably, DOE received
no objection to its authority to repeal
the oven test procedure in that
proceeding. 81 FR 91418, 91423–91424.
Moreover, the APA provides any party
with the right to petition for, among
other things, the repeal of a rule. 5
U.S.C. 553(e). AHAM has sought repeal
of the cooking tops test procedure by
submitting a petition under this APA
authority. DOE is following the process
required by the APA, by undertaking
this rulemaking proceeding to repeal the
cooking tops test procedure. See Motor
Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State
Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29
(1983).
AHAM submitted test results
conducted by skilled technicians that is
inconsistent with DOE’s own testing
results to date regarding the test
procedure for conventional cooking
tops. Because of the inconsistency,
which indicates the test procedure is
not reproducible, DOE determines that
the conventional cooking tops test
procedure does not accurately represent
consumer use and is unduly
burdensome. DOE therefore withdraws
the conventional cooking tops test
procedure in this final rule. A design
standard for conventional cooking tops
still remains, which does not require a
test procedure. DOE will continue
collecting testing data for conventional
cooking tops to determine any
appropriate test procedure for use in
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50763
developing any subsequent energy
conservation standard.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
This final rule does not constitute 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 not 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
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
50764
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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 concludes that this rulemaking is
consistent with the directives set forth
in these executive orders.
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,
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency
adopts as a final rule, 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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 identified 12 domestic
manufacturers of cooking tops that are
potential small businesses.
This final rule withdraws the
conventional cooking tops test
procedure for manufacturers. This does
not increase manufacturer’s testing
burden or add any costs to any
manufacturers, small or large. For these
reasons, DOE concludes and certifies
that this final rule does not have a
‘‘significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,’’
and the preparation of an FRFA is not
warranted.
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,
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 final rule, DOE establishes test
procedure amendments that will be
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 rule revokes the
existing test procedures. The existing
test procedures are not used for
determining compliance with an energy
conservation standard and as such, their
revocation does not affect the amount,
quality or distribution of energy usage,
and, therefore, does 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 final rule and has
determined that it does 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.
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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 final
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. Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201
(codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 final rule according
to UMRA and its statement of policy
and determined that the rule contains
neither an intergovernmental mandate,
nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so these requirements do not
apply.
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
final rule does not have any impact on
the autonomy or integrity of the family
as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
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 final rule
does 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 final under the OMB and
DOE guidelines and has concluded that
it is consistent with applicable policies
in those guidelines.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50765
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 withdraw
the conventional cooking tops test
procedure is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, it will 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 final rule, DOE maintains the
incorporation of reference of 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 by reference 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.
In this final rule, DOE also removes
the test standard published by the
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
50766
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
European Committee for
Electrotechnical Standardization,
CENELEC, EN 60350–2:2013,
‘‘Household electric cooking appliances
Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring
performance,’’ (June 3, 2013), IBR
approved for appendix I to subpart B of
10 CFR part 430.
■
N. Congressional Notification
§ 430.3
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
submit to congress a report regarding
the issuance of this final rule prior to
the effective date set forth at the outset
of this rulemaking. The report will state
that it has been determined that the rule
is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 801(2).
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on July 17, 2020, by
Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 21,
2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE amends part 430 of
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below:
Jkt 250001
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
[Amended]
2. Section 430.3 is amended by:
a. Removing paragraph (l); and
b. Redesignating paragraphs (m)
through (v) as paragraphs (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
Signing Authority
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
1. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
*
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
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 § 430.3).
1.6 IEC 62301 (Second Edition) means the
test standard published by the International
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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.
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).
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 § 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Aug 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
50767
address the unsafe condition on these
products.
[Docket No. FAA–2020–0743; Project
Identifier MCAI–2020–00728–A; Amendment
39–21200; AD 2020–16–16]
This AD is effective September 7,
2020.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in this AD
as of September 7, 2020.
The FAA must receive comments on
this AD by September 7, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
• For service information identified
in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace
Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton,
Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New
Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144;
facsimile: +64 7 843 6134; email:
pacific@aerospace.co.nz; internet:
https://www.aerospace.co.nz. You may
view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–
4148. It is also available on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for Docket No. FAA–2020–
0743.
RIN 2120–AA64
Examining the AD Docket
[FR Doc. 2020–16102 Filed 8–17–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
DATES:
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2020–
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
0743; or in person at Docket Operations
Administration (FAA), DOT.
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this AD, the
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new
regulatory evaluation, any comments
airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific
received, and other information. The
Aerospace Limited Model 750XL
street address for Docket Operations is
airplanes. This AD results from
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
mandatory continuing airworthiness
will be available in the AD docket
information (MCAI) issued by the
shortly after receipt.
aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
on an aviation product. The MCAI
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
describes the unsafe condition as the
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
outer race of bearing migrating out of
International Validation Branch, 901
the aileron pivot fork on the control
Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
column. The FAA is issuing this AD to
Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–
Airworthiness Directives; Pacific
Aerospace Limited Airplanes
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\18AUR1.SGM
18AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50757-50767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16102]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 9, 2019, as a result of a petition from the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and data received in
response to that petition, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to withdraw
the test procedure for conventional cooking tops established under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). In this final rule, DOE
withdraws the test procedure for conventional cooking tops under EPCA.
DOE has determined that the conventional cooking tops test procedure is
not representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use
cycle and is overly burdensome to conduct.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is September 17, 2020. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on April 8, 2011
and December 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the
index may not be publicly available, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041. The docket web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all documents in the docket.
[[Page 50758]]
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 includes 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
C. AHAM Petition for Reconsideration
II. Synopsis of Final Rule
III. Discussion
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 658
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 of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
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 Materials Incorporated by Reference
N. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 667
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. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to
establish test procedures for cooking products and relevant background
information regarding DOE's determination 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 Automobiles,\2\ a program covering most major
household appliances, which includes cooking products, and specifically
conventional cooking tops,\3\ the subject of this rule. (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), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C.
6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6294), 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 10 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 established provisions for determining estimated annual
operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the ratio of cooking
energy output to cooking energy input), and energy factor
[[Page 50759]]
(defined as the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to total
annual energy input) at 10 CFR 430.23(i) and appendix I. As described
in the following discussion, 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 conventional 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, ``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 their view 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 European standard EN 60350-2:2013, 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 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
favored conventional ovens with low thermal mass and did 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
[[Page 50760]]
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 cooking top test procedure, 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 adopted in the
December 2016 TP Final Rule 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. Based on the review of public comments and data
received in response to AHAM's petition, on August 9, 2019, DOE
published a NOPR proposing to withdraw the test procedure for
conventional cooking tops (the ``August 2019 NOPR''). In that NOPR, DOE
tentatively determined that the conventional cooking tops 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. DOE held a public
meeting on October 9, 2019 to hear oral comments and solicit
information and data relevant to the August 2019 NOPR.
The following sections of this preamble respond to comments
received on the August 2019 NOPR and during the NOPR public meeting.
II. Synopsis of Final Rule
In this rule, DOE withdraws the test procedure for conventional
cooking tops because testing conducted by DOE and outside parties using
that test procedure yields inconsistent results. As a result, the
outcomes of such testing are unreliable and it is unduly burdensome to
leave that test procedure in place and require cooking top tests be
conducted using that test method without further study to resolve those
inconsistencies.
III. Discussion
The current test procedure in appendix I for cooking tops 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.
DOE published its August 2019 NOPR proposing to withdraw the
current test procedure for conventional cooking tops as a result of
testing data AHAM submitted in its petition and in subsequent comments
that was inconsistent with DOE's own testing results. With respect to
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)
\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A notation in the form of ``AHAM, No. 25 at p. 4''
identifies a written comment: (1) Made by AHAM; (2) recorded in
document number 25 that is filed in the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004) and available for review at https://www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears on page 4 of document
number 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM also asserted in the petition 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) As
discussed in the August 2019 NOPR, DOE conducted testing of ten
electric cooking tops to investigate issues raised in AHAM's petition.
See 84 FR 39215. For a subset of these tests, DOE specifically examined
repeatability of test results. DOE performed multiple test replications
on a set of individual heating elements (i.e., ``surface units''), and
its test results indicated 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 I summarizes these results.
Table I--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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50761]]
As further discussed in the August 2019 NOPR, DOE also performed
multiple tests on a single electric cooking top surface unit addressing
the issue of element cycling in response to AHAM's petition. See 84 FR
39215. Table II summarizes these results.
Table II--Summary of Cycling Tests on Electric Cooking Top Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat-up energy
Test replication Cycling speed * (Wh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. slow................ 143.2
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.''
DOE recognized that both its tests and AHAM's were conducted by
skilled technicians who understand both the product and test
requirements. DOE tentatively concluded in the August 2019 NOPR that
the differences in its testing results and the results achieved by AHAM
suggested that additional investigation of repeatability and
reproducibility of the test procedure was warranted. DOE stated its
belief that the differences in test results were indicative of the test
not being representative of energy use or efficiency during an average
use cycle, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA. 84 FR 39215.
In support of DOE's August 2019 NOPR to withdraw the cooking tops
test procedure, AHAM re-submitted its prior comments on its petition as
well as new comments that its test data demonstrate that DOE's cooking
top test procedure does not produce accurate, reproducible, and
representative results, and is overly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No.
35 at p. 2) With regard to representativeness, AHAM asserted that the
test procedure is not representative of consumer use as required under
42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), particularly for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 35
at p. 4, Exhibit B at pp. 2-3) AHAM stated that, among other things,
small burners are not typically used for boiling water, but that is
what DOE's cooking tops test procedure measures. Id. AHAM reiterated
its previous argument that DOE extended a test meant for electric
cooking tops to gas cooking tops without doing sufficient study to
determine whether the electric test procedure it adopted would measure
representative results for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A
at p. 10, Exhibit B at p. 2) AHAM commented that separate international
and industry standards exist for gas cooking tops, and both these
methods use a ``bring to boil'' test, as opposed to a simmer test.
(AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at p. 12) AHAM asserted that the residual
heat loss of a gas burner on simmer is significantly different than
simmer on an electric unit where the electric unit retains heat from
the cooking top. (AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at p. 14) AHAM commented
that a gas cooking top's ability to maintain simmer in the absence of
retained heat is largely a function of grate to burner relationships,
burner design, valve design, and pan position. (AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit
A at p. 12) According to AHAM, this relationship is not accounted for
in the electric cooking tops test because it does not need to be, but
AHAM believes it does need to be addressed in a test applicable to gas
cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at p. 12)
Additionally, AHAM presented data indicating that the conventional
cooking tops test procedure may not be reproducible across labs for
both gas and electric cooking tops. AHAM submitted data showing that
repeated attempts by experienced technicians to follow the test
procedure led to inaccurate results. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 2, Exhibit A
at pp. 22, 33) AHAM responded to stakeholder comments that AHAM's data
is faulty because DOE's most recent testing on the repeatability of
test results for electric cooking tops, summarized in Table I of this
rule and in Table III.1 of the August 2019 NOPR, demonstrated the test
procedure is not highly variable. AHAM clarified that, while their
testing results are similar to DOE's with regard to repeatability, DOE
has not evaluated reproducibility like AHAM has, and those lab-to-lab
results form a significant basis upon which AHAM relies in its
petition. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 3) AHAM asserted that the results of its
round-robin testing showed high levels of lab-to-lab variation,
demonstrating that the test procedure is not reproducible. (AHAM, No.
35 at p. 3, Exhibit A at pp. 22, 33) AHAM argued that test procedures
must be reproducible, at different laboratories and with different
technicians, in order to be considered reasonably designed under 42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA. Id. AHAM stated their appreciation that DOE
is conducting additional testing to evaluate both repeatability and
reproducibility and urged DOE to conduct this testing in different
laboratories, not just with different technicians, in order to truly
test reproducibility. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4)
AHAM additionally commented that the consensus standard working
group in Europe has also indicated that, after gaining experience with
its electric test--upon which DOE had based its electric cooking top
test and gas cooking top test--significant variation is being seen in
the simmer portion of the test. AHAM believes this further highlights
the need for DOE to withdraw its cooking top test procedure until a
more accurate test procedure is available and has been vetted through
round-robin testing in the United States. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4)
With regard to test burden, AHAM presented data that the existing
test procedure is unduly burdensome to conduct as written, as it takes
about 20 hours for an average four burner cooking top and the test
procedure requires testing of every single burner
[[Page 50762]]
individually. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 3) AHAM commented that DOE's testing
found even longer test times, with DOE stating in the August 2019 NOPR
that in ``total, a cooking top with four surface units requires around
36 work hours to complete.'' (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4) Additionally, at
the public meeting for the conventional cooking tops test procedure
held on October 9, 2019, AHAM stated that manufacturers would have to
make a significant investment to meet the stringent ambient conditions
specified in the test procedure. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
38 at pp. 52-53) \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A notation in the form of ``AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 38 at pp. 52-53'' identifies a written comment: (1) Made by
AHAM; (2) stated during the Public Meeting whose transcript is
available as document number 38 that is filed in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004) and available for
review at https://www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears on pages
52 through 53 of the transcript, document number 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and GE Appliances (GEA)
submitted comments in support of AHAM's positions. Whirlpool commented
that the test procedure has so much variation that the reported energy
performance values are not accurate or meaningful for consumers to use.
(Whirlpool, No. 36 at p. 2) Whirlpool further asserted that the test
procedure is very time-consuming and labor-intensive, as it must be
monitored almost continuously with frequent manual adjustments made by
the technician. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at p. 2) At the conventional cooking
tops public meeting held on October 9, 2019, Whirlpool stated that
testing to the requirements of the test procedure would be a
substantial laboratory requirement, the cost of which has not been
captured. Whirlpool estimated it would have to build approximately six
new laboratories to enable it to conduct testing of its products.
(Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp. 34-35) GEA echoed
AHAM's comments that its members were careful when conducting the
previous testing in accordance with the DOE test procedure, and that it
is the test procedure itself and unaccounted for differences in various
cooking technologies that contribute to the higher-than-expected
variation in test results. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2) GEA reiterated its
prior comments that the test procedure is unduly burdensome, in terms
of the required testing time and resources necessary to complete such
testing. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2) Additionally, GEA commented that future
changes to the U.S. safety standards for electric cooking tops may
adversely impact results from the cooking tops test procedure. GEA
stated that future improvements in the relevant safety standards, if
any, could also negatively impact the repeatability, reproducibility,
and representativeness of the cooktop test procedure. (GEA, No. 31 at
p. 2)
In response to the August 2019 NOPR, DOE also received a joint
submission from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas
and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) (California
Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs)) and a joint submission from the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), California Energy
Commission and Natural Resources Defense Council (Joint Advocates).
These stakeholders were opposed to the withdrawal of the conventional
cooking tops test procedure. The CA IOUs commented that DOE's proposed
withdrawal is beyond its statutory authority, arguing that EPCA only
authorizes DOE to prescribe or amend test procedures, not withdraw them
without replacement. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 1) The CA IOUs and the
Joint Advocates similarly commented that DOE's proposal to withdraw the
cooking tops test procedure is not supported by DOE's own investigation
and testing. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2)
Both stakeholders noted that, in light of AHAM's 2018 petition, DOE re-
verified its water-based test procedure efficacy and found that the
coefficient of variation for each surface unit's energy consumption did
not exceed two percent of all units in the sample, which suggest the
test procedure is repeatable for electric cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No.
34 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates
commented that even if there are outstanding questions around
repeatability or reproducibility, these have no bearing on whether the
test procedure is representative or unduly burdensome to conduct. The
Joint Advocates, with similar comments from the CA IOUs, stated that
DOE provides no evidence in the August 2019 NOPR that the test
procedure is not representative of consumer use nor any evidence that
the test itself is unduly burdensome. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2;
CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates commented that withdrawing
the test procedure prior to additional testing and publication of the
results for stakeholder comment would be unwarranted and harmful to
consumers. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) Further, the Joint
Advocates stated that withdrawing the test procedure would be
unwarranted because, in the absence of performance standards for
cooking tops, manufacturers are not currently required to use the test
procedure. Id. Additionally, the Joint Advocates stated they were
unaware of any manufacturers that make efficiency representations for
cooking tops. Id.
The CA IOUs similarly requested that DOE consider conducting
additional round-robin testing in an effort to further understand the
overall variation in results and to further explore the reasons for the
discrepancies with results achieved via DOE testing and other industry
testing, particularly for gas cooking tops in light of AHAM's limited
sample size for these products. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2) The CA IOUs
commented that, at the NOPR public meeting, AHAM suggested that ambient
conditions impact the repeatability of the test procedure. In response,
the CA IOUs provided in their written comments that ambient conditions
are specified in the test procedure, and thus in a controlled
laboratory atmosphere, unexpected changes in a controlled conditioned
space should not be the cause for significant changes in the
performance results from one test run to another. Therefore, the CA
IOUs suggested that the true causes for discrepancies in the test
results remain mostly unknown. In the absence of additional energy
performance data and analysis to further understand why this test
procedure may not be repeatable or reproducible for both gas and
electric cooking tops, the CA IOUs deemed the withdrawal of the test
procedure to be premature. Id.
The CA IOUs further commented that they continue to support the
water-based test procedure, believing it to be a straightforward
representation of residential cooking top use, regardless of fuel type
(gas or electric). They noted that the water heating method has been
widely adopted in Europe and elsewhere, and they asserted that the 20-
minute simmer portion of the test is representative of an ``average
household cooking duration.'' The CA IOUs are not aware of any vetted
operational studies or reports suggesting gas cooking tops are not used
for heating and/or maintaining a liquid (i.e., water) at a specified
temperature. Id.
Recognizing that any additional performance testing can be
burdensome, the CA IOUs commented that once manufacturers and third-
party test laboratories acquire all required testing materials to
accurately and effectively run the test procedure, the burden is far
less considerable. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 3) Lastly, the Joint
Advocates argued that DOE's statement in the August 2019
[[Page 50763]]
NOPR that ``the cooking products test procedure, as conducted by
testing laboratories that may not be familiar with its provisions, does
not provide information that is potentially beneficial to consumers,''
does not support DOE's proposal to withdraw the test procedure. The
Joint Advocates commented that this statement is true for any test
procedure, as any laboratory conducting testing using any test
procedure must be sufficiently familiar with the procedure to
accurately conduct the test. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 3)
As previously stated, test procedures promulgated by DOE must be
reasonably designed to produce test results which measure the energy
efficiency of a conventional cooking top during a representative
average use cycle or period of use as determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) The Federal test procedure must also not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. Id. Stakeholders have raised valid concerns
relating to the representativeness of the conventional cooking tops
test procedure. The test data submitted by AHAM is inconsistent with
DOE's own published testing data, to date. DOE's test data for electric
cooktops shows small variations, though those tests were conducted
within one lab. AHAM's lab-to-lab test results showed high levels of
variation for gas and electric cooktops.\7\ This inconsistency
indicates that the test may not be reproducible across labs. DOE has
not identified the cause of this variation, as DOE's published testing
to date has involved only single lab testing of electric cooking tops
and no actual tests of gas cooktops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at Table 1, p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproducible test procedures are necessary to ensure that testing
results are consistent from test-to-test and lab-to-lab, especially for
compliance testing. Variability in test results indicates the test
procedure is not representative of consumer use, as required by 42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA. To ensure that the cooking tops test
procedure measures energy use during a representative average use cycle
or period of use, DOE concludes that further investigation is
necessary. Before DOE can determine any appropriate test procedure for
use in developing a subsequent energy conservation standard, DOE must
conduct additional testing and gather additional data, including
testing at additional laboratories, and publish such data for public
comment.
Because DOE determines the cooking tops test procedure is not
representative, the testing cost and testing time associated with the
test procedure are unnecessarily burdensome and cannot be justified.
There is currently no performance-based energy conservation standard
for conventional cooking tops, and so a test procedure is required only
if manufacturers are making representations of energy efficiency. DOE
finds there is no benefit to either consumers or manufacturers to leave
in place a test procedure for which there are substantial questions as
to the test's accuracy and reliability for making efficiency
representations. Moreover, from a market perspective, there is harm in
requiring manufacturers to incur the cost of a test procedure for
communicating energy efficiency to consumers that yields inaccurate
results.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA, DOE has the authority to
withdraw a test procedure that is not representative of an average use
cycle or period of use and is unduly burdensome to conduct. Under this
authority, DOE is able to withdraw test procedure rules that it
discovers are faulty. DOE similarly invoked this authority when it
repealed the conventional oven test procedure in the December 2016 TP
Final Rule because it did not accurately represent consumer use.
Notably, DOE received no objection to its authority to repeal the oven
test procedure in that proceeding. 81 FR 91418, 91423-91424. Moreover,
the APA provides any party with the right to petition for, among other
things, the repeal of a rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(e). AHAM has sought repeal
of the cooking tops test procedure by submitting a petition under this
APA authority. DOE is following the process required by the APA, by
undertaking this rulemaking proceeding to repeal the cooking tops test
procedure. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm
Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983).
AHAM submitted test results conducted by skilled technicians that
is inconsistent with DOE's own testing results to date regarding the
test procedure for conventional cooking tops. Because of the
inconsistency, which indicates the test procedure is not reproducible,
DOE determines that the conventional cooking tops test procedure does
not accurately represent consumer use and is unduly burdensome. DOE
therefore withdraws the conventional cooking tops test procedure in
this final rule. A design standard for conventional cooking tops still
remains, which does not require a test procedure. DOE will continue
collecting testing data for conventional cooking tops to determine any
appropriate test procedure for use in developing any subsequent energy
conservation standard.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This final rule does not constitute 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 not 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
[[Page 50764]]
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 concludes that this rulemaking is consistent with the
directives set forth in these executive orders.
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, and a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an agency
adopts as a final rule, 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 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 identified 12 domestic
manufacturers of cooking tops that are potential small businesses.
This final rule withdraws the conventional cooking tops test
procedure for manufacturers. This does not increase manufacturer's
testing burden or add any costs to any manufacturers, small or large.
For these reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that this final rule
does not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities,'' and the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted.
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, 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 final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that
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 rule revokes the existing test procedures. The
existing test procedures are not used for determining compliance with
an energy conservation standard and as such, their revocation does not
affect the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and,
therefore, does 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
final rule and has determined that it does 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.
[[Page 50765]]
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 final 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. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a 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 final
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements do not apply.
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 final rule does not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
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 final rule does 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 final 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 withdraw the conventional cooking tops
test procedure is not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866. Moreover, it will 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 final rule, DOE maintains the incorporation of reference of
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 by
reference 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.
In this final rule, DOE also removes the test standard published by
the
[[Page 50766]]
European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, CENELEC, EN
60350-2:2013, ``Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs--
Methods for measuring performance,'' (June 3, 2013), IBR approved for
appendix I to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
N. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to congress a report
regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date
set forth at the outset of this rulemaking. The report will state that
it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 17,
2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends 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 paragraphs (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
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 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.
[[Page 50767]]
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. 2020-16102 Filed 8-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
